Professional paradox: identity formation in qualified doctors pursuing further training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Many newly qualified specialists and subspecialists pursue additional training. Although their motivations are many, the pursuit of further training as an alternative to unemployment is an emerging trend. Paradoxically, doctors continue as trainees with a consultant's credentials, and without the guarantee of eventual employment. This study explores seven doctors' experiences, the effects of further training on their professional identity formation (PIF), and how these effects are reconciled on a personal and professional level. METHODS: This phenomenological study involved interviews with seven qualified Canadian specialists (three were female) who pursued additional training in response to a lack of available positions in their respective specialties. Template analysis generated theoretical constructs of influences on their PIF, and characteristics of their lived experiences. RESULTS: Four themes shaped PIF: setting and context; language and communication; responsibilities and privileges; and participants' visions of their future selves. Professional identity formation (PIF) continued to develop in further training, but was inconsistently affirmed by participants' communities of practice. Four major themes characterised training experiences: prescription; managing multiple masters; limiting access to others and community ties; and constantly questioning the value of extra training. CONCLUSION: Qualified doctors traverse professional paradoxes as they seek further education with no guarantee of employment and provide consultant-level care as 'trainees'. An identity dissonance emerges that may continue until a clear identity is prescribed for them. Although disruptive to these doctors' PIF and personal and professional lives, the long-term effects of additional training are unknown. Its utility and influence on securing employment and future job satisfaction are areas for further research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".