Laying train tracks en route: How institutional education leaders navigate complexity during mandated curriculum change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Institutional education leaders serve key roles in leading major curricular change within residency education, yet little is known about how they accomplish these goals on the ground. Change management principles have predominantly been developed and described in the hierarchical context of management science and corporate settings. However, the non-hierarchical, complex and adaptive features of health professions education may render these traditional change management models inadequate. We explored how institutional educational leaders navigate the complex residency education system in implementing a major curricular change. METHODS: Using constructivist grounded theory, we conducted and iteratively analysed semi-structured interviews with 11 institutional education leaders from across Canada who were responsible for leading the nationally mandated curricular change to competency-based residency education. Thematic analysis was performed iteratively using constant comparison. RESULTS: Leaders managing the change process focused on two priorities: steering the direction of the change process as it evolved and maintaining the momentum amongst stakeholders to move forward steadily. Four common threats and opportunities impacted the focus on direction and momentum: multiplicity of contexts, innovation, resistance and distractions. In response, leaders utilised various tactics and harnessed diverse leadership styles to manage these challenges accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a change framework that offers a more contextually nuanced understanding of curricular change in residency education that has not been described in the change management literature generated by the management sector. Institutional education leaders focused on maintaining the direction and momentum, while constantly assessing and adapting to evolving, uncertain and complex conditions. Our findings provide a simple and practical foundation to support leadership education in curricular change as well as researchers in developing further change theories in complex adaptive health professions education systems.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".