Tag: staff development

Getting started in pedagogical research

Posted on by andrew.bond

In this week’s blog, Dr Andy Bond reflects on how to get started in pedagogical research, especially when coming from a non-teaching background, highlighting some insights from experienced members of BMERG.

I am a scientific researcher! This is ingrained into me as it was my career for over 20 years since starting out on my PhD ‘journey’ in 2003. It therefore came as a bit of a shock to the system to become a Pathway 3 member of the teaching staff at the University of Bristol, and feel like I had left basic science research behind. Yes, there is the chance to supervise student projects and live research vicariously through them, however it isn’t quite the same as being hands on, actually doing experiments for hours on end in the lab, with varying degrees of success. As teaching staff, we are required to complete our Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP). This introduced me to pedagogy and opened my eyes to a very different way of working, thinking and writing; pedagogical research values people’s opinions just as, if not more, importantly than “hard evidence”. Having purely been in the quantitative, basic science, school of research, I found the academic papers to be written in a very different style and tone that felt very alien, and not quite right to me!! This is where the dreaded imposter syndrome starts to creep in, and that sense you’re not doing things correctly, and you don’t quite know how to get started.

Colleagues introduced me to BMERG, and in particular the Journal Club. If I’m being honest, the imposter syndrome still continued for a while, with unfamiliar terms, phrases and methodologies being common place, however as with many things, learning through immersion fosters deeper understanding. I am now finding that pedagogical research (as a branch of social science) and basic science research share many similarities – forming research questions, gathering data (quantitative or qualitative), using reasoning, analysing results, and (hopefully) publishing the findings. Ultimately, both with the aim to advance knowledge.

To gain further insight for this blog, I asked some members of BMERG for their top tips for getting started, and have tried to summarise their insights below.

Collaboration

A common theme that emerged was that collaboration is key, especially when starting out, but also for the more experienced pedagogical researcher. In the early stages, teaming up with someone with experience, ideally that shares your interests, enables you to get feedback and validation for your ideas, but also to take on more ambitious projects, and increase chances of funding. Collaboration can also give you access to a wider group of students e.g. you may teach to postgraduates, but have an idea also relevant to undergraduate students, and need collaborators to help facilitate the transition.

Plan upfront

Another key theme was planning. All projects need to be carefully planned out in advance to focus the investigation, and start with a clear aim (the simpler the better) for what you want to achieve. Knowing the focus is vital, whether looking at teaching innovation (designing new methods of teaching to help students learn) or educational research (investigating an issue or challenge discovered when teaching). Both are equally valid, but require different approaches. Engaging with the ethics process early on helps to clarify your study design, and check the data you will receive is robust and reliable. It’s much harder to start with the methodology and work backwards. To prevent unintentionally marginalizing participants, it is vital at the research design stage to put the learners first; knowing who you are researching (considering inclusivity), and modifying research practices accordingly, rather than just accepting standard methods. Caution should be exercised at all stages of the project, from planning through to interpretation and analysis of results, considering the researchers beliefs or world view (paradigm), and their positionality (acknowledging how a researcher’s identity influences their research).

Use the resources available to you

In addition to the people within your network, and communities such as BMERG with its aforementioned Journal Club, there are a number of other Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) resources available to the new pedagogical researcher within the University of Bristol, under the Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching (BILT) umbrella (Scholarship of Teaching and Learning | Bristol Institute For Learning and Teaching | University of Bristol) e.g. Show, Tell and Talk Workshops, and the BILT Annual conference. Attending these events helps to widen your network, see what other research is taking place, helps to validate your own ideas, and gain confidence to undertake your own projects. Previous examples of published pedagogical research are an excellent resource, enabling you to see how other people structure their projects, and also their writing.

A final point suggested that has helped adjust my way of thinking, especially coming from a basic science research background, is to try to think of it not just as pedagogical research (studying something and trying to discover facts), but pedagogical insight (deep understanding). Put another way, research tells us what is happening, but we also need insight to understand why it is happening and what we can do about it. Looking at teaching practices through the insight lens can give a different perspective, and can open up alternative avenues for consideration.

So to sum up how you get started in pedagogical research, you just go for it, and you will find an extremely friendly and helpful community of like-minded people, that will support you, and help you build the confidence needed to do great things for the benefit of students. If anyone has further insights into how to get started on the pedagogical research journey then I would welcome your input via a comment below.

With thanks to Sarah Allsop, Sarah Mclaughlin, Fiona Holmes, Claire Hudson and Sally Dowling for their insights.

Author Biography

Dr Andrew Bond is a Lecturer in Cardiovascular Medicine, in Bristol Medical School, and Co-Director of MSc Cardiovascular Perfusion. In 2023 he switched to the Teaching and Scholarship Pathway at the University of Bristol, and his teaching role predominantly involves developing and delivering content on the MSc Translational Cardiovascular Medicine, MSc Clinical Perfusion Science and MSc Cardiovascular Perfusion. Andy recently joined the BMERG Committee, and sees it as the beginning of his pursuit of pedagogical research, and the chance to better understand how students learn and thrive. His hope is to integrate insights from this research into his own teaching practice, so that research and practice continually inform one another.

Conference Report: 12 Months On: Reflecting on the GP Placement Capacity Symposium

Posted on by sarah.allsop

In this week’s blog, Dr Simon Thornton reflects on his experience at last years GP Placement Capacity Symposium held jointly between Newcastle, UCL, Southampton and Bristol Universities, and thinking about the continued impact of the discussions held.

Medical Student Consultation Skills. Image (c) University of Bristol.

It’s now a year since the inaugural GP Placement Capacity Symposium, held on 12th June 2024. The event, hosted online, brought together over 100 delegates from medical schools across the UK in a shared effort to address one of the most pressing issues in undergraduate medical education: the growing difficulty in securing enough GP placements for students.

Across the UK, medical schools have been responding with creativity and determination to navigate placement shortfalls. The symposium was the brainchild of Dr Mike Harrison, NIHR doctoral fellow at the University of Newcastle, working in collaboration with colleagues from UCL, the University of Southampton, and the University of Bristol. Their aim, to provide a platform to share the innovations that are helping ease the strain on GP placement capacity.

The event itself was a lively showcase of 11 elevator-pitch presentations, followed by thoughtful Q&A. Innovations ranged from the technological—such as using smart glasses for remote teaching from Ukraine—to political advocacy, including efforts to engage MPs on the realities facing undergraduate GP education.

Several strong themes emerged from the symposium and have continued to shape discussion and development since:

1. Space and Time Constraints

These were—and remain—some of the most fundamental barriers to expanding GP placement capacity. In response, we saw examples like the Sunderland initiative using sessional GPs and vacant NHS Property Services buildings for dedicated teaching clinics. Brighton’s model, offering students out-of-area placements across the UK, continues to offer flexibility and relieve pressure on local practices.

2. Expanding the Supervisory Pool

With fewer GPs and a more diverse primary care workforce, schools have had to think differently about who can deliver teaching. Newcastle reported promising outcomes from involving GP trainees in student education, now contributing 5–10% of teaching. They also shared an innovative frailty clerkship led by a nurse practitioner—an example of how interdisciplinary models can support supervision. This year at Bristol, we’ve hosted our first pair of GP trainees in the GP teaching team. 

3. Embracing Technology

Smart glasses made headlines during the symposium, allowing students to experience remote consultations not just within the UK, but internationally offering a scalable solution to some logistical placement challenges.

4. Rethinking Timing

St George’s highlighted their use of out-of-hours placements—a necessary evolution to cope with daytime constraints. Over the past year, other schools have begun exploring similar strategies, offering students exposure to general practice during evenings and weekends.

5. Cultural and Professional Considerations

Perhaps one of the most thought-provoking points came from a recent survey discussed at the symposium: some GP practices are hesitant to accept students due to concerns around a perceived ‘erosion of professional behaviour’, fearing the placement of a ‘problem student.’ This insight sparked important conversations and research ideas.

Looking Ahead

Twelve months on, it’s clear the symposium did more than just spotlight innovation—it catalysed collaboration and ongoing dialogue. Many of the ideas shared on that day have seeded further projects.

There is, of course, much more to do. But one year after that first national coming-together, there’s a growing sense of momentum—and a shared commitment to ensuring medical students can continue to learn in general practice, despite the challenges.

Let’s see what the next twelve months bring.

You can view the programme for this event at blogs.ncl.ac.uk/gpmeded/conferences/

Building Community: BMERG Journal Club Review, Co-learning and Co-teaching

Posted on by sarah.allsop

Contributing to our BMERG blog series on building community, our BMERG Journal Club lead Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussions at our journal club about co-learning and co-teaching.  

Paper reviewed: Claessen, Roy J M et al. “Co-learning and co-teaching in a newly introduced research learning community.” The clinical teacher vol. 21,3 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13683 

I really enjoyed discussing and reflecting on this paper. It captures what is great about our Journal Club; taking a small break in your day to chat about research with colleagues, and generating new ideas that could be applied to your own teaching practice at the same time! 

First, I’ll give an overview of the publication, followed by key takeaways from our discussion.  

What was the research?

The research is based within a Dutch Medical School, and the paper evaluates the move from traditional research project supervision (one-to-one) to a more collaborative model involving co-learning and co-teaching, something they call Research Learning Communities (RLCs). The format paired small groups of students with two teaching staff and a floating ‘research expert’ (visualised in one of the paper’s figures). This idea arose from the flip to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, however the emphasis of the paper is on collaborative, rather than online, learning.  

Before reading the full article, I checked a couple of definitions to ensure I fully understood their approach. Here they are, in case you are also unsure! 

  • Co-learning – breaching the traditional teacher-student hierarchy, and everyone is considered a learner. Knowledge is constructed together, with all participants contributing their expertise and experience. 
  • Co-teaching – multiple educators collaborating to plan and deliver teaching based on their different expertise. This enhances the student experience and supports ongoing professional development for staff. 

Essentially, the RLCs are a highly collaborative approach in which students learn from teachers, teachers learn from students, students learn from each other, and teachers also learn from each other – that’s a lot of learning! I really liked the idea and was keen to read on. 

What were the findings? 

The study assessed both student learning (in terms of research skills) and the perceived value of the collaborative learning. They collected research reports and reflections from students and conducted focus groups with both staff and students.  

Learning goals around research skills were met. Students found the structure supportive and valued peer-learning, reporting that they learned beyond their individual topic. Educators also reported that the structure supported their professional development and recognised benefits for students; although they were unsure whether the approach was time-efficient overall.  

Why did this study resonate?

The co-learning model mimics a real-world research team, supporting the development of teamworking and research skills in authentic contexts. Co-creation with students, peer-learning, and authentic learning align with current pedagogic trends, and also with the ‘student-centred’ pillar of our institutional education strategy. 

At the same time, there are ongoing discussions about reducing staff workload while maintaining the quality of teaching, plus an increased demand for research projects. The study sparked particular interest as it suggested ways to rethink research supervision while increasing authenticity.  

How could this model be applied or adapted for our own practice? 

Many features of this approach are already evident within teaching in the Bristol Medical School, such as case-based learning, group projects for ‘Student Choice’, and other small-group activities. After identifying these, we applied similar principles to research projects in both undergraduate and postgraduate contexts: 

  • Facilitating group themes: A group of students work on a broad, overarching theme, with students pursuing individual but linked research questions within that theme. The collaborative work could involve exploring the wider topic and co-creating individual sub-projects.  
  • Adjunctive research collaboratives: Alternatively, collaboratively learning groups could be created for students undertaking similar types of research (e.g. systematic review, data analysis or lab projects). The collaborative group would foster development of research skills, but the projects themselves could be different.  

Potential benefits:  

  • Multiple ‘supervisors’ and peer-interactions may improve student support and mitigate the common issue that some primary supervisors are less engaged than others….. 
  • I often find myself saying the same things again and again in one-to-one supervisory meetings with students—group formats could definitely reduce this inefficiency! 
  • Research projects can feel isolating and lonely for students, as they often involve extended periods of independent study. Collaborative models would introduce peer interaction and support. 

Additional reflections and comments 

Describing the activities: Details of the group activities were somewhat vague, at least to me. Specific examples of how a single research project was supported within the RLCs would help readers understand how this model could be applied. 

Inclusivity concerns: We questioned whether all students would benefit equally from this approach, or whether it inadvertently disadvantages more introverted students or those who prefer more structured guidance. 

The digital context: While the redesign was partially in response to COVID-19, the digital aspects were not well explored in the paper. 

Overall reflections

This paper invites us to explore co-learning and co-teaching in greater depth, and has already prompted me to generate ideas that could be integrated into my own teaching practice. The overall approach aligns well with contemporary trends in education and facilitated valuable conversations about sustainable and inclusive project supervision in higher education. 

If you already integrate collaborative elements into student research projects, I’d love to hear about your experiences and what works well for you! 

Author Biography  

Dr Claire Hudson is a Lecturer on the Teaching and Scholarship Pathway within the Bristol Medical School. Claire’s 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 and feedback literacy skills, as well as exploring MSc student skills development in different demographic groups. 

Academic Careers: Time to reflect: learn, focus and plan

Posted on by sarah.allsop
Sarah Allsop

With the end of the academic year rapidly approaching, in this blog, Sarah Allsop challenges us to think about scheduling a session of reflection through 3 lenses: retrospective, introspective and prospective and how these can help us to learn, focus and plan.

Photo by Alexa Williams on Unsplash

So, we have made it to the end of another academic year. This may lead to a mixture of excitement, anticipation, or simply relief! Often, we start to think about taking a break, planning summer conference trips and projects, as well as shifting focus to the next academic year.

A really useful task that we can schedule for ourselves at this time of year is reflection. For some, this will come very naturally, for others perhaps not so much, but regardless of your viewpoint on reflective practice, it can help to have a focussed approach.

There are a multitude of different reflective tools and models to support reflective practice such as Gibbs, Kolb etc, and I recently read an interesting summary blog by Tom Barrett, ‘From Awareness to Action: A Complete Guide to Reflective Practice Cycles for Teachers‘. I was particularly drawn to the ideas and simplicity of a model they describe which breaks reflective practice into three parts: retrospective, introspective and prospective reflection.

Image from Tom Barrett

Let’s take a look together at how to use these three aspects to support a focussed actionable reflection process.

Retrospective reflection – What have I learnt?

Looking back over past experience may be what you first think about when you read the term ‘reflection’. This process of evaluating what has gone well and what things we might do differently in future is a great learning technique. However, if we reflect on a whole academic year, that can be challenging.

One way to compartmentalise the process is to use the “Start-Stop-Continue” model.

  • What do you want to start doing?
  • What do you want to stop doing?
  • What do you want to keep doing?

This gives you three categories allowing you to: celebrate your successes, consider how to learn from challenging experiences and to focus in on your future goals. This gives you a considered plan which you can take to an annual review or meeting with your line manager, and discuss your current journey in a constructive and forward-thinking way.

Introspective reflection – What do I want?

Once we have identified what we want to learn from past experiences, the next step is thinking about how we feel, using introspection to look inward. Thinking deeply about our feelings in relation to our work, can help us focus on why certain aspects of our jobs give us the most joy, the so called ‘finding our passion’. This can be done with reference to different time points, for example, how did a past experience make me feel, or how do I feel right now?

One of the most popularised ways of conceptualising this, is a diagram by Marc Winn based on the Japanese concept of ‘Ikigai’ (roughly translated to ‘reason for being’). The diagram proposes your reason for being or sense of purpose at work, can be found at the intersection of what you love, what you are good at, what the world needs and what you can be paid for. Thinking about this in the context of your current role can help you to think about what you want and hope for from your career, identifying potential gaps in your development, and thinking about how to move towards your future vision.

Prospective reflection – What’s next?

From thinking about what we want, prospective reflection needs to occur both at a personal level – where am I headed and how do I get there, but also what does the future landscape of my discipline look like. This forward thinking phase of the reflective process is where you put your learning, focus, priorities and ambitions into action.

Prospective reflection may be as simple as thinking about where you want to be in six months, 12 months, five years, 10 years etc., but you also need to think about where your discipline is headed. What is going to be needed for the future and how do you make sure that you are well placed to serve that future. To make prospective reflection actionable, you really only need to think about one thing – the next step. So, we end with a simple question to move your reflection to action:

What is the next actionable step that can move you forward in your academic journey?

—

Have you had success using reflective techniques? What are your favourite focussed reflection techniques and why? Comment below:

BMERG News: Reflection on winning an ASME education award

Posted on by sarah.allsop

In this blog, Dr Grace Pearson reflects on her recent TASME Mentorship Prize from the Association for the Study of Medical Education. She describes how this award has supported her work in collaboration with the University of Zimbabwe Medical School.

Dr Grace Pearson with Dr Zaranyika, junior doctors and medical students working in the Faculty of Medicine in Harare (March 2024)

I was absolutely delighted to receive the 2024 TASME Mentorship Prize, which I’ve put towards my ongoing collaboration with the University of Zimbabwe Medical School and Parienyatwa Hospital in Harare.

The population of Africa is ageing faster than any other continent, yet teaching in ageing and geriatric medicine is lacking in many countries. In response to the Zimbabwe Healthy Ageing Strategy, and with the mentorship of Dr Trust Zaranyika, we are working to implement innovative undergraduate and postgraduate training in geriatric medicine at UZ, which will equip their workforce with the knowledge and skills required to care for their growing population of older people.

I was privileged to visit Dr Zaranyika, junior doctors working in the Faculty of Medicine, and medical students (all pictured) on a recent scoping visit to Harare in March 2024. I was touched by their warm welcome and invigorated by their keen interest in geriatric medicine.

To ensure that any resources generated are authentic, applicable, and sustainable, I attended ward rounds, clinics, meetings, and teaching to understand when, where, and how training in geriatrics might ‘fit’. It was a pleasure to be part of such a supportive and rich learning environment, where teams regularly meet together to discuss clinical cases, and I was myself reminded of how best to incorporate teaching moments into every day clinical practice.

It was my pleasure to pilot teaching on ‘core’ geriatrics topics, such as frailty, falls, and delirium, and I found it refreshing to revisit my own ‘bread and butter’ from the ground up. I made so many friends in such a short time, and I really can’t wait to return to Harare to develop and implement more teaching.

More about the TASME mentorship award:

The TASME mentorship award provides funding for healthcare professions trainees to travel to meet mentors, to develop a mentoring relationship that will support their professional development as a medical educator. The application is a short self-nomination form, consisting of three questions: 1. Can you tell us about your career as an educator so far? 2. How do you plan to spend the award? 3. How might this impact your career as an educator? The next submission window opens on the 4th January 2025.

More about Dr Grace Pearson (she/her):

Grace is a Clinical Lecturer in Ageing Education at Bristol Medical School, and an Adjunct Lecturer in Geriatric Medicine at the University of Zimbabwe. Since finishing her PhD in the field of undergraduate geriatric medicine education, Grace has been continuing her work to innovate and evaluate ageing education in an equitable partnership between the Global North and Global South. @GraceInvaders

Conference Report: TICC 2024: The Inaugural CTF Conference, 5th April, Bristol

Posted on by sarah.allsop

The latest blog is a conference report celebrating the work of clinical teaching fellows across our region. Ed Luff reflects on this event and shares exciting plans for TICC 2025.

On Friday the 5th of April, the University of Bristol, in collaboration with BMERG, hosted TICC 2024: The Inaugural CTF Conference. TICC 2024 provided an opportunity to see and share the valued work of Clinical Teaching Fellows (CTFs) from across the region. Building on the successes of last year’s local CTF Conference for University of Bristol-affiliated CTFs, this year’s expanded meeting had presenters travelling from 10 organisations spanning Southern England, ranging from Surrey to Somerset.

The objectives of the conference were:

These objectives were excellently delivered through a combination of timetabled events on the day. This included two parallel streams of CTF presentations, comprising headline 20-minute showcase presentations, shorter 10-minute oral presentations and 3-minute e-Poster presentations, all with time for Q&A from the audience.

All 22 CTF presentations were extremely well received, and there was excellent engagement and discussion from the audience, highlighting the passion, interest and quality of the work presented. An intuitive electronic platform allowed delegates to provide feedback to presenters, which was shared with them following the conference. This approach to feedback facilitated further development of presentations prior to work being taken onto national or international conferences.

The day also included eight medical education-themed workshops, which attendees were able to choose from, across two parallel streams. These covered topics such as the future of undergraduate medical education, facilitating student-led medical education innovation, sculpting change, demystifying ethics, writing for publication, and the application of qualitative research to medical education. The day also included a showcase workshop presentation titled “From Innovation to Transformative Education”, highlighting how we can sustain and build on novel ideas and implement them into future practice in an educational setting.

One of the other highlights of this year’s expanded interinstitutional conference was a keynote address from Dr Jo Hartland, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Education Director at Bristol Medical School. They presented an account of their work in the field of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion and shared reflections on their medical education journey to date, including their move from clinical work into medical education, policy work, and leadership.

All those involved in teaching or supporting medical students, whether clinical, academic, or administrative, were welcome to attend the conference. The day saw 63 delegates attend from a variety of backgrounds including those in academic and professional support roles, clinical staff, and educational roles.

On the day, the conference had a fantastic atmosphere, with much talk and networking amongst colleagues and peers regarding teaching, collaboration, innovation, and reflections on the past year as CTF. Energy levels were high, and although the programme was busy,  the variety and diversity of presentations, workshops and talks was extremely well received.

Prizes were awarded on the day for the best oral presentation and runner-up, scored on the day by senior academics and the conference committee; best e-poster presentation, voted on by conference delegates; and best social media post, decided by the organising committee. The prize winners can be viewed on the TICC conference 2024 page.

For more information and insight into what happened on the day, search X (formerly Twitter) for #TICC24 to find all the social media posts. If you would like to find out more information about what was happening on the day, or full details of the presentations that were delivered, please do have a look at the conference programme is available here:

TICC 2024 Programme

We will also be sharing all of the presentations that were delivered at TICC online, so if you couldn’t make it along but would like to review some of the amazing work that was presented, we will add a link to this post and to the TICC tab on the BMERG blog page.

Finally, we are excited to announce that TICC will return next year in a new and updated format! The new and revamped Teaching, Innovation, and Collaboration for CTFs Conference 2025 will take place on Friday 25th of April 2025. So make a note in your diaries, with more information to follow soon, and start sharing your excitement online by using #TICC25.

Publishing in Medical Education: Conference Series – Writing effective conference abstracts

Posted on by sarah.allsop

Building on our previous BMERG Publishing in Medical Education blogs, in this post Dr Sally Dowling introduces our Writing for Publication Conference Series. Here she talks about a different sort of writing and dissemination of your work – responding to calls for conference presentations and posters.

Image: The Climate Reality Project/Unsplash

Why should you present your work at academic conferences?

Academics choose to present their work at conferences and meetings for a range of reasons. It’s an important part of the dissemination of finished research projects, but it can also be an opportunity to gain feedback on ‘work in progress’, as well as to hear from and meet others in your field and those whose work may be related to yours.

If you are an early career researcher it can be a good way to build connections and network. If you are able to obtain funding to attend a conference it can be a good way to have some ‘time-out’ from everyday pressures to think about, and discuss, your work. You may also get the opportunity to visit some interesting places! Post-covid, some conferences now offer hybrid attendance and others have remained online.

What’s the difference between a paper presentation and a poster?

A paper presentation, sometimes called an oral presentation (or if you are the main speaker, a ‘keynote’ presentation) is where someone delivers a talk to an audience. In some disciplines this might mean literally reading a paper (similar to a journal article); in others it is more usual to deliver a talk accompanied by a slide presentation.

This may be to a large lecture hall full of people or to a smaller audience in parallel sessions – depending on the type and structure of the conference. Length of presentations varies and may or may not include time for questions. Sometimes all presenters in a session will give their presentations and questions will follow, addressed to the speakers as a panel.

Conference posters are usually displayed for the duration of the conference – they are large (often A1 or A0) posters presenting reports of a research project or other work, usually including words and images. Recently the use of electronic posters is also becoming more common, either made available to view online or physically on large screens at the conference venue.

The aim is to give conference attendees the chance to find out about a range of relevant work and, usually, to ask questions of the researcher or representative of the research team. Some conferences expect poster presenters to stand with their posters at specific times (coffee breaks or lunchtimes, or an early evening session, for example) in order to ‘talk to’ their poster if required.

What is a ‘call for papers’?

Many conferences publish a ‘call for papers/posters’ well in advance of the conference. These will usually be on the websites of relevant organisations (such as AMEE or ASME). You can keep an eye out and find out what time of year these usually appear by visiting our BMERG Abstract Calls! page.

When you look at the call there will be important information to note:

  • Submission format: Some conferences will want you to submit your abstract as an attachment – others will use an online platform, which may require you to register.
  • Deadline: There will usually be a strictly-enforced deadline.
  • Word count: This is usually very specific and may be constrained by allowances of online text boxes.
  • Structure: It is important to note whether the abstract should be structured or unstructured. If they require that the abstract is structured it will often follow a Background, Aim, Methods, Results, Conclusions format (see figure 1 below) – if there are different headings to be used make sure you are aware of this.
  • References: Instructions may also specify whether or not you can use references and, if so, may give a limit (usually a small number).
  • Themes and Streams: Details should be on the conference website of themed conference streams or specific types of sessions you can submit to; make sure you are clear about these and indicate which you prefer if asked.
  • Presentation format: You may be asked if you are submitting for an oral or a poster presentation, and if there is more than one author you will usually be asked to indicate who will be the presenter.
Example of conventional headings for a structured abstract
HeadingContent
BackgroundSpecify the nature and size of the problem; outline its importance to practice, and the gap that needs to be addressed. This section should emphasise the relevance and significance of the issue to the conference delegates and should embrace a relevant theme
AimSpecify this clearly and simply, including study design/approach
MethodsSample
Data collection Data analysis Ethical issues
Results/ FindingsReport this clearly and succinctly to provide the reader with a fair impression of the data
ConclusionIt is important to be specific and produce a balanced conclusion based on the results and how it captures the selected conference theme
Figure 1: Example of conventional headings for a structured abstract. From Albarran and Dowling (2017, p.325).

What should I put in my abstract?

Writing a good abstract will maximise your chances of acceptance. It’s also a way for people to read about your project in advance, or after the conference. Some conferences publish abstracts after the event; sometimes as a supplement to a journal connected to the conference.

What you say in your abstract will act as a ‘hook’ to bring people to your presentation or poster, or to want to contact you to find out more about your work. Use an engaging and academically persuasive tone, take time to refine what you have written and proof-read carefully before submission. Asking a critical friend to read through your abstract can be helpful.

Guidance on how to format your abstract
Guideline
Name of lead presenter and contact detailsYou will be required to provide details of your place of work and qualifications
Name of authors, titles and contact detailsObtain full addresses, titles, professional qualifications and contact details including email address
TitleThis should be kept to 12 words or less. If reporting the results of a study, audit or service improvement, it is good practice to include methodology in the title. A good title should provoke interest, curiosity and relate to the chosen theme
HeadingsEmploy the headings as suggested and in the order recommended
Word limitThis will range between 200–300 words maximum—abbreviations are often discouraged, check this out
Key termsYou may be invited to provide 4–6 search terms that embrace the content of your abstract
Font size and typeThis will normally be prescribed—ensure you follow the recommendations.
Referencing style and numberConfirm the referencing style permitted prior to drafting the abstract, and how many are allowed; some will limit the number to a maximum of three
Conflicts of interestIf you have any conflicts of interest, declare these
FundingSome scientific committees expect you to state whether your project was externally funded; if it has, confirm this
Permission to publish your abstractShould you be accepted to present, the abstract may be published as part of conference proceedings. Note that you may not have the opportunity to revise
AbbreviationsGenerally these are discouraged, so it is sensible to check the guidelines; it is likely that only universally accepted abbreviations may be permitted
Figure 2. Guidance on how to format your abstract. Table adapted from Albarran and Dowling (2017, p.326).

What happens to my abstract after submission?

Most conferences will have a conference committee who will review abstracts received before the deadline (so this is a form of peer review). Depending on the conference preparation timeline, it can take some time to hear, so be patient! Some conferences will give a date on their webpages, telling you when you will hear from them; others don’t do this. Wait to hear and then start preparing for your conference!

The next blog in this series coming soon: Tips on how to produce your conference poster

Further reading:

Albarran, J. & Dowling, S., 2017, Writing an effective conference abstract British Journal of Cardiac Nursing. 12, 7, pp. 324-328

Higgins, M., Eogan, M., O’Donoghue K., Russell, N. (2013) How to write an abstract that will be accepted. BMJ, 346: 2974 doi:10.1136/bmj.f2974 

Pieper, P. (2014) Writing Your Journal or Conference Abstract. Journal of Pediatric Surgical Nursing. 3(2), pp. 47-50

More about this blog’s author

Sally is a Lecturer at Bristol Medical School, working both for the Health Professions Education programme and as Co-Director of the MSc Reproduction and Development. She also runs a series of writing for publication workshops (see programme here) for the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Bristol.

Check out our previous Publishing in Medical Education Posts

BMERG News: Award Win for one of our Bristol Medical Education Researchers!

Posted on by sarah.allsop

We are hugely pleased to share another amazing success for the fantastic Dr Grace Pearson, who is this year’s winner of the Association for the Study of Medical Education Trainees TASME Mentorship Prize.

The TASME Mentorship Prize is an individual award that provides resources for early career health professions educators to develop a mentorship relationship that will support their development as an educator.

Grace is this year’s winner of this prestigious award with her submission ‘Improving the care of older people in Zimbabwe through undergraduate and postgraduate teaching innovation.’ Grace shares that,

“this prize will help towards work with clinicians at the University of Zimbabwe Medical School, strengthening collaborative efforts to innovate teaching in geriatric medicine.”

Congratulations Grace, we look forward to hearing all about this exciting work in the future.

Read more about this award at www.asme.org.uk/news/tasme-mentorship-prize-2024-winner/

Trainees in the Association for the Study of Medical Education (TASME) is a career group of ASME. TASME’s mission is to foster interest and support development in medical education amongst early career doctors (up to 5 years post foundation training) – and early career allied healthcare professionals (up to 7 years post graduation). 

Read more about Grace’s work on the BMERG profiles page and follow her on X @GraceInvaders

Building Community: Spotlight on the Incubator for Clinical Education Research

Posted on by sarah.allsop

This weeks BMERG blog is a spotlight on the Incubator for Clinical Educator Research (ClinEdR). Hosted by the University of Newcastle, the Incubator is an NIHR initiative launched in 2020 to develop ClinEdR as an academic field.

Image (c) UX Indonesia on Unsplash

What is the Incubator?

The mission and aim of the ClinEdR Incubator is to support and promote careers in clinical education research through building a multi-professional community of practice. It extends across all health professions and aims to bring people together to develop their ideas, build collaborations and provide a network of developing experience in the field.

What is Clinical Education Research?

This is one of the most fundamental questions and tends to have a myriad of different definitions and terms including clinical, medical, and healthcare professionals education research to name just a few. Often the word ‘clinical’ can drive the idea that this sort of research must have a direct impact in clinical practice and thus can seem to exclude certain areas of research in education.

The team at the Incubator have tried to broaden this idea, embracing all sorts of different research that can and does have an impact on societal health needs by “enhancing the education, training and development of health and social care practitioners, and the organisations within which they work and learn“. They highlight a number of different areas in which individuals and teams may be undertaking clinical education research such as:

  • Pedagogical research
  • Planning and design of educational programmes
  • Regulation processes
  • Organisation context of learning, such as learning environments and workforce inclusivity
  • Learner experience and careers

They also consider that this whilst this type of research may have a direct clinical impact for patients it may achieve impact in other ways such as benefiting clinicians in their training, influencing health and education systems and through challenging and developing standards.

How can the Incubator help those who want to engage in Clinical Education Research?

The incubator is a fantastic place to start regardless of where you are in your ClinEdR journey. It offers a variety of resource and links via it’s website such as:

So why not take a look at their resources, find out who works in ClinEdR in your area and sign up to be part of the growing Incubator network!

You can learn more about the Incubator at clinicaleducationresearch.org/ on Twitter/X at @ClinEdResearch or email the team at clinical.education.incubator@newcastle.ac.uk

BMERG News: Award win for one of our Bristol Educators!

Posted on by sarah.allsop

We are thrilled to share that one of our BMERG Medical Educators, Dr David Hettle has been recently awarded one of the ASME/GMC Excellent Medical Education Award 2023!

Photo credit: Brett Garwood on Unsplash

The “Excellent Medical Education” Programme was established by ASME to supporting capacity building of high-quality medical education research. David is part of the team that has won this award in the postgraduate category for their submission: Exploring the experiences and perspectives of junior doctors in Entry-Level Medical Education Roles (ELMERs) that promote pursuit of a medical education career in the United Kingdom.

WINNER OF THE POSTGRADUATE CATEGORY

Lisa Jayne Collage

L-R: Lisa-Jayne Edwards (University of Warwick), Claire Stocker (Aston University), Julie Browne (Cardiff University), Cara Bezzina (University of Glasgow), David Hettle (University of Bristol)

We look forward to hearing more about this work from David and his colleagues in the future.

Read more about this Year’s Excellent Medical Education Award Winners: ASME announces winners of the ASME/GMC Excellent Medical Education Award 2023