The case for faculty development: A realist evaluation

Abstract

ContextIt seems logical to suggest that investing in educators will lead to improved educational outcomes. However, in the case of faculty development, it is unclear how these benefits arise and decisions about investment typically have little basis in evidence. The aim of this realist evaluation was to understand the mechanisms by which investment in faculty development may lead to improved educational outcomes for staff and students.MethodsThis realist evaluation involved three phases: the development of an initial programme theory based on existing peer‐reviewed literature (Phase 1), which was used within 32 realist interviews with key stakeholders at 17 UK medical schools (Phase 2), to underpin the creation of a series of recommendations for faculty development programme designers (Phase 3).ResultsThe findings highlighted the complex and heterogeneous nature of faculty development programmes. Programme developers must consider a range of contexts (accreditation, meeting educational needs, learning culture, accessibility and interactivity) that can impact faculty members in variable ways (engagement, sense of value and belonging, motivation, reassurance and building relationships), potentially resulting in a range of staff outcomes (improved competence, satisfaction, confidence, faculty member collaboration and curriculum changes) that may ultimately benefit students. The improved understanding resulting from Phases 1 and 2, and the recommendations from Phase 3, will enable the design and tailoring of new and existing faculty development initiatives.ConclusionsThis study deepens our understanding of the role of context in faculty development through the realist methodology employed and extends pre‐existing knowledge to provide insights into evidence‐based interventional strategies that may be effective. In particular, faculty development leads need to develop a clear implementation strategy, improve transparency of cashflow, establish effective formal or informal communication systems and evaluate the efficacy of their faculty development initiatives.

What Really Matters for Supervision Training Workshops? A Realist Evaluation

“…While these mechanisms were often triggered in assorted contexts including the health care or human services sectors, experienced or inexperienced supervisors, and supervision-enabled or non-enabled cultures, we found some context-specific program theories. Although these findings are partly comparable with the realist synthesis, 9 as well as other realist evaluations of short-duration faculty development interventions, 15–17 we discuss differences between our findings and previous literature here.…”

“…supervision-enabled or non-enabled cultures, we found some context-specific program theories. Although these findings are partly comparable with the realist synthesis, 9 as well as other realist evaluations of short-duration faculty development interventions, [15][16][17] we discuss differences between our findings and previous literature here.…”

“…9 Additionally, we identified novel negative workshop outcomes, extending previous faculty development realist evaluations that focused exclusively on positive outcomes only. [15][16][17] Concerning mechanisms, there were 2 mechanisms identified in the previous realist synthesis for which we found no evidence of (i.e., structured training, supervisor confidence/efficacy). 9 Structured training may not have been found as a mechanism in our evaluation because this was previously found as a mechanism for improved supervisee development and well-being, 45,46 and we did not identify supervisee outcomes in our evaluation.…”

“…Some studies have conducted realist syntheses or evaluations of workplace supervision, 2,7,8 but only one study has conducted a realist synthesis of clinical supervision training. 9,10 Although numerous realist evaluations have been published exploring health education interventions, including coaching skills training, 11 mentoring, 12 leadership development, 13 faculty development, [14][15][16][17] interprofessional learning, 18 knowledge exchange, 19 and preceptorship, 20 none have conducted realist evaluations of supervision training. Therefore, building on a previous realist synthesis of clinical supervision training, 9,10 we report on a realist evaluation of supervision training workshops to explore whether they work, for whom and under what circumstances, and why.…”

Unpacking economic programme theory for supervision training: Preliminary steps towards realist economic evaluation

“…3,6 Interestingly, none of the recent commentaries or guides on economic evaluations in health professions education research mention REE. 3,4 This is perhaps because of three key reasons: (1) realist evaluation has only become popular in medical education recently [13][14][15][16][17] ; (2) the REE literature is in its early infancy 10,[18][19][20] ; and (3) economic and realist evaluations differ considerably with respect to their theoretical bases, conceptions of causality, research and policy aims, data types, optimal study designs and generalisability/transferability concerns. 10,18 See Box 1 for a glossary of realist and economic terms.…”