ABSTRACT
Despite collaboration among different professions being recognized as fundamentally important to contemporary and future healthcare practice, the concept is woefully undertheorized. This has implications for how health professions educators might best introduce students to interprofessional collaboration and support their transition into interprofessional, collaborative workplaces. To address this, we engage in a conceptual analysis of published collaborative, interprofessional practices and conceptual understandings in theatre, as a highly collaborative art form and industry, to advance thinking in the health professions, specifically to inform interprofessional education. Our analysis advances a conceptualization of collaboration that takes place within a work culture of creativity and community, that includes four modes of collaboration, or the ways theatre practitioners collaborate, by: (1) paying attention to and traversing roles and hierarchies; (2) engaging in reciprocal listening and challenging of others; (3) developing trust and communication, and; (4) navigating uncertainty, risk and failure. We conclude by inviting those working in the health professions to consider what might be gleaned from our conceptualization, where the embodied and human-centred aspects of working together are attended to alongside structural and organizational aspects.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Global South researchers struggle to publish in Global North journals, including journals dedicated to research on health professions education (HPE). As a consequence, Western perspectives and values dominate the international academic landscape of HPE. This study sought to understand Global South researchers' motivations and experiences of publishing in Global North journals. METHODS: This study used a hermeneutic phenomenological perspective. Unstructured interviews were conducted with 11 authors from 6 Global South countries. Interview transcripts were analysed through a process of familiarisation, identifying significant statements, formulating meanings, clustering themes, developing exhaustive descriptions, producing a fundamental structure and seeking verification. RESULTS: Participants described being motivated by local institutional expectations, to improve reputation, to meet Global North perceptions of quality and to draw attention to their Global South context. Participants described experiences where their work was deemed irrelevant to Global North audiences, they were unable to interpret rejections and had learnt to play the publishing game by attending to both local and global imperatives. These motivations and experiences revealed several practical, academic and transformational tensions that Global South authors faced. CONCLUSION: The tensions and negotiations encountered by Global South authors who publish in HPE journals reflect a 'border consciousness' whereby authors must shift consciousness, or become 'shapeshifters', inhabiting two or more worlds as they cross borders between the Global South and Global North conventions. There is an added burden and risk in performing this shapeshifting, as Global South authors stand astride the borders of two worlds without belonging fully to either.