What is the state of complexity science in medical education research?
Saved in:
| Title: | What is the state of complexity science in medical education research? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Cristancho, Sayra, Field, Emily, Lingard, Lorelei |
| Source: | Medical Education. Jan2019, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p95-104. 10p. 1 Diagram, 1 Graph. |
| Subjects: | Education research, Medical education, Metaphor, Serial publications |
| Abstract: | Context: 'Complexity' is fast becoming a 'god term' in medical education, but little is known about how scholars in the field apply complexity science to the exploration of education phenomena. Complexity science presents both opportunities and challenges to those wishing to adopt its approaches in their research, and debates about its application in the field have emerged. However, these debates have tended towards a reductive characterisation of complexity versus simplicity. We argue that a more productive discussion centres on the multiplicity of complexity orientations, with their diverse disciplinary roots, concepts and terminologies. We discuss this multiplicity and use it to explore how medical education researchers have taken up complexity science in prominent journals in the field. Methods: We synthesised the health sciences and medical education literature based on 46 papers published in the last 18 years (2000–2017) to describe the patterns of use of complexity science in medical education and to consider the consequences of those patterns for our ability to advance scholarly conversations about 'complex' phenomena in our field. Results: We identified four patterns in the use of complexity science in medical education research. Firstly, complexity science is described in a variety of ways. Secondly, multiple approaches to complexity are used in combination in single papers. Thirdly, the type of complexity science used tends to be left implicit. Fourthly, the complexity orientation used is much more commonly located using secondary source citation rather than primary source citation. Conclusions: The presence of these four patterns begs the question: Do medical education scholars understand that there are multiple legitimate orientations to complexity science, deriving from distinct disciplinary origins, drawing on different metaphors and serving distinct purposes? If we do not understand this, a cascade of potential consequences awaits. We may assume that complexity science is singular in that there is only one way to do it. This assumption may cause us to perceive our way as the 'right' way and to disregard other approaches as illegitimate. However, this perception of illegitimacy may limit our ability to enter into productive dialogue about our complexity science‐inspired research. Is there an easier solution? Despite one commonly being desired, the authors invite researchers to consider that fundamental tensions are rarely about simplicity vs. complexity, but are usually about different orientations to complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Context: 'Complexity' is fast becoming a 'god term' in medical education, but little is known about how scholars in the field apply complexity science to the exploration of education phenomena. Complexity science presents both opportunities and challenges to those wishing to adopt its approaches in their research, and debates about its application in the field have emerged. However, these debates have tended towards a reductive characterisation of complexity versus simplicity. We argue that a more productive discussion centres on the multiplicity of complexity orientations, with their diverse disciplinary roots, concepts and terminologies. We discuss this multiplicity and use it to explore how medical education researchers have taken up complexity science in prominent journals in the field. Methods: We synthesised the health sciences and medical education literature based on 46 papers published in the last 18 years (2000–2017) to describe the patterns of use of complexity science in medical education and to consider the consequences of those patterns for our ability to advance scholarly conversations about 'complex' phenomena in our field. Results: We identified four patterns in the use of complexity science in medical education research. Firstly, complexity science is described in a variety of ways. Secondly, multiple approaches to complexity are used in combination in single papers. Thirdly, the type of complexity science used tends to be left implicit. Fourthly, the complexity orientation used is much more commonly located using secondary source citation rather than primary source citation. Conclusions: The presence of these four patterns begs the question: Do medical education scholars understand that there are multiple legitimate orientations to complexity science, deriving from distinct disciplinary origins, drawing on different metaphors and serving distinct purposes? If we do not understand this, a cascade of potential consequences awaits. We may assume that complexity science is singular in that there is only one way to do it. This assumption may cause us to perceive our way as the 'right' way and to disregard other approaches as illegitimate. However, this perception of illegitimacy may limit our ability to enter into productive dialogue about our complexity science‐inspired research. Is there an easier solution? Despite one commonly being desired, the authors invite researchers to consider that fundamental tensions are rarely about simplicity vs. complexity, but are usually about different orientations to complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 03080110 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/medu.13651 |
