Curated collections for educators: Nine key articles and article series for teaching qualitative research methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Qualitative research explains observations, focusing on how and why phenomena and experiences occur. Qualitative methods go beyond quantitative data and provide critical information inaccessible through quantitative methods. However, at all levels of medical education, there is insufficient exposure to qualitative research. As a result, residents and fellows complete training ill-equipped to appraise and conduct qualitative studies. As a first step to increasing education in qualitative methods, we sought to create a curated collection of papers for faculty to use in teaching qualitative research at the graduate medical education (GME) level. Methods: We conducted literature searches on the topic of teaching qualitative research to residents and fellows and queried virtual medical education and qualitative research communities for relevant articles. We searched the reference lists of all articles found through the literature searches and online queries for additional articles. We then conducted a three-round modified Delphi process to select papers most relevant to faculty teaching qualitative research. Results: We found no articles describing qualitative research curricula at the GME level. We identified 74 articles on the topic of qualitative research methods. The modified Delphi process identified the top nine articles or article series most relevant for faculty teaching qualitative research. Several articles explain qualitative methods in the context of medical education, clinical care, or emergency care research. Two articles describe standards of high-quality qualitative studies, and one article discusses how to conduct the individual qualitative interview to collect data for a qualitative study. Conclusions: While we identified no articles reporting already existing qualitative research curricula for residents and fellows, we were able to create a collection of papers on qualitative research relevant to faculty seeking to teach qualitative methods. These papers describe key qualitative research concepts important in instructing trainees as they appraise and begin to develop their own qualitative studies.
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 | 0.051 | 0.247 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.089 | 0.076 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.385 | 0.146 |
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".