Nursing and the art of radical critique.

This paper argues that more critique is required in our nursing journals. I begin by distinguishing between conservative 'old' critique which functions to maintain the status quo in the academic discipline of nursing, and radical 'new' critique which challenges it and pushes at its boundaries. I then identify three reasons why I believe so little radical critique is published in nursing journals, and illustrate each with examples from my own experience. Firstly, there is an assumption that peer reviewers are fulfilling this critical function, whereas I have argued that peer review should be concerned only with procedural matters and not with 'new' or radical critique, which in any case should be in the public domain for it to be effective and influential. Secondly, radical critique is frequently mistaken for ad hominem attack, causing reluctance amongst writers, reviewers and editors to see it made public. And thirdly, radical critique lies outside of the dominant academic discourse and is therefore itself subject to the very same conservative and repressive attitudes against which it is poised. Nurse academics would do well to look to other disciplines such as philosophy and the arts for examples of radical critique and of the ways in which journal editors and contributors strive to keep academic debate and discourse alive.