The Mindsets of Medical Education Leaders: How Do They Conceive of Their Work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: How a leader perceives his or her organization affects that individual's decision making and beliefs about the best way to influence it. The goal of this study was to understand how medical education leaders conceive of their work. METHOD: The first author interviewed 16 medical education leaders in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto from June 2005 until February 2006. The sample represented different practice contexts to ensure a diverse overview of experiences. Using the theoretical framework of Bolman and Deal, the authors examined and described the perceptual frames through which these leaders perceive their endeavors. Transcripts were analyzed and then mapped onto Bolman and Deal's four cognitive lenses (i.e., frames). RESULTS: Fourteen of the 16 leaders used all cognitive frames. The human resource perspective was favored by all participants, followed closely by the symbolic (14/16) and political (14/16). Although most attended to the structural frame (14/16), only three placed any significant emphasis on it. In addition to identifying and describing the elements of this typology for medical education leadership, a new frame emerged of assessing interpersonal and work style in order to determine how to socially situate individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This study uniquely contributes by supporting the utility of the Bolman and Deal typology in the medical education context and supports the value for leaders to reflect on their organizational work from a variety of perspectives (including the frames). Medical education leadership development programs need to attend to enhancing the awareness of these perspectives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".