Protectionist politics: A postcolonial analysis of the discourse introducing the UK's medical training prioritisation bill.

IF 6.2 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Mo Al-Haddad, Mohammed Ahmed Rashid
{"title":"Protectionist politics: A postcolonial analysis of the discourse introducing the UK's medical training prioritisation bill.","authors":"Mo Al-Haddad, Mohammed Ahmed Rashid","doi":"10.1111/medu.70341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Rising nationalist sentiment and backlash against equity, diversity and inclusion are reshaping Western political discourse, increasingly framing international medical graduates (IMGs) as threats despite health systems' reliance on them. In January 2026, the UK Parliament introduced the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill, prioritising UK graduates over IMGs-a stark reversal of the UK's previous equity commitments, with implications beyond the UK. Using postcolonial theory, we conducted a Critical Discourse Analysis of media, documents and parliamentary transcripts to examine the discourse that justified the Bill and its connection to historic power dynamics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic database searches (LexisNexis U, PubMed, Google advanced search and Google Scholar) were used to generate a corpus of documents published between the first and third reading of the Bill in UK Parliament, 13 January 2026 to 27 January 2026. The corpus was analysed using critical discourse analysis informed by the contrapuntal method of Edward W. Said, a prominent postcolonial theorist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one documents were identified from government departments, national organisations, medical unions and associations, and the medical and national press. The dominant discourse was that of protection of UKMGs and UK interests from IMGs. It positioned UKMGs as being superior to IMGs. The Bill was presented as urgent without a clear rationale for what was driving this urgency. Finally, a notably minor discourse was that of inversion that advocated for IMGs as worthy of protection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As anti-migration narratives become more widespread globally, the framing of health-care worker migration policy will be increasingly significant to those recruiting and training them. The shift in discourse that introduced new medical training legislation in the UK should alert health professions educators, leaders and policymakers to the potential impact on IMG experiences and to further shifts in the depiction of IMGs at work and in public.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.70341","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Rising nationalist sentiment and backlash against equity, diversity and inclusion are reshaping Western political discourse, increasingly framing international medical graduates (IMGs) as threats despite health systems' reliance on them. In January 2026, the UK Parliament introduced the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill, prioritising UK graduates over IMGs-a stark reversal of the UK's previous equity commitments, with implications beyond the UK. Using postcolonial theory, we conducted a Critical Discourse Analysis of media, documents and parliamentary transcripts to examine the discourse that justified the Bill and its connection to historic power dynamics.

Methods: Systematic database searches (LexisNexis U, PubMed, Google advanced search and Google Scholar) were used to generate a corpus of documents published between the first and third reading of the Bill in UK Parliament, 13 January 2026 to 27 January 2026. The corpus was analysed using critical discourse analysis informed by the contrapuntal method of Edward W. Said, a prominent postcolonial theorist.

Results: Thirty-one documents were identified from government departments, national organisations, medical unions and associations, and the medical and national press. The dominant discourse was that of protection of UKMGs and UK interests from IMGs. It positioned UKMGs as being superior to IMGs. The Bill was presented as urgent without a clear rationale for what was driving this urgency. Finally, a notably minor discourse was that of inversion that advocated for IMGs as worthy of protection.

Conclusions: As anti-migration narratives become more widespread globally, the framing of health-care worker migration policy will be increasingly significant to those recruiting and training them. The shift in discourse that introduced new medical training legislation in the UK should alert health professions educators, leaders and policymakers to the potential impact on IMG experiences and to further shifts in the depiction of IMGs at work and in public.

保护主义政治:对引入英国医疗培训优先法案的话语的后殖民分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书