When I say … interprofessional collaboration

Abstract

In The Ethics of Rhetoric, Weaver introduced the concept of a ‘god-term’—statements deemed inherently persuasive and beyond debate.¹ In health professions education (HPE), ‘collaboration’ has reached god-term status, regarded as a universally good practice within and across disciplines. For over a generation, educators have reinforced the god-term status of collaboration and its undisputed value through growing efforts in curricula, experiential learning and professional socialisation. Alongside this, interprofessional education (IPE) has become an accreditation requirement for most programmes. Various practices of learning about, from and with other professions are meant to win the hearts and minds of students with respect to the intrinsic value and importance of interprofessional collaboration in both learning and practice. Unfortunately, the god-term status of ‘collaboration’ has narrowed opportunities for critical reflection and drawn attention to IPE curricula that meet mandatory accreditation standards without a clear-eyed focus on the value the relational process of interprofessional collaboration creates.

Haddara and Lingard have raised a critical voice that highlights the lack of a single, coherent definition of interprofessional collaboration in HPE.² In addition, varied and disparate mental models create tensions in IPE's conceptualisation, implementation and assessment. These divergent foundations, described as emancipatory and utilitarian visions of collaboration, foster mixed messaging and confusion at the coalface. Gunaldo et al. also suggest lack of clarity in terminology has impeded progress and potentially lead to confusion about research in the interprofessional field.³

IPE proponents seek to enhance collaborative practice through system-level solutions—expanding scopes of practice, removing legal barriers, improving shared records, or updating reimbursement models. While valuable, so far, the evidence that IPE leads to meaningful, sustainable changes in practice is limited.^{4, 5} For many health professionals, experiences of interprofessional collaboration remain suboptimal.

IPE emphasises concrete models of collaboration, making it more practical than theoretical, which helps students envision day-to-day collaborative practice. However, presenting collaboration as an idealised ‘destination’ reinforces unrealistic expectations. Non-physician professionals may expect their opinions to be instantly valued due to IPE principles, then feel disillusioned when they must first earn trust from physician colleagues. Conversely, physicians may feel burdened by the extra time and emotional effort required to engage across professions, sometimes with limited perceived benefit.

This disconnect may stem from framing interprofessional collaboration as a fixed state achieved through education, rather than a fluid, evolving process refined with deliberate practice and feedback. Unlike citizenship or tenure, collaboration is not bounded or permanent. It fluctuates, influenced by external factors—good on some days, strained on others. It is deeply relational, shaped by emotions, interpersonal dynamics, hierarchy and questions of professional identity and self-worth,^{3, 6} which traditional descriptions of IPE may only partially address.³ At its core, collaboration represents human interaction within a specific social context. IPE has focused heavily on context—roles, systems and structures—without also providing students with interpersonal skills that underpin interprofessional collaboration. This focus has been necessary but insufficient.

Viewing interprofessional collaboration as a relational process—not a destination—highlights that while there are some useful conceptual approaches, there is no universal model. Collaboration is dynamic, negotiated moment-to-moment, shaped by individual needs, expectations and personalities. Teaching interprofessional collaboration, then, is akin to preparing someone for any high stakes human relationship. Contextual knowledge (e.g., roles and boundaries) is important, but success depends on nuanced interpersonal skills. Thus, collaboration is enacted by teachable and observable communication and team learning skills that learners can practice, enact and refine.⁷ The interactional nature of these interpersonal skills makes the nuanced use of contextualised language even more important.

Effective interprofessional collaboration requires emotional intelligence; verbal, gestural and paraverbal communication skills; conflict management; self-regulation; and empathy. As no one relationship model suits everyone, no one-size-fits-all approach to interprofessional collaboration will meet the needs of every practitioner or patient. Educators should avoid promoting a singular vision of collaboration, much like parents should not dictate their child's career pathway.

Instead, interprofessional activities should help learners develop the necessary interpersonal skills to navigate diverse professional relationships across the collaboration continuum. Highly productive teams may not appear ‘collaborative’ in traditional terms yet function effectively. A relational approach to IPE emphasises skills like self-awareness, constructive conflict, negotiation and emotional regulation—areas often underrepresented in competency-based curricula. This relational focus can help to prevent conflict and also help to address conflict when it occurs.

An interprofessional collaboration curriculum focused on relational skills poses challenges. It resists standardisation, requiring flexibility, customisation and deeper engagement. And it takes more time—the currency of contemporary curricula. However, its benefits extend beyond fostering collaboration—it cultivates more empathetic, adaptive and resilient health care professionals. And since this aspect has not been a traditional focus of HPE, educators will require significant training and preparation to design and debrief meaningful learning experiences with relational skills as the main learning outcome. By reframing interprofessional collaboration around relationship management, learners will be able to navigate complex health care environments that challenge ideal notions of collaboration. Adaptability, communication skills and emotional intelligence reflect key competencies that improve teamwork and patient care.

Reframing interprofessional collaboration as relational rather than destinational is not radical but invites educators to expand the focus beyond context and structure to interpersonal dynamics. While existing IPE frameworks remain valuable, we must also attend to relational skills that support and sustain real-world collaboration within and across professions. As health care evolves—with the rise of AI, increased political polarisation and persistent workforce challenges—preparing practitioners for flexible, adaptive interprofessional collaboration becomes even more important. By removing interprofessional collaboration from its god-term pedestal and grounding it in relational realities, we acknowledge its nuance—not as an unquestioned ideal, but as a daily practice shaped by connections. In doing this, we can not only teach interprofessional collaboration more honestly, but also we honour its complexity and its potential to truly transform care.

Zubin Austin: Conceptualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Walter Eppich: Conceptualization; writing—review and editing. Tina Brock: Conceptualization; writing—review and editing; project administration.