Literature DB >> 21070341

Collaborative research in medical education: a discussion of theory and practice.

Patricia S O'Sullivan1, Hugh A Stoddard, Summers Kalishman.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Medical education researchers are inherently collaborators. This paper presents a discussion of theoretical frameworks, issues and challenges around collaborative research to prepare medical education researchers to enter into successful collaborations. It gives emphasis to the conceptual issues associated with collaborative research and applies these to medical education research. Although not a systematic literature review, the paper provides a rich discussion of issues which medical education researchers might consider when undertaking collaborative studies.
METHODS: Building on the work of others, we have classified collaborative research in three dimensions according to: the number of administrative units represented; the number of academic fields present, and the manner in which knowledge is created. Although some literature on collaboration focuses on the more traditional positivist perspective and emphasises outcomes, other literature comes from the constructivist framework, in which research is not driven by hypotheses and the approaches emphasised, but by the interaction between investigator and subject. DISCUSSION: Collaborations are more effective when participants overtly clarify their motivations, values, definitions of appropriate data and accepted methodologies. These should be agreed upon prior to commencing a study. The way we currently educate researchers should be restructured if we want them to be able to undertake interdisciplinary research. Despite calls for researchers to be educated differently, most training programmes for developing researchers have demonstrated a limited, if not contrary, response to these calls.
CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative research in medical education should be driven by the problem being investigated, by the new knowledge gained and by the interpersonal interactions that may be achieved. Success rests on recognising that many of the research problems we, as medical educators, address are fundamentally interdisciplinary in nature. This represents a transition to bridge the dichotomy often presented in medical education between theory building and addressing practical needs. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2010.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21070341     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03768.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  6 in total

1.  Finding Our Way Through Shades of Gray: 6 Virtues to Guide Researchers in Planning, Conducting, and Writing Up Research.

Authors:  Bridget C O'Brien; Dorene F Balmer; Lauren A Maggio
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2017-10

2.  Medical education practice-based research networks: Facilitating collaborative research.

Authors:  Alan Schwartz; Robin Young; Patricia J Hicks
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 3.650

3.  Interdisciplinarity in medical education research: myth and reality.

Authors:  Mathieu Albert; Paula Rowland; Farah Friesen; Suzanne Laberge
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 3.853

Review 4.  Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jocelyn Huang Schiller; Gary L Beck Dallaghan; Terry Kind; Heather McLauchlan; Joseph Gigante; Sherilyn Smith
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2017-10-01

5.  Conducting multicenter research in healthcare simulation: Lessons learned from the INSPIRE network.

Authors:  Adam Cheng; David Kessler; Ralph Mackinnon; Todd P Chang; Vinay M Nadkarni; Elizabeth A Hunt; Jordan Duval-Arnould; Yiqun Lin; Martin Pusic; Marc Auerbach
Journal:  Adv Simul (Lond)       Date:  2017-02-28

6.  Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Meta-research examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation.

Authors:  Lauren A Maggio; Anton Ninkov; Joseph A Costello; Erik W Driessen; Anthony R Artino
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.