Curriculum Research Solutions: Shifting From "Did It Work Locally?" to Contributing to a Scholarly Conversation
- PMID: 40267336
- DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000006072
Curriculum Research Solutions: Shifting From "Did It Work Locally?" to Contributing to a Scholarly Conversation
Abstract
Health professions educators frequently seek to study their curriculum (e.g., a new or revised curriculum for a degree-granting program, a component of that curriculum, or a stand-alone course). Despite local enthusiasm, curriculum-focused studies are often hard to publish and have been repeatedly discouraged. Yet, few authors have proposed practical solutions. The purpose of this article is to articulate common problems with curriculum research and to propose specific ways in which curriculum research can be accomplished (and published) successfully. The authors define "research " as the rigorous, systematic pursuit of new knowledge with the intent to disseminate findings in a peer-reviewed forum. They delineate 5 problems with curriculum-focused research as it is typically done: redundancy (failing to build on prior research), context-specificity, confounding and dilution, superficiality (using data sources of convenience), and conceptual obscurity (failing to employ a relevant conceptual framework). To address these problems, they encourage researchers to stop focusing on their local curriculum and instead join and contribute meaningfully to a global scholarly conversation. Engaging in a scholarly conversation involves listening to the conversation (the literature) to understand what is already known, identifying a gap the researcher can fill with a useful observation, and asking and answering a question that other people will find relevant (to their own local needs), novel (not already known), insightful (shedding light on future action), and credible (well-supported by chosen methods). The authors outline 6 prototypical potentially successful curriculum-focused research studies, including quantitative and qualitative approaches, and cite published examples. They also highlight studies to avoid. They conclude by discussing practical considerations: appraisal of research quality, funding of education research, accessing and acquiring needed research skills, measuring provider behaviors and patient outcomes, ethical issues associated with learners as study participants, and tensions between basic and applied research.
Copyright © 2025 Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.
References
-
- Norman G. RCT = results confounded and trivial: the perils of grand educational experiments. Med Educ. 2003;37:582–584.
-
- Norman G. Data dredging, salami-slicing, and other successful strategies to ensure rejection: twelve tips on how to not get your paper published. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014;19:1–5.
-
- Eva KW. Covering up the crystal ball. Med Educ. 2008;42:330–332.
-
- Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Reflections on experimental research in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15:455–464.
-
- Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification, and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42:128–133.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous
