MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409184320 · doi:10.1186/s41077-025-00346-2

Did we create brave spaces? A realist evaluation report on simulation-based faculty development workshop in equity, diversity, inclusivity, and Indigenous reconciliation

2025· article· en· W4409184320 on OpenAlex
X. Catherine Tong, Sonaina Chopra, Hannah Jordan, Matthew Sibbald, Aaron Geekie‐Sousa, Sandra Monteiro

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Simulation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Competency in Health Care
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of WaterlooHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsFacilitatorThematic analysisFocus groupContext (archaeology)Medical educationIndigenousPsychologyQualitative researchMedicineSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Creating Brave Spaces (CBS) workshops are designed by an interprofessional team of health professions educators to empower faculty members to disrupt microaggressions in the clinical teaching environment using simulation-based education design, where actors were trained to portray sources of microaggressions. METHODS: The CBS team delivered eleven workshops addressing five categories of biases in various contexts during 2020-2024 engaging hundreds of participants. The team recruited participants to conduct semi-structured interviews. Records from team meetings and facilitator focus groups were collected and reviewed. The dataset was subjected to thematic analysis focusing on the participants' experience in the workshop. Themes were presented in Context-Mechanism-Outcome statements informed by the realist evaluation framework. Subsequently, the results were verified with participants. RESULTS: Nine participants volunteered to be interviewed 2 to 12 weeks after attending the workshop. The interview scripts, totaling about 60,000 words, provided a rich picture of faculty members' backgrounds and experiences. Thematic analysis yielded the following results. Simulation-based education design empowered faculty members to overcome barriers and progress in their skills. During the immersive experience, participants benefited from a rare opportunity to practice aligning their values with their actions. Those who experienced microaggressions as victims or passive bystanders in their past experienced heightened emotions. Faculty members agreed that disrupting microaggressions is an important part of their work. They navigated the tension between "calling in" the source of the microaggression, being mindful of power dynamics in the simulated cases, and "calling out" the harm of microaggressions by holding the source accountable. Some recounted successes in managing subsequent incidences of microaggressions in their clinical teaching environment. The results were validated by a member-checking process, and further supported by recorded conversations during team meetings and facilitator focus groups. CONCLUSIONS: Health sciences institutions' stated strategic goals in inclusive excellence, although widely accepted by faculty members, are challenging to operationalize in the moment of a microaggression. Participants practiced this skill using simulation-based education design and reported significant and positive impacts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it