A meta-study analysing the discourses of discourse analysis in health professions education.

INTRODUCTION: Discourse analysis has been used as an approach to conducting research in health professions education (HPE) for many years. However, because there is no one 'right' interpretation of or approach to it, quite what discourse analysis is, how it could or should be used, and how it can be appraised are unclear. This ambiguity risks undermining the trustworthiness and coherence of the methodology and any findings it produces. METHOD: A meta-study review was conducted to explore the current state of discourse analysis in HPE, to guide researchers engaging using the methodology and to improving methodological, analytical and reporting rigour. Structured searches were conducted, returns were filtered for inclusion and 124 articles critically analysed. RESULTS: Of 124 included articles, 64 were from medical education, 51 from nursing and 9 were mutli-disciplinary or from other HPE disciplines. Of 119 articles reporting some sort of data, 50 used documents/written text as the sole data source, while 27 were solely based on interview data. Foucault was the most commonly cited theorist (n = 47), particularly in medical education articles. The quality of articles varied: many did not provide a clear articulation what was meant by discourse, definitions and methodological choices were often misaligned, there was a lack of detail regarding data collection and analysis, and positionality statements and critiques were often underdeveloped or absent. DISCUSSION: Seeking to address these many lacunae, the authors present a framework to facilitate rigorous discourse analysis research and transparent, complete and accurate reporting of the same, to help readers assess the trustworthiness of the findings from discourse analysis in HPE. Scholars are encouraged to reflect more deeply on the applications and practices of discourse analysis, with the ultimate aim of ensuring more breadth and depth when using discourse analysis for understanding and constructing meaning in our field.

Where have all the reviewers gone?

In this editorial the editor considers the growing challenges journals are facing in securing peer reviewers, some of the approaches being tried to address this problem, and the prospects for sustaining communities of scholars with and without an ongoing commitment to peer review.

Historicity and the impossible present.

In this editorial the editor considers issues of historicity (understanding things in their historical context) in health professions education and the sciences thereof, and argues for more attention to historical and other contextual factors in creating and appraising the research literature.

No cow on the ice: a tail of word games.

In this editorial, the editors raise the issues of language games in the field of health profession education and examines the implications of translating and communicating meaning from one context to another. This examination raises five issues that scholars in healthcare professions education should consider.

"Those Darn Kids": Having Meaningful Conversations about Learner Resistance in Medical Education.

The concept of professional resistance describes the principles professionals should follow when they seek to counter social harm and injustice. Applied to medical education, the principles of professional resistance can help learners and teachers balance the responsibilities to respond to harm and injustice with their roles and responsibilities as health professionals. However, there remains the problem of how educators and leaders can constructively respond to learner acts of resistance. It would seem that many leaders have dismissed learner resistance with variations on "Those Darn Kids!", a complaint that has long been levied at those in younger generations who challenge power and authority. How can productive change in medical education be achieved if learners' complaints are not taken seriously? Rather than dismissal, leaders and educators in these situations need the tools to engage learners in conversations that draw out their concerns.

Storylines of Trauma in Health Professions Education: A Critical Metanarrative Review.

PHENOMENON: Learners in medical education are often exposed to content and situations that might be experienced as traumatic, which in turn has both professional and personal implications. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the literature on how trauma has been conceptualized and approached within medical education, and the implications thereof. APPROACH: A metanarrative approach was adopted following the RAMESES guidelines. Searches of 7 databases conducted in January 2022 with no date limitations yielded 7,280 articles, of which 50 were identified for inclusion through purposive and theoretical sampling. An additional 5 articles were added from manual searches of reference lists. Iterative readings, interpretive and reflexive analysis, and research team discussions were performed to identify and refine metanarratives. FINDINGS: Five metanarratives were identified, including the concept of trauma, the trauma event, the person with trauma, the impact of trauma, and addressing trauma, with each metanarrative encompassing multiple dimensions. A biomedical concept of trauma predominated, with lack of conceptual clarity. Theory was not integrated or developed in the majority of articles reviewed, and context was often ambiguous. Trauma was described in myriad ways among studies. Why certain events were experienced as trauma and the context in which they took place were not well characterized. The impact of trauma was largely concentrated on harmful effects, and manifestations beyond symptoms of post-traumatic stress were often not considered. Furthermore, the dominant focus was on the individual, yet often in a circumscribed way that did not seek to understand the individual experience. In addressing trauma, recommendations were often generic, and earlier research emphasized individually-focused interventions while more recent studies have considered systemic issues. INSIGHTS: Multiple dimensions of trauma have been discussed in the medical education literature and from many conceptual standpoints, with biomedical, epidemiologic, and individualized perspectives predominating. Greater precision and clarity in defining and understanding trauma is needed to advance research and theory around trauma in medical education and the associated implications for practice. Exploring trauma from intersectional and collective experiences and impacts of trauma and adapting responses to individual needs offers ways to deepen our understanding of how to better support learners impacted by trauma.

Whose problem is it anyway? Confronting myths of 'problems' in health professions education.

INTRODUCTION: The growing interest in knowledge translation and implementation science, both in clinical practice and in health professions education (HPE), is reflected in the number of studies that have sought to address what are believed to be evidence-practice gaps. Though this effort may be intended to ensure practice improvements are better aligned with research evidence, there is a common assumption that the problems researchers explore and the answers they generate are meaningful and applicable to practitioner needs. METHODS: This Mythology paper considers the nature of problems from HPE as the focus of HPE research and the ways in which they may or may not be aligned. The authors argue that, in an applied field such as HPE, it is vital that researchers better understand how their research problems relate to practitioner needs and what the limitations on evidence uptake might be. Not only can this establish clearer paths between evidence and action, but it also requires a rethink of much of knowledge translation and implementation science thinking and practice. RESULTS: The authors explore five myths: whether everything in HPE is a problem; whether practitioner needs involve problem solving; whether practitioner problems are resolvable with sufficient evidence; whether researchers effectively target practitioner problems; and whether studies that focus on solving practitioner problems make significant contributions to the literature. CONCLUSIONS: To advance the conversation on the connections between problems and HPE research, the authors propose ways in which knowledge translation and implementation science might be approached differently.

CARDA: Guiding document analyses in health professions education research.

INTRODUCTION: Documents, from policies and procedures to curriculum maps and examination papers, structure the everyday experiences of health professions education (HPE), and as such can provide a wealth of empirical information. Document analysis (DA) is an umbrella term for a range of systematic research procedures that use documents as data. METHODS: A meta-study review was conducted with the aims of describing the current state of DA in HPE, guiding researchers engaging in DA and improving methodological, analytical and reporting rigour. Structured searches were conducted, returns were filtered for inclusion and the 115 remaining articles were critically analysed for their use of DA methods and methodologies. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the number of articles reporting the use of DA over time. Sixty-three articles were single method (DA only), while the others were mixed methods research (MMR). Overall, there were major lacunae in terms of why documents were used, how documents were identified, what the authors did and what they found from the documents. This was particularly apparent in MMR where DA reporting was typically poorer than the reporting of other methods in the same paper. DISCUSSION: Given these many lacunae, a framework for reporting on DA research was developed to facilitate rigorous DA research and transparent, complete and accurate reporting of the same, to help readers assess the trustworthiness of the findings from document use and analysis in HPE and, potentially, other domains. It was also noted that there are gaps in HPE knowledge that could be addressed through DA, particularly where documents are conceptualised as more than passive holders of information. Scholars are encouraged to reflect more deeply on the applications and practices of DA, with the ultimate aim of ensuring more substantive and more rigorous use of documents for understanding and constructing meaning in our field.

How much is enough?

In this editorial, the Editor-in-Chief considers the question of 'how much is enough?' in health professions education and health professions education research, and she explores some of the implications of how this perennial question might be answered.

Inattention in health professions education scholarship.

In this editorial, the Editor-in-Chief considers inattention to details and the implications thereof in education scholarship and academic writing.

Trust, but verify.

In this editorial, the editor considers issues of trust, accountability, and verification in the work of scholars, institutions, and journals, and challenges readers to examine the interdependencies of trust, accountability, and verification in shaping the field of health professions education.

Disclaimers.

This editorial examines the place and role of disclaimers in academic publishing, both explicit and explicit.

Artificial scholarship: LLMs in health professions education research.

This editorial examines the implications of artificial intelligence (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, on the authorship and authority of academic papers, and the potential ethical concerns and challenges in health professions education (HPE).

Journal standards.

Taking the recent revision of the Journal's 'Standards for an Acceptable Manuscript' as a starting point, the Editor considers the meaning, durability, and implications of academic standards for journals in health professions education and those seeking to publish their work within them.

The quest for normality.

In this editorial, the editor reflects on what 'going back to normal' means in the context of health professions education, and she suggests that pursuing normality may not be the best goal or outcome for health professions educators, learners, or researchers.

What role does basic research have in an applied field?

Research in health professions education has often been portrayed as an applied field, one that draws on more basic forms of research in pursuing what are primarily practical ends. While there is an undeniable practical side to much of the work published in our field, and in this Journal in particular, this can be problematic when the necessary basic research is not extant. In this editorial, two of this Journal's editors consider some of the challenges in bridging these basic research gaps in an erstwhile applied field, and the implications for the kinds of research we undertake and for the identity of the field as a whole.

This was the first .

In this editorial, two of the Journal's editors reflect on why many authors emphasize in their study being the first one to focus on a given topic. They explore why authors may engage in this behavior and they offer guidance to authors as to how to strengthen the rationale for their work besides 'being first.'

Where do rural family medicine residents in Canada train?

OBJECTIVE: To report on contextual variance in the distributed rural family medicine residency programs of 3 Canadian medical schools. DESIGN: A constructivist grounded theory methodology was employed. SETTING: Rural and remote postgraduate family medicine programs at the University of Alberta, the University of British Columbia, and the University of Calgary. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six family practice residents were interviewed, providing descriptions of 27 different rural sites and 10 regional sites. METHODS: Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed. MAIN FINDINGS: Participants differentiated between main campus academic health science centres; regional referral hub sites; and smaller, rural, and more remote community sites. Participants described major differences between sites in terms of patient, practice, educational, physical, institutional, and social factors. The differences between training sites included variations in learning opportunities; physical challenges related to weather, distance, and travel; and the social opportunities offered. There were also differences in how residents perceived their training sites, both in terms of what they noticed and how they interpreted their observations and experiences. Although there were contextual differences between regional sites, those differences were a lot less than between different smaller rural and remote sites. These differences shaped the learning opportunities available to residents and influenced their well-being. CONCLUSION: Although there may be some similarities between distributed training sites, each training context presents unique challenges and opportunities for the family medicine residents placed there. More attention to the specific affordances of different training contexts is required.

Language games and scholarly writing.

In this editorial the Editor considers the Wittgensteinian language games of scholarly writing in health professional education and their implications for creating and consuming the work that is published in this Journal and across the field in general.

Patients!

In this editorial the Editor considers the roles and representations of patients in health professional education and their implications for educational scholarship in this field. She also considers the implications of patient presence and engagement for the social contract and the ways it is being placed under stress and strain.