Wilson Centre and Departement of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Centre for Faculty Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto at St. Michaels Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020 Aug;25(3):755-767. doi: 10.1007/s10459-019-09911-7. Epub 2019 Aug 20.
This article critically examines three assumptions underlying recent efforts to advance interdisciplinary research-defined in this article as communication and collaboration between researchers across academic disciplines (e.g. Sociology, Psychology, Biology)-and examines these assumptions' implications for health professions education research (HPER). These assumptions are: (1) disciplines are silos that inhibit the free flowing of knowledge across fields and stifle innovative thinking; (2) interdisciplinary research generates a better understanding of the world as it brings together researchers from various fields of expertise capable of tackling complex problems; and (3) interdisciplinary research reduces fragmentation across groups of researchers by eliminating boundaries. These assumptions are among the new beliefs shaping the contemporary academic arena; they orient academics' and university administrators' decisions toward expanding interdisciplinary research and training, but without solid empirical evidence. This article argues that the field of HPER has largely adopted the premises of interdisciplinary research but has not yet debated the potential effects of organizing around these premises. The authors hope to inspire members of the HPER community to critically examine the ubiquitous discourse promoting interdisciplinarity, and engage in reflection about the future of the field informed by evidence rather than by unsubstantiated assumptions. For example: Should research centres and graduate programs in HPER encourage the development of interdisciplinary or disciplinary-trained researchers? Should training predominantly focus on methods and methodologies or draw more on disciplinary-based knowledge? What is the best route toward increasing the field's profile within academia and attracting the best students and researchers to engage in HPER? These are questions that merit attention at the current juncture as the future of the HPER field relies on decisions made in the present time.
本文批判性地审视了最近推动跨学科研究努力的三个假设——本文将跨学科研究定义为不同学术领域(如社会学、心理学、生物学)的研究人员之间的交流与合作——并考察了这些假设对健康职业教育研究(HPER)的影响。这些假设是:(1)学科是阻碍知识在各领域自由流动和扼杀创新思维的壁垒;(2)跨学科研究汇集了来自不同专业领域的研究人员,能够解决复杂问题,从而更好地理解世界;(3)跨学科研究通过消除边界减少了研究人员群体之间的碎片化。这些假设是塑造当代学术领域的新信念之一;它们引导学者和大学管理人员做出扩大跨学科研究和培训的决策,但缺乏坚实的经验证据。本文认为,HPER 领域在很大程度上采纳了跨学科研究的前提条件,但尚未就围绕这些前提条件组织工作的潜在影响展开辩论。作者希望激励 HPER 社区的成员批判性地审视普遍存在的倡导跨学科性的话语,并在证据而非未经证实的假设的基础上,就该领域的未来进行思考。例如:HPER 的研究中心和研究生项目是否应鼓励培养跨学科或学科训练有素的研究人员?培训应主要侧重于方法和方法论,还是更多地依赖于基于学科的知识?在提高该领域在学术界的知名度并吸引最优秀的学生和研究人员参与 HPER 方面,最好的途径是什么?这些问题在当前时刻值得关注,因为 HPER 领域的未来取决于当下的决策。