Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2009 Dec;16(10):919-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2009.01471.x.
Fundamental differences in the philosophy of history as an academic discipline are briefly explored, primarily from two perspectives. The traditional psychiatric and mental health nursing historian objectively uses primary sources in order to be able to make 'truth' claims about the past. The post-modern psychiatric nursing historian, on the other hand, constructs truth claims, rather than discovers them, and in the process of doing so creates historical discourses that are different from the past. To the postmodern psychiatric nursing historian, all histories are fictions, created with the use of imagination, and have characteristics that are similar to the literary constructions that are more traditionally identified as fiction. A variety of literature is used in order to explore such claims, and the conclusion is drawn that, with caution and careful attention to the rigorous use of historical method, fiction can be used as a valid source for historical research in psychiatric and mental health nursing.
简要探讨了作为一门学科的历史哲学的基本差异，主要从两个角度进行探讨。传统的精神科和心理健康护理历史学家客观地使用原始资料，以便能够对过去提出“真相”主张。另一方面，后现代精神科护理历史学家构建真相主张，而不是发现它们，并且在这样做的过程中创造了与过去不同的历史话语。对于后现代精神科护理历史学家来说，所有的历史都是虚构的，是通过想象力创造的，并且具有与更传统地被认定为虚构的文学结构相似的特征。为了探讨这些主张，使用了各种文献，结论是，谨慎使用并注意严格使用历史方法，小说可以作为精神科和心理健康护理历史研究的有效来源。
