Education for collaboration: the influence of the third space on professional boundaries

IF 1.9 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Laura Knight, P. Crampton, A. McKeown, A. Arora, C. Cliffe, C. O’keeffe, A. Griffin
{"title":"Education for collaboration: the influence of the third space on professional boundaries","authors":"Laura Knight, P. Crampton, A. McKeown, A. Arora, C. Cliffe, C. O’keeffe, A. Griffin","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The delivery of integrated care requires the establishment of effective professional relationships that foster collaborative working across health systems. Evidence for how to prepare practitioners to work in those settings is limited. By exploring an innovative postgraduate Programme for Integrated Child Health (PICH) this article highlights the conditions by which effective collaboration can be encouraged. Our qualitative evaluation of PICH involved one-to-one semi-structured interviews with 23 postgraduate general practice and paediatric trainees and their mentors. We analysed the data using the concept of the ‘third space’, where multiple discourses between individuals with diverse professional backgrounds occur, enabling creative exploration of tensions inherent in new ways of working in order to identify enablers and barriers to collaboration. Our analysis identified three themes that enabled collaboration: effective communication, boundary work and educational spaces; and four themes that were barriers: traditional hierarchical professional identities, curriculum design, financial systems and workplace spaces. PICH demonstrated the value of educational spaces and their role in enabling collaborative practice, as participants explored their professional identities and those of other disciplines. Structural factors in the workplace which inhibit collaborative practice were also evident. We conclude by proposing a model for collaborative learning in third spaces based upon the recognition that, while educational programmes alone will not lead to change, they have the potential to inform the development of productive workplace spaces that will be required if collaborative practice in healthcare is to become a reality.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"London Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The delivery of integrated care requires the establishment of effective professional relationships that foster collaborative working across health systems. Evidence for how to prepare practitioners to work in those settings is limited. By exploring an innovative postgraduate Programme for Integrated Child Health (PICH) this article highlights the conditions by which effective collaboration can be encouraged. Our qualitative evaluation of PICH involved one-to-one semi-structured interviews with 23 postgraduate general practice and paediatric trainees and their mentors. We analysed the data using the concept of the ‘third space’, where multiple discourses between individuals with diverse professional backgrounds occur, enabling creative exploration of tensions inherent in new ways of working in order to identify enablers and barriers to collaboration. Our analysis identified three themes that enabled collaboration: effective communication, boundary work and educational spaces; and four themes that were barriers: traditional hierarchical professional identities, curriculum design, financial systems and workplace spaces. PICH demonstrated the value of educational spaces and their role in enabling collaborative practice, as participants explored their professional identities and those of other disciplines. Structural factors in the workplace which inhibit collaborative practice were also evident. We conclude by proposing a model for collaborative learning in third spaces based upon the recognition that, while educational programmes alone will not lead to change, they have the potential to inform the development of productive workplace spaces that will be required if collaborative practice in healthcare is to become a reality.
合作教育:第三空间对职业界限的影响
提供综合护理需要建立有效的专业关系,促进整个卫生系统的合作。关于如何让从业者做好在这些环境中工作的准备的证据是有限的。通过探索一个创新的儿童综合健康研究生项目,本文强调了鼓励有效合作的条件。我们对PICH的定性评估包括对23名研究生全科和儿科学员及其导师的一对一半结构化访谈。我们使用“第三空间”的概念分析了数据,在第三空间中,具有不同专业背景的个人之间会发生多种话语,从而能够创造性地探索新工作方式中固有的紧张关系,以确定合作的推动者和障碍。我们的分析确定了促成合作的三个主题:有效沟通、边界工作和教育空间;四个主题是障碍:传统的等级职业身份、课程设计、金融系统和工作场所空间。PICH展示了教育空间的价值及其在促进合作实践中的作用,参与者探索了他们和其他学科的职业身份。工作场所中阻碍合作实践的结构性因素也很明显。最后,我们提出了一种在第三空间进行协作学习的模式,这是基于这样一种认识,即尽管教育计划本身不会带来变化,但它们有可能为发展富有成效的工作场所空间提供信息,如果医疗保健领域的协作实践要成为现实,就需要这些空间。
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
London Review of Education
London Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
39
审稿时长
48 weeks
期刊介绍: London Review of Education (LRE), an international peer-reviewed journal, aims to promote and disseminate high-quality analyses of important issues in contemporary education. As well as matters of public goals and policies, these issues include those of pedagogy, curriculum, organisation, resources, and institutional effectiveness. LRE wishes to report on these issues at all levels and in all types of education, and in national and transnational contexts. LRE wishes to show linkages between research and educational policy and practice, and to show how educational policy and practice are connected to other areas of social and economic policy.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信