Interprofessional subjective experiences of EDI in a virtual healthcare working group: a collaborative ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine the experiences of diverse interprofessional participants in an Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) working group with a common interest in EDI in one of the largest pediatric teaching hospitals in Canada and how the impacts of this experience extend outside of the group. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative research utilized an inductive approach in line with the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013) to explore individual experiences as participants in an EDI working group. Seven group members were interviewed in-depth and engaged in storytelling and journaling to capture their experiences and perspectives. The perspectives of six members are reflected here, representing diversity across ethnicity, professions and subjective experiences, with a common interest in working together to improve EDI knowledge dissemination, training and practice in a healthcare setting in Canada. Findings Retrospective research activities facilitated a co-constructed account. The analysis reveals that EDI group participation is a positive learning experience for individuals described as thriving in their careers. Analysis of collaborative perspectives emphasizes how collective identity cultivates vitality in the EDI group environment. EDI group members exhibit agency as proponents of social change, navigating and negotiating institutional norms in varying professional spaces. Research limitations/implications The participants included members of an EDI working group in healthcare. Six perspectives are reflected here. Implications for personal experience and career development in organizations are discussed. Originality/value This study contributes to understanding how participating in specific interest groups, such as a group focused on EDI, informs personal and career development. It also contributes to our understanding of intrinsic motivation, as evidenced among volunteers in this healthcare setting. Our study also depicts an environment of vitality and learning and that collective thriving can be produced and may have extra-role implications.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".