Shifting perspectives – A qualitative study about midwives’ experiences of postgraduate education in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, midwifery education is a priority. In Canada, there is only one postgraduate midwifery education program. Most midwives who pursue postgraduate education in Canada enroll in non-midwifery educational programs. We know little about midwives' experiences of post-graduate education in Canada. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are midwives' experiences of post-graduate education in Eastern Ontario, Canada? METHODS: We used feminist poststructuralism to explore midwives' experiences of postgraduate education and paid attention to the concepts of gender, discourse, relations of power, subjectivity, language, and text. Interviews, with four participants, lasted 45-60 min and were transcribed verbatim. We used feminist poststructuralist discourse analysis. FINDINGS: We share one main theme Shifting perspectives of self, systems, and others - Opening my eyes and four corresponding sub-themes, 1) Increased awareness of health care system and midwifery - How the assignment kind of like, is opening my eyes 2) (Dis)connected to midwifery - Allow me to be as close to midwifery as possible 3) Engaging with a variety of peers and perspectives - What a fascinating and interesting group of peers I have and 4) Conflicting experiences of personal expectations - I don't think I expected it to be quite this much work. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Midwives' experiences highlighted the value of postgraduate education. Postgraduate education for midwives created new understandings of health systems, professional roles, and interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinary postgraduate education may offer opportunities to challenge existing siloes in health systems. Postgraduate education programs should be designed with consideration of the competing priorities of clinical midwifery work.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".