A Historical Discourse Analysis of Pharmacist Identity in Pharmacy Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To determine the discourses on professional identity in pharmacy education over the last century in North America and which one(s) currently dominate. Methods. A Foucauldian critical discourse analysis using archival resources from the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education ( AJPE ) and commissioned education reports was used to expose the identity discourses in pharmacy education. Results. This study identified five prominent identity discourses in the pharmacy education literature: apothecary, dispenser, merchandiser, expert advisor, and health care provider. Each discourse constructs the pharmacist's professional identity in different ways and makes possible certain language, subjects, and objects. The health care provider discourse currently dominates the literature. However, an unexpected finding of this study was that the discourses identified did not shift clearly over time, but rather piled up, resulting in students being exposed to incompatible identities. Conclusion. This study illustrates that pharmacist identity constructs are not simple, self-evident, or progressive. In exposing students to incompatible identity discourses, pharmacy education may be unintentionally impacting the formation of a strong, unified healthcare provider identity, which may impact widespread practice change.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".