Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10180381

Nursing, knowledge and practice.

Abstract

Recent commentators have suggested that academic knowledge is irrelevant to nursing practice and may actually undermine nursing's traditional caring ethos. Furthermore, by making nursing more academic, it is claimed that 'natural' but non-academic carers are prevented from pursuing a career in nursing. Debates about the relationship between nursing, knowledge and practice have a long history and have to be understood in terms of wider political and economic issues relating to nursing, its status within society and the changing role of nurses within the health services division of labour. One crucial issue is nursing's status as women's work. Critics of developments in nurse education draw an ideological equation between nursing work and the traditional female role. From this perspective the qualities that make a good nurse cannot be taught, rather they are founded on 'natural' feminine skills. Irrespective of whether caring is 'natural' or not, it is questionable as to whether, for today's nurses, being caring is sufficient. The shape of nursing jurisdiction is a long way removed from its origins in the Victorian middle-class household. In addition to their traditional caring role, contemporary nurses may also have complex clinical, management and research responsibilities, as well as being crucial coordinators of service provision. It is suggested that these and future developments in health services make the need for an educated nursing workforce even more pressing. In order to adequately prepare nurses for practice, however, it is vital that nurse education reflects the reality of service provision.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Allen. 1997. Nursing, knowledge and practice.. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581969700200311

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Racial and ethnic disparities in faculty promotion in academic medicine.

CONTEXT: Previous studies have suggested that minority medical school faculty are at a disadvantage in promotion opportunities compared with white faculty. OBJECTIVE: To compare promotion rates of minority and white medical school faculty in the United States. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of data from the Association of American Medical Colleges' Faculty Roster System, the official data system for tracking US medical school faculty. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 50,145 full-time US medical school faculty who became assistant professors or associate professors between 1980 and 1989. Faculty of historically black and Puerto Rican medical schools were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Attainment of associate or full professorship among assistant professors and full professorship among associate professors by 1997, among white, Asian or Pacific Islander (API), underrepresented minority (URM; including black, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Native American, and Native Alaskan), and other Hispanic faculty. RESULTS: By 1997, 46% of white assistant professors (13,479/28,953) had been promoted, whereas 37% of API (1123/2997; P<.001), 30% of URM (311/1053, P<.001), and 43% of other Hispanic assistant professors (256/598; P =.07) had been promoted. Similarly, by 1997, 50% of white associate professors (7234/14,559) had been promoted, whereas 44% of API (629/1419; P<.001), 36% of URM (101/280; P<.001), and 43% of other Hispanic (122/286; P =.02) associate professors had been promoted. Racial/ethnic disparities in promotion were evident among tenure and nontenure faculty and among faculty who received and did not receive National Institutes of Health research awards. After adjusting for cohort, sex, tenure status, degree, department, medical school type, and receipt of NIH awards, URM faculty remained less likely to be promoted compared with white faculty (relative risk [RR], 0.68 [99% confidence interval CI, 0.59-0.77] for assistant professors and 0.81 [99% CI, 0.65-0.99] for associate professors). API assistant professors also were less likely to be promoted (RR, 0.91 [99% CI, 0.84-0.98]), whereas API associate professors and other Hispanic assistant and associate professors were promoted at comparable rates. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that minority faculty are promoted at lower rates compared with white faculty. JAMA. 2000;284:1085-1092

Career Mobility↗