在他人身上看到自己:理解和解决医学院招生过程中的偏见。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Perspectives on Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-01-20 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5334/pme.1643
Khadija Ahmed, Tisha Joy, Javeed Sukhera
{"title":"在他人身上看到自己:理解和解决医学院招生过程中的偏见。","authors":"Khadija Ahmed, Tisha Joy, Javeed Sukhera","doi":"10.5334/pme.1643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Medical school admissions is a vital area for advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Integrating bias recognition and management (BRM) within the context of admissions is critical in advancing DEI. However, there is a dearth of empirically informed literature on BRM in the admissions context. Therefore, this study sought to explore how individuals involved in admissions decisions process and integrate bias related feedback.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a qualitative exploratory study using constructivist grounded theory. 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted with various participants in the admissions process at a North American medical school who had participated in bias related training. Participants included medical school faculty, senior medical students, and community volunteers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, participants expressed diverse perspectives on their personal biases and how these biases impact admissions decisions. Their reflections were shaped by their identities, values, and priorities, which varied based on whether they were faculty members, students, or community members. Participants also highlighted that their biases influenced their perceptions of the ideal admissions candidate, thus influencing their decision-making process. They emphasized the need for more opportunities to engage in dialogue with peers to openly share and discuss how to recognize and manage their biases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study suggests that fostering critical reflection about identity tensions, building and sustaining a community of practice, and facilitating sustained dialogue may provide admissions committees with an evidence-informed, meaningful, and sustained approach to advancing DEI through bias recognition and management.</p>","PeriodicalId":48532,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Medical Education","volume":"14 1","pages":"20-30"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11758812/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Seeing Ourselves in Others: Understanding and Addressing Biases in Medical School Admissions Processes.\",\"authors\":\"Khadija Ahmed, Tisha Joy, Javeed Sukhera\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/pme.1643\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Medical school admissions is a vital area for advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Integrating bias recognition and management (BRM) within the context of admissions is critical in advancing DEI. However, there is a dearth of empirically informed literature on BRM in the admissions context. Therefore, this study sought to explore how individuals involved in admissions decisions process and integrate bias related feedback.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a qualitative exploratory study using constructivist grounded theory. 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted with various participants in the admissions process at a North American medical school who had participated in bias related training. Participants included medical school faculty, senior medical students, and community volunteers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, participants expressed diverse perspectives on their personal biases and how these biases impact admissions decisions. Their reflections were shaped by their identities, values, and priorities, which varied based on whether they were faculty members, students, or community members. Participants also highlighted that their biases influenced their perceptions of the ideal admissions candidate, thus influencing their decision-making process. They emphasized the need for more opportunities to engage in dialogue with peers to openly share and discuss how to recognize and manage their biases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study suggests that fostering critical reflection about identity tensions, building and sustaining a community of practice, and facilitating sustained dialogue may provide admissions committees with an evidence-informed, meaningful, and sustained approach to advancing DEI through bias recognition and management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"20-30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11758812/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1643\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 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.1643","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:医学院招生是促进多样性、公平性和包容性(DEI)的重要领域。在招生背景下整合偏见识别和管理(BRM)对于推进DEI至关重要。然而,在招生背景下,缺乏关于BRM的实证文献。因此,本研究试图探讨个人如何参与招生决策过程和整合偏见相关的反馈。方法:运用建构主义理论进行定性探索性研究。在北美一所医学院的招生过程中,对参加过偏见相关培训的不同参与者进行了21次半结构化访谈。参与者包括医学院教员、高年级医学生和社区志愿者。结果:总体而言,参与者对他们的个人偏见以及这些偏见如何影响录取决定表达了不同的观点。他们的思考受到他们的身份、价值观和优先事项的影响,这些因素因他们是教师、学生还是社区成员而有所不同。参与者还强调,他们的偏见影响了他们对理想录取候选人的看法,从而影响了他们的决策过程。他们强调需要有更多的机会与同龄人进行对话,公开分享和讨论如何认识和管理他们的偏见。结论:我们的研究表明,培养对身份紧张的批判性反思,建立和维持一个实践社区,促进持续的对话,可能会为招生委员会提供一个有证据的、有意义的、持续的方法,通过偏见识别和管理来推进DEI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Seeing Ourselves in Others: Understanding and Addressing Biases in Medical School Admissions Processes.

Purpose: Medical school admissions is a vital area for advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Integrating bias recognition and management (BRM) within the context of admissions is critical in advancing DEI. However, there is a dearth of empirically informed literature on BRM in the admissions context. Therefore, this study sought to explore how individuals involved in admissions decisions process and integrate bias related feedback.

Methods: The authors conducted a qualitative exploratory study using constructivist grounded theory. 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted with various participants in the admissions process at a North American medical school who had participated in bias related training. Participants included medical school faculty, senior medical students, and community volunteers.

Results: Overall, participants expressed diverse perspectives on their personal biases and how these biases impact admissions decisions. Their reflections were shaped by their identities, values, and priorities, which varied based on whether they were faculty members, students, or community members. Participants also highlighted that their biases influenced their perceptions of the ideal admissions candidate, thus influencing their decision-making process. They emphasized the need for more opportunities to engage in dialogue with peers to openly share and discuss how to recognize and manage their biases.

Conclusion: Our study suggests that fostering critical reflection about identity tensions, building and sustaining a community of practice, and facilitating sustained dialogue may provide admissions committees with an evidence-informed, meaningful, and sustained approach to advancing DEI through bias recognition and management.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
31
审稿时长
28 weeks
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.
×
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