Letter to the Editor

Article Outline

• References
• Copyright

To the editor:

I applaud Dr. Clark for exploring the concept of rankism as it relates to interactions among faculty and students in her article “Student Perspectives on Faculty Incivility in Nursing Education: An Application of the Concept of Rankism” (Nursing Outlook January/February, 2008). There is no question that incivility as a part of rankism (misusing one's own power) is destructive to a positive teaching-learning experience. None of us want to admit to such a destructive interaction, and Dr. Clark gives firm caution for avoiding this teaching style. For a fuller understanding of rankism, I contribute an additional insight into this problem by borrowing from theories of power beyond the power-powerlessness dichotomy described in Dr. Clark's report.

In any relationship with unequal rank, power is only potential. There can be no power when rank is equal. Faculty-student relationships are obviously one of rank, with the more knowledgeable and experienced characteristics of faculty versus the less knowledgeable and less experienced characteristics of students. This superordinate institutionalized authority of faculty is granted by the institution. How this is carried out is of importance here.

It was Thomas Hobbes, in the 17th century (as analyzed by MacPherson), who put forth the idea that power is inherent in humans and that “every man (sic) must always seek to have some power.”¹ As conceptualized by sociologists, power is coercive or influential.², ³, ⁴ It is clear that rankism falls within coercive power. This includes threats, forcing one's will on another, and negative acts highlighted in Dr. Clark's article. On the other hand, influential power connotes persuasion with a degree of compliance from the recipient—persuasion stimulated, perhaps, only by the prestige of the influencer. Thinking in this context, we do not (cannot) eliminate power, rather we seek to interact with students on the level of influential power which then is devoid of the incivility in rankism.

After 5 decades of teaching nursing (including co-teaching, and observing other faculty teach), I have found it extremely rare for rankism to raise its ugly head. Doctoral committees have led those few instances in which harsh judgments and proclamations were made. I wonder if it is the less experienced faculty, grappling with their own insecurities and threats that are expressed in incivility. Dr. Clark has cited several other contributing factors. In many universities I have found a collegial relationship among faculty and students, for faculty are also learning. This was introduced to me as early as my own undergraduate nursing program; and as long as 40 years ago in one university undergraduate program. For example, faculty and students worked as a team to select clinical assignments. First, students selected their patient/client assignment, making remarkably intelligent decisions based on their own learning objectives. Then faculty and students analyzed these decisions. Influential power worked here, with students asserting independence while striving to adhere to the high expectations of faculty for a practice modeled by faculty. Let us hope that with our new modes of teaching and learning we are continuing that kind of faculty-student relationship, and that readers will gain insights from Dr. Clark's article to avoid the pitfalls of rankism. Perhaps rankism needs further research, but personally I question that rankism is very widespread. In either case, one approach toward eliminating this destructive phenomenon in the education of nurses may be for faculty to engage in programs addressing the evils of rankism at all faculty levels.

Back to Article Outline

References 

1. Hobbes T. Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme & Power of a Common-Wealth. In:  MacPherson CB editors. Hobbes Leviathan. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books; 1968;p. 33
   • View In Article
2. Olsen M. Power as a Social Process. In:  Olsen M editors. Power in Societies. London: Macmillan; 1970;p. 33
   • View In Article
3. Bierstadt R. An analysis of social power. Am Soc Rev. 1963;15:730–738
   • View In Article
4. Schermerhorn RA. Society and Power. New York, NY: Random House; 1961;
   • View In Article