Shedding the cobra effect: problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking

CONTEXT: Qualitative research is widely accepted as a legitimate approach to inquiry in health professions education (HPE). To secure this status, qualitative researchers have developed a variety of strategies (e.g. reliance on post-positivist qualitative methodologies, use of different rhetorical techniques, etc.) to facilitate the acceptance of their research methodologies and methods by the HPE community. Although these strategies have supported the acceptance of qualitative research in HPE, they have also brought about some unintended consequences. One of these consequences is that some HPE scholars have begun to use terms in qualitative publications without critically reflecting on: (i) their ontological and epistemological roots; (ii) their definitions, or (iii) their implications. OBJECTIVES: In this paper, we share our critical reflections on four qualitative terms popularly used in the HPE literature: thematic emergence; triangulation; saturation, and member checking. METHODS: We discuss the methodological origins of these terms and the applications supported by these origins. We reflect critically on how these four terms became expected of qualitative research in HPE, and we reconsider their meanings and use by drawing on the broader qualitative methodology literature. CONCLUSIONS: Through this examination, we hope to encourage qualitative scholars in HPE to avoid using qualitative terms uncritically and non-reflexively

Exploring researchers’ perspectives on authorship decision making

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education Context: Authorship has major implications for researchers’ careers. Hence, journals require researchers to meet formal authorship criteria. However, researchers frequently admit to violating these criteria, which suggests that authorship is a complex issue. This study aims to unpack the complexities inherent in researchers’ conceptualisations of questionable authorship practices and to identify factors that make researchers vulnerable to engaging in such practices. Methods: A total of 26 North American medical education researchers at a range of career stages were interviewed. Participants were asked to respond to two vignettes, of which one portrayed honorary authorship and the other described an author order scenario, and then to describe related authorship experiences. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Participants conceptualised questionable authorship practices in various ways and articulated several ethically grey areas. Personal and situational factors were identified, including hierarchy, resource dependence, institutional culture and gender; these contributed to participants’ vulnerability to and involvement in questionable authorship practices. Participants described negative instances of questionable authorship practices as well as situations in which these practices were used for virtuous purposes. Participants rationalised engagement in questionable authorship practices by suggesting that, although technically violating authorship criteria, such practices could be reasonable when they seemed to benefit science. Conclusions: Authorship guidelines portray authorship decisions as being black and white, effectively sidestepping key dimensions that create ethical shades of grey. These findings show that researchers generally recognise these shades of grey and in some cases acknowledge having bent the rules themselves. Sometimes their flexibility is driven by benevolent aims aligned with their own values or prevailing norms such as inclusivity. At other times participation in these practices is framed not as a choice, but rather as a consequence of researchers’ vulnerability to individual or system factors beyond their control. Taken together, these findings provide insights to help researchers and institutions move beyond recognition of the challenges of authorship and contribute to the development of informed, evidence-based solutions

Emergent is Authentic: A Sociomaterial Perspective on Simulation-Enhanced Interprofessional Education

This Conversations Starter article presents a selected research abstract from the 2017 Association of American Medical Colleges Western Region Group on Educational Affairs annual spring meeting. The abstract is paired with the integrative commentary of three experts who shared their thoughts stimulated by the study. The commentary explores the implications of sociomaterial perspectives for conceptualizing authenticity in the design and evaluation of simulation-enhanced interprofessional education