Juanita Bezuidenhout

Acknowledgments Susan van Schalkwyk

Vanessa Burch Jacky van Wyk

Jose Frantz Liz Wolvaardt Eliana Amaral Henry Campos

SAFR I

Why do you want to publish in HPE research?

Medical education scholarship encompasses a

wide range of activities with the common purpose of advancing our understanding of how to assess and improve the competence of future

and practicing health professionals. (Cook, 2010)

A Definition

A rationale for HSER ‘to deepen the knowledge and understanding of learning

and education …’; ‘a genuine scholarly interest … and/or a wish for getting

published …’; to provide justification for the way in which money, time

and resources have been spent on a specific teaching and learning activity or innovation;

using a ‘scientific approach to innovating medication education practice …’ as way of garnering further support for the innovation. (Ringsted, 2011)

Conduct extensive research to ensure that :(Cooke 2010)

• the interventions and changes are based on evidence and

• are appropriate and effective

Engage in evidence-based practice: (van der Vleuten, 2000)

A rationale for HSER

Educational research serves two main goals: • to inform and improve practice by:

– critically evaluating and – reflecting on all aspects of teaching and learning, – resulting in improvement for both learner and

teacher and • to share practice by learning from each other and

build a scholarly approach to teaching and learning

(de Villiers, 2011)

A rationale for HSER

(Punch 2009)

Pre-empirical stage empirical stage

Research area Topic

Context

Literature

Questions

What data are required to answer the questions?

Design

Data collection

Data analysis

Answer questions

A simplified model of research

Problem

(McGaghie 2009)

Revise and Resubmit

Accept

Reject

Audience & Message

Decision

Editorial Process

Author(s)

Writing Manuscript submission

Journal Outlet Reader

15% 5-20%

80%

The publishing process

Standards of scholarly excellence Well formulated goals

Adequate preparation

Use appropriate methods

Achieve useful results

Effective communication

Reflectively critique work (Glassick 2000)

Whatever the goal of research, there is always the need for:

Rigour in the research approach

Clarity as to the practical relevance of the study

How it contributes new knowledge and understanding of learning and education in general. (Ringsted, 2011)

Standards of scholarly excellence

inform best practice in education and

generate theory

innovation

evaluation

investigation

description

justification

clarification

(Cook, 2008)

Once upon a time researchers believed that …..

But then I thought that maybe …

So what I thought to do was ….

And I think I might discover that ….

Which may change the way that we …..

RESEARCH TELLS A STORY

Is there a story you want to tell?

A FOUR-STAGE PLANNING PROCESS STAGE ONE:

IDENTIFY THE PURPOSES OF THE RESEARCH

STAGE TWO: IDENTIFY AND GIVE PRIORITY TO THE CONSTRAINTS UNDER

WHICH THE RESEARCH WILL TAKE PLACE

STAGE THREE: PLAN THE POSSIBILITIES FOR THE RESEARCH WITHIN THESE

CONSTRAINTS

STAGE FOUR: DECIDE THE RESEARCH DESIGN

(Cohen 2011)

(Punch 2009)

Pre-empirical stage empirical stage

Research area Topic

Context

Literature

Questions

What data are required to answer the questions?

Design

Data collection

Data analysis

Answer questions

A simplified model of research

Problem

RESEARCH DESIGN Research design has three key purposes: 1. To provide answers to research questions, 2. To provide a road map for conducting a study using a

planned and deliberate approach that 3. Controls or explains quantitative variation or organizes qualitative observations. The design helps the investigator focus on the research question(s) and plan an orderly approach to the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data that address the question.

Review criteria for research manuscripts. Academic Medicine 2001

I wonder…

(Cohen 2011)

A problem in everyday work Policy/practices/local developments Disquiet with a particular research finding Incompletely studied issues Practice can improve Test a particular methodology in research Does research hold true for own context? A testable guess or hunch A perceived area of importance An interesting question A topical matter

Test conceptual research or theory in actual practice Rework conceptual or theoretical frameworks Revise or Replace methodologies A desire to involve participants in research Investigating the causes of a phenomenon Investigating the effects of a intervention A priority identified by funding agencies An issue identified by the researcher’s supervisor or a

project team

To have an understanding of past and current research

To provide motivation for your study, your research question

To provide support for the definition of key constructs

To demonstrate what makes your study unique

To provide a theoretical foundation

To provide justification for your methodological choices

Explore the literature

Be a super-sleuth

So… What is the problem?

What is the gap?

A conceptual framework is a representation, either graphically or in narrative form, of the main concepts or variables, and their presumed

relationship with each other

Research question

Conceptual framework

Benefits of a conceptual framework

Brings clarity and focus Help us to see and organise the research questions more

clearly Helps to make explicit what we already know and think

about the area and the topic Help in communicating ideas about research Can simplify the preparation of the proposal and make it

more convincing It encourages selection, and assists in focusing and

delimiting thinking during the planning stage

RCS INTERVENTION Context

Curriculum design

Clinician-educators

Students

Patients

Other participants (nurses, community

workers etc)

POPULATIONS

Social accountability

Patient-centredness

Learning theories

Transformative learning

Communities of practice

Identity development

THEORIES

RESEARCH PARADIGM: INTERPRETIVISM

Clinician-educators Motivation, Attitudes and

beliefs, Expertise Professional development

Students Motivation, Attitudes and beliefs,

Professional development, Performance Patients

Attitudes and beliefs, Impact

on health Other

participants Context

Best practices

OUTCOMES

Rural training

Workplace-based learning

Authentic assessment Community-

based education

PUBLISHED RESEARCH

Why do I need a research question?

• It provides focus for data collection

• It directs me to the appropriate literature

What are the qualities of a good research question?

Concise Clear Unbiased Appropriate Elegant +simple Can be

operationalised Theoretically rich Self-explanatory A puzzle

Types of research questions Objective Example

Describe What does the curriculum for the final year medical students at the RCS look like?

Explain ‘Why do students elect to attend the RCS in their final year?’

Explore ‘How do final year medical students experience the year-long placement?’

Investigate ‘What is the potential of the RCS to enhance retention of rural health care practitioners?’

Predict the outcome

‘Will final year medical students attending the RCS practice their profession in rural areas?’

Compare/Justify ‘How does the performance of final year medical students at the RCS compare to that of the final year medical students at the academic hospital?’

What research question do you want

to ask?

In summary

Thermometer Context

Criteria for a good research question

Rigour of the process Condenser Conceptual framework

Cold water in Literature around

potential conceptual frameworks

Distillate Research question

Vapour Problem statement

Mixture The source of the

question, the issue that prompted your curiosity

Heat Your curiosity + Initial literature review

= Practice as scholarly teacher

Process of Vaporisation Identifying the problem

Finding the gap

Evaluate the quality of the

distillate Evaluate the quality of the

research question

Repeat if required Structured reflection – iterative process

(Punch 2009)

Pre-empirical stage empirical stage

Research area Topic

Context

Literature

Questions

What data are required to answer the questions?

Design

Data collection

Data analysis

Answer questions

A simplified model of research

Problem

1. Given a research question, what are the best research design options?

2. Once a design is selected and implemented, how is its use justified in terms of its strengths and limits in a specific research context?

3. Does the research have internal validity (i.e., integrity) to address the question rigorously?

4. Does the research design permit unexpected outcomes or events

(Cohen 2011)

The basic issues are:

Once upon a time researchers believed that …..

But then I thought that maybe …

So what I thought to do was ….

And I think I might discover that ….

Which may change the way that we …..

HOW TO TELL YOUR STORY

Develop a list of prospective journals Begin with journals cited in your reference list List the journals in the field that you want to publish in Decide on criteria you want to use to narrow down the

list Impact factor Lag time (time from initial submission to publication) Open access Costs Peer reviewed Accreditation of journal by institution (may have

funding implications, eg South Africa)

Selecting the appropriate journal

Who is your audience? Who do you want to read the article?

Does this journal reach your intended readers? Is the content, message and format of your article within

the scope of the journal? Does the journal publish articles from your region/similar

institutions? What are the guidelines for authors? What is the journal’s acceptance rate?

Now consider the following

What makes an article interesting? • surpasses local interest • adds something to our current

understanding • well-based in theory and/or

literature • has relevance • Addresses a current ‘issue’

Your research project

Of interest for a

paper

Deciding what ‘story to tell’

What stands out in your research?

Purpose of your

research

Main findings

Unexpected findings

(Novel) methods

Review of the literature

Implications of findings

(Novel) data

analysis

Important, timely, relevant, critical, prevalent problem

Well-written manuscript (clear, easy to follow, logical)

Well-designed (appropriate, rigorous, comprehensive)

Thoughtful, focused, up-to-date review of the literature

Problem well stated, formulated

Sample size sufficiently large

Novel, unique approach to data analysis

Took into account the limitations of the study

Practical, useful implications

Why papers get accepted

Why papers get accepted

Generic reasons: Picking the wrong journal Format not aligned with the journal Not following the manuscript preparation instructions Poor writing

Scientific reasons: Importance of the Topic Study Design Overall Presentation of Study and Findings Interpretation of the Findings

Why papers get rejected

Importance of the Topic Irrelevant or unimportant topic Not generalizable

Study Design Poor problem statement

No hypothesis/research question

Poor experimental design

Biased protocol

Why papers get rejected

Overall Presentation of Study Poor organization and communication

Poor literature review

Interpretation of the Findings Study design does not support inferences made

Uncritical acceptance of results

Inadequate discussion

Inadequate link of findings to practice

Why papers get rejected

What do you think your needs are to be successful in

producing quality research outputs?

Scholarly teams Shared goals, common mission Clear leadership that may change or rotate High standards They engage in sustained hard work Are situated in physical proximity; The team members

Minimize status differences within the team Maximize status of the team Promote shared activities that breed trust.

The hothouse effect The potential to generate synergy

Group productivity grows, thrives, ‘‘feeds on itself.’’

Energy and intensity are not consumed, they expand.

A confluence of forces that can be cultivated is needed for groups to reach the hothouse state.

Academic organizations can shape these forces to boost team creativity and performance.

The hothouse effect High levels of innovative creativity for significant periods of

time.

Draw on knowledge and innovations of a broader cultural zone.

‘Spawn geniuses’.

Establish a new idiom, a new way of doing things that informs its creative products and establishes new standards, procedures, and principles.

Achieve recognition from contemporaries and establish a lasting legacy.

(Bleakley 2010)

Creative Knowledge Environment

• An intentional organisational environment in which innovation in research can flourish

• Productive knowledge (innovation) through interdisciplinary collaboration

• Lack of funding, especially core funding

• Poor or weak leadership

• Limited time

• Too few researchers with too little expertise OR too many other tasks

• Focus in the research program is too narrow or too wide

• Lack of genuine interdisciplinarity

• Excessive evaluation and other accountability measures (mistrust rather than helpful QA)

Constraints to a CKE

(Bleakley 2010)

• Creative leadership

• Good will

• Common vision

• Adequate resources

• Good project management

• Tolerance for the wilder side of innovation

• Commitment to interdisciplinary, rather than multidisciplinary

• Good interpersonal relationships

• Strong collaborations with supplementary groups outside the CKE

CKE successful if:

(Bleakley 2010)

research should cross the boundaries Patricia O’Sullivan (2010)

abstract nature of theory generation

concrete nature of addressing practical needs

obtain a larger study sample

enhance generalisability

shared intellectual process

COLLABORATION

(O’Sullivan, 2010)

References Cook DA. Getting started in medical education scholarship. Keio J Med 2010; 59: 96-103. Ringsted C, Hodges B, Scherpbier A. ‘The research compass’: An introduction to research in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 56. Medical Teacher. 2011; 696-709. Cooke M, Irby DM, O’Brien BC SL. Educating physicians: a call for reform of medical school and residency. Stanford: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2010. Van der Vleuten CPM, Dolmans DHJM, Scherpbier AJJA. The need for evidence in education. Medical Teacher. 2000;22(3):246-250. de Villiers M, Bezuidenhout J. Having your cake……Educational research in the Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University. In: 5th Annual Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) Conference, Stellenbosch University. 2011. Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Medical Education. 2008;42(2):128-33. McGaghie, W. AMEE Guide 43. Medical Teacher 2009 ;31: 574-590. Glassick C. Boyer’s Expanded Definitions of Scholarship, the Standards for Assessing Scholarship, and the Elusiveness of the Scholarship of Teaching. Acad. Med. 2000;75:877–880. Punch, Keith F. 2009. Introduction to research Methods in Education, p11. Sage Publications Inc, London. ISBN 978-1-84787-017-9. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education.7th ed. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. 2011. ISBN 13: 978-0-415-58335-0. http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/cohen7e/documents.asp Review criteria for research manuscripts. Academic Medicine 2001; 76: 922-951 Bleakley, A, Bligh, J, Browne, J. 2010. Medical Education for the Future: Identity, Power and Location (Advances in Medical Education). Springer Verlag. O’Sullivan PS, Stoddard HA, Kalishman S. Collaborative research in medical education: a discussion of theory and practice. Medical Education. 2010; 44: 1175-84

Beckman,T and Cook, D. 2007. Developing scholarly projects in education: A primer for medical teachers. Medical Teacher;29: 210–218

Bordage, G. 2001. Reasons Reviewers Reject and Accept Manuscripts: The Strengths and Weaknesses in Medical Education Reports. Academic Medicine;76:889–896.

Knight, L and Steinbach, T. 2008. Selecting an Appropriate Publication Outlet: A Comprehensive Model of Journal Selection Criteria for Researchers in a Broad Range of Academic Disciplines. International Journal of Doctoral Studies; 3:59-79.

Norman, G. 2014. Data dredging, salami-slicing, and other successful strategies to ensure rejection: twelve tips on how to not get your paper published. Advances in Health Sciences Education;19:1–5.

Pierson, D. 2004. The Top 10 Reasons Why Manuscripts Are Not Accepted for Publication. Respiratory Care; 49:1246 –1252.

References - 2