Barriers to cross-disciplinary knowledge flow: The case of medical education research

Abstract

Introduction The medical education research field operates at the crossroads of two distinct academic worlds: higher education and medicine. As such, this field provides a unique opportunity to explore new forms of cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange. Methods Cross-disciplinary knowledge flow in medical education research was examined by looking at citation patterns in the five journals with the highest impact factor in 2017. To grasp the specificities of the knowledge flow in medical education, the field of higher education was used as a comparator. In total, 2031 citations from 64 medical education and 41 higher education articles published in 2017 were examined. Results Medical education researchers draw on a narrower range of knowledge communities than their peers in higher education. Medical education researchers predominantly cite articles published in health and medical education journals (80% of all citations), and to a lesser extent, articles published in education and social science journals. In higher education, while the largest share of the cited literature is internal to the domain (36%), researchers cite literature from across the social science spectrum. Findings suggest that higher education scholars engage in conversations with academics from a broader range of communities and perspectives than their medical education colleagues. Discussion Using Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of doxa and field, it is argued that the variety of epistemic cultures entering the higher education research space contributes to its interdisciplinary nature. Conversely, the existence of a relatively homogeneous epistemic culture in medicine potentially impedes cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange.

Bibliometrics: Methods for studying academic publishing

“…In HPE, which includes researchers from a variety of training backgrounds and knowledge traditions, identifying our community and its scholarship can be difficult with researchers proposing variable approaches. For example, Lee et al attempted to define the field of medical education based on a corpus of publications retrieved when searching for "medical education" in MEDLINE [17], whereas other authors propose the use of a core set of journals based on journal impact factor [18] and presence in Web of Science [8]. This has implications for the field's ability to build on previous scholarship and even apply for funding, suggesting now is the time for medical education to leverage the power of bibliometrics.…”

The scope of health professions education requires complementary and diverse approaches to knowledge synthesis

“…Positioned within an objectivist philosophy, bibliometric reviews clearly add a unique perspective to our understanding of HPE. For example, in this issue, Albert and colleagues use bibliometric methods to contrast the use of disciplinary knowledge by medical education and general education researchers [ 16 ]. Rees and colleagues, in this issue, address the issue of research productivity and the tyranny of the h‑index [ 17 ].…”

Blind spots in medical education: how can we envision new possibilities?

“…We must empower those lower in medicine’s traditional hierarchies, especially learners and patients, and those who may be disadvantaged by society’s structures, to weigh in on the future directions that medical education should take. While medical education is interdisciplinary, it is also still very insular [ 48 ]. Bringing together those from outside medical education in ways that are meaningful, lasting, and constructive could not only mitigate biases, but help us generate more creativity [ 49 ], see more “adjacent possibilities,” and select avenues to pursue innovation.…”