Philanthropy in health professions education research: determinants of success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Fund-raising is a new practice in medical education research. OBJECTIVES: This qualitative study explores a cross-sectional analysis of philanthropy in medical education in Canada and Europe and identifies some common characteristics in the fund-raising system, key roles and characteristics of research sites that have had success. METHODS: Medical education research sites that had received donations greater than Can$100 000 were identified by searching publicly available sources. Interviews were conducted with 25 individuals from these and other sites, in four categories: medical education leaders (n = 9); philanthropy-supported chairholders and researchers (n = 5); donors of over Can$100 000 (n = 7), and advancement professionals (n = 4). Interview transcripts were inductively coded to identify themes. RESULTS: Five factors associated with success in accessing philanthropic sources were identified in the sample: support of the organisation's senior leadership; a charismatic champion who motivates donors; access to an advancement office or foundation; impetus to find funds beyond traditional operating budgets, and understanding of the conceptual and practical dimensions of fund-raising. Three types of donor (medical education insider, donor collective and general philanthropist), four faculty roles (trailblazers, rock stars, 'Who? Me?' people and future fund-raisers) and six stages in the fund-raising cycle were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Philanthropy is a source of funding with the potential to significantly advance education research. Yet competence in fund-raising is not widely developed among medical education research leaders. Successful accessing of philanthropic sources of funding requires the ability to articulate the impact of philanthropy in medical education research in a way that will interest donors. This appears to be challenging for medical education leaders, who tend to frame their work in academic terms and have trouble competing against other fund-raising domains. Medical education research institutes and centres will benefit from developing greater understanding of the conception and practices of fund-raising.
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 | 0.056 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".