Critical Theory: Broadening Our Thinking to Explore the Structural Factors at Play in Health Professions Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Philosophy of Science series of Invited Commentaries, this article on critical theory describes the origins of this research paradigm and its key concepts and orientations (ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology, and rigor). The authors frame critical theory as an umbrella term for different theories, including feminism, antiracism, and anticolonialism. They emphasize the structural analysis that critical scholars conduct to uncover and sometimes address the role that social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender factors play in health professions education. They note the importance of acknowledging one's social location when doing critical research and highlight the core values of democracy and egalitarianism that underpin critical research. Methodologically, the authors stress how critical scholars reject singular truths in favor of more nuanced portraits of concepts and events, mobilize inductive approaches over deductive ones, and use critical theory to develop their projects and analyze their data. Following upon this elucidation of critical theory, the authors apply this paradigm to analyze the sample case of Lee, a medical resident who was involved in a medication error. The authors conclude that research conducted in the critical tradition has the potential to transcend individualistic accounts by revealing underlying structural forces that constrain or support individual agency.
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 | 0.048 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".