“It’s Not Just About Getting Along”: Exploring Learning Through the Discourse and Practice of Interprofessional Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is a necessary competency for all professionals. However, IPC can be fraught with politics leading to variable uptake and execution. The authors set out to understand how trainees come to appreciate the value of the "team" in their learning and to describe the type of learning related to IPC afforded to trainees in a highly collaborative complex care context. METHOD: The authors conducted 72 hours of observations of pediatric rheumatology settings at a large pediatric hospital across 18 months. They interviewed 10 health professionals and analyzed an archive of texts to ascertain how the field of pediatric rheumatology conceptualizes the role of IPC. They used the concept of governmentality and critical discourse analysis to describe how values of collaboration enabled learning and theories of expertise to understand how learning was enacted and perceived. RESULTS: Collaboration was perceived to be a product of providing good rheumatological care, which in this case, aligned well with hospital model of IPC. This alignment afforded trainees learning opportunities beyond preparing them to get along with other health professionals. IPC, when role modeled during problem solving, created the conditions for learning "why" collaboration is important for clinical expertise. CONCLUSIONS: By critically examining the relationship between discourse, practice, and learning, the authors have described how practices that underpin collaboration as a clinical competency are distinct from collaboration as cultural work contributing to civility within teams and across the organization.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".