Tackling wicked problems: how theories of agency can provide new insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This paper reviews why and how theories of agency can be used as analytical lenses to help health professions education (HPE) scholars address our community's wicked problems. Wicked problems are those that resist clear problem statements, defy traditional analysis approaches, and refuse definitive resolution (e.g. student remediation, assessments of professionalism, etc.). We illustrate how theories of agency can provide new insights into such challenges by examining the application of these theories to one particular wicked problem in HPE: interprofessional education (IPE). METHODS: After searching the HPE literature and finding that theories of agency had received little attention, we borrowed techniques from narrative literature reviews to search databases indexing a broad scope of disciplines (i.e. ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE and PubMed) for publications (1994-2014) that: (i) examined agency, or (ii) incorporated an agency-informed analytical perspective. The lead author identified the theories of agency used in these articles, and reviewed the texts on agency cited therein and the original sources of each theory. We identified 10 theories of agency that we considered to be applicable to HPE's wicked problems. To select a subset of theories for presentation in this paper, we discussed each theory in relation to some of HPE's wicked problems. Through debate and reflection, we unanimously agreed on the applicability of a subset of theories for illuminating HPE's wicked problems. This subset is described in this paper. RESULTS: We present four theories of agency: Butler's post-structural formulation; Giddens' sociological formulation; cultural historical activity theory's formulation, and Bandura's social cognitive psychology formulation. We introduce each theory and apply each to the challenges of engaging in IPE. CONCLUSIONS: Theories of agency can inform HPE scholarship in novel and generative ways. Each theory offers new insights into the roots of wicked problems and means for contending with them.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".