Researching models of innovation and adoption in health professions education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the constant presence of change and innovation in health professions education (HPE), there has been relatively little theoretical modelling of such change, the experiences of change, the ideology associated with change or the unexpected consequences of change. In this paper, the authors explore theoretical approaches to the adoption of innovations in HPE as a way of mapping a broader theoretical landscape of change. METHOD: The authors, HPE researchers with an interest in technology adoption and systemic change, present a narrative review of the literature based on a series of thought experiments regarding how communities and individuals respond to the introduction of new ideas or methods. This research investigates the stages of innovation adoption, from the emergence and hype around new ideas to the concrete experiences of early adopters. RESULTS: When an innovation first emerges, there is often little concrete information available to inform potential adopters, leaving it susceptible to hype, both positive and negative. This can be described using the Gartner Hype Cycle model, albeit with important caveats. Once the adoption of an innovation gets underway, early adopter user experiences can inform those that follow. This can be described using Rogers' diffusion of innovation model, again with caveats. Notably, neither model goes beyond the point of single point-in-time, yes/no, individual adoption. Other approaches, such as learning curve theory, are needed to track uptake and maintenance by individuals over time. SIGNIFICANCE: This expanded theoretical base, while still somewhat instrumentalist, combined with complementary theoretical perspectives can afford opportunities to better explore reasons for variance, volunteerism and resistance to change. In summary, change is complicated and nuanced, and better models and theories are needed to understand and work meaningfully with change in HPE. To that end, the authors seek to encourage richer and more thoughtful research and scholarly thinking about change and a more nuanced approach to the pursuit of change in HPE as a whole.
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 | 0.023 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".