4.5 Article

Context and contingency in the history of post World War II nursing scholarship in the United States

Journal

JOURNAL OF NURSING SCHOLARSHIP
Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 4-11

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00199.x

Keywords

nursing scholarship; 20th century nursing history; graduate education

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To examine the context for the development of nursing scholarship post World War II. Methods: Historiographical analysis of the social, political, and cultural context of nursing scholarship in the postwar period, with an understanding of how this context shaped nursing scholarship. Findings: The development of nursing scholarship was influenced by three contextual strands: Nurses' use of experiential clinical knowledge to situate practice questions in the changing clinical care milieu of the 1950s to the 1970s; The development of an intellectual genealogy through new educational opportunities at the baccalaureate and graduate level from the 1960s to the 1980s that provided the foundation for reintegrating practice and education; and the creation of a growing cadre of nurse scholars and their political influence on the relationship between power, knowledge, and clinical practice. These formulations are critical for understanding how scholarship changed over time and help us understand contemporary clinical practice, its authority structure, how it helps us define a body of knowledge from which practice proceeds, and then, how it responds to public demands. Conclusions: Nursing scholarship is nested in a particular social, political, economic, and cultural context. This context also determines how and why it is generated, debated, and used. Its production does not always follow a rational, logical pattern. Nursing knowledge development is influenced as much by the political underpinnings of health care as it is by social, economic, cultural, and scientific foundations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available