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
. 2021 Mar;55(3):328-335.
doi: 10.1111/medu.14373. Epub 2020 Oct 19.

The myth of ivory tower versus practice-oriented research: A systematic review of randomised studies in medical education

Martin G Tolsgaard  1   2 , Kulamakan Mahan Kulasegaram  3   4 , Nicole N Woods  3   4 , Ryan Brydges  3   5   6 , Charlotte Ringsted  7 , Liv Dyre  1   2
Affiliations

The myth of ivory tower versus practice-oriented research: A systematic review of randomised studies in medical education

Martin G Tolsgaard et al. Med Educ. 2021 Mar.

Abstract

Context: A long-standing myth in medical education research is a divide between two different poles: research aiming to advance theory with little focus on practical applications ('ivory tower' research) and practically oriented research aiming to serve educators and decision-makers with little focus on advancing theory ('in-the-trenches' practice). We explored this myth in a sample of randomised medical education studies using Stokes' four-quadrant framework for the classification of research perspective.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Scopus for studies in medical education using a randomised design that were published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018. We used Stokes' four-quadrant framework to categorise the studies according to their use of theory, concepts and their justification for practical use. We compared medical education research published in medical education journals and clinical journals.

Results: A total of 150 randomised studies were included in the analysis. The largest segment of studies (46.7%) was categorised as use-inspired basic research (Pasteur's Quadrant), closely followed by pure applied research (40.7%, Edison's Quadrant). Only a few studies were categorised as aiming to advance knowledge with no thought for practical educational application (2.0%, Bohr's Quadrant). The proportion of studies that included educational concepts and theory differed according to publication in clinical journals or medical education journals: 40.5% vs 71.8%, respectively, P < .001. There were no differences between journals with regard to the proportion of studies that included a practical educational or clinical rationale (P = .99).

Conclusion: In a large sample of studies using randomised designs, we found no evidence to support the myth that medical education research divides between two singular poles represented by 'ivory tower research' and 'in-the-trenches practice'. We did confirm prevailing assumptions regarding an emphasis on non-theoretical medical education research in clinical journals.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Hodges BD, Kuper A. Theory and practice in the design and conduct of graduate medical education. Acad Med. 2012;87(1):25-33.
    1. Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Bordage G. Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2007;41(8):737-745.
    1. Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42(2):128-133.
    1. Albert M. Understanding the debate on medical education research: a sociological perspective. Acad Med. 2004;79(10):948-954.
    1. Albert M, Hodges B, Regehr G. Research in medical education: balancing service and science. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12(1):103-115.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources