On participating in academic conversations

Abstract

Academic journals serve an important function in the evolution of a field or profession. For some, journals are where they can share ideas, tell others about the interesting work, or to disseminate information. We would argue that these are limiting and at times flawed views. We prefer to think of Paramedicine as a means of promoting scholarly ‘conversations’ not just among ourselves and our readership, but with the broader academic community who most likely have something to say about our selected ideas and topics. Scholars have talked about this ‘journal-as-conversation’ or used this conversational metaphor before. Scientific contributions and the preparation of manuscripts is a social conversational act, and we believe, should be thought of as equivalent to having turns saying something that contributes to conversations and debates that surround us. In our experience considering manuscripts for these academic conversations, all too often, it involves authors narrowing the conversation only to those immediately next to them. In this editorial we call on authors to engage in this conversational metaphor by considering when broadening that conversation beyond paramedicine is needed and appropriate. Consider an academic who is just starting to join a ‘conversation’. In their enthusiasm to get started, several study ideas, research questions, and even methods flood their thinking. Suppose the topic area is assessment of clinical competence, specifically the assessment of dyads (paramedic crews or teams) in the jurisdictional paramedic service context. They scour the paramedicine literature and recognize, appropriately, that assessment in paramedicine has been narrowly focused on decisions regarding an individual, when really, patient outcomes are dependent on the ability of teams (in our case dyads) to function optimally together, when working together. The issue is that when decisions about individuals need to be made about readiness for independent practice for example, we often assess individuals and silence the contributions of others. Those who are involved in summative assessments (e.g. for hiring, for licensure/certification) will recognize this challenge. An idea emerges to create a new tool or process, one that permits the assessment of dyads and their contributions and synergies or threats, and that somehow allows for decisions about individuals while permitting the influence of another individual. The academic proposes the idea, arguing that no one in paramedicine has sufficiently resolved this issue—and they might even be correct. The study is designed and conducted, interesting results are generated, and the academic prepares and submits the manuscript for publication to Paramedicine. In doing so, the author sets up the study in the introduction, arguing that paramedicine has excluded this concept, and uses that as justification for the work, rather than the conceptual puzzle. The discussion section then positions the contribution as novel, and as a meaningful contribution to paramedicine (the profession) and Paramedicine (the