JAN FORUM
Mary Seacole – the world’s first nurse entrepreneur? Dear Editor
was defined during that period of time, or not, but the above
I would like to thank (McDonald 2013) for raising some very
statements would suggest that she certainly saw herself as
important issues regarding the interpretation of historical data
some type of caregiver. She could, however, definitely be con-
and what can happen when these data are interpreted in differ-
sidered an entrepreneur. She was never hesitant to charge peo-
ent ways by very different people. There is no doubt that vari-
ple for the cost of ‘necessities’ she provided in her role as
ous publications over the past 30 years have served to make
‘nurse’. Again, chapter XIII of her autobiography provides
public the work of Mary Seacole and her contributions to soci-
greater detail of this (Seacole 1857 p. 134). A reinterpretation
ety and the Crimean War, and that this has led to a reinterpre-
of Mary Seacole as the first nurse entrepreneur may be easier
tation of her contribution to nursing over time. There is also
to support than the claim that she was ‘not a nurse’. Her abil-
no doubt that Mary Seacole was an opportunist. She probably
ity to balance the needs of the sick with her own need to
profited from the Crimean War in perhaps ways some may see
make a living was evident.
as unsavoury. On the other hand, whether she was a nurse or
Thus, we are drawn back to the issue of whether the eleva-
not, and whether her contribution in general was sufficient to
tion of Mary Seacole to the status of pioneer nurse and hero is
warrant elevation to the status of pioneer nurse and hero, is
an accurate interpretation of historical data, or if the evidence
open to wider interpretation. In Chapter XIII of her autobiog-
is not sufficient to warrant that claim as argued by (McDonald
raphy, Mary Seacole claims the following:
2013). While I too have been concerned with the rather dra-
I must solicit my readers’ attention to the position I held in the camp as doctress, nurse, and ‘mother.’
matic push towards claiming Mary Seacole as nurse pioneer and hero at what appears to be the expense of Florence Nightingale, to claim that Mary Seacole was not a hero or pioneer
That the officers were glad of me as a doctress and nurse may be easily understood.
in any way would be to belittle what she did do in terms of providing care on the battlefield, in epidemics and in other ways. Her own book provides evidence of her contribution
Some of my Crimean patients, who were glad of me as nurse and doctress…
(Seacole 1857). Both Nightingale and Seacole have a place (albeit different) in nursing history and both should be credited for what they achieved rather than one emphasized over the other. A better approach would be to acknowledge the achieve-
(Seacole 1857 p. 134)
ments of both and reinterpret the history in a constructive
My interpretation of these comments is that Mary Seacole
manner focusing on these achievements. Nurses today have
did claim to be a nurse, and yet, [McDonald 2013] claims the
much to learn from both Nightingale and Seacole. It may
opposite, and this is perhaps the fundamental issue. Much of
be that the learning to be taken from each is different.
historical analysis (and in fact any qualitative research) is essential that as much evidence as possible is presented to sup-
Jill Clendon MPhil MCNA (NZ) PhD RN Nursing Policy Adviser/Researcher
port a claim of fact. This evidence may be from various oral,
New Zealand Nurses Organisation, Wellington, New Zealand
based around interpretation of text. In historical research, it is
documentary,
pictorial,
primary
and
secondary
sources
and Adjunct Professor, Graduate School of Nursing and
designed to support that particular interpretation (Schneider
Midwifery,
et al. 2012). Where a piece of the puzzle is missing, drawing
Victoria University, Wellington,
conclusions is fraught. No one but Mary Seacole could truly
New Zealand
tell us whether she thought of herself as a ‘nurse’, as it
E-mail: [email protected]
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
1445
JAN Forum
References McDonald L. (2013) Would the real pioneer and hero of health care please stand up and be recognized? Journal of Advanced Nursing doi: 10.1111/jan.12291. Seacole M. (1857) Wonderful adventures of Mrs Seacole in many lands. James Blackwood Paternoster Row, London. Retrieved
1446
from http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/seacole/adventures/ adventures.html on 29 October 2013. Schneider Z., Whitehead D., Lobiondo-Wood G. & Haber J. (2012) Nursing and Midwifery Research: Methods and Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice, 4th edn. Elsevier, Sydney.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Mary Seacole – the world’s first nurse entrepreneur? Dear Editor
was defined during that period of time, or not, but the above
I would like to thank (McDonald 2013) for raising some very
statements would suggest that she certainly saw herself as
important issues regarding the interpretation of historical data
some type of caregiver. She could, however, definitely be con-
and what can happen when these data are interpreted in differ-
sidered an entrepreneur. She was never hesitant to charge peo-
ent ways by very different people. There is no doubt that vari-
ple for the cost of ‘necessities’ she provided in her role as
ous publications over the past 30 years have served to make
‘nurse’. Again, chapter XIII of her autobiography provides
public the work of Mary Seacole and her contributions to soci-
greater detail of this (Seacole 1857 p. 134). A reinterpretation
ety and the Crimean War, and that this has led to a reinterpre-
of Mary Seacole as the first nurse entrepreneur may be easier
tation of her contribution to nursing over time. There is also
to support than the claim that she was ‘not a nurse’. Her abil-
no doubt that Mary Seacole was an opportunist. She probably
ity to balance the needs of the sick with her own need to
profited from the Crimean War in perhaps ways some may see
make a living was evident.
as unsavoury. On the other hand, whether she was a nurse or
Thus, we are drawn back to the issue of whether the eleva-
not, and whether her contribution in general was sufficient to
tion of Mary Seacole to the status of pioneer nurse and hero is
warrant elevation to the status of pioneer nurse and hero, is
an accurate interpretation of historical data, or if the evidence
open to wider interpretation. In Chapter XIII of her autobiog-
is not sufficient to warrant that claim as argued by (McDonald
raphy, Mary Seacole claims the following:
2013). While I too have been concerned with the rather dra-
I must solicit my readers’ attention to the position I held in the camp as doctress, nurse, and ‘mother.’
matic push towards claiming Mary Seacole as nurse pioneer and hero at what appears to be the expense of Florence Nightingale, to claim that Mary Seacole was not a hero or pioneer
That the officers were glad of me as a doctress and nurse may be easily understood.
in any way would be to belittle what she did do in terms of providing care on the battlefield, in epidemics and in other ways. Her own book provides evidence of her contribution
Some of my Crimean patients, who were glad of me as nurse and doctress…
(Seacole 1857). Both Nightingale and Seacole have a place (albeit different) in nursing history and both should be credited for what they achieved rather than one emphasized over the other. A better approach would be to acknowledge the achieve-
(Seacole 1857 p. 134)
ments of both and reinterpret the history in a constructive
My interpretation of these comments is that Mary Seacole
manner focusing on these achievements. Nurses today have
did claim to be a nurse, and yet, [McDonald 2013] claims the
much to learn from both Nightingale and Seacole. It may
opposite, and this is perhaps the fundamental issue. Much of
be that the learning to be taken from each is different.
historical analysis (and in fact any qualitative research) is essential that as much evidence as possible is presented to sup-
Jill Clendon MPhil MCNA (NZ) PhD RN Nursing Policy Adviser/Researcher
port a claim of fact. This evidence may be from various oral,
New Zealand Nurses Organisation, Wellington, New Zealand
based around interpretation of text. In historical research, it is
documentary,
pictorial,
primary
and
secondary
sources
and Adjunct Professor, Graduate School of Nursing and
designed to support that particular interpretation (Schneider
Midwifery,
et al. 2012). Where a piece of the puzzle is missing, drawing
Victoria University, Wellington,
conclusions is fraught. No one but Mary Seacole could truly
New Zealand
tell us whether she thought of herself as a ‘nurse’, as it
E-mail: [email protected]
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
1445
JAN Forum
References McDonald L. (2013) Would the real pioneer and hero of health care please stand up and be recognized? Journal of Advanced Nursing doi: 10.1111/jan.12291. Seacole M. (1857) Wonderful adventures of Mrs Seacole in many lands. James Blackwood Paternoster Row, London. Retrieved
1446
from http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/seacole/adventures/ adventures.html on 29 October 2013. Schneider Z., Whitehead D., Lobiondo-Wood G. & Haber J. (2012) Nursing and Midwifery Research: Methods and Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice, 4th edn. Elsevier, Sydney.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
