Center for Education Development and Research in Health Professions (CEDAR), LEARN, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Communication and Information Studies, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2019 Oct;24(4):725-737. doi: 10.1007/s10459-019-09894-5. Epub 2019 May 8.
Health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) are increasingly becoming a standard for medical schools worldwide without having much information about their value and role in actual educational practices, particularly of those who work in these units, the educational scientists. We conducted a linguistic analysis, called Membership Categorization Analysis, of interviews with leaders of recent curriculum changes to explore how they talk about educational scientists in relation to these processes. The analysis was conducted on previously collected interview data with nine change leaders of major undergraduate medical curriculum change processes in the Netherlands. We analyzed how change leaders categorize HPESUs and educational scientists (use of category terms) and what they say about them (predicates). We noticed two ways of categorizing educational scientists, with observable different predicates. Educational scientists categorized by their first name were suggested to be closer to the change process, more involved in decisional practices and positively described, whereas those described in more generic terms were represented in terms of relatively passive and unspecified activities, were less explicit referenced for their knowledge and expertise and were predominantly factually or negatively described. This study shows an ambiguous portrayal of educational scientists by leaders of major curriculum change processes. Medical schools are challenged to establish medical curricula in consultation with a large, diverse and interdisciplinary stakeholder group. We suggest that it is important to invest in interpersonal relationships to strengthen the internal collaborations and make sure people are aware of each other's existence and roles in the process of curriculum development.
卫生专业教育学术单位 (HPESUs) 在全球范围内越来越成为医学院的标准，但对于其在实际教育实践中的价值和作用，尤其是对于那些在这些单位工作的教育科学家，了解甚少。我们对最近课程改革领导者的访谈进行了语言分析，即成员分类分析，以探讨他们如何在这些过程中谈论教育科学家。该分析基于对荷兰九位主要本科医学课程改革过程的变革领导者的先前收集的访谈数据进行。我们分析了变革领导者如何对 HPESUs 和教育科学家进行分类（使用类别术语），以及他们对这些术语的描述（谓语）。我们注意到了两种对教育科学家进行分类的方式，其谓语存在明显差异。用名字称呼的教育科学家被认为更接近变革过程，更多地参与决策实践，并得到积极描述，而那些以更通用术语描述的教育科学家则被描述为相对被动和不明确的活动，他们的知识和专业技能的提及较少，主要是基于事实或负面描述。本研究表明，主要课程改革领导者对教育科学家的描绘存在模糊性。医学院面临着与庞大、多样化和跨学科利益相关者群体协商制定医学课程的挑战。我们建议，投资于人际关系以加强内部合作并确保人们了解彼此在课程开发过程中的存在和角色非常重要。
