"Teaching capital"- a sociological analysis of medical educator portfolios for promotion.

Medical educator portfolios (MEP) are increasingly recognized as a tool for developing and documenting teaching performance in Health Professions Education. However, there is a need to better understand the complex interplay between institutional guidelines and how teachers decode those guidelines and assign value to teaching merits. To gain a deeper understanding of this dynamic, this study employed a sociological analysis to understand how medical educators aspiring to professorships use MEPs to display their teaching merits and how cultural capital is reflected in these artefacts. We collected 36 medical educator portfolios for promotion from a large research-intensive university and conducted a deductive content analysis using institutional guidelines that distinguished between mandatory (accounting for the total body of teaching conducted) and optional content (arguing for pedagogical choices and evidencing the quality, respectively). Our analysis showed that the portfolios primarily included quantifiable data about teaching activities, e.g., numbers of students, topics and classes taught. Notably, they often lacked evidence of quality and scholarship of teaching. Looking at these findings through a Bourdieusian lens revealed that teachers in this social field exchange objectified evidence of hours spent on teaching into teaching capital recognized by their institution. Our findings highlight how institutional guidelines for MEPs construct a pedagogical battlefield, where educators try to decode and exchange the "right" and recognized teaching capital. This indicates that MEPs reflect the norms and practices of the academic field more than individual teaching quality.

Searching the core of emergency medicine.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to test whether focus groups involving medical students, house officers, senior doctors, and nurses could identify an undergraduate emergency medicine core curriculum. METHOD: From May 2001 to January 2002, we interviewed 12 homogeneous focus groups within all 88 participants. Three focus groups were composed of medical students; three of house officers, three of senior doctors, and three focus groups were composed of nurses. Each interview lasted 2 h. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using qualitative methods. RESULTS: The focus groups suggested and discussed in all 196 objectives. Students, physicians, and nurses agreed that newly graduated physicians should master history taking, 21 clinical disorders, 15 practical skills, interpretation of two diagnostic tests, two general diagnostic skills, and two leadership skills. Apart from these 43 core objectives, disagreement was substantial. Participants gave very different priorities to communication, knowledge about clinical disorders, practical clinical skills, leadership, and "the art of medicine". CONCLUSION: In conclusion, focus groups could identify an emergency medicine core curriculum. However, participants had very different perspectives on the curriculum. Focus groups could be one very practicable part of seeking consensus on what is core and securing local roots and ownership to an undergraduate emergency medicine curriculum before and during implementation.