A Call to Revisit and Address the Histories of Bullying in Nursing Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of bullying in nursing, and particularly in nursing education has been examined in numerous contexts, both in Canada and elsewhere. In this paper, we reflect on the ongoing prevalence of bullying in nursing’s history, its impacts, and question why it has continued to be problematic in nursing and in nursing education. We argue that part of the issue is a reluctance to come to terms with bullying’s historical origins in nursing. While we note that discussions of the issue of bullying in nursing start to appear in the 1970s, and more dedicated discussions of bullying in nursing education specifically may not appear in the literature until the 1990s, we suggest that descriptions of behaviours that can be understood as bullying can be found in earlier references. Furthermore, we review some of the theories that have been put forward in an attempt to understand the origins of bullying in nursing, including its relationship to power imbalances and hierarchies in nursing and society at large. Finally, highlighting the proactive work of nursing associations with a focus on those in Canada, we point to some ways forward. We also call for more scholarship to critically examine earlier history of bullying in nursing education. In particular we argue that such scholarship must proactively seek out diverse nurses’ voices which may be inadequately represented in dominant narratives of nursing history. La question de l’intimidation en sciences infirmières, et surtout dans la formation infirmière, a été étudiée dans de nombreux contextes, tant au Canada qu’ailleurs. Dans cet article, nous réfléchissons à la prévalence continue et aux répercussions de l’intimidation dans l’histoire des soins infirmiers et nous cherchons à comprendre pourquoi elle constitue encore un problème en sciences infirmières et en formation infirmière. Nous soutenons qu’une partie du problème vient d’une réticence à composer avec les origines historiques de l’intimidation dans ce domaine. Même si nous constatons que des discussions sur la question de l’intimidation en sciences infirmières commencent à apparaître dans les années 1970 et que des discussions plus spécifiques à la formation infirmière sur ce phénomène n’apparaissent probablement pas dans les écrits avant les années 1990, nous sommes d’avis que des documents plus anciens présentent des descriptions de comportements susceptibles d’être reconnus comme étant de l’intimidation. De plus, nous examinons certaines des théories présentées visant à comprendre les origines de l’intimidation dans le milieu des sciences infirmières, notamment sa relation avec les déséquilibres
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".