Lara Varpio1, Bridget O'Brien2, Charlotte E Rees3,4, Lynn Monrouxe5, Rola Ajjawi6, Elise Paradis7. 1. Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA. 2. Department of Medicine and Center for Faculty Educators, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. College of Science, Health, and Education (SHEE), Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia. 4. Monash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education (MCSHE), Monash University, Clayton, Vic, Australia. 5. Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Syndey, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 6. Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia. 7. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Research in health professions education (HPE) spans an array of topics and draws from a diversity of research domains , which brings richness to our understanding of complex phenomena and challenges us to appreciate different approaches to studying them. To fully appreciate and benefit from this diversity, scholars in HPE must be savvy to the hallmarks of rigour that differ across research approaches. In the absence of such recognition, the valuable contributions of many high-quality studies risk being undermined. METHODS: In this article, we delve into two constructs---generalisability and bias--that are commonly invoked in discussions of rigour in health professions education research. We inspect the meaning and applicability of these constructs to research conducted from different paradigms (i.e., positivist and constructivist) and orientations (i.e., objectivist and subjectivist) and then describe how scholars can demonstrate rigour when these constructs do not align with the assumptions underpinning their research. CONCLUSIONS: A one-size-fits-all approach to evaluating the rigour of HPE research disadvantages some approaches and threatens to reduce the diversity of research in our field. Generalisability and bias are two examples of problematic constructs within paradigms that embrace subjectivity; others are equally problematic. As a way forward, we encourage HPE scholars to inspect their assumptions about the nature and purpose of research-both to defend research rigour in their own studies and to ensure they apply standards of rigour that align with research they read and review.
CONTEXT: Research in health professions education (HPE) spans an array of topics and draws from a diversity of research domains , which brings richness to our understanding of complex phenomena and challenges us to appreciate different approaches to studying them. To fully appreciate and benefit from this diversity, scholars in HPE must be savvy to the hallmarks of rigour that differ across research approaches. In the absence of such recognition, the valuable contributions of many high-quality studies risk being undermined. METHODS: In this article, we delve into two constructs---generalisability and bias--that are commonly invoked in discussions of rigour in health professions education research. We inspect the meaning and applicability of these constructs to research conducted from different paradigms (i.e., positivist and constructivist) and orientations (i.e., objectivist and subjectivist) and then describe how scholars can demonstrate rigour when these constructs do not align with the assumptions underpinning their research. CONCLUSIONS: A one-size-fits-all approach to evaluating the rigour of HPE research disadvantages some approaches and threatens to reduce the diversity of research in our field. Generalisability and bias are two examples of problematic constructs within paradigms that embrace subjectivity; others are equally problematic. As a way forward, we encourage HPE scholars to inspect their assumptions about the nature and purpose of research-both to defend research rigour in their own studies and to ensure they apply standards of rigour that align with research they read and review.