Using paradox theory to understand responses to tensions between service and training in general surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The tension between service and training in pressured health care environments can have a detrimental impact on training quality and job satisfaction. Yet the management literature proposes that competing demands are inherent in organisational settings: it is not the demands as such that lead to negative outcomes but how people and organisations react to opposing tensions. We explored how key stakeholders responded to competing service-training demands in a surgical setting that had recently gone through a highly-publicised organisational crisis. METHODS: This was an explanatory case study of a general surgery unit. Public documents informed the research questions and the data were triangulated with semi-structured interviews (n = 14) with key stakeholders. Data coding and analysis were initially inductive but, after the themes emerged, we used a paradox lens to group themes into four contextual dimensions: performing, organising, belonging and learning. RESULTS: Tensions were apparent in the data, with managers, surgeons and trainees or residents in conflict with each other because of different goals or priorities and divergent perspectives on the same issue of balancing service and training (performing). This adversely impacted on relationships across and within groups (belonging, learning) and led to individuals prioritising their own goals rather than working for the 'greater good' (performing, belonging). Yet although relationships and communication improved, the approach to getting a better balance maintained the 'compartmentalisation' of training (organising) rather than acknowledging that training and service cannot be separated. DISCUSSION: Stakeholder responses to the tensions provided temporary relief but were unlikely to lead to real change if the tension between service and training was considered to be an interdependent and persistent paradox. Reframing the service-training paradox in this way may encourage adjusting responses to create effective working partnerships. Our findings add to the body of knowledge on this topic, and will resonate with all those engaged in surgical and other postgraduate training.
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 | 0.033 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".