Literature DB >> 30192021

Thinking of selection and widening access as complex and wicked problems.

Jennifer A Cleland1, Fiona Patterson2, Mark D Hanson3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: 'Wicked problems' are complex in nature, have innumerable causes associated with multiple social environments and actors with unpredictable behaviour and outcomes, and are difficult to define or even resolve. This paper considers why and how the frameworks of complexity theory and wicked problems can help medical educators consider selection and widening access (WA) to medicine through fresh eyes to guide future policy and practice. We illustrate how 'wickedity' can frame the key issues in this area, and then address steps that education stakeholders might take to respond to and act on these issues.
METHODS: We used the 10 properties of a wicked problem to frame common issues in the broad field of selection and WA in medicine. We drew heavily on literature from different disciplines, particularly education, and, through debate and reflection, agreed on the applicability of the theory for illuminating and potentially addressing outstanding issues in selection and WA.
RESULTS: Framing medical school selection using the 10 properties of wicked problems is a means of shifting thinking from erroneous 'simple' solutions to thinking more contextually and receptively. The wicked problem framework positions selection as a multi-causal, complex, dynamic, social problem and foregrounds stakeholders' views and context as being highly relevant in medical school selection.
CONCLUSIONS: The wicked problem lens shifts thinking and action from seeking one elusive, objective truth to recognising the complexity of medical school selection, managing uncertainty, questioning and considering 'issues' associated with medical school selection more productively. Although there are criticisms of this framework, labelling medical selection as 'wicked' provides original insights and genuine reframing of the challenges of this important, and high profile, aspect of medical education. Doing so, in turn, opens the door to different responses than would be the case if selection and WA were simple and readily tamed.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30192021     DOI: 10.1111/medu.13670

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


  5 in total

1.  Getting to know our non-traditional and rejected medical school applicants.

Authors:  Anouk Wouters
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2020-06

2.  From struggle to opportunity: Reimagining medical education in a pandemic era.

Authors:  Sarah Burm; Victoria Luong; Kori LaDonna; Bryce Bogie; Lindsay Cowley; Jennifer M Klasen; Anna MacLeod
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2022-03-14

3.  BMAT's predictive validity for medical school performance: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Daniel J Davies; Amir H Sam; Kevin G Murphy; Shahid A Khan; Ruth Choe; Jennifer Cleland
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 7.647

4.  Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Canadian medical students: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Rishad Khan; Tavis Apramian; Joel Hosung Kang; Jeffrey Gustafson; Shannon Sibbald
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 2.463

5.  "You can't always get what you want…": economic thinking, constrained optimization and health professions education.

Authors:  J A Cleland; J Foo; D Ilic; S Maloney; Y You
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 3.853

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.