Ethical reasoning through simulation: a phenomenological analysis of student experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical students transitioning into professional practice feel underprepared to deal with the emotional complexities of real-life ethical situations. Simulation-based learning (SBL) may provide a safe environment for students to probe the boundaries of ethical encounters. Published studies of ethics simulation have not generated sufficiently deep accounts of student experience to inform pedagogy. The aim of this study was to understand students’ lived experiences as they engaged with the emotional challenges of managing clinical ethical dilemmas within a SBL environment. This qualitative study was underpinned by an interpretivist epistemology. Eight senior medical students participated in an interprofessional ward-based SBL activity incorporating a series of ethically challenging encounters. Each student wore digital video glasses to capture point-of-view (PoV) film footage. Students were interviewed immediately after the simulation and the PoV footage played back to them. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. An interpretative phenomenological approach, using an established template analysis approach, was used to iteratively analyse the data. Four main themes emerged from the analysis: (1) ‘Authentic on all levels?’, (2)‘Letting the emotions flow’, (3) ‘Ethical alarm bells’ and (4) ‘Voices of children and ghosts’. Students recognised many explicit ethical dilemmas during the SBL activity but had difficulty navigating more subtle ethical and professional boundaries. In emotionally complex situations, instances of moral compromise were observed (such as telling an untruth). Some participants felt unable to raise concerns or challenge unethical behaviour within the scenarios due to prior negative undergraduate experiences. This study provided deep insights into medical students’ immersive and embodied experiences of ethical reasoning during an authentic SBL activity. By layering on the human dimensions of ethical decision-making, students can understand their personal responses to emotion, complexity and interprofessional working. This could assist them in framing and observing appropriate ethical and professional boundaries and help smooth the transition into clinical practice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".