Myths of contestation in the medical education curriculum: A dialogical exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this paper, the authors use their collective experience as medical education scholars and change agents to engage in a dialogical approach examining five myths regarding the role of contestation in curricular change. In doing so, they argue that what is taught, how it is taught and what knowledge is valued in curricula is not a neutral decision; rather, it is the result of contestation, negotiation and compromise. APPROACH: Five myths are contested: that curriculum planning is uncontested; that contestation is between two individuals; that curriculum is and should be the primary focus of contestation; that change is both necessary and desirable; and that consensus (or compromise) is valued over contestation. To challenge the myths, the author team engaged in a dialogic analysis prompted by a literature review on curriculum change and drawing on the authors' experiences as medical educators, which resulted in a suite of heuristics regarding how curriculum change can be both supported and opposed. FINDINGS: Curriculum, whether it changes or not, is a site of ideological struggle. Participants should anticipate and strategically navigate disagreement. Compromise, rather than victory, is often the outcome. There is a need to go beyond the basics of what is taught, how much it is taught and when. Change should not always be the goal, not least because it can lead to superficial reforms, unintended consequences and a neglect of rigorous pedagogical evaluation. The pursuit of consensus and buy-in from all members can inadvertently (and sometimes deliberately) stifle diverse perspectives, leading to long-term resentment and disengagement. IMPLICATIONS: Educators need to identify, understand and constructively engage with different forms of contestation in curriculum planning and management. By attending to processes for engaging in contestation, it is hoped that more educators will feel empowered to raise their concerns and negotiate with others in a professional manner.
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 | 0.124 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.185 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.052 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| 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".