MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2160865200 · doi:10.1046/j.1440-1800.2000.00061.x

Caring beyond nursing: politics from the South

2000· editorial· en· W2160865200 sur OpenAlexaff
Denise Gastaldo

Notice bibliographique

RevueNursing Inquiry · 2000
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineNursing
ThématiqueNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScholarshipGlobalizationPoliticsSociologyAffectionNursing carePolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsSocial scienceMedicineNursingEpistemologyLawPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In two previous editorials, ‘Parallel worlds’ and ‘The globalisation of Nursing Inquiry’, Sioban Nelson raises the issue of diversity in nursing thought across the world. I would like to pursue this idea by giving an example of how plurality embedded in distinct political, economic and geographical contexts can enrich nursing scholarship. Much has been said about globalisation and its adverse effects. In academic terms, the globalisation of nursing scholarship risks undermining local thinkers and treating nurses from less-industrialised countries merely as a group of epistemological consumers/readers. In the globalised world, academic knowledge might provide much-needed insight into nursing scholarship and practice, but might also disseminate neo-colonial truths which promote technological and informational dependency. Fortunately, reality is far more complex than our sloganised versions of it. Globalisation also means easier access to information and greater exposure to plurality in thinking. Whilst in Brazil recently, I went looking for what was new. I learned from a colleague that a new book (in its 4th printing) has been of great interest for nurses. The book, written by 1, prestigious thinker of the theology of liberation, is called Saber Cuidar[‘Knowing how to care’]. It is not a publication for academics, but rather is aimed at a broader audience. Caring, for many the central concept of nursing, is presented in the book as an essential human attribute. Using ecological–feminist ethics and a highly interdisciplinary approach, Boff conceptualises caring as affection as much as politics. He questions the current logic of work organisation and economic accumulation. He points out that caring became synonymous with femininity, nonobjectivity and inefficiency. Therefore, the fulfilment of the professional duty of caring is unachievable without a concurrent critique of the organisational structure of healthcare work and of the economic models attached to it. Whilst reading Boff’s work, which does not mention nursing, I could identify many issues of relevance to nursing scholarship, which is far too often apolitical in its view and analysis of care. From his perspective, the notion of caring is incongruent with the fragmentation of care provided by nurses and other professionals. For example, can we call it ‘caring’ when we provide technical and emotional support for patients who are later discharged to face deprivation in the inner city? ‘Caring’ also needs to relate to the ecological commitment that those who care should have. Caring requires a critical analysis of the effects of caring as a discourse — e.g., are we promoting high levels of consumption that are unaffordable to many as well as harmful for the environment? An issue regarding the politics of caring centres on the relationship between countries. Caring for the sick and poor of ‘Third World’ countries should entail changing the exploitative economic and cultural systems that perpetuate huge inequalities between countries and between groups of citizens within countries. Boff is just one example of how plurality can enrich nursing scholarship. The same politics that he identifies in caring is present in the ways we produce knowledge. In acknowledging the political nature of nursing thought and practice we have an opportunity to challenge the orthodoxy of neutral caring — an opportunity to understand nursing in its relationship to society and nations.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,119
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,045
Tête enseignante GPT0,346
Écart entre enseignants0,301 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNursing InquiryMême sujetNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipTravaux en français237 207