Strategic Planning in Health Professions Education: Scholarship or Management?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strategic planning, in its various forms, is an evaluation practice that is ubiquitous in academic medicine. However, published reports of strategic planning at academic health centers usually ignore theory. In a 2017 strategic planning exercise at the Wilson Centre, a scholarly model evolved using a theoretical framework and a research approach rather than a conventional management model, which typically identifies outcomes and how to achieve them. After completing this exercise, the authors considered the larger questions of the assumptions underpinning different models of strategic planning and strategic planning's value to academic medicine. To elaborate on these questions, the authors examine relevant literature and set out the Wilson Centre's emergent scholarly model. They describe the main features of the scholarly model, including ways it differs from a management approach and from the typical approach to strategic planning in the authors' experience and in the field of health professions education research. The authors also share lessons learned as a means to encourage consideration by other academic organizations.
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 | 0.050 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".