On the bullshitisation of mental health nursing: A reluctant work rant.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING Nursing Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-25 DOI:10.1111/nin.12595
Mick McKeown
{"title":"On the bullshitisation of mental health nursing: A reluctant work rant.","authors":"Mick McKeown","doi":"10.1111/nin.12595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This discussion paper offers a critical provocation to my mental health nursing colleagues. Drawing upon David Graeber's account of bullshit work, work that is increasingly meaningless for workers, I pose the question: Is mental health nursing a bullshit job? Ever-increasing time spent on record keeping as opposed to direct care appears to represent a Graeberian bullshitisation of mental health nurses' work. In addition, core aspects of the role are not immune from bullshit. Professional rhetoric would have us believe that mental health nursing is a therapeutically beneficent occupation organised around ideals of care and compassion and providing fulfilling work for practitioners. Yet, there are some key characteristics of the experience of mental health nursing work that afford alternative judgements on its value and meaningfulness. Not least of these is the fact that many mental health nurses feel quite existentially unsettled in the practise of their work and many service users do not recognise the professional ideal, especially when compelled into increasingly coercive and restrictive services. In this context, Graeber's thesis is explored for its applicability to mental health nursing with a conclusion that many aspects of mental health nursing work are commensurate with bullshit but that mental health care can possibly be redeemed from bullshitisation by authentically democratising reforms. Engaging with posthumanist ideas, this exploration involves a flexing of aspects of Graeber's theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":49727,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":"e12595"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12595","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This discussion paper offers a critical provocation to my mental health nursing colleagues. Drawing upon David Graeber's account of bullshit work, work that is increasingly meaningless for workers, I pose the question: Is mental health nursing a bullshit job? Ever-increasing time spent on record keeping as opposed to direct care appears to represent a Graeberian bullshitisation of mental health nurses' work. In addition, core aspects of the role are not immune from bullshit. Professional rhetoric would have us believe that mental health nursing is a therapeutically beneficent occupation organised around ideals of care and compassion and providing fulfilling work for practitioners. Yet, there are some key characteristics of the experience of mental health nursing work that afford alternative judgements on its value and meaningfulness. Not least of these is the fact that many mental health nurses feel quite existentially unsettled in the practise of their work and many service users do not recognise the professional ideal, especially when compelled into increasingly coercive and restrictive services. In this context, Graeber's thesis is explored for its applicability to mental health nursing with a conclusion that many aspects of mental health nursing work are commensurate with bullshit but that mental health care can possibly be redeemed from bullshitisation by authentically democratising reforms. Engaging with posthumanist ideas, this exploration involves a flexing of aspects of Graeber's theory.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于心理健康护理的胡说八道:不情愿的工作咆哮。
这篇讨论文章向我的心理健康护理同行们提出了一个批判性的挑战。借鉴大卫-格雷伯(David Graeber)关于 "狗屁工作 "的论述,我提出这样一个问题:"狗屁工作 "对工作者来说越来越没有意义:心理健康护理工作是一份 "狗屁工作 "吗?与直接护理相比,花在记录上的时间越来越多,这似乎代表了格雷伯对心理健康护士工作的 "扯淡化"。此外,护士工作的核心内容也不能免俗。专业的说辞会让我们相信,心理健康护理是一项有益于治疗的职业,它围绕着关怀和同情的理想组织起来,为从业者提供充实的工作。然而,心理健康护理工作经验中的一些关键特征却能让我们对其价值和意义做出不同的判断。其中最重要的一点是,许多心理健康护士在工作实践中感到相当不安,许多服务使用者也不认可专业理想,尤其是在被迫接受越来越多的强制性和限制性服务时。在此背景下,我们探讨了格雷伯的论述对心理健康护理工作的适用性,并得出结论:心理健康护理工作的许多方面都与 "胡说八道 "相称,但心理健康护理工作有可能通过真正的民主化改革从 "胡说八道 "中解脱出来。这一探讨与后人文主义思想相联系,涉及对格雷伯理论各个方面的灵活运用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nursing Inquiry
Nursing Inquiry 医学-护理
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
61
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Inquiry aims to stimulate examination of nursing''s current and emerging practices, conditions and contexts within an expanding international community of ideas. The journal aspires to excite thinking and stimulate action toward a preferred future for health and healthcare by encouraging critical reflection and lively debate on matters affecting and influenced by nursing from a range of disciplinary angles, scientific perspectives, analytic approaches, social locations and philosophical positions.
期刊最新文献
Nurses' Advocacy in Intensive Care: What Insights Can Nurses' Experiences During the Pandemic Reveal? On Skin, Monsters and Boundaries: What The Silence of the Lambs can Teach Nurses About Abjection. The Everyday Phenomenology of Bedside Insight: A Response to Shira Birnbaum. Thinking Theoretically in Nursing Research-Positionality and Reflexivity in an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) Study. Health Professionals on Cross-Sectoral Collaboration Between Mental Health Hospitals and Municipalities: A Critical Discourse Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1