医学教育研究领域处于两个截然不同的学术世界的十字路口:高等教育和医学。因此,这一领域为探索跨学科知识交流的新形式提供了独特的机会。
通过查看2017年影响因子最高的五种期刊的引文模式,对医学教育研究中的跨学科知识流动进行了研究。把握医学教育知识流动的特殊性,高等教育领域被用作比较者。总的来说,研究了2017年发表的64篇医学教育和41篇高等教育文章的2031篇引文。
医学教育研究人员利用的知识社区范围比他们在高等教育中的同龄人要窄。医学教育研究人员主要引用发表在健康和医学教育期刊上的文章(占所有引用的80%),在较小程度上,在教育和社会科学期刊上发表的文章。在高等教育中,虽然引用文献的最大份额是领域内部的(36%),研究人员引用了来自社会科学领域的文献。研究结果表明,高等教育学者比医学教育同事从更广泛的社区和角度与学者进行对话。
使用PierreBourdieu的doxa和字段概念,有人认为,进入高等教育研究空间的认识文化的多样性有助于其跨学科性质。相反,医学中相对同质的认知文化的存在可能会阻碍跨学科知识交流。
The medical education research field operates at the crossroads of two distinct academic worlds: higher education and medicine. As such, this field provides a unique opportunity to explore new forms of cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange.
Cross-disciplinary knowledge flow in medical education research was examined by looking at citation patterns in the five journals with the highest impact factor in 2017. To grasp the specificities of the knowledge flow in medical education, the field of higher education was used as a comparator. In total, 2031 citations from 64 medical education and 41 higher education articles published in 2017 were examined.
Medical education researchers draw on a narrower range of knowledge communities than their peers in higher education. Medical education researchers predominantly cite articles published in health and medical education journals (80% of all citations), and to a lesser extent, articles published in education and social science journals. In higher education, while the largest share of the cited literature is internal to the domain (36%), researchers cite literature from across the social science spectrum. Findings suggest that higher education scholars engage in conversations with academics from a broader range of communities and perspectives than their medical education colleagues.
Using Pierre
Bourdieu\'s concepts of doxa and field, it is argued that the variety of epistemic cultures entering the higher education research space contributes to its interdisciplinary nature. Conversely, the existence of a relatively homogeneous epistemic culture in medicine potentially impedes cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange.