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.

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.

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.

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.

Does authentic assessment undermine authentic learning?

In this editorial the editors consider the ideals and realities of high and low stakes assessments in clinical workplaces, the impact of these assessments on clinical workplace learning, and the clash between authenticity in assessment and authenticity in learning.

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.

"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.

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 this knowledge 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 system-wide 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 and influencing decisions.