Invoking culture in medical education research: A critical review and metaphor analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: 'Culture' is a word frequently invoked within medical education literature to explain challenges faced by learners in practice. While social settings and practices are widely acknowledged as critical influences on medical education, there is vast variability in how the term 'culture' is employed. This may lead to confusion, resulting in assumptions and oversights. OBJECTIVE: This critical literature review aims to characterise how the term 'culture' is explicitly and implicitly conceptualised in medical education research. METHODS: Four leading English language journals in the medical education field were searched in a twelve-month period for research papers or reviews that mentioned culture in title or abstract in a substantive way. A content analysis was undertaken of extracted definitions. In addition, metaphor analysis was used to identify conceptual metaphors, which were subsequently clustered thematically. RESULTS: Our search yielded 26 papers, 8 of which contained definitions, mostly from the organisational literature. We interpreted nine conceptual metaphors related to how the term culture was employed (terroir, divider, dominant force, toxic force, obstacle, microclimate, object, brand and holdall) in four categories (unchanging, powerful, can adapt around, can be used). DISCUSSION: This critical review reveals that medical education as a field: 1) draws most explicitly from the organisational literature; 2) invokes culture in multiple means but in ways that privilege either acontextual human agency or all-powerful social forces; and 3) regards culture as a negative or neutral force but rarely a positive one. There is a notable absence around conceptualisations of 'culture' that allow educator, student and administrator agency but at the same time acknowledge the deep forces that various social settings and practices exert. Other literatures investigating learning cultures and cultural reflexivity focus on this nexus and may provide possible means to advance considerations of culture within medical education 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 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 | 0.060 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.046 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".