Socio‐material perspectives on interprofessional team and collaborative learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Interprofessional teamwork and collaboration have become important parts of health care practice and education. Most of the literature on interprofessional learning, however, assumes that learning is something acquired by individuals and readily transferred to other contexts. This assumption severely limits the ways in which interprofessional educators and researchers can conceptualise and support learning related to collaborative interprofessional health care. Socio-material theories provide an alternative to individualistic, acquisition-oriented notions by reconceiving learning in terms of collective dynamics, participation in social communities and active engagement with material contexts. METHODS: Socio-material literature and theories were reviewed to identify concepts relevant to interprofessional learning. After briefly summarising the origins and key principles of socio-material approaches, the authors draw upon specific socio-material theories--including complexity theory, cultural-historical activity theory and actor-network theory--in order to reconceive how learning happens in interprofessional contexts. This reframing of interprofessional learning focuses less on individuals and more on collective dynamics and the actual social and material relations involved in practice. DISCUSSION: The paper proposes five ways in which learning may be enacted in interprofessional teamwork and collaboration from a socio-material perspective: (i) diverse contributions; (ii) social interactions and relationships; (iii) synthesis of professional ideas; (iv) integration of material elements, and (v) connections to large-scale organisations. For each of these categories, the paper provides practical illustrations to assist educators and researchers who wish to identify and assess this learning. CONCLUSIONS: Although more exploratory than comprehensive, this paper articulates many key aspects of socio-material learning theories and offers practical guidance for those who wish to employ and assess them in interprofessional contexts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".