Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

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

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Tolsgaard, Martin G ; Mahan Kulasegaram, Kulamakan ; Woods, Nicole N ; Brydges, Ryan ; Ringsted, Charlotte ; Dyre, Liv. / The myth of ivory tower versus practice-oriented research : A systematic review of randomised studies in medical education. I: Medical Education. 2021 ; Bind 55, Nr. 3. s. 328-335.

Bibtex

@article{70364a5a34b248d7a61f2f8c1cec0031,
title = "The myth of ivory tower versus practice-oriented research: A systematic review of randomised studies in medical education",
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.",
author = "Tolsgaard, {Martin G} and {Mahan Kulasegaram}, Kulamakan and Woods, {Nicole N} and Ryan Brydges and Charlotte Ringsted and Liv Dyre",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.",
year = "2021",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1111/medu.14373",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "328--335",
journal = "Medical Education",
issn = "0308-0110",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The myth of ivory tower versus practice-oriented research

T2 - A systematic review of randomised studies in medical education

AU - Tolsgaard, Martin G

AU - Mahan Kulasegaram, Kulamakan

AU - Woods, Nicole N

AU - Brydges, Ryan

AU - Ringsted, Charlotte

AU - Dyre, Liv

N1 - © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.

PY - 2021/3

Y1 - 2021/3

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092646984&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/medu.14373

DO - 10.1111/medu.14373

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 32935373

VL - 55

SP - 328

EP - 335

JO - Medical Education

JF - Medical Education

SN - 0308-0110

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 61116977