Bridget C O'Brien1, David M Irby, Steven J Durning, Stanley J Hamstra, Wendy C Y Hu, Larry D Gruppen, Lara Varpio. 1. B.C. O'Brien is associate professor of medicine, Department of Medicine, and senior scholar, Center for Faculty Educators, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9591-5243. D.M. Irby is professor emeritus of medicine, Department of Medicine, and senior scholar, Center for Faculty Educators, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. S.J. Durning is professor of medicine and director of graduate programs in health professions education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland. S.J. Hamstra is vice president, Milestones Research and Evaluation, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, Illinois, adjunct professor, Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and adjunct professor, Department of Medical Education, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. W.C.Y. Hu is professor of medical education, School of Medicine, and associate dean for learning and innovation, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1711-3808. L.D. Gruppen is professor, Department of Learning Health Sciences, and director, Masters of Health Professions Education Program, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. L. Varpio is professor of medicine and associate director of research, graduate programs in health professions education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) in the United States are large in number and diverse in purpose, activities, and contributions. Although each of these units shares a commitment to scholarship, there is no synthetic framework to accurately represent and evaluate their activities and contributions. This study aimed to provide such a framework. METHOD: The authors examined data collected from 11 U.S. HPESU directors. Interviews occurred between April 2015 and February 2016. The research team used a combination of deductive and inductive qualitative techniques to analyze the interview transcripts. The deductive portion drew on Boyer's four-part framework of scholarship; the inductive portion produced a new conceptualization of scholarship at the HPESU level. RESULTS: The scholarly activities of HPESUs generally align with Boyer's four types of scholarship-discovery, integration, application, and teaching. However, this categorization fails to capture the interconnectedness and variety of purposes served by these activities. Both are important when considering how best to represent the scholarly contributions made by HPESUs. From their analysis of interviews, the authors developed a three-part framework characterizing HPESU scholarly activities: supporting a scholarly approach to education, supporting educational scholarship within the institution, and supporting HPESU members' scholarship. CONCLUSIONS: The authors contend that the three-part, unit-level framework for scholarship constructed in this study brings clarity and understanding to the purpose, activities, and contributions made by HPESUs in the United States. The proposed framework may allow unit directors to better justify and advocate for the resources needed to further promote the work of HPESUs.
PURPOSE: Health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) in the United States are large in number and diverse in purpose, activities, and contributions. Although each of these units shares a commitment to scholarship, there is no synthetic framework to accurately represent and evaluate their activities and contributions. This study aimed to provide such a framework. METHOD: The authors examined data collected from 11 U.S. HPESU directors. Interviews occurred between April 2015 and February 2016. The research team used a combination of deductive and inductive qualitative techniques to analyze the interview transcripts. The deductive portion drew on Boyer's four-part framework of scholarship; the inductive portion produced a new conceptualization of scholarship at the HPESU level. RESULTS: The scholarly activities of HPESUs generally align with Boyer's four types of scholarship-discovery, integration, application, and teaching. However, this categorization fails to capture the interconnectedness and variety of purposes served by these activities. Both are important when considering how best to represent the scholarly contributions made by HPESUs. From their analysis of interviews, the authors developed a three-part framework characterizing HPESU scholarly activities: supporting a scholarly approach to education, supporting educational scholarship within the institution, and supporting HPESU members' scholarship. CONCLUSIONS: The authors contend that the three-part, unit-level framework for scholarship constructed in this study brings clarity and understanding to the purpose, activities, and contributions made by HPESUs in the United States. The proposed framework may allow unit directors to better justify and advocate for the resources needed to further promote the work of HPESUs.
Authors: Susan van Schalkwyk; Bridget C O'Brien; Cees van der Vleuten; Tim J Wilkinson; Ilse Meyer; Anna M S Schmutz; Lara Varpio Journal: Perspect Med Educ Date: 2020-12