Ayelet Kuper

Critically appraising qualitative research

Six key questions will help readers to assess qualitative research

An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research

This article explores the difference between qualitative and quantitative research and the need for doctors to be able to interpret and appraise qualitative research

Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography

The previous articles (there were 2 before this 1) in this series discussed several methodological approaches commonly used by qualitative researchers in the health professions. This article focuses on another important qualitative methodology: ethnography. It provides background for those who will encounter this methodology in their reading rather than instructions for carrying out such research. Ethnography is the study of social interactions, behaviours, and perceptions that occur within groups, teams, organisations, and communities. Its roots can be traced back to anthropological studies of small, rural (and often remote) societies that were undertaken in the early 1900s, when researchers such as Bronislaw Malinowski and Alfred Radcliffe-Brown participated in these societies over long periods and documented their social arrangements and belief systems. This approach was later adopted by members of the Chicago School of Sociology (for example, Everett Hughes, Robert Park, Louis Wirth) and applied to a variety of urban settings in their studies of social life. The central aim of ethnography is to provide rich, holistic insights into people’s views and actions, as well as the nature (that is, sights, sounds) of the location they inhabit, through the collection of detailed observations and interviews. As Hammersley states, “The task [of ethnographers] is to document the culture, the perspectives and practices, of the people in these settings. The aim is to ‘get inside’ the way each group of people sees the world.”1 Box 1 outlines the key features of ethnographic research. #### Box 1 Key features of ethnographic research2

Why use theories in qualitative research

Theories such as interactionism, phenomenology, and critical theory can be used to help design a research question, guide the selection of relevant data, interpret the data, and propose explanations of causes or influences

An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research

Seventy six senior academics from 11 countries invite The BMJ ’s editors to reconsider their policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority. They challenge the journal to develop a proactive, scholarly, and pluralist approach to research that aligns with its stated mission

Theory and practice in the design and conduct of graduate medical education.

Medical education practice is more often the result of tradition, ritual, culture, and history than of any easily expressed theoretical or conceptual framework. The authors explain the importance and nature of the role of theory in the design and conduct of graduate medical education. They outline three groups of theories relevant to graduate medical education: bioscience theories, learning theories, and sociocultural theories. Bioscience theories are familiar to many medical educators but are often misperceived as truths rather than theories. Theories from such disciplines as neuroscience, kinesiology, and cognitive psychology offer insights into areas such as memory formation, motor skills acquisition, diagnostic decision making, and instructional design. Learning theories, primarily emerging from psychology and education, are also popular within medical education. Although widely employed, not all learning theories have robust evidence bases. Nonetheless, many important notions within medical education are derived from learning theories, including self-monitoring, legitimate peripheral participation, and simulation design enabling sustained deliberate practice. Sociocultural theories, which are common in the wider education literature but have been largely overlooked within medical education, are inherently concerned with contexts and systems and provide lenses that selectively highlight different aspects of medical education. They challenge educators to reconceptualize the goals of medical education, to illuminate maladaptive processes, and to untangle problems such as career choice, interprofessional communication, and the hidden curriculum.Theories make visible existing problems and enable educators to ask new and important questions. The authors encourage medical educators to gain greater understanding of theories that guide their educational practices.

Rethinking the basis of medical knowledge.

Medical Education 2011: 45: 36–43

Assessment: do we need to broaden our methodological horizons?

Although medical education is a broad field of research and practice, it has come to be dominated by issues of assessment. Reasons for this emphasis range from the focus on accountability for educational outcomes to the established relationship between assessment and student motivation. Researchers in the domain, especially in North America, have largely focused on methodologies taken from psychometrics and have overlooked the broader social sciences literature devoted to the analysis of social behaviour and social interaction. In this commentary we provide a critique of the ubiquitous use of psychometric methodologies and perspectives and argue that the social sciences offer other rich methodological resources for the study of assessment.

Conceptual and practical challenges in the assessment of physician competencies.

Abstract The shift to using outcomes-based competency frameworks in medical education in many countries around the world requires educators to find ways to assess multiple competencies. Contemporary medical educators recognize that a competent trainee not only needs sound biomedical knowledge and technical skills, they also need to be able to communicate, collaborate and behave in a professional manner. This paper discusses methodological challenges of assessment with a particular focus on the CanMEDS Roles. The paper argues that the psychometric measures that have been the mainstay of assessment practices for the past half-century, while still valuable and necessary, are not sufficient for a competency-oriented assessment environment. New assessment approaches, particularly ones from the social sciences, are required to be able to assess non-Medical Expert (Intrinsic) roles that are situated and context-bound. Realist and ethnographic methods in particular afford ways to address the challenges of this new assessment. The paper considers the theoretical and practical bases for tools that can more effectively assess non-Medical Expert (Intrinsic) roles.

Teaching and learning in morbidity and mortality rounds: an ethnographic study

Medical Education 2010: 44: 559–569