The gap in transfer research

Abstract

Liv and Tolsgaard examine the literature on transfer and suggest that context is more than a barrier to be overcome.

Advice for authors from the editors of <em>Perspectives on Medical Education</em>: Getting your research published<em><br></em>

“…First, if anyone outside of your institution or research team is to benefit from study results, you need to position the study within a broader context and/or a theoretical framework. The importance of theory and transferability to high-quality research has been emphasized repeatedly in our research community [1–3, 8] but its absence remains one of the main reasons for rejection.…”

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

“…At one pole, Production for Users, clinicians and educators aim to solve concrete problems and provide service to universities and clinical departments. This type of research often lacks theoretical frameworks 5 and is thought to be published mostly by clinicians in clinical journals 6 . There are several proposed reasons for why clinicians and educators may fail to include theory in their research.…”

“…Albert et al interviewed a number of influential figures in medical education, one of which stated that ‘doctors are not interested in listening to your theory[…] What they want to know is how they can make something more effective and cost less’ 5 . Although Producers for Users may fail to situate their research within a theoretical framework, 5,6 they (supposedly) compensate by applying strict experimental methodologies to programme evaluations—for example, by using strong experimental controls in a randomised design 3 . However, without theoretical frameworks they may fail in solving practical problems as well as in advancing theoretical issues 7 …”

“…The lack of theory in medical education research remains a major cause of rejection of papers submitted to medical education journals 7,15‐17 . On the other hand, critics of highly theoretical research question whether it has any real impact on educational practice and policy development 6,7,18 …”

“…Following this line of thinking, we suggest that a commonly accepted myth implies that medical education research is perennially divided between two singular poles: practically oriented research aiming to serve educators and clinicians with little focus on advancing theory and research aiming to advance theory with little focus on practical applications. A potential problem arising from this myth is silo effects, where research at each pole does not share goals, theories or agendas; thereby failing to advance the field as a whole 6,7 …”