"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.

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.

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.

Is There a Problem With Evidence in Health Professions Education?

ABSTRACT: What constitutes evidence, what value evidence has, and how the needs of knowledge producers and those who consume the knowledge produced as evidence might be better aligned are questions that continue to challenge the health sciences. In health professions education (HPE), debates on these questions have ebbed and flowed with little sense of resolution or progress. In this article, the authors explore whether there is a problem with evidence in HPE using thought experiments anchored in Argyris' learning loops framework.From a single-loop perspective ("How are we doing?"), there may be many problems with evidence in HPE, but little is known about how research evidence is being used in practice and policy. A double-loop perspective ("Could we do better?") suggests expectations of knowledge producers and knowledge consumers might be too high, which suggests more systemwide approaches to evidence-informed practice in HPE are needed. A triple-loop perspective ("Are we asking the right questions?") highlights misalignments between the dynamics of research and decision-making, such that scholarly inquiry may be better approached as a way of advancing broader conversations, rather than contributing to specific decision-making processes.The authors ask knowledge producers and consumers to be more attentive to the translation from knowledge to evidence. They also argue for more systematic tracking and audit of how research knowledge is used as evidence. Given that research does not always have to serve practical purposes or address the problems of a particular program or institution, the relationship between knowledge and evidence should be understood in terms of changing conversations, as well as influencing decisions.

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.

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.

Researching models of innovation and adoption in health professions education.

BACKGROUND: Despite the constant presence of change and innovation in health professions education (HPE), there has been relatively little theoretical modelling of such change, the experiences of change, the ideology associated with change or the unexpected consequences of change. In this paper, the authors explore theoretical approaches to the adoption of innovations in HPE as a way of mapping a broader theoretical landscape of change. METHOD: The authors, HPE researchers with an interest in technology adoption and systemic change, present a narrative review of the literature based on a series of thought experiments regarding how communities and individuals respond to the introduction of new ideas or methods. This research investigates the stages of innovation adoption, from the emergence and hype around new ideas to the concrete experiences of early adopters. RESULTS: When an innovation first emerges, there is often little concrete information available to inform potential adopters, leaving it susceptible to hype, both positive and negative. This can be described using the Gartner Hype Cycle model, albeit with important caveats. Once the adoption of an innovation gets underway, early adopter user experiences can inform those that follow. This can be described using Rogers' diffusion of innovation model, again with caveats. Notably, neither model goes beyond the point of single point-in-time, yes/no, individual adoption. Other approaches, such as learning curve theory, are needed to track uptake and maintenance by individuals over time. SIGNIFICANCE: This expanded theoretical base, while still somewhat instrumentalist, combined with complementary theoretical perspectives can afford opportunities to better explore reasons for variance, volunteerism and resistance to change. In summary, change is complicated and nuanced, and better models and theories are needed to understand and work meaningfully with change in HPE. To that end, the authors seek to encourage richer and more thoughtful research and scholarly thinking about change and a more nuanced approach to the pursuit of change in HPE as a whole.

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).

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.

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.

Physician resistance to injustice: A scoping review.

Throughout history, physicians have been involved in acts of resistance to systems of harm and injustice. However, resistance has seemed to have had little legitimate place in physician professionalism or in formal professional practice. As the challenges to physicians and the profession continue to mount, there is a pressing need to understand how it might be articulated and understood. To do that we need to consider past instances of physician resistance to injustice and harm. A scoping review was conducted to understand how often and in what contexts physicians have been engaged in resistance. A search of multiple bibliographic databases returned 2123 papers, which, after filtering for relevance and inclusion, left 60 articles for full-text review. Of these, 95% were from the United States, suggesting that issues of legitimacy are even more acute outside the U.S. Narrative findings were organized around four themes: professional responsibility to resist, legitimate resistance, resistance to perceived threats, and resistance as moral agency. When physicians have resisted, they have done so with a sense of moral agency albeit with different levels of altruism. They have often engaged in resistance when they felt their personal and professional interests are threatened, with particular emphasis on threats to physician autonomy. The study suggests that, within the U.S. at least, physician resistance is a matter for concern but, it has been approached with little or no guidance or grounding. Moreover, there is a longstanding tension between those who have argued that physicians have a professional responsibility to resist and those who have considered resistance to be extraneous and even harmful to their work as healers. At a time when physicians are facing an ever-growing number of practical, ethical, and moral challenges, professional acts of resistance are of critical concern within the profession.

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.

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.'

Ontario family physicians' perspectives about their scope of practice: what is it, what drives it and how does it change?

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence to show what scope of practice (SOP) means from the point of view of family physicians, how family physicians think about their SOP as it changes over time, or what factors shape and influence their SOP. Understanding family physician perspectives on SOP and the factors that influence it can aid our understanding of how it can constrain and enable physicians' agency and autonomy in professional practice. METHODS: Using qualitative description and incorporating constructivist grounded theory data collection and analysis techniques, four focus groups were conducted involving twenty-four Ontario-based family physicians from different contexts, at different career stages, and with different practice experiences. RESULTS: Participants' SOP was highly dynamic, changing throughout their careers due to factors both within and beyond their control. Their sense of their own SOP was the product of a continuous cycle of personal and professional transitions, exposures, and experiences throughout their careers. These family physicians sought regular and sustained mentorship, support, and engagement for their SOP throughout their careers. This was particularly the case during professional transitions and for drivers of their SOP for which they felt unprepared early in their careers, such as through the first years of independent practice, and when functioning as owner-operators of medical practices. Four descriptive themes were identified focusing on the nature of their current practice, their professional preparedness and supports, practice management dynamics, and 'doctors are people, too'. CONCLUSIONS: The SOP of the family physicians in this study was dynamic and unique to each individual, it emerged from interactions between their personal and professional lives and identities, and it was embedded in their lived experiences. SOP was also to some extent imposed and externally driven. This study advances understanding by exploring the 'why' and 'how' of SOP rather than focusing solely on what it is.