Generic qualitative research studies are those that refuse to claim allegiance to a single established methodology. There has been significant debate in the qualitative literature regarding the extent to which rigour can be preserved outside of the guidelines of an established methodology. This article offers a starting place for researchers interested in entering the literature on generic qualitative approaches and offers some guidance to help researchers appreciate the advantages of using a generic approach and navigate the potential pitfalls. Given that generic approaches are, by definition, less defined and established, this article begins by defining generic qualitative approaches, including the descriptive qualitative approach and interpretive description subcategories. It then outlines key critiques of generic studies present in the literature, describes the benefits of generic approaches, and suggests ways in which the issues raised in critiques might be mediated.

No abstract

IntroductionCalls for enabling ‘critical thinking’ are ubiquitous in health professional education. However, there is little agreement in the literature or in practice as to what this term means and efforts to generate a universal definition have found limited traction. Moreover, the variability observed might suggest that multiplicity has value that the quest for universal definitions has failed to capture. In this study, we sought to map the multiple conceptions of critical thinking in circulation in health professional education to understand the relationships and tensions between them.MethodsWe used an inductive, qualitative approach to explore conceptions of critical thinking with educators from four health professions: medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work. Four participants from each profession participated in two individual in-depth semi-structured interviews, the latter of which induced reflection on a visual depiction of results generated from the first set of interviews.ResultsThree main conceptions of critical thinking were identified: biomedical, humanist, and social justice-oriented critical thinking. ‘Biomedical critical thinking’ was the dominant conception. While each conception had distinct features, the particular conceptions of critical thinking espoused by individual participants were not stable within or between interviews.DiscussionMultiple conceptions of critical thinking likely offer educators the ability to express diverse beliefs about what ‘good thinking’ means in variable contexts. The findings suggest that any single definition of critical thinking in the health professions will be inherently contentious and, we argue, should be. Such debates, when made visible to educators and trainees, can be highly productive.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40037-018-0415-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In 2001, Prensky characterised a new generation of learners entering higher education as digital natives – naturally digitally literate and inherently proficient users of technology. While many educational technology researchers have long argued for the need to move beyond the digital native assumptions proposed by Prensky and other futurists, a critical review of the literature reveals that this concept remains influential in academia broadly and within professional education specifically. In light of this, we propose an alternative approach to technology integration in professional education settings that aims to avoid unhelpful digital native stereotypes by instead developing digital literacies in ways that leverage technological affordances. By building digital literacies across the procedural and technical, cognitive, and sociocultural domains connected to professional competencies, learners can effectively adopt and utilise emerging technologies through professional digital practices.

Not everyone needing health care has equal access, nor do they have equal outcomes when they do access care. 1 In response to these inequities, physicians are called upon to act as advocates in a broad range of ways-for the health and well-being of their individual patients and for system improvements to address disparities that impact the communities they serve. 2,3 As a result, advocacy is now a core component of physicians' education. 4,5 Many researchers and policymakers have attempted to construct a clear definition or framework for understanding health advocacy [6][7][8][9][10][11] ; however, these efforts have met with limited success.