Benjamin Kinnear, Daniel J Schumacher, Lara Varpio, Erik W Driessen, Abigail Konopasky
{"title":"没有论证的合法化：对评估中 \"作为论据的有效性 \"的实证话语分析》。","authors":"Benjamin Kinnear, Daniel J Schumacher, Lara Varpio, Erik W Driessen, Abigail Konopasky","doi":"10.5334/pme.1404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Validity is frequently conceptualized in health professions education (HPE) assessment as an argument that supports the interpretation and uses of data. However, previous work has shown that many validity scholars believe argument and argumentation are relatively lacking in HPE. To better understand HPE's discourse around argument and argumentation with regard to assessment validity, the authors explored the discourses present in published HPE manuscripts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors used a bricolage of critical discourse analysis approaches to understand how the language in influential peer reviewed manuscripts has shaped HPE's understanding of validity arguments and argumentation. The authors used multiple search strategies to develop a final corpus of 39 manuscripts that were seen as influential in how validity arguments are conceptualized within HPE. An analytic framework drawing on prior research on Argumentation Theory was used to code manuscripts before developing themes relevant to the research question.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The authors found that the elaboration of argument and argumentation within HPE's validity discourse is scant, with few components of Argumentation Theory (such as intended audience) existing within the discourse. The <i>validity as an argument</i> discourse was legitimized via authorization (reference to authority), rationalization (reference to institutionalized action), and mythopoesis (narrative building). This legitimation has cemented the <i>validity as an argument</i> discourse in HPE despite minimal exploration of what argument and argumentation are.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study corroborates previous work showing the dearth of argument and argumentation present within HPE's validity discourse. An opportunity exists to use Argumentation Theory in HPE to better develop validation practices that support use of argument.</p>","PeriodicalId":48532,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Medical Education","volume":"13 1","pages":"469-480"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11451546/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legitimation Without Argumentation: An Empirical Discourse Analysis of 'Validity as an Argument' in Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Kinnear, Daniel J Schumacher, Lara Varpio, Erik W Driessen, Abigail Konopasky\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/pme.1404\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Validity is frequently conceptualized in health professions education (HPE) assessment as an argument that supports the interpretation and uses of data. However, previous work has shown that many validity scholars believe argument and argumentation are relatively lacking in HPE. To better understand HPE's discourse around argument and argumentation with regard to assessment validity, the authors explored the discourses present in published HPE manuscripts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors used a bricolage of critical discourse analysis approaches to understand how the language in influential peer reviewed manuscripts has shaped HPE's understanding of validity arguments and argumentation. The authors used multiple search strategies to develop a final corpus of 39 manuscripts that were seen as influential in how validity arguments are conceptualized within HPE. An analytic framework drawing on prior research on Argumentation Theory was used to code manuscripts before developing themes relevant to the research question.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The authors found that the elaboration of argument and argumentation within HPE's validity discourse is scant, with few components of Argumentation Theory (such as intended audience) existing within the discourse. The <i>validity as an argument</i> discourse was legitimized via authorization (reference to authority), rationalization (reference to institutionalized action), and mythopoesis (narrative building). This legitimation has cemented the <i>validity as an argument</i> discourse in HPE despite minimal exploration of what argument and argumentation are.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study corroborates previous work showing the dearth of argument and argumentation present within HPE's validity discourse. An opportunity exists to use Argumentation Theory in HPE to better develop validation practices that support use of argument.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"469-480\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11451546/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1404\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1404","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Legitimation Without Argumentation: An Empirical Discourse Analysis of 'Validity as an Argument' in Assessment.
Introduction: Validity is frequently conceptualized in health professions education (HPE) assessment as an argument that supports the interpretation and uses of data. However, previous work has shown that many validity scholars believe argument and argumentation are relatively lacking in HPE. To better understand HPE's discourse around argument and argumentation with regard to assessment validity, the authors explored the discourses present in published HPE manuscripts.
Methods: The authors used a bricolage of critical discourse analysis approaches to understand how the language in influential peer reviewed manuscripts has shaped HPE's understanding of validity arguments and argumentation. The authors used multiple search strategies to develop a final corpus of 39 manuscripts that were seen as influential in how validity arguments are conceptualized within HPE. An analytic framework drawing on prior research on Argumentation Theory was used to code manuscripts before developing themes relevant to the research question.
Results: The authors found that the elaboration of argument and argumentation within HPE's validity discourse is scant, with few components of Argumentation Theory (such as intended audience) existing within the discourse. The validity as an argument discourse was legitimized via authorization (reference to authority), rationalization (reference to institutionalized action), and mythopoesis (narrative building). This legitimation has cemented the validity as an argument discourse in HPE despite minimal exploration of what argument and argumentation are.
Discussion: This study corroborates previous work showing the dearth of argument and argumentation present within HPE's validity discourse. An opportunity exists to use Argumentation Theory in HPE to better develop validation practices that support use of argument.
期刊介绍：
Perspectives on Medical Education mission is support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices.
Official journal of the The Netherlands Association of Medical Education (NVMO).
Perspectives on Medical Education is a non-profit Open Access journal with no charges for authors to submit or publish an article, and the full text of all articles is freely available immediately upon publication, thanks to the sponsorship of The Netherlands Association for Medical Education.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy.
Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary.
The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary.
The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
