Professional identity struggle and ideology: A qualitative study of residents' experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To enter a profession is to take on a new identity. Professional identity formation can be difficult, with medical learners struggling to adopt professional norms. The role of ideology in medical socialisation may offer insight into these tensions experienced by medical learners. Ideology is the system of ideas and representations that dominates the minds of individuals or social groups and calls individuals into certain ways of being and acting in the world. In this study, we use the concept of ideology to explore residents' experiences with identity struggle during residency. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative exploration of residents in three specialties at three academic institutions in the United States. Participants engaged in a 1.5-hour session involving a rich picture drawing and one-on-one interview. Interview transcripts were coded and analysed iteratively, with developing themes compared concurrently to newly collected data. We met regularly to develop a theoretical framework to explain findings. RESULTS: We identified three ways that ideology contributed to residents' identity struggle. First was the intensity of work and perceived expectations of perfectionism. Second were tensions between the developing professional identity and pre-existing personal identities. Many residents perceived messages regarding the subjugation of personal identities, including the feeling that being more than physicians was impossible. Third were instances where the imagined professional identity clashed with the reality of medical practice. Many residents described how their ideals misaligned with normative professional ideals, constraining their ability to align their practice and ideals. CONCLUSION: This study uncovers an ideology that shapes residents' developing professional identity-an ideology that creates struggle as it calls them in impossible, competing or even contradictory ways. As we uncover the hidden ideology of medicine, learners, educators and institutions can play a meaningful role in supporting identity development in medical learners through dismantling and rebuilding its damaging elements.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".