The future in the past: Hildegard Peplau and interpersonal relations in nursing Researchers, educators and clinicians have long recognized the profound influence of the mid-twentieth century focus on interpersonal relations and relationships on nursing. Today, in nursing, as well as in medicine and other social sciences, neuroanatomy, neurobiology and neurophysiology have replaced interpersonal dynamics as keys to understanding human behavior. Yet concerns are being raised that the teaching, research and practice of the critical importance of healing relationships have been overridden by a biological focus on the experiences of health and illness. As a way to move forward, we return to Hildegard Peplau's seminal ideas about the transformative power of relationships in nursing. We propose that Peplau's formulations and, in particular, her seminal Interpersonal Relations in Nursing can provide direction. We do not propose that her formulations or her book be simply transposed from the 1950s to today's classroom and clinic. But we do believe that her ideas and writings are dynamic documents containing concepts and derived operations that can be brought to life in clinical practice. Finally, we explore Peplau's transformative idea that nursing is, at its core, an interpersonal process both to acknowledge an idea that has shaped our past and can guide us into our future.

No abstract

To date, studies of the relationship between technology and its consumers have used the constructs of traditional paradigms of production and consumption as the foundation for analysis. These studies have served to reinforce traditional concepts of gender and hierarchy in the nursing-technology dichotomy. To propose a new and more relevant framework for analysing the technology-nursing relationship, the analysis of gender within the methodology of the social history of technology will be used. Healthcare will be viewed as a technologic network, and within that network multiple knowledge domains reside and interact. These domains, in turn, are socially constructed and historically contingent. This paper operationalizes this argument by examining the domain of the early nurse practitioner movement of the 1960s as part of a gendered technologic system. The findings of this study illuminate the agency of nurses in the shaping of traditionally male knowledge domains and as a crucial factor for understanding the evolution of not only the particularities of the nurse-technology relationship, but also the generalities of the gendered ways of knowing within the healthcare-technology relationship. Perhaps most importantly, different sets of questions can be formulated to analyse the history of the nurse practitioner movement from a technologic perspective that will provide new standpoints for the nursing-technology dichotomy in the millennium.

This article challenges the dominant paradigm of understanding the history of nursing as only that of relative powerlessness. By moving away from the stance of educators deeply concerned about the inability of the profession to gain control over entrance requirements and into the realm of practice, we use examples from our own work to discuss alternate histories of power. We acknowledge historical circumstances of invisibility and gender biases. But we argue that when we look at the history of practice, we see as much evidence of strength, purpose, and successful political action. Finally, we call for an acknowledgement of the rich and complex nature of the many different histories we can tell in nursing. And we suggest that an admitted inability to advance in one area of the discipline has not meant an inability to move others.History matters. And it seems to matter more now more than ever in our collective memory. Each day public commentators report on how history and historical perspectives have informed the national debate about who we, as a society, are as citizens; what we want as a nation; and how we might move forward in addressing the most serious economic crisis of our generation. When studying the words of these commentators, however, it seems clear that there is not "one" history -that there is not one prescriptive formula that provides a simple solution or explanation for complicated problems. Rather, they present many histories -each starting from a particular stance, using different sources, and offering distinct perspectives. Still, when considered as a whole, these histories provide a much richer understanding of factors and forces that inform broad social policy and particular local practices.

No abstract