An Exploration of Political Consciousness Amongst Final Year Nursing Students in Northern Ireland

Context and background
Historically nurses perceive politics and nursing as being at odds with the caring image, synonymous with nurses (Salvage, 1985). Furthermore the concept of the ‘politics of nursing’ lacks clear conceptual clarity (Hewison, 1994). This concept ranges across a continuum from political interest to participation or engagement (Rains et al, 2001). It is often argued political interest tends to be equated with knowledge/ involvement in health policy development and nurse education can foster political consciousness, through political socialization (Brown, 1996). But despite the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002) urging this involvement, nurses globally are largely absent from the political and policy making arena. What influences nurse’s political socialization and the development of a political consciousness is not clearly identified or known, although many commentators suggest the undergraduate educational environment, plays an important role (Hanley, 1987, Winter, 1991).     

AIM
The aim of this study was to explore third year nursing student’s perceptions of politics in nursing, in the context of Northern Ireland. A number of hypotheses were tested examining the relationship between age, prior educational attainment and political interest and attitudes.  

Research methodology
A cross sectional research design was used and the data was collected using a short anonymous self-completion web survey (Bryman, 2012). The sample was a convenience sample of one cohort of final year adult nursing students (n154) in one Northern Irish university, with a 42% response rate. Data was analyzed using SPSS.

Key findings and conclusions
The results revealed 55% of students were very/fairly interested in politics, with 6% reporting no interest in politics. 85% of students were registered to vote, but only 48% voted in the 2010 N Ireland Assembly election.   
Recommend inclusion of a unit of study incorporating innovative teaching methods related to politics and health related policy, in the undergraduate nursing programme.       

Political Socialisation

The process of political socialisation (PS) has been classically defined as the “learning of social patterns corresponding to [an individual’s] societal position as mediated through various agencies of society” (Hyman, 1959, p. 25). Distinguishing PS from other types of socialisation (e.g. ethnic, cultural), this definition still serves as the foundation for the majority of empirical research in this area, despite methodological advances and new attention to previously under researched aspects of PS. As it was assumed that PS was relatively stable throughout life, early research focused on analysing this process during early childhood (Merelman, 1986). However, more recent studies found that ideas and attitudes acquired during childhood change through emerging adulthood due to multiple factors, such as personality, maturation and past experiences (“Beyond Political Socialization,” 2014). Therefore, current research has expanded beyond the effects of the classic socialisation agents (i.e., parents, peers, school) to include other relevant factors such as overarching context and individual cognitive development. Yet, the research to date offers a fragmented perspective of the process with heterogeneous results related to PS outcomes (e.g., voting behaviour, political engagement, identities, intergroup attitudes, prejudice, discrimination, etc.). This fact highlights the need for further research from childhood through emerging adulthood that also considers a wider-range of multiple socialisation agents, the over-arching context, and a greater numbers of outcomes related PS processes.

State power matters: power, the state and political struggle in the post-war American novel

This article is concerned with resituating the state at the centre of the analytical stage and, concomitantly, with drawing attention to the dangers of losing sight of the state as a locus of power. It seeks to uncover the relationship between two related lines of critical inquiry: Marxist and Foucauldian theories of the state; and the attempts by three postwar American novelist (Ken Kesey, William Burroughs and E.L. Doctorow) to determine the nature and extent of this power and to consider under what conditions political struggle might be possible. It argues that such a move is needed because recent critical analysis has been too preoccupied by corporeal micropolitics and global macropolitics, and that the postwar American novel can help us in this move because it is centrally concerned with the repressive potentiality of the US state. It maintains that the resuscitation of Marxist state theories in early 1970s and a debate between Poulantzas and Foucault is intriguingly foreshadowed and even critiqued by these novels. Consequently, it concludes that these novels constitute an unrecognized pre-history of what would become one of the key intellectual debates of the late twentieth century: an engagement between Marxist and post-structuralist conceptions of the power and resistance.

Famine and land in Ireland and India 1845-1880: James Caird and the political economy of hunger

The perception of Ireland and India as ‘zones of famine’ led many nineteenth-century observers to draw analogies between these two troublesome parts of the British empire. This article investigates this parallel through the career of James Caird (1816–92), and specifically his interventions in the latter stages of both the Great Irish Famine of 1845–50, and the Indian famines of 1876–9. Caird is best remembered as the joint author of the controversial dissenting minute in the Indian famine commission report of 1880; this article locates the roots of his stance in his previous engagements with Irish policy. Caird's interventions are used to track the trajectory of an evolving ‘Peelite’ position on famine relief, agricultural reconstruction, and land reform between the 1840s and 1880s. Despite some divergences, strong continuities exist between the two interventions – not least concern for the promotion of agricultural entrepreneurship, for actively assisting economic development in ‘backward’ economies, and an acknowledgement of state responsibility for preserving life as an end in itself. Above all in both cases it involved a critique of a laissez-faire dogmatism – whether manifest in the ‘Trevelyanism’ of 1846–50 or the Lytton–Temple system of 1876–9.