Nostalgic and nostophobic referencing and the authentication of nurses' use of complementary therapies
In recent years what can loosely be described as a sociology of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has begun to emerge. Although work has been conducted with lay therapists, orthodox practitioners, and consumers, overall, research in this area remains patchy and underdeveloped. Despite its role at the forefront of integration, the sociological study of the apparent affinity between nursing and CAM is virtually non-existent. This paper provides an exploratory analysis of how writers within the CAM nursing sub-world adopt a recourse to history (nostalgic and nostophobic referencing) as a strategy to authenticate the relationship between nursing and CAM and so facilitate continuing integration. A text analysis, of articles written on CAM in four nursing journals, was conducted. Eighty papers satisfied the inclusion criteria. Evidence is presented of the way in which writers attempt to authenticate integration of CAM through reference to its apparent interconnectedness with the historically grounded core of nursing values, and more specifically, with the key historical figure of the nurse Florence Nightingale (1820-1910). It is argued that these rhetorical strategies can be understood in the context of the need to engage in (primarily) intra-professional persuasion: to protect and develop the values of their nursing sub-world over alternatives. The findings are preliminary. Themes identified are illustrative of the potential offered by an analysis of nostalgic and nostophobic referencing in this context, and not a definitive account of it. Further research should examine individually produced texts from other sources, and documents produced by relevant professional bodies.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 7 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:7:p:1469-1480. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.