“They hold your fate in their hands”: Exploring the power dynamic in the midwifery student-preceptor relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine (1) what role preceptors play in students' learning; (2) how student-preceptor relationships can impact students' views of the profession and their decision to leave the program; and (3) what strategies can be used to improve the preceptor-student relationship to facilitate student retention. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We used a qualitative methodological approach utilising semi-structure interviews with 31 midwifery students across Canada. Participants were recruited from all midwifery education programs and were in various stages of their educational journey. The interviews were conducted in English and French. Inductive analysis followed Charmaz's guidelines moving from line-by-line to focused coding and development of analytical categories. FINDINGS: The results show that positive relationships with preceptors boosted students' confidence and contributed to the constructive learning experiences among trainees. Students pointed out that their best learning experiences were facilitated by preceptors who created a safe space to make mistakes and were knowledgeable and invested in students' learning. Students also suggested that power imbalance is embedded in student-preceptor relationships and can negatively impact students' learning experiences and their decision to stay in the program. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: It is important to consider how to mitigate the power imbalance embedded in preceptor-student relationship. Offering more training to preceptors, oversight of preceptors' mentorship skills by midwifery educators, and creation of ombudsperson's position might mitigate some of the power differential and facilitate students' ability to complete midwifery training.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".