Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
IntroductionIncreasing the diversity of medical students, or widening participation (WP), is critical for social justice and healthcare delivery, and many governments are setting policies to encourage WP. However, establishing policy is only the first step in an educational change process: we also need to know “how” policy is enacted or how medical schools interpret and put into practice WP policy. Addressing this gap, the aim of this study was to examine policy enactment in six new UK medical schools with an explicit WP mandate.MethodsThis qualitative study, underpinned by social constructivism, used semi‐structured interviews to explore the experiences of key actors (6 Deans and 14 Admissions staff) of putting policy into practice when setting up a new medical school. Data coding and analysis were initially inductive, using thematic analysis. We then applied Ball's theory of policy enactment to organise the data into four contextual dimensions of ‘situation’, ‘professional’, ‘material’ and ‘external’.ResultsOn the surface, there were many similarities across the six schools in terms of the four dimensions. However, how these dimensions interacted illuminated tensions and differences. For example, some schools found themselves increasingly subjected to local and extra‐local rule systems, including pressure to follow host university norms and hosts struggling to accept that medical schools are heavily regulated. There were also tensions between the new medical schools and the medical education “establishment”, including lack of power and being judged by overly narrow outcomes.DiscussionDifferent contexts seem to influence the enactment of WP to medicine in different places, even in the same country, even in medical schools established at the same time. That policy enactment is a complex, non‐linear process of enactment is important to acknowledge: context is critical. Our findings will inform future policies and practices that aim to increase WP in medicine.
IntroductionIncreasing the diversity of medical students, or widening participation (WP), is critical for social justice and healthcare delivery, and many governments are setting policies to encourage WP. However, establishing policy is only the first step in an educational change process: we also need to know “how” policy is enacted or how medical schools interpret and put into practice WP policy. Addressing this gap, the aim of this study was to examine policy enactment in six new UK medical schools with an explicit WP mandate.MethodsThis qualitative study, underpinned by social constructivism, used semi‐structured interviews to explore the experiences of key actors (6 Deans and 14 Admissions staff) of putting policy into practice when setting up a new medical school. Data coding and analysis were initially inductive, using thematic analysis. We then applied Ball's theory of policy enactment to organise the data into four contextual dimensions of ‘situation’, ‘professional’, ‘material’ and ‘external’.ResultsOn the surface, there were many similarities across the six schools in terms of the four dimensions. However, how these dimensions interacted illuminated tensions and differences. For example, some schools found themselves increasingly subjected to local and extra‐local rule systems, including pressure to follow host university norms and hosts struggling to accept that medical schools are heavily regulated. There were also tensions between the new medical schools and the medical education “establishment”, including lack of power and being judged by overly narrow outcomes.DiscussionDifferent contexts seem to influence the enactment of WP to medicine in different places, even in the same country, even in medical schools established at the same time. That policy enactment is a complex, non‐linear process of enactment is important to acknowledge: context is critical. Our findings will inform future policies and practices that aim to increase WP in medicine.
IntroductionThe medical school selection literature comes mostly from a few countries in the Global North and offers little opportunity to consider different ways of thinking and doing. Our aim, therefore, was to critically consider selection practices and their sociohistorical influences in our respective countries (Brazil, China, Singapore, South Africa and the UK), including how any perceived inequalities are addressed.MethodsThis paper summarises many constructive dialogues grounded in the idea of he er butong (和而不同) (harmony with diversity), learning about and from each other.ResultsSome practices were similar across the five countries, but there were differences in precise practices, attitudes and sociohistorical influences thereon. For example, in Brazil, South Africa and the UK, there is public and political acknowledgement that attainment is linked to systemic and social factors such as socio‐economic status and/or race. Selecting for medical school solely on prior attainment is recognised as unfair to less privileged societal groups. Conversely, selection via examination performance is seen as fair and promoting equality in China and Singapore, although the historical context underpinning this value differs across the two countries. The five countries differ in respect of their actions towards addressing inequality. Quotas are used to ensure the representation of certain groups in Brazil and regional representation in China. Quotas are illegal in the UK, and South Africa does not impose them, leading to the use of various, compensatory ‘workarounds’ to address inequality. Singapore does not take action to address inequality because all people are considered equal constitutionally.DiscussionIn conclusion, medical school selection practices are firmly embedded in history, values, societal expectations and stakeholder beliefs, which vary by context. More comparisons, working from the position of acknowledging and respecting differences, would extend knowledge further and enable consideration of what permits and hinders change in different contexts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.