A Narrative Inquiry of Critical Events Supporting Professional Identity Formation in Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Professional identity formation (PIF) is the process of internalizing a profession's core values and beliefs so that one begins to think, act, and feel like a member of that profession. PIF occurs over an individual's professional socialization in stages, precipitated by critical moments or experiences. The purpose of this study was to answer the following: (1) What are the critical events for pharmacy student PIF in introductory pharmacy practice experiences?; and (2) How do these events support or challenge PIF? METHODS: This study used critical event narrative inquiry methodology. A critical event is an experience that creates a change in understanding and affects professional performance. Semistructured interviews were conducted with pharmacy students who completed introductory pharmacy practice experience rotations in community (first year) and hospital (second year) settings. Interviews were coded and analyzed using narrative analysis. RESULTS: Twelve first-year and 10 second-year students participated in this study. Narratives revealed that common experiential education experiences resulted in a deeper understanding of core role elements (ie, professional autonomy, responsibility, interprofessional collaboration, and patient-centered care), leading to changes in agency, knowledge, and anticipated future behaviors. While first-year participants' narratives mainly focused on understanding pharmacist roles ("what"), second-year participants focused on understanding the process to fulfill those roles ("how to"). Emotions, assuming responsibility, external validation, and preceptor guidance supported these events. CONCLUSION: Critical events in introductory pharmacy practice experiences affect and shape pharmacy students' PIF. These events are relevant to pharmacy education because these experiences can result in changes in knowledge, agency, or future behaviors for students.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".