The BMERG blog series on building community continues to grow, with a review of our recent journal club publication. Our BMERG Journal Club lead Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussion from our May journal club on the establishment of medical education research labs.
Paper reviewed: Gisondi, Michael A. et al. The Purpose, Design, and Promise of Medical Education Research Labs. Academic Medicine 97(9):p 1281-1288, September 2022. https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/toc/2022/09000
Since my colleagues launched the Bristol Medical Education Research Group (BMERG), our discussions have focused on creating a productive research environment and increasing the impact of our work as education researchers.
Education research often struggles to get sufficient recognition and lucrative funding compared to basic and clinical sciences research, and many believe basic science research is held in higher esteem and more valued by their institutions.
This paper resonated with members of the BMERG Journal Club, as the authors echo some of these concerns and challenges. The authors offer their perspective on the significance of medical education research labs and offer a practical roadmap for their establishment and success.
Publication overview
The paper falls under the category of ‘Scholarly Perspective’, and we discussed that it shouldn’t be interpreted as an objective literature review or primary research. The team of authors have presented a collection of case studies from their own experiences, identifying five main medical education research structures:
- single principal investigator (PI) labs
- multiple PI labs
- research centres
- research collaboratives
- research networks
The contributors were assembled through existing professional relationships, therefore we questioned whether the categories presented fully reflect the entire range of medical education research structures. However, we accepted this was their ‘Scholarly Perspective’, and we think they effectively conveyed their vision for the future of medical education research, with research labs being central to this.
What is a medical education research lab?
This is an important question! The authors define a lab as,
A distinct team within a department or institution led by single or multiple PIs who focus on specific educational problems
Labs differ from larger research centres, collaboratives, and networks in their scale and scope. The paper provides illustrative case examples to demonstrate how different research structures function in practice, and we found this information both useful and well-presented. As all authors are based in the US, we questioned whether the same structures could be identified in the UK.
What are the benefits of an medical education research lab?
The authors outline several key elements that they consider contribute to the success of medical education research labs:
- Lab Identity: The lab should have a focussed line of research that can validate the career path of the PI(s).
- Lab designation: The ‘lab’ brand helps signal the importance and legitimacy of the research being conducted, since the lab structure is generally well-understood within medicine. The identity and designation together can attract collaborators, funding, and institutional support.
- Infrastructure: Proper infrastructure is crucial; and includes not only physical space and administrative support but also access to necessary research tools and technologies.
- Training: Research labs should serve as incubators for new talent. They should provide training and mentorship for students and junior staff, fostering the next generation of medical education researchers.
Did we agree?
Point 2. above on lab designation, sparked our next discussion: do we agree with using the term “lab” in the context of medical education?
We had an interesting debate about the appropriateness of making comparisons to a scientific research environment, and interestingly there was a split of opinion between our qualitative and quantitative colleagues!
We certainly didn’t agree that this nomenclature was essential for research legitimacy (as suggested by the authors), and we descended into brainstorming for other potential terminology for a collection of education researchers; “hub”, “village”, “incubator”, “collective” and even “tribe” were suggested!
Overall reflections
In summary, the authors present a compelling argument for the establishment of research labs as a means to overcome the challenges faced by medical education researchers; providing structured support, fostering collaboration, training new researchers, enhancing research productivity, and elevating the status of medical education research within academic institutions. The paper offers practical insights into the design of these labs, making it a useful resource for anyone involved in medical education research. It would be interesting to find out more about whether the institutional barriers to establishing such groups are the same in the US as the UK, and within the BMERG Journal Club, we are still on the fence with the word ‘lab’!
More about this blog’s author:
Dr Claire Hudson is a Lecturer on the Teaching and Scholarship Pathway within the Bristol Medical School. Her early research career was in biomedical sciences, but she has now made a transition to pedagogic research. She has a special interest in student autonomy and the use of reflective practice in developing academic skills, as well as exploring MSc student skills development in different demographic groups.
Read more of our journal club reflections:
- BMERG Journal Club Review, Playful Learning
- BMERG Journal Club Review: Self-regulated Learning
- BMERG Journal Club Review: Cultural Competency