Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

A writer’s guide to education scholarship: Qualitative education scholarship (part 2)

  • Teresa M. Chan (a1), Daniel K. Ting (a2), Andrew Koch Hall (a3), Aleisha Murnaghan (a4), Brent Thoma (a5), Jill McEwen (a6) and Lalena M. Yarris (a7)...

Abstract

Objective

Education scholarship can be conducted using a variety of methods, from quantitative experiments to qualitative studies. Qualitative methods are less commonly used in emergency medicine (EM) education research but are well-suited to explore complex educational problems and generate hypotheses. We aimed to review the literature to provide resources to guide educators who wish to conduct qualitative research in EM education.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review to outline: 1) a list of journals that regularly publish qualitative educational papers; 2) an aggregate set of quality markers for qualitative educational research and scholarship; and 3) a list of quality checklists for qualitative educational research and scholarship.

Results

We found nine journals that have published more than one qualitative educational research paper in EM. From the literature, we identified 39 quality markers that were grouped into 10 themes: Initial Grounding Work (preparation, background); Goals, Problem Statement, or Question; Methods (general considerations); Sampling Techniques; Data Collection Techniques; Data Interpretation and Theory Generation; Measures to Optimize Rigour and Trustworthiness; Relevance to the Field; Evidence of Reflective Practice; Dissemination and Reporting. Lastly, five quality checklists were found for guiding educators in reporting their qualitative work.

Conclusion

Many problems that EM educators face are well-suited to exploration using qualitative methods. The results of our scoping review provide publication venues, quality indicators, and checklists that may be useful to EM educators embarking on qualitative projects.

Introduction

Les travaux de recherche en enseignement peuvent être menés selon différentes méthodes, depuis les études expérimentales quantitatives jusqu’aux études qualitatives. Les méthodes qualitatives sont moins utilisées que les autres dans la recherche en enseignement de la médecine d’urgence (MU), mais elles conviennent très bien à l’étude de problèmes complexes en enseignement et à l’émission d’hypothèses. Aussi avons-nous procédé à un examen de la documentation afin de proposer des ressources aux éducateurs qui désirent réaliser de la recherche qualitative en enseignement de la MU.

Méthode

Nous avons effectué un examen de la portée afin : 1) de dresser une liste de revues qui publient souvent des travaux de recherche qualitative en enseignement; 2) d’établir un ensemble de marqueurs de qualité s’appliquant à la recherche qualitative en enseignement et aux travaux scientifiques; 3) de relever des listes de vérification de la qualité s’appliquant à la recherche qualitative en enseignement et aux travaux scientifiques.

Résultats

La recherche a permis de recenser neuf revues qui avaient publié plus d’un travail de recherche qualitative en enseignement de la MU. Il s’est dégagé de l’examen de la documentation 39 marqueurs de qualité, groupés en 10 thèmes : les travaux préliminaires (les préparatifs, le contexte); le but, l’énoncé du problème ou la question; la méthode (généralités); la technique d’échantillonnage; la technique de collecte de données; l’interprétation des données et l’élaboration de théories; les mesures d’amélioration de la rigueur et de la véracité; la pertinence de la recherche dans le domaine; les signes de la pratique réflexive; la diffusion et l’établissement de rapports. Enfin se sont dégagées de la recension cinq listes de vérification de la qualité susceptibles d’aider les éducateurs dans l’établissement de rapports sur leurs travaux de recherche qualitative.

Discussion

De nombreux problèmes auxquels font face les éducateurs en MU se prêtent bien à la recherche menée à l’aide de méthodes qualitatives. L’examen de la portée a permis de relever différents éditeurs, des indicateurs de qualité et des listes de vérification susceptibles de guider les éducateurs en MU qui désirent faire de la recherche qualitative.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      A writer’s guide to education scholarship: Qualitative education scholarship (part 2)
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      A writer’s guide to education scholarship: Qualitative education scholarship (part 2)
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      A writer’s guide to education scholarship: Qualitative education scholarship (part 2)
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Correspondence to: Dr. Teresa M. Chan, Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8; Email: teresa.chan@medportal.ca

References

Hide All
1. Bergman, E, de Feijter, J, Frambach, J, et al. AM last page: a guide to research paradigms relevant to medical education. Acad Med 2012;87(4):545, 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31824fbc8a.
2. Boet, S, Sharma, S, Goldman, J, et al. Medical education research: an overview of methods. Can J Anesth 2012;59:159-170, 10.1007/s12630-011-9635-y.
3. Tavakol, M, Sandars, J. Quantitative and qualitative methods in medical education research: AMEE guide no 90: part II. Med Teach 2014;36(10):838-848, 10.3109/0142159X.2014.915297.
4. McKinley, RK. Qualitative and quantitative: the yin and the yang or the light and the dark sides of medical education? Perspect Med Educ 2015;4(1):1-3, 10.1007/s40037-015-0162-3.
5. Sullivan, GM, Sargeant, J. Qualities of qualitative research: part I. J Grad Med Educ 2011;3(4):449-452, 10.4300/JGME-D-11-00221.1.
6. Sargeant, J. Qualitative research part II: participants, analysis, and quality assurance. J Grad Med Educ 2012;4(1):1-3, 10.4300/JGME-D-11-00307.1.
7. Teherani, A, Martimianakis, T, Stenfors-Hayes, T, et al. Choosing a qualitative research approach. J Grad Med Educ 2015;7(4):669-670, 10.4300/JGME-D-15-00414.1.
8. Compton, S, Lang, E, Richardson, TM, et al. Knowledge translation consensus conference: research methods. Acad Emerg Med 2007;14(11):991-5, 10.1197/j.aem.2007.06.031.
9. Farrell, SE, Kuhn, GJ, Coates, WC, et al. Critical appraisal of emergency medicine education research: the best publications of 2013. Acad Emerg Med 2014;21(11):1274-1283, 10.1111/acem.12507.
10. Yarris, LM, Juve, AM, Coates, WC, et al. Critical appraisal of emergency medicine education research: the best publications of 2014. Acad Emerg Med 2015;22(11):1327-1336, 10.1111/acem.12801.
11. Cooper, S, Endacott, R. Generic qualitative research: a design for qualitative research in emergency care? Emerg Med J 2007;24(12):816-819, 10.1136/emj.2007.050641.
12. Turner, TL, Balmer, DF, Coverdale, JH. Methodologies and study designs relevant to medical education research. Int Rev Psychiatry 2013;25(3):301-310, 10.3109/09540261.2013.790310.
13. Lingard, L, Albert, M, Levinson, W. Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. BMJ 2008;337:459-461, 10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47.
14. Farrell, L, Bourgeois-Law, G, Regehr, G, et al. Autoethnography: introducing “I” into medical education research. Med Educ 2015;49(10):974-982, 10.1111/medu.12761.
15. Genn, JM, Harden, RM. What is medical education here really like? Suggestions for action research studies of climates of medical education environments. Med Teach 1986;8(2):111-124.
16. Schifferdecker, KE, Reed, VA. Using mixed methods research in medical education: basic guidelines for researchers. Med Educ 2009;43(7):637-644, 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03386.x.
17. Ziebland, S, McPherson, A. Making sense of qualitative data analysis: an introduction with illustrations from DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness). Med Educ 2006;40(5):405-414, 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02467.x.
18. Giacomini, MK, Cook, DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? J Am Med Assoc 2000;284(3):357-362.
19. Giacomini, MK, Cook, DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature XXIII. Qualitative research in health care B. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? JAMA 2000;284(4):478-482.
20. Arskey, H, O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2004;8(1):19-32.
21. Gehanno, J, Rollin, L, Darmoni, S. Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13(1):1, 10.5210/ojphi.v5i2.4623.
22. Paterson, QS, Thoma, B, Milne, WK, et al. A systematic review and qualitative analysis to determine quality indicators for health professions education blogs and podcasts. J Grad Med Ed 2015;7(4):549–54.
23. Chan, TM, Wallner, C, Swoboda, TK, et al. Assessing interpersonal and communication skills in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2012;19(12):1390-1402, 10.1111/acem.12030.
24. Sebok, SS. Understanding how raters communicate in the context of medical high-stakes, performance-based assessments; 2015. Available at: http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/jspui/bitstream/1974/13713/1/Sebok_Stefanie_S_201509_PhD.pdf.
25. Glassick, CE. Boyer’s expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards of assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Acad Med 2000;75(9):877-880.
26. Bordage, G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001;76(9):889.
27. Kitto, S. Quality in qualitative research. Med J Aust 2007;188(4):243-246, 10.4135/9781848608191.
28. Stacy, R, Spencer, J. Assessing the evidence in qualitative medical education research. Med Educ 2000;34(7):498-500.
29. Hanson, JL, Balmer, DF, Giardino, AP. Qualitative research methods for medical educators. Acad Pediatr 2006;11(5):375-386, 10.1016/j.acap.2011.05.001.
30. Barbour, RS. Making sense of focus groups. Med Educ 2005;39(7):742-750, 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02200.x.
31. Binder, LS, Chapman, DM. Qualitative research methodologies in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 1995;2(12):1098-1102.
32. O’Brien, BC, Harris, IB, Beckman, TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research. Acad Med 2014;89(9):1245-1251, 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.
33. Norman, G. How bad is medical education research anyway? Adv Heal Sci Educ 2007;12(1):1-5, 10.1007/s10459-006-9047-x.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Chan supplementary material S1
Appendix

 Word (140 KB)
140 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Chan supplementary material S2
Appendix

 Word (82 KB)
82 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed