Section of Medical Education, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Department of Pediatrics, Rhode Island Hospital and The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Med Educ. 2017 Jun;51(6):621-632. doi: 10.1111/medu.13280.
The function of medical school entities that determine student advancement or dismissal has gone largely unexplored. The decision making of 'academic progress' or student promotions committees is examined using a theoretical framework contrasting ethics of justice and care, with roots in the moral development work of theorists Kohlberg and Gilligan.
To ascertain promotions committee members' conceptualisation of the role of their committee, ethical orientations used in member decision making, and student characteristics most influential in that decision making.
An electronic survey was distributed to voting members of promotions committees at 143 accredited allopathic medical schools in the USA. Descriptive statistics were calculated and data were analysed by gender, role, institution type and class size.
Respondents included 241 voting members of promotions committees at 55 medical schools. Respondents endorsed various promotions committee roles, including acting in the best interest of learners' future patients and graduating highly qualified learners. Implementing policy was assigned lower importance. The overall pattern of responses did not indicate a predominant orientation toward an ethic of justice or care. Respondents indicated that committees have discretion to take individual student characteristics into consideration during deliberations, and that they do so in practice. Among the student characteristics with the greatest influence on decision making, professionalism and academic performance were paramount. Eighty-five per cent of participants indicated that they received no training.
Promotions committee members do not regard orientations of justice and care as being mutually exclusive and endorse an array of statements regarding the committee's purpose that may conflict with one another. The considerable variance in the influence of student characteristics and the general absence of committee member training indicate a need for clear delineation of the medical profession's priorities in terms of justice and care, and of the specific student characteristics that should factor into deliberations.
医学院实体决定学生进步或退学的功能在很大程度上尚未得到探索。使用对比正义伦理和关怀伦理的理论框架来考察“学业进步”或学生晋升委员会的决策,其根源在于理论家科尔伯格和吉利根的道德发展工作。
确定晋升委员会成员对其委员会角色的概念化、成员决策中使用的道德取向,以及对该决策影响最大的学生特征。
向美国 143 所认可的全医学院晋升委员会的投票成员分发了电子调查。计算了描述性统计数据,并按性别、角色、机构类型和班级规模对数据进行了分析。
55 所医学院的 241 名晋升委员会投票成员做出了回应。受访者认可了各种晋升委员会的角色,包括为学习者未来的患者利益行事和培养高素质的学习者。实施政策的重要性较低。总体回应模式并未表明存在以正义伦理或关怀伦理为主导的倾向。受访者表示,委员会在审议期间有权考虑个别学生的特征,并且实际上是这样做的。在对决策影响最大的学生特征中,专业精神和学业表现至关重要。85%的参与者表示他们没有接受过培训。
晋升委员会成员不认为正义和关怀取向相互排斥,并认可一系列可能相互冲突的委员会宗旨陈述。学生特征的影响差异很大,委员会成员普遍缺乏培训,这表明需要明确界定医学专业在正义和关怀方面的优先事项,以及应纳入审议的具体学生特征。