These days I am immersed in a major writing project – preparation of the 12th Edition on the text that many nursing students have learned to refer to as “Chinn and Kramer”! This edition is co-authored with my colleagues Lucinda Canty and Lucy Mkandawire-Valhmu. With each edition of any textbook, there are major updates to integrate throughout, but this revision comes at a time of wide-spread recognition of all forms of injustice, including the ways in which academic texts sustain thought patterns that underpin social injustices. This includes careful consideration of the language used in the text, the mental images that are formed by the words in the text, and the omissions that are created by the words and images. Dr. Mkandawire-Valhmu and Dr. Canty bring awareness to this revision based on not only their personal experience as women and nurse scholars of color, but also what they have learned through their scholarship that has exposed and explored the dynamics of racism, social inequities and injustice, and the systems that sustain these inequities (see examples of their scholarship on the web pages linked to their names above).

Academic writing began to shift away from the stiff, highly formalized, impersonal style early in the 1980’s. The trend toward language that clearly communicates intended meanings in a style that is readily understood by any reader has been bolstered by the emergence of research methods such as “translational scholarship” – approaches that focus on making the insights of “ivory tower” research relevant and useful in the day to day lives of people in the community.

The third edition of “Chinn and Kramer” (early 1990’s) marked the first major revision in which Maeona Kramer and I deliberately shifted away from the stiff third-person and adversarial writing style of the past, to a writing style that uses first-person pronouns, active voice, and cooperative and collaborative language. For example, a sentence such as “Scholarly discourse requires the scientist to provide a rational argument for the method used” might be revised to read “Scientists have a responsibility to explain the reasons for the methods they use, with the intention of helping others learn how to use these methods.” The words seems brief and simple, but there are major implications in both of these sentences. Notice particularly two things about these contrasting sentences:

• The first sentence does not indicate an agent (meaning who is engaging in “scholarly discourse). The second sentence makes it clear as to who has this responsibility.
• The first sentence uses the term “argument”, implying that the person engaging in scholarly discourse has an adversarial relationship with the reader or listener. The second sentence creates a cooperative context between the person who is explaining their methods, and the intention of “helping others” as the reason for providing the explanation.

The adage “nothing about us, without us.” is a powerful message for any writer concerned with social justice. The plainly obvious fact is that most writers of nursing literature have been white nurse scholars who have little to no life experience outside of the boundaries of their own white culture. The only adequate way to shift nursing literature in ways that make a meaningful difference is to shift who is doing the writing, and for the works of scholars of color to be elevated, cited, and given proper recognition in all citations and references that form the basis for new works. Those of us who are white have a responsibility to learn how the written word can exclude those who are not white, but we cannot make adequate “corrections” or changes on our own. Three of the “Principles of Reckoning” that are used to guide the anti-racism “Overdue Reckoning” project are particularly relevant in writing partnerships between nurse scholars of color and white nurse scholars:

• We claim the courage to join together through the experience of building our anti-racist capacity in nursing.
• We cherish the contributions and honor the voices of Black, Indigenous, Latina/o and other Nurses of Color, and yield the floor to those voices in our work together.
• The insights and recommendations of Black, Indigenous, Latina/o and other nurses of color are vital to ground our thinking, and to guide our actions. 

The Advances in Nursing Science: Information for Authors provides a set of guidelines for making significant shifts in writing style, and many other nursing journals now include guidance for writing that reflects a shift toward social justice language. The following sections are excepts from the ANS explanations related to writing style in general, and guidelines that address race and racism .

Style of Writing and Presentation

ANS insists on a readable, interesting voice and style that addresses a wide audience. The tone of the article should be scholarly but not “stiff.” Your approach should be both informative and interpretive with some emphasis given to the implications of information presented and to the provision of fresh insights. Please use an active voice, including first person pronouns for sections that require your own voice. Refer to these style guidelines on “voice” from “Nurse Author and Editor”

Chinn PL. Finding Your Voice and Writing Well: Situating Yourself within Your Text. Nurse Author Ed. 2017;27(2):5. http://naepub.com/authorship/2017-27-2-5/. Accessed February 28, 2024.

Chinn PL. Finding Your Voice and Writing Well: Situating Others Within the Text. Nurse Author Ed. 2017;27,27(2):6. http://naepub.com/authorship/2017-27-2-6/. Accessed February 28, 2024.

Here are a few general guidelines for recommended language related to ethnicity, illnesses, disabilities and handicaps:

• Always put the person first, then the descriptor. Say or write “person with a disability” or “person living with a chronic condition” rather than “disabled person” or “chronically ill person” or even worse “the chronically ill.”
• Use language that is inclusive of all genders, unless you are specifically referring to people who identify as a specific gender.
• Use disability to describe a functional limitation that interferes with a person’s ability to walk, hear, see, talk, learn. Use handicap to describe a situation or barrier imposed by society, the environment, or oneself.
• Don’t be concerned if you find yourself using words like “see” to a person who is blind, or “hear” to a person who is deaf. These words won’t offend.
• Do not refer to a person in a wheelchair as “confined” to a wheelchair. It’s better to say or write “uses a wheelchair.”
• Do not say “normal person” as compared to a person with a disability. Say able-bodied or nondisabled.
• Avoid such words as victim, oppressed, stricken with, crippled, mute, deaf and dumb, or afflicted. For example, refer to a person who has had a stroke as a survivor of a stroke, not as a stroke victim.
• Do not say arthritic or cerebral palsied. It’s better to say “he has arthritis” or “she has cerebral palsy.”
• Do not say birth defect. It’s better to say a person who has a disability since birth; a congenital disability.
• Remember that a person with a disability or an illness is a person like anyone else–they just happen to have a condition that influences their daily living patterns

ANS Author’s Guide

The followsing section shows guidelines related to race and racism

Specific Guidelines Related to Racism

The ANS leadership – editor, advisory board members, peer reviewers and publisher recognize that published scholarly works are vehicles that can challenge systemic racism and intersecting forms of power inequities.  ANS expects an explicit antiracist stance as a means to provide scholarly resources to support antiracism in research, practice, education, administration, and policymaking. To this end, we offer the following guidelines:

• Remain mindful of the many ways in which white privilege is embedded in scholarly writing, and engage in careful rereading of your work to shift away from these explicit and implied messages.  As an example, general “norms” are typically taken to reflect white experience only; this is revealed when the experience of people of color are taken to be “other” or “unusual” or worse yet “unhealthy”
• When race is included as a research variable or a theoretical concept, racism  must be named and integrated with other intersecting forms of oppression such as gender, sexuality, income, and religion.
• If your work does include race,
  • Provide a rationale that clearly supports an antiracist stance.
  • Be careful not to explicitly or implicitly suggest a genetic interpretation.
  • Explicitly state the benefit that your work contributes on behalf of people of color.
• Refrain from any content that explicitly or implicitly blames the victim or that stereotypes groups of people; situate health inequities clearly in the context of systemic processes that disadvantage people of color.
• Focus on unveiling dynamics that sustain harmful and discriminatory systems and beliefs, and on actions that can interrupt these structural dynamics.

ANS Author’s Guide, in consultation with Lucy Mkandawire-Valhmu, Helene Berman, Mary Canales, Bukola Salami, Holly Lee Wei, and Jennifer Woo