Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec;25(5):1243-1253.
doi: 10.1007/s10459-020-09977-8. Epub 2020 Jun 24.

Interdisciplinarity in medical education research: myth and reality

Affiliations

Interdisciplinarity in medical education research: myth and reality

Mathieu Albert et al. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

The medical education (Med Ed) research community characterises itself as drawing on the insights, methods, and knowledge from multiple disciplines and research domains (e.g. Sociology, Anthropology, Education, Humanities, Psychology). This common view of Med Ed research is echoed and reinforced by the narrative used by leading Med Ed departments and research centres to describe their activities as "interdisciplinary." Bibliometrics offers an effective method of investigating scholarly communication to determine what knowledge is valued, recognized, and utilized. By empirically examining whether knowledge production in Med Ed research draws from multiple disciplines and research areas, or whether it primarily draws on the knowledge generated internally within the field of Med Ed, this article explores whether the characterisation of Med Ed research as interdisciplinary is substantiated. A citation analysis of 1412 references from research articles published in 2017 in the top five Med Ed journals was undertaken. A typology of six knowledge clusters was inductively developed. Findings show that the field of Med Ed research draws predominantly from two knowledge clusters: the Applied Health Research cluster (made of clinical and health services research), which represents 41% of the references, and the Med Ed research cluster, which represents 40% of the references. These two clusters cover 81% of all references in our sample, leaving 19% distributed among the other knowledge clusters (i.e., Education, disciplinary, interdisciplinary and topic centered research). The quasi-hegemonic position held by the Applied Health and Med Ed research clusters confines the other sources of knowledge to a peripheral role within the Med Ed research field. Our findings suggest that the assumption that Med Ed research is an interdisciplinary field is not convincingly supported by empirical data and that the knowledge entering Med Ed comes mostly from the health research domain.

Keywords: Citation analysis; Disciplines; Interdisciplinarity; Medical education research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Procedure used to construct the dataset of peer-reviewed cited references from the five most cited Med Ed journals
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Distribution of peer-reviewed references (n = 1412) per knowledge cluster. Data presented in %

References

    1. Albert, M., Friesen, F., Rowland, P., & Laberge, S. (2020). Problematizing assumptions about interdisciplinary research: Implications for health professions education research. Advances in Health Sciences Education. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Borgman CL, Furner J. Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 2002;36(1):3–72.
    1. Bridges D. Philosophy in educational research. Epistemology, ethics, politics and quality. Cham: Springer; 2017.
    1. Centre for Health Education Scholarship, University of British Columbia. Retrieved August 26, 2019, from https://ches.med.ubc.ca/about-ches/strategic-plan/.
    1. Centre for Medical Education, McGill University. Retrieved August 26, 2019, from https://www.mcgill.ca/centreformeded/research-activities/cross-cutting-g....

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources