3.8 Article

Expanding postgraduate clinical research capacity: an exploration of key resistances

期刊

JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION
卷 44, 期 5, 页码 596-608

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2019.1571173

关键词

postgraduate education; clinical research; resistance; professional disruption

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London (NIHR CLAHRC South London) at King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There have been increasing calls in healthcare for the development of a more robust evidence base. Facilitating research activity amongst clinicians is the primary means of achieving this, although engagement is often undermined by a number of barriers and resistors. This article identifies and explores the forms of resistance that graduates from three postgraduate healthcare education programmes have encountered on their return to practice. This study employed a collective case study approach and gathered data from 29 semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis revealed a range of challenges, both anticipated and unexpected, which related to research engagement. Four forms of resistance were subsequently identified: managerial, medical, organisational and interprofessional. In exploring these forms of resistance, it became apparent that barriers to research engagement are not only contextually determined but also rooted in enduring social perceptions, role insecurity and professional protectionism. The study also found that, whilst research engagement was rhetorically supported, organisations offer very little tangible assistance to potential clinical researchers. A particular type of education has proved manifestly disruptive in this instance, and this disruption will need to be recognised as curricula are adjusted and developed. Further exploring the identified miscommunication between education and practice will also be of particular value to both fields.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据