Response to: Elisions in the field of caring by V. Deary, I.J. Deary, H. McKenna, T. McCance and R. Watson (2002) Journal Of Advanced Nursing 39, 96–102. JAN Forum: your views and letters

Citation

Paley J (2002) Response to: Elisions in the field of caring by V. Deary, I.J. Deary, H. McKenna, T. McCance and R. Watson (2002) Journal Of Advanced Nursing 39, 96–102. JAN Forum: your views and letters. Commentary on: Elisions in the field of caring by V. Deary, I.J. Deary, H. McKenna, T. McCance and R. Watson (2002) Journal Of Advanced Nursing 39, 96–102.. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 39 (1), pp. 103-105. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02282.x

Abstract
First paragraph: I am, to begin with, enormously flatteredby the attention my paper (Paley 2001) has received from the massedranks of
caring researchers (Deary et al. 2002).
Elisions in the field of caring, a reply to my
An archaeology of caring knowledge (ACK), is a series of clever ripostes and devastating arguments. Unfortunately, the ripostes are to points I never made, and the arguments are against views I don't hold (more precisely, views I quite clearly don't hold). Deary et al. have created a mirage, and attacked it with commendable gusto. It is a highly entertaining performance - rather like watching a man wrestle himself - so it seems almost churlish to point out that they are tilting at windmills. However, at the risk of being a killjoy, I would like to draw attention, briefly, to the way in which the authors misrepresent my position, and to the endearingly Pythonesque silliness of one of the central ideas in their critique.

Journal
Journal of Advanced Nursing: Volume 39, Issue 1