Remediation in Practice:A Polarity to be Managed

ABSTRACT: Originally developed in the business literature, a polarity is a concept where 2 distinctive and opposing characteristics (poles), each presenting advantages and disadvantages or opportunities and pitfalls, must both be taken into account to ensure effective management of a challenging problem. Managing a polarity is a thorny endeavor because it entails striving to maximize the benefits of both poles while simultaneously minimizing or controlling the downsides of each. Previous investigations into stakeholder conceptualizations of remediation led us to suggest that remediation is framed in stakeholders' minds simultaneously as an educational endeavor (ie, the remediatee needs educational support to regain full competence) and a regulatory act (ie, the revocation of the individual's professional right to self-regulate their practice and learning). In this article, we argue that viewing remediation for practicing physicians as a polarity to be managed offers a framework that can further the conversation about how to address some of remediation's challenges

Educator, judge, public defender: Conflicting roles for remediators of practising physicians

Context Practising physicians who remediate their peers face unique challenges. Recent research suggests that leaders of regulatory and educational institutions (ie, those who might be seen as responsible for overseeing remediation programmes for practising physicians) view remediation as a duality: education and regulation. Research has yet to study the perspectives of remediators; therefore, to address that gap we asked: What is the nature of remediation as experienced by remediators? Methods We used a theory-informing inductive data analysis study design with positioning theory as a sensitising concept. We interviewed nine remediators from five Canadian provinces, asking them to narrate particularly memorable remediation experiences, then exploring the stories in more depth by asking probing questions around topics related to the research question. We used a hermeneutic analytic approach to explore the meanings that participants gave to their remediation work by iteratively reading their stories, examining the sense making that participants achieved through these narratives, and identifying the positions and responsibilities they described. Results In their remediation narratives, participants variably position themselves in three different ways: (a) educator; (b) judge, and (c) public defender. For each position, remediators in turn framed the remediatee in a particular way. Participants shifted between educator, judge and public defender in response to evolving experiences with the remediatee, but they expressed preference for the educator position. However, they sometimes encountered serious obstacles to enacting that educator position. Those obstacles were imposed both by regulators and by remediatees. Conclusions This study suggests that the duality of remediation as both education and regulation may be contributing to the challenges faced by those working one to one with remediatees. Understanding the dual nature of remediation and equipping remediators with the tools to manage this duality might contribute to improving the experience for both remediators and remediatees, and ultimately to a greater number of successful remediation outcomes