Reclaiming a theoretical orientation to reflection in medical education research: a critical narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Reflection and reflective practice have become popular topics of scholarly dialogue in medical education. This popularity has given rise to checklists, portfolios and other tools to inspire and document reflection. We argue that some of the common ways in which reflection has been applied are influenced by broader discourses of assessment and evidence, and divorced from original theories of reflection and reflective practice. METHODS: This paper was developed using a critical narrative approach. First we present two theoretical lenses provided by theories of reflection. Next we present a summary of relevant literature, indexed in PubMed from 2004 to 2014, relating to the application of reflection or reflective practice to undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. We categorise these articles broadly by trends and problematise the trends relative to the two theoretical lenses of reflection. RESULTS: Two relevant theoretical orientations of reflection for medical education are: (i) reflection as epistemology of practice, and (ii) reflection as critical social inquiry. Three prevalent trends in the application of reflection to medical education are: (i) utilitarian applications of reflection; (ii) a focus on the self as the object of reflection, and (iii) reflection and assessment. These trends align with dominant epistemological positions in medicine, but not with those that underpin reflection. CONCLUSIONS: We argue for continued theorising of and theoretically informed applications of reflection, drawing upon epistemologies of practice and critical reflection as critical social inquiry. These directions offer medical education research broad and deep potential in theories of reflection, particularly in relation to knowledge creation within uncertain and complex situations, and challenging of dominant discourses and structures. Future work could explore how dominant epistemological positions and discourses in medicine influence theories from other disciplines when these theories are deployed in medical education.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.114 | 0.278 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".