Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research.

CONTEXT: For medical education researchers, a key concern may be the practicalities of gaining ethical approval where this is a national or local requirement. However, in qualitative studies, where the dynamics of human interaction pervade, ethical considerations are an ongoing process which continues long after approval has been granted. Responding to ethical dilemmas arising 'in the moment' requires a reflexive approach whereby the researcher questions his/her own motivations, assumptions and interests. Drawing on empirical studies and their experiences in academic and clinical research practice, the authors share their reflections on adhering to ethical principles throughout the research process to illustrate the complexities and nuances involved. OBJECTIVES AND FINDINGS: These reflections offer critical insights into dilemmas arising in view of the ethical principles driving good conduct, and through domains which distinguish between procedural ethics, situational ethics, ethical relationships and ethical issues in exiting the study. The accounts consider integrity and altruism in research, gatekeeping and negotiating access, consent and confidentiality, power dynamics and role conflict, and challenges in dissemination of findings. The experiences are based on a range of examples of research in a UK context from managing difficult conversations in the classroom to video-ethnography in the operating theatre. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: These critical reflections make visible the challenges encountered and decisions that must be taken in the moment and on reflection after the event. Through sharing our experiences and debating the decisions we made, we offer insights into reflexivity in qualitative research which will be of value to others.

Are Surgeons Born or Made? A Comparison of Personality Traits and Learning Styles Between Surgical Trainees and Medical Students.

OBJECTIVE: Medical students and surgical trainees differ considerably in both their preferential learning styles and personality traits. This study compares the personality profiles and learning styles of surgical trainees with a cohort of medical students specifically intent on pursuing a surgical career. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted contrasting surgical trainees with medical students specifying surgical career intent. The 50-item International Personality Item Pool Big-Five Factor Marker (FFM) questionnaire was used to score 5 personality domains (extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience, and neuroticism). The 24-item Learning Style Inventory (LSI) Questionnaire was used to determine the preferential learning styles (visual, auditory, or tactile). χ(2) Analysis and independent samples t-test were used to compare LSI and FFM scores, respectively. SETTING: Surgical trainees from several UK surgical centers were contrasted to undergraduate medical students. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 53 medical students who had specifically declared desire to pursue a surgical career and were currently undertaking an undergraduate intercalated degree in surgical sciences were included and contrasted to 37 UK core surgical trainees (postgraduate years 3-4). RESULTS: The LSI questionnaire was completed by 53 students and 37 trainees. FFM questionnaire was completed by 29 medical students and 34 trainees. No significant difference for learning styles preference was detected between the 2 groups (p = 0.139), with the visual modality being the preferred learning style for both students and trainees (69.8% and 54.1%, respectively). Neuroticism was the only personality trait to differ significantly between the 2 groups, with medical students scoring significantly higher than trainees (2.9 vs. 2.6, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Medical students intent on pursuing a surgical career exhibit similar personality traits and learning styles to surgical trainees, with both groups preferring the visual learning modality. These findings facilitate future research into potential ways of improving both the training and selection of students and junior trainees onto residency programs.

'You see?' Teaching and learning how to interpret visual cues during surgery.

CONTEXT: The ability to interpret visual cues is important in many medical specialties, including surgery, in which poor outcomes are largely attributable to errors of perception rather than poor motor skills. However, we know little about how trainee surgeons learn to make judgements in the visual domain. OBJECTIVES: We explored how trainees learn visual cue interpretation in the operating room. METHODS: A multiple case study design was used. Participants were postgraduate surgical trainees and their trainers. Data included observer field notes, and integrated video- and audio-recordings from 12 cases representing more than 11 hours of observation. A constant comparative methodology was used to identify dominant themes. RESULTS: Visual cue interpretation was a recurrent feature of trainer-trainee interactions and was achieved largely through the pedagogic mechanism of co-construction. Co-construction was a dialogic sequence between trainer and trainee in which they explored what they were looking at together to identify and name structures or pathology. Co-construction took two forms: 'guided co-construction', in which the trainer steered the trainee to see what the trainer was seeing, and 'authentic co-construction', in which neither trainer nor trainee appeared certain of what they were seeing and pieced together the information collaboratively. Whether the co-construction activity was guided or authentic appeared to be influenced by case difficulty and trainee seniority. Co-construction was shown to occur verbally, through discussion, and also through non-verbal exchanges in which gestures made with laparoscopic instruments contributed to the co-construction discourse. CONCLUSIONS: In the training setting, learning visual cue interpretation occurs in part through co-construction. Co-construction is a pedagogic phenomenon that is well recognised in the context of learning to interpret verbal information. In articulating the features of co-construction in the visual domain, this work enables the development of explicit pedagogic strategies for maximising trainees' learning of visual cue interpretation. This is relevant to multiple medical specialties in which judgements must be based on visual information.

Making meaning from sensory cues: a qualitative investigation of postgraduate learning in the operating room.

PURPOSE: The authors aimed to map and explicate what surgeons perceive they learn in the operating room. METHOD: The researchers used a grounded theory method in which data were iteratively collected through semistructured one-to-one interviews in 2010 and 2011 at four participating hospital sites. A four-person data analysis team from differing academic backgrounds qualitatively analyzed the content of the transcripts employing an immersion/crystallization approach. RESULTS: Participants were 22 UK surgeons, some of whom were in training at the time of the study and some of whom were attending surgeons. Major themes of learning in the operating room were perceived to be factual knowledge, motor skills, sensory semiosis, adaptive strategies, team working and management, and attitudes and behaviors. The analysis team classified 277 data points (short paragraphs or groups of sentences conveying meaning) under these major themes and subthemes. A key component of learning in the operating room that emerged from these data was sensory semiosis, defined as learning to make sense of visual and haptic cues. CONCLUSIONS: Although the authors found that learning in the operating room occurred across a wide range of domains, sensory semiosis was found to be an important theme that has not previously been fully acknowledged or discussed in the surgical literature. The discussion draws on the wider literature from the social sciences and cognitive psychology literature to examine how professionals learn to make meaning from "signs" making parallels with other medical specialties.