EDITORIAL The heresy of the ‘recent’ reference It would appear that a heresy has developed in nurse education that only very recent references should be used in writing – indeed the more re- cent, the better. Quite where this thinking has come from is unclear; however this apparent obsession with up-to-date references is, arguably, naı ¨ve, limiting and just, plain wrong. Clearly, from a research point of view, it is important that, where appropriate, current work is used, particularly in a clinical context, where treatment regimes may change rapidly. The latest research, if it is rigorous and credible, is likely to be more useful than research conducted a decade ago (although this is not invariably the case). How- ever, it is also important to be able to contextua- lise research and thus cite much older, relevant work. Consequently, we would argue that cited re- search reports need not only be drawn from the last several years. When it comes to other types of scholarship, the age issue is far less clear. Are we to assume that re- cent theory is necessarily and automatically ‘bet- ter’ than older theory? Does theory develop in such a linear fashion that we have only to seek out the latest paper on something to most accu- rately be informed about the state of the art? It seems unlikely. From whence did up-to-date theory come? Cer- tainly, it had a precedent and that precedent, obvi- ously, is to be found in older theory. It is difficult to cite older theory if older papers are not used. Most students and scholars are urged to cite original sources and this must be a good plan. To cite origi- nal sources, however, must also mean to cite older papers. Are all up-to-date theories and ideas the best ones to hand? We doubt it. Indeed seminal work, particularly of a theoretical nature, is very often ‘old’. So how will we cite scholars such as Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and Skinner et al. without also citing older work? Clearly, we cannot do so. The call only to cite most recent papers is beginning to look a little ill-advised. What we have found in this clamour to cite only the latest papers is that students are often citing older ideas without appreciating their genesis. Thus well known scholars’ work is often attributed, inac- curately, to more recent workers in the field. If stu- dents are not allowed to consider older papers, how will they know that older work is being used in this way? Surely, part of what it means to have an educa- tion is to study a wide range of work published over a wide period of time. Nurses at all levels should, therefore, possess the knowledge and skills to be able to properly appraise the appropriateness of ori- ginal papers and, in particular, evaluate their rele- vance to their own work, regardless of age. Modern scholars do not have the monopoly on ideas, even less on good writing. We do not need to quote examples of the worst excesses of the mangling of language in modern writing. Con- versely, much older writing can be clear, easily read and profound. In 1929, the philosopher of sci- ence and education, Alfred North Whitehead, wrote: ‘knowledge keeps no better than fish’. It is both an amusing and telling line and one that is still as up-to-date today as it was in the 20s. Are we to dismiss it on the grounds that it was written nearly 80 years ago? To call it a ‘classic’ reference, seems like overkill but to rule out students using such quotes seems unnecessarily prescriptive. It is also notable that the line is ironic: we can just as easily argue that knowledge does keep! Text is text, whether it was written 2000 years ago or last week. Note the degree to which the Bible and the Koran (to name but two texts) are still relied on, not just for debate, but to establish truths – as the writers see those truths. Should we dispense 0260-6917/$ - see front matter  c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2007.05.003 Nurse Education Today (2007) 27, 665–666 intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/nedt Nurse Education Today