The state of history and the empire of metaphysics [Review]

One of the curious things about this challenging book is that its ostensible subject— the Saxon medical and political scientist Hermann Conring (1606–1681)— is not mentioned in the title. Constantin Fasolt argues that we cannot know what Conring really thought or meant in his writings, which means that his topic cannot be Conring as such and must instead be that which occludes our knowledge of him, the titular limits of history. Given that we do in fact learn a good deal about Conring from Fasolt’s book, we can only hope that the decapitation of its subject will be rectified in a subsequent edition, or perhaps by the restorative work of librarians putting together subject headings. And yet Fasolt’s decision is understandable, for Conring is indeed a stalking-horse for a much bigger quarry: historiography and the historical consciousness. By “history” Fasolt understands a way of imposing intelligibility on the world, which is founded on the twin assumptions that the past is gone and unchangeable, and that the meaning of texts can be determined by placing them in their historical contexts (ix). In challenging this mode of intelligibility, Fasolt is not attempting to improve professiona history—it’s already as good as it can be—but to displace it. He regards his work as a declaration of “independence from historical consciousness” (32). At the same time, Fasolt insists that he is not simply jumping from historiography to philosophy, or attempting to preempt history with ontology (37-39). That has been tried by Nietzsche and Heidegger, who have been tainted by Nazism (Fasolt thinks unfairly). It has also been attempted by modern philosophers from Gadamer to Foucault and Charles Taylor who, in failing to address the “violence” that its mode of intelligibility does to the world, have not succeeded in outflanking history. Perhaps, Fasolt wonders, it is only the personal experience of those who have been subject to this violence—the experience of those who have been subject to historical examination—that can break the spell of history. Fasolt’s disclaimer notwithstanding, in the course of these remarks I shall argue that he is indeed jumping from history to philosophy, or attempting to outflank history by subjecting it to a particular metaphysical understanding. I shall do so in part by sketching the recent intellectual history of this move—a historical examination that I hope inflicts as little violence as possible on Fasolt’s argument.

The information specialist in the clinical team: Building expertise in evidence-based healthcare

The Clinician Development Program (CDP) is an initiative of Queensland Health’s Quality Improvement and Enhancement Program. At the Royal Brisbane & Royal Women's Hospital Health Service Districts, evidence-base practice (EBP) is an important CDP area in which several projects were carried out in 2002. This paper describes one such project. A medical librarian was invited to accompany the clinical team on morning rounds in the Medical Assessment & Planning Unit (MAPU). The librarian conducted information skills training in the ward and helped clinicians to answer questions directly related to patient care. Questions not answered during the round were followed-up, usually within 48 hours, and responses emailed to the consultant who led the rounds. At the project’s conclusion the librarian was invited to continue as a member of the MAPU clinical team, thus acknowledging the valuable role an information specialist can play in incorporating research evidence into patient care. Clinical librarianship (CL) creates a space, albeit a contentious one, for the health librarian at the bedside. This paper describes an Australian CL project and attempts to demystify the role of an information specialist in EBP. It also highlights some of the challenges facing librarians and clinicians attempting to embed EBP in clinical settings.