Centre for Biomedicine and Society, King's College London, London, UK.
Med Educ. 2010 Jul;44(7):645-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03680.x.
Most basic medical education studies focus on one medical school, and the social and educational significance of differences between schools remains poorly understood. Sociologists have called for more comparative studies and for research on the institutional context of medical education. This paper introduces Bourdieu's concept of 'field' as a tool for conducting such analyses.
A 'field' is any arena in which there is a struggle over resources (capital), akin to a 'game' between players who occupy different positions depending on the resources they have. Prior studies show that higher education institutions compete in a field for various forms of capital which are reflected in their curricula and the students they attract.
This paper argues that medical education can be conceptualised as a field within which medical schools compete for different forms of capital, such as students, funding and prestige. The structure of the UK medical education field is analysed as a specific example of how Bourdieu's framework can be applied. It is argued that UK medical schools' varying curricula and admissions criteria serve to distinguish them from their competitors and to facilitate access to different forms of capital. Competition within the field helps to maintain inter-school differences, with implications for both curriculum reform and students' beliefs and aspirations.
Medical schools have varying curricula, reputations, and types and levels of resources. They compete with one another on all these fronts and attract different types of students and staff. Research and practice in basic medical education must take account of the position of any given medical school in relation to its competitors and to external agencies in order to critically consider the ethos of its curriculum and the perspectives of its students and staff. Bourdieu's concept of field offers one useful way of accomplishing this.
大多数基础医学教育研究都集中在一所医学院校,而学校之间的社会和教育差异的重要性仍未得到充分理解。社会学家呼吁进行更多的比较研究,并研究医学教育的制度背景。本文引入了布迪厄的“场域”概念,作为进行此类分析的工具。
“场域”是指任何存在资源(资本)竞争的领域,类似于参与者在其中根据所拥有的资源占据不同位置的“游戏”。先前的研究表明,高等教育机构在一个争夺各种形式资本的场域中竞争,这些资本反映在它们的课程和吸引的学生中。
本文认为,医学教育可以被概念化为一个场域,在这个场域中,医学院校争夺不同形式的资本,如学生、资金和声誉。本文分析了英国医学教育场域的结构,以此为例说明如何应用布迪厄的框架。本文认为,英国医学院校不同的课程和录取标准有助于将它们与竞争对手区分开来,并为不同形式的资本提供便利。场域内的竞争有助于维持学校之间的差异,这对课程改革以及学生的信念和愿望都有影响。
医学院校的课程、声誉和类型以及资源水平各不相同。它们在所有这些方面相互竞争,并吸引不同类型的学生和教职员工。基础医学教育的研究和实践必须考虑到任何给定医学院校相对于其竞争对手以及外部机构的地位,以便批判性地考虑其课程的精神以及学生和教职员工的观点。布迪厄的场域概念提供了一种有用的方法来实现这一目标。