Lara Varpio1, Rola Ajjawi2, Lynn V Monrouxe3, Bridget C O'Brien4, Charlotte E Rees5. 1. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 2. Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Chang Gung Medical Education Research Centre, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan. 4. Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 5. HealthPEER (Health Professions Education and Education Research), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Qualitative research is widely accepted as a legitimate approach to inquiry in health professions education (HPE). To secure this status, qualitative researchers have developed a variety of strategies (e.g. reliance on post-positivist qualitative methodologies, use of different rhetorical techniques, etc.) to facilitate the acceptance of their research methodologies and methods by the HPE community. Although these strategies have supported the acceptance of qualitative research in HPE, they have also brought about some unintended consequences. One of these consequences is that some HPE scholars have begun to use terms in qualitative publications without critically reflecting on: (i) their ontological and epistemological roots; (ii) their definitions, or (iii) their implications. OBJECTIVES: In this paper, we share our critical reflections on four qualitative terms popularly used in the HPE literature: thematic emergence; triangulation; saturation, and member checking. METHODS: We discuss the methodological origins of these terms and the applications supported by these origins. We reflect critically on how these four terms became expected of qualitative research in HPE, and we reconsider their meanings and use by drawing on the broader qualitative methodology literature. CONCLUSIONS: Through this examination, we hope to encourage qualitative scholars in HPE to avoid using qualitative terms uncritically and non-reflexively.
CONTEXT: Qualitative research is widely accepted as a legitimate approach to inquiry in health professions education (HPE). To secure this status, qualitative researchers have developed a variety of strategies (e.g. reliance on post-positivist qualitative methodologies, use of different rhetorical techniques, etc.) to facilitate the acceptance of their research methodologies and methods by the HPE community. Although these strategies have supported the acceptance of qualitative research in HPE, they have also brought about some unintended consequences. One of these consequences is that some HPE scholars have begun to use terms in qualitative publications without critically reflecting on: (i) their ontological and epistemological roots; (ii) their definitions, or (iii) their implications. OBJECTIVES: In this paper, we share our critical reflections on four qualitative terms popularly used in the HPE literature: thematic emergence; triangulation; saturation, and member checking. METHODS: We discuss the methodological origins of these terms and the applications supported by these origins. We reflect critically on how these four terms became expected of qualitative research in HPE, and we reconsider their meanings and use by drawing on the broader qualitative methodology literature. CONCLUSIONS: Through this examination, we hope to encourage qualitative scholars in HPE to avoid using qualitative terms uncritically and non-reflexively.
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Sarah L Goff; Gwendolyn Downs; Robert J Wenger; Peter K Lindenauer; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Teresa M Chan; Jaime Jordan; Samuel O Clarke; Luan Lawson; Wendy C Coates; Lalena M Yarris; Sally A Santen; Michael Gottlieb Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2022-02-01
Authors: Stefanie S Sebok-Syer; Lisa Shepherd; Allison McConnell; Adam M Dukelow; Robert Sedran; Lorelei Lingard Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2020-08-09
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; William E Soares; Emily M Schaeffer; Jacob Gitlin; Kimberly Burke; Lauren M Westafer Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 3.451