Responses to: ‘Legitimacy in legacy: a discussion paper of historical scholarship published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1976–2011’ by FealyG., KellyJ. & WatsonR. (2013) Journal of Advanced Nursing69(8), 1881–1894.

As a nurse historian with research interests in some of the ‘Cinderella’ areas of the profession, such as Poor Law, mental health and gerontological nursing, I was heartened by the review of historical papers published in JAN. Encouragement to undertake historical studies of relevance to nursing practice is often in short supply. In a previous academic post, a senior manager announced that she was keen to support any research projects which were relevant to nursing, ‘but obviously not in subjects like history’. As the review notes, nursing history has been relegated to the margins of professional discourse, often considered to be little more than a harmless hobby on a par with train-spotting. While any keen train-spotters reading that comment will no doubt rush to defend the social value of their pastime, it is fair to say that their presence on station platforms is not essential to the running of a railway system. Nurse historians, however, make larger claims. It is not difficult to locate recent studies, which have addressed important issues of concern to current practitioners. In a scenario that all nurses will recognize, Hallet et al. (2012) reviewed Australian and British community nurses’ responses to the pressure from employers for ever-greater ‘efficiency’, in the period 1960–2000. At a time when nurses in many countries have been forced to examine the profession's claims to provide ethical, evidence-based care, a study of nurses’ involvement with aversion therapy to ‘cure’ homosexuality adds an important dimension to our understanding (Dickinson 2010). Whether the topic is the development of mental health nursing in Canada, conflicts in the health visiting profession in Britain, or the development of Spanish nursing in the Franco years, historical accounts provide the ‘back story’ to many current issues (Brooks & Rafferty 2010, Hicks 2011, Miró et al. 2012). However, as the review notes, historical accounts in scholarly nursing journals like JAN are comparatively sparse. This no doubt partly reflects a lack of resources. There is currently only one chair in nursing history in a UK university. Yet, the Royal College of Nursing History of Nursing Society has over 900 members, so this institutional neglect hardly reflects a lack of interest amongst individual nurses. This situation is in marked contrast to the position accorded to history by the Armed Forces of every country worldwide. As the profession of arms involves an unswerving focus on the current and future capabilities of potential enemies, with lives literally on the line, it is at first sight surprising that a concern to record and learn lessons from history is such a dominant feature of military life (Holmes 2007). From the US Marine Corps History Division to the Irish Military Archives, and from the War Studies Department of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst to the Indian National Defence Academy, all military units regard their own history as an essential component of their professional knowledge. An understanding of past campaigns is used to draw lessons for the future, while pride in the history of a regiment, ship or squadron is a powerful motivating force when faced with challenging circumstances. Finally, the review's emphasis on the importance of maintaining appropriate scholarly standards for articles in leading nursing journals is well made. Unlike, say, biochemistry, history as a discipline suffers from the popular misconception that ‘anyone can write history’. While it is also true that anyone can write a poem, there is only one Seamus Heaney. The widest possible involvement in nursing history is only to be welcomed, but in a journal like JAN, proper concern for issues like the use of primary sources is essential.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.