I certainly welcome the call for more funding for medical education research, but I would take some issue with the statement that “…improvements must be focused on ultimately improving the health of patients.” I believe it is important to deconstruct this statement, especially if it is used as a criterion for awarding funding.
Medical education research must be broad enough to encompass all aspects including fundamental advances in psychology, sociology, anthropology, politics and critical theory that may challenge the very foundations of medicine and medical culture. It is crucial not only to gather what I suspect the authors mean by “evidence”, but also to provide the deep questions and theory-driven insights that are required to break out of traditional modes of thinking and bring true innovation. Einstein’s theories brought about a fundamental change in our perception of the world because he brought a revolutionary theory to bear on complex problems that turned out later to have many unanticipated practical consequences. Likewise, the challenges and insights of research in social science, arts and humanities may result in new advances in patient care, or may not - it is not necessarily possible or desirable to demand those before the research is done.
Imposing the prevailing ethos of evidence-based medicine as the only legitimate view of educational research is in danger of resulting in funding only for research that can, before it is begun, demonstrate a direct link to “measurable improvements” in patient outcomes. The lack of regard in which social scientists are held in medicine currently is a result of this instrumentalist attitude that hinders a fruitful and mutually challenging environment for collaborative work (Albert et al., 2015). Criteria for funding should be about robust, principled research. Even with more funding, if all we accomplish is nibbling at the edges of the status quo, I fear medical education will have failed. I would simply caution: “Be careful what you wish for”.
Albert M, Paradis E, Kuper A. (2015) Interdisciplinary promises versus practices in medicine: The decoupled experiences of social sciences and humanities scholars. Social Science & Medicine 126: 17-25.
Competing interests:
I am a social scientist (cognitive psychologist) who has conducted medical education research for the last 16 years, currently taking time away to pursue other interests partly because of the lack of appreciation for the skills and knowledge that social scientists can bring to medicine and medical education.
Rapid Response:
Be careful what you wish for
I certainly welcome the call for more funding for medical education research, but I would take some issue with the statement that “…improvements must be focused on ultimately improving the health of patients.” I believe it is important to deconstruct this statement, especially if it is used as a criterion for awarding funding.
Medical education research must be broad enough to encompass all aspects including fundamental advances in psychology, sociology, anthropology, politics and critical theory that may challenge the very foundations of medicine and medical culture. It is crucial not only to gather what I suspect the authors mean by “evidence”, but also to provide the deep questions and theory-driven insights that are required to break out of traditional modes of thinking and bring true innovation. Einstein’s theories brought about a fundamental change in our perception of the world because he brought a revolutionary theory to bear on complex problems that turned out later to have many unanticipated practical consequences. Likewise, the challenges and insights of research in social science, arts and humanities may result in new advances in patient care, or may not - it is not necessarily possible or desirable to demand those before the research is done.
Imposing the prevailing ethos of evidence-based medicine as the only legitimate view of educational research is in danger of resulting in funding only for research that can, before it is begun, demonstrate a direct link to “measurable improvements” in patient outcomes. The lack of regard in which social scientists are held in medicine currently is a result of this instrumentalist attitude that hinders a fruitful and mutually challenging environment for collaborative work (Albert et al., 2015). Criteria for funding should be about robust, principled research. Even with more funding, if all we accomplish is nibbling at the edges of the status quo, I fear medical education will have failed. I would simply caution: “Be careful what you wish for”.
Albert M, Paradis E, Kuper A. (2015) Interdisciplinary promises versus practices in medicine: The decoupled experiences of social sciences and humanities scholars. Social Science & Medicine 126: 17-25.
Competing interests: I am a social scientist (cognitive psychologist) who has conducted medical education research for the last 16 years, currently taking time away to pursue other interests partly because of the lack of appreciation for the skills and knowledge that social scientists can bring to medicine and medical education.