Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
E-pub ahead of print

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

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. The gap in transfer research

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Practical trials in medical education: linking theory, practice and decision making

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Imperfect practice makes perfect: error management training improves transfer of learning

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Introduction

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelFormidling

  5. Collaborative learning of clinical skills in health professions education: the why, how, when and for whom

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Menstrual Pattern, Reproductive Hormones and Transabdominal 3D Ultrasound in 317 Adolescent Girls

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. How we make choices and sacrifices in medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftKommentar/debatForskningpeer review

  3. Social ties influence teamwork when managing clinical emergencies

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Making the best of the worst: Care quality during emergency cesarean sections

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

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.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftMedical Education
ISSN0308-0110
DOI
StatusE-pub ahead of print - 15 sep. 2020

Bibliografisk note

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.

ID: 61116977