Search

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The philosophy of science is concerned with what science is, its conceptual framing and underlying logic, and its ability to generate meaningful and useful knowledge. To that end, concepts such as ontology (what exists and in what way), epistemology (the knowledge we use or generate), and axiology (the value of things) are important if somewhat neglected topics in health professions education scholarship. In an attempt to address this gap, Academic Medicinehas published a series of Invited Commentaries on topics in the philosophy of science germane to health professions educational science. This Invited Commentary concludes the Philosophy of Science series by providing a summary of the key concepts that were elucidated over the course of the series, highlighting the intent of the series and the principles of ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology. The authors conclude the series with a discussion of the benefits and challenges of cross-paradigmatic research.

Health professions education (HPE) researchers are regularly asked to articulate their use of theory, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks in their research. However, all too often, these words are used interchangeably or without a clear understanding of the differences between these concepts. Further problematizing this situation is the fact that theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual frameworkare terms that are used in different ways in different research approaches. In this article, the authors set out to clarify the meaning of these terms and to describe how they are used in 2 approaches to research commonly used in HPE: the objectivist deductive approach (from theory to data) and the subjectivist inductive approach (from data to theory). In addition to this, given that within subjectivist inductive research theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual frameworkcan be used in different ways, they describe 3 uses that HPE researchers frequently rely on: fully inductive theory development, fully theory-informed inductive, and theory-informing inductive data analysis.

Health professions education (HPE) researchers come from many different academic traditions, from psychology to engineering to rhetoric. Trained in these traditions, HPE researchers engage in science and the building of new knowledge from different paradigmatic orientations. Collaborating across these traditions is particularly generative, a phenomenon the authors call the multidisciplinary edge effect. However, to harness this productivity, scholars need to understand their own paradigms and those of others so that collaboration can flourish. This Invited Commentary introduces the Philosophy of Science series—a collection of articles that introduce readers to 7 different paradigms that are frequently used in HPE research or that the authors suggest will be increasingly common in future studies. Each article in the collection presents a concise and accessible description of the main principles of a paradigm so that researchers can quickly grasp how these traditions differ from each other. In this introductory article, the authors define and illustrate key terms that are essential to understanding these traditions (i.e., paradigm, ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology) and explain the structure that each article in this series follows.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The Research in Medical Education (RIME) Program Planning Committee is committed to advancing scholarship in and promoting dialogue about the critical issues of racism and bias in health professions education (HPE). From the call for studies focused on underrepresented learners and faculty in medicine to the invited 2016 RIME plenary address by Dr. Camara Jones, the committee strongly believes that dismantling racism is critical to the future of HPE.The evidence is glaring: Dramatic racial and ethnic health disparities persist in the United States, people of color remain deeply underrepresented in medical school and academic health systems as faculty, learner experiences across the medical education continuum are fraught with bias, and current approaches to teaching perpetuate stereotypes and insufficiently challenge structural inequities. To achieve racial justice in HPE, academic medicine must commit to leveraging positions of influence and contributing from these positions. In this Commentary, the authors consider three roles (educator, faculty developer, and researcher) represented by the community of scholars and pose potential research questions as well as suggestions for advancing educational research relevant to eliminating racism and bias in HPE.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.