نبذة مختصرة : Introduction: The medical education research field operates at the crossroads of two distinct academic worlds: higher education and medicine. As such, this field provides a unique opportunity to explore new forms of cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange.
Methods: Cross-disciplinary knowledge flow in medical education research was examined by looking at citation patterns in the five journals with the highest impact factor in 2017. To grasp the specificities of the knowledge flow in medical education, the field of higher education was used as a comparator. In total, 2031 citations from 64 medical education and 41 higher education articles published in 2017 were examined.
Results: Medical education researchers draw on a narrower range of knowledge communities than their peers in higher education. Medical education researchers predominantly cite articles published in health and medical education journals (80% of all citations), and to a lesser extent, articles published in education and social science journals. In higher education, while the largest share of the cited literature is internal to the domain (36%), researchers cite literature from across the social science spectrum. Findings suggest that higher education scholars engage in conversations with academics from a broader range of communities and perspectives than their medical education colleagues.
Discussion: Using Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of doxa and field, it is argued that the variety of epistemic cultures entering the higher education research space contributes to its interdisciplinary nature. Conversely, the existence of a relatively homogeneous epistemic culture in medicine potentially impedes cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange.
(© 2021. The Author(s).)
References: Truc A, Santerre O, Gingras Y, et al. The interdisciplinarity of economics.. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669335 . Accessed 8 July 2021.
Porter AA, Rafols I. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics. 2009;81:719–45. (PMID: 10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2)
Larivière V, Gingras Y. Measuring interdisciplinarity. In: Sugimoto CCCR, editor. Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2014. pp. 187–200.
Chen S, Arsenault C, Gingras Y, et al. Exploring the interdisciplinary evolution of a discipline: the case of biochemistry and molecular biology. Scientometrics. 2015;102:1307–23. (PMID: 10.1007/s11192-014-1457-6)
Newell WH. A theory of interdisciplinary studies. Issues Integr Stud. 2001;19:1–25.
Szostak R. The interdisciplinary research process. In: Repko AF, Newell WH, Szostak R, editors. Case studies in interdisciplinary research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2012. pp. 3–20. (PMID: 10.4135/9781483349541.n1)
Albert M, Rowland P, Friesen F, et al. Interdisciplinarity in medical education research: myth and reality. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2020;25:1243–53. (PMID: 10.1007/s10459-020-09977-8)
Bourdieu P. Pascalian meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2000.
Bourdieu P. Science of science and reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2004.
Albert M, Paradis E, Kuper A. Interdisciplinary promises versus practices in medicine: the decoupled experiences of social sciences and humanities scholars. Soc Sci Med. 2015;126:17–25. (PMID: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.004)
Albert M, Paradis E, Kuper A. Interdisciplinary fantasy: social scientists and humanities scholars working in faculties of medicine. In: Frickel S, Albert M, Prainsack B, editors. Investigating interdisciplinary collaboration: theory and practice across disciplines. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press; 2017. pp. 84–103.
Jacobs JA. In defense of disciplines Interdisciplinarity and specialization in the research university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2014. (PMID: 10.7208/chicago/9780226069463.001.0001)
Bridges D. Philosophy in educational research. Epistemology, ethics, politics and quality. Cham: Springer; 2017.
Furlong J. Education. An anatomy of the discipline. New York: Routledge; 2013. (PMID: 10.4324/9780203078853)
Becher T, Trowler PR. Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press; 2001.
Cate OT. Health professions education scholarship: the emergence, current status, and future of a discipline in its own right. FASEB Bioadvances. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1096/fba.2021-00011. (PMID: 10.1096/fba.2021-00011)
Eakin JM. Educating critical qualitative health researchers in the land of the randomized controlled trial. Qual Enq. 2016;22:107–18. (PMID: 10.1177/1077800415617207)
Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, et al. An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research. BMJ. 2016;352:i563. (PMID: 10.1136/bmj.i563)
Albert M, Laberge S, Hodges BD, et al. Biomedical scientists’ perception of social science in health research. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66:2520–31. (PMID: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.052)
Kontos P, Grigorovich A. “Sleight of hand” or “selling our soul”? Surviving and thriving as critical qualitative health researchers in a positivist world. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2018;19:25.
Mykhalovskiy E, Choinière J, Armstrong P, et al. Health matters. Evidence, critical social science, and health care in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2020. (PMID: 10.3138/9781487536961)
Goldenberg MJ. On evidence-based medicine: lessons from the philosophy of science. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:2621–32. (PMID: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.031)
Timmermans S, Berg M. The gold standard: the challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 2003.
Kneebone R. Total internal reflection: an essay on paradigms. Med Educ. 2002;36:514–8. (PMID: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01224.x)
Albert M, Laberge S, Hodges BD. Boundary-work in the health research field: biomedical and clinician scientists’ perceptions of social science research. Minerva. 2009;47:171–94. (PMID: 10.1007/s11024-009-9120-8)
Webster F, Gastaldo D, Durant S, et al. Doing science differently: a framework for assessing the careers of qualitative scholars in the health sciences. Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18:1–7. (PMID: 10.1177/1609406919838676)
Albert M, Laberge S, McGuire W. Criteria for assessing quality in academic research: the views of biomedical scientists, clinical scientists and social scientists. High Educ. 2012;64:661–76. (PMID: 10.1007/s10734-012-9519-2)
Lamont M. How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2009. (PMID: 10.4159/9780674054158)
Processing Request
No Comments.