A narrative inquiry into non‐Indigenous medical educators and leaders participation in reconciliatory work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Globally, medical schools are operationalising policies and programming to address Indigenous health inequities. Although progress has been made, challenges persist. In Canada, where this research is conducted, Indigenous representation within medical schools remains low, leaving a small number of Indigenous advocates leading unprecedented levels of equity-related work, often with insufficient resources. The change needed within medical education cannot fall solely on the shoulders of Indigenous Peoples; non-Indigenous Peoples must also be involved. This work aims to better understand the pathways of those engaged in this work, with careful consideration given to the facilitators and barriers to ongoing engagement. METHODS: Data collection and analysis were informed by narrative inquiry, a methodology that relies on storytelling to uncover nuance and prompt reflection. In this paper, we focus on interview data collected from Canadian non-Indigenous medical educators and leaders (n = 10). Participants represented different career stages, (early to late career) and occupied a mix of clinical, administrative and education roles. RESULTS: Although each participant's entry into reconciliatory work was unique, we identified common drivers actuating their engagement. Oftentimes their participation was tied to administrative work or propelled by experiences within their roles that forced them to confront the systemic inequalities borne by Indigenous Peoples in both academic and healthcare settings. Some admitted to struggling with understanding their appropriate role in Indigenous reconciliation; their participation often proceeded without firm support. CONCLUSION: Medical schools have an obligation to ensure their faculty, including non-Indigenous Peoples, are equipped to fulfil social accountability mandates regarding Indigenous health. Our findings generate a better understanding of the tensions inherent in this equity work. We urge others to reflect on their role in Indigenous reconciliation, or else medical schools risk generating a false sense of individual and institutional progress.
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 | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".