在卫生专业教育奖学金方面具有明确的立场。

IF 5.2 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Catherine Patocka, Rachel Ellaway
{"title":"在卫生专业教育奖学金方面具有明确的立场。","authors":"Catherine Patocka, Rachel Ellaway","doi":"10.1111/medu.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Problem: </strong>Definitions are fundamental to the work of scholarship. Indeed, all scholarship has a definitional stance, even if that stance is not to use definitions. A definitional stance is the position scholars take regarding the use, interpretation or treatment of definitions within their work. In this paper, the authors explore definitional stances that shape inquiry in health professions education (HPE), from the formulation of research questions to the interpretation and dissemination of findings. Despite their ambient presence, definitional stances are rarely acknowledged in scholarly work, nor are they explicitly and consistently examined in peer review processes, critical appraisal, the methodological literature or in graduate education. As a result, definitional ambiguity and misalignment often goes unnoticed, and the coherence of scholarly discourse is undermined.</p><p><strong>Definitional stances: </strong>The authors describe eight distinct types of definitional stances taken in health professions education. These range from adefinitional (avoiding any definitions) and rhetorical (adopting definitions as tools of persuasion) positions that resist fixed meanings, to realist, construct and pattern-based stances that embrace definitional coherence while allowing for ongoing inquiry and conceptual evolution. The authors illustrate the utility of this framework through a worked example (using the construct of professionalism), showing how different stances yield different understandings and scholarly pathways.</p><p><strong>What this paper adds: </strong>There is no one 'right' definitional stance, but rather to promote thoughtfulness, reflexivity and transparency in how definition stances are taken and the implications thereof. The paper offers practical guidance to help scholars identify, articulate and justify their definitional stances in ways that are aligned with their epistemological commitments and research purposes. By making definitional stances more deliberate, transparent and open to discussion, HPE scholarship can make stronger knowledge claims based on a richer understanding of the kinds of knowledge that different stances afford, which has the potential to advance HPE in both principled and pragmatic ways.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taking a definitional stance in health professions education scholarship.\",\"authors\":\"Catherine Patocka, Rachel Ellaway\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/medu.70023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Problem: </strong>Definitions are fundamental to the work of scholarship. Indeed, all scholarship has a definitional stance, even if that stance is not to use definitions. A definitional stance is the position scholars take regarding the use, interpretation or treatment of definitions within their work. In this paper, the authors explore definitional stances that shape inquiry in health professions education (HPE), from the formulation of research questions to the interpretation and dissemination of findings. Despite their ambient presence, definitional stances are rarely acknowledged in scholarly work, nor are they explicitly and consistently examined in peer review processes, critical appraisal, the methodological literature or in graduate education. As a result, definitional ambiguity and misalignment often goes unnoticed, and the coherence of scholarly discourse is undermined.</p><p><strong>Definitional stances: </strong>The authors describe eight distinct types of definitional stances taken in health professions education. These range from adefinitional (avoiding any definitions) and rhetorical (adopting definitions as tools of persuasion) positions that resist fixed meanings, to realist, construct and pattern-based stances that embrace definitional coherence while allowing for ongoing inquiry and conceptual evolution. The authors illustrate the utility of this framework through a worked example (using the construct of professionalism), showing how different stances yield different understandings and scholarly pathways.</p><p><strong>What this paper adds: </strong>There is no one 'right' definitional stance, but rather to promote thoughtfulness, reflexivity and transparency in how definition stances are taken and the implications thereof. The paper offers practical guidance to help scholars identify, articulate and justify their definitional stances in ways that are aligned with their epistemological commitments and research purposes. By making definitional stances more deliberate, transparent and open to discussion, HPE scholarship can make stronger knowledge claims based on a richer understanding of the kinds of knowledge that different stances afford, which has the potential to advance HPE in both principled and pragmatic ways.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"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.70023\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.70023","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

摘要

问题:定义是学术工作的基础。事实上,所有的学术都有一个定义立场,即使这个立场是不使用定义。定义立场是学者在其工作中对定义的使用、解释或处理所采取的立场。在本文中,作者探讨了定义立场,塑造探究卫生专业教育(HPE),从研究问题的制定到结果的解释和传播。尽管它们在周围存在,但定义立场很少在学术工作中得到承认,在同行评审过程、批判性评估、方法论文献或研究生教育中也没有明确和一致地对它们进行检查。因此,定义上的歧义和不一致常常被忽视,学术话语的连贯性被破坏了。定义立场:作者描述了在卫生专业教育中采取的八种不同类型的定义立场。这些立场包括从反对固定意义的定义(避免任何定义)和修辞(采用定义作为说服工具)立场,到现实主义、建构和基于模式的立场,这些立场包括定义一致性,同时允许持续的探究和概念演变。作者通过一个工作实例(使用专业主义的结构)说明了这一框架的实用性,展示了不同的立场如何产生不同的理解和学术途径。本文补充的内容:没有一个“正确”的定义立场,而是在如何采取定义立场及其含义方面促进深思熟虑,反身性和透明度。本文提供了实用的指导,以帮助学者以与他们的认识论承诺和研究目的相一致的方式识别,阐明和证明他们的定义立场。通过使定义立场更加审慎、透明和开放的讨论,HPE奖学金可以在对不同立场所提供的知识种类的更丰富理解的基础上提出更强有力的知识主张,这有可能以原则和务实的方式推进HPE。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Taking a definitional stance in health professions education scholarship.

Problem: Definitions are fundamental to the work of scholarship. Indeed, all scholarship has a definitional stance, even if that stance is not to use definitions. A definitional stance is the position scholars take regarding the use, interpretation or treatment of definitions within their work. In this paper, the authors explore definitional stances that shape inquiry in health professions education (HPE), from the formulation of research questions to the interpretation and dissemination of findings. Despite their ambient presence, definitional stances are rarely acknowledged in scholarly work, nor are they explicitly and consistently examined in peer review processes, critical appraisal, the methodological literature or in graduate education. As a result, definitional ambiguity and misalignment often goes unnoticed, and the coherence of scholarly discourse is undermined.

Definitional stances: The authors describe eight distinct types of definitional stances taken in health professions education. These range from adefinitional (avoiding any definitions) and rhetorical (adopting definitions as tools of persuasion) positions that resist fixed meanings, to realist, construct and pattern-based stances that embrace definitional coherence while allowing for ongoing inquiry and conceptual evolution. The authors illustrate the utility of this framework through a worked example (using the construct of professionalism), showing how different stances yield different understandings and scholarly pathways.

What this paper adds: There is no one 'right' definitional stance, but rather to promote thoughtfulness, reflexivity and transparency in how definition stances are taken and the implications thereof. The paper offers practical guidance to help scholars identify, articulate and justify their definitional stances in ways that are aligned with their epistemological commitments and research purposes. By making definitional stances more deliberate, transparent and open to discussion, HPE scholarship can make stronger knowledge claims based on a richer understanding of the kinds of knowledge that different stances afford, which has the potential to advance HPE in both principled and pragmatic ways.

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
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