James C D McMillan, Gillian M Scanlan, Samantha E Smith
{"title":"Capabilities, not careers, should be the focus of generalism in medical education.","authors":"James C D McMillan, Gillian M Scanlan, Samantha E Smith","doi":"10.1111/medu.70164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.70164","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145843785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: Coaching is increasingly recognised as a valuable tool in health professions education (HPE), supporting learning, performance, and well-being. Yet, the term 'coaching' is used inconsistently, leading to confusion and limiting its potential impact. In this cross-cutting edge article, the authors draw upon a framework from the sport psychology and organisational development literatures to outline three distinct generations of coaching that can guide HPE away from treating coaching as a unitary construct. In doing so, we strive to clarify coaching's varied purposes and paradigms.
The three generations framework: Generation 1 emphasises performance management, focusing on goal-setting and problem-solving. Generation 2 shifts towards personal development, leveraging strengths and fostering long-term growth. Generation 3 centers on meaning-making and cultural transformation, prioritising values, identity and reflective dialogue. The authors argue that each generation offers unique benefits and limitations and that coaching in HPE should be deliberately aligned with the learner's context and goals. Through examples from clinical education, they illustrate how different coaching approaches can support technical skill development, professional identity formation and well-being.
Implications: Rather than advocating for a single model, the article encourages educators to adopt a flexible, context-sensitive approach to coaching. By understanding the generational distinctions, HPE professionals can better tailor coaching interventions to meet learners' evolving needs and foster sustainable development. As coaching continues to expand in scope and complexity, this framework offers a timely lens for enhancing clarity, intentionality, and impact in health professions education.
{"title":"How can I help at this moment? Outlining three generations of coaching for health professions educators.","authors":"Rune D Jensen, Ingrid Price, Kevin W Eva","doi":"10.1111/medu.70142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.70142","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coaching is increasingly recognised as a valuable tool in health professions education (HPE), supporting learning, performance, and well-being. Yet, the term 'coaching' is used inconsistently, leading to confusion and limiting its potential impact. In this cross-cutting edge article, the authors draw upon a framework from the sport psychology and organisational development literatures to outline three distinct generations of coaching that can guide HPE away from treating coaching as a unitary construct. In doing so, we strive to clarify coaching's varied purposes and paradigms.</p><p><strong>The three generations framework: </strong>Generation 1 emphasises performance management, focusing on goal-setting and problem-solving. Generation 2 shifts towards personal development, leveraging strengths and fostering long-term growth. Generation 3 centers on meaning-making and cultural transformation, prioritising values, identity and reflective dialogue. The authors argue that each generation offers unique benefits and limitations and that coaching in HPE should be deliberately aligned with the learner's context and goals. Through examples from clinical education, they illustrate how different coaching approaches can support technical skill development, professional identity formation and well-being.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Rather than advocating for a single model, the article encourages educators to adopt a flexible, context-sensitive approach to coaching. By understanding the generational distinctions, HPE professionals can better tailor coaching interventions to meet learners' evolving needs and foster sustainable development. As coaching continues to expand in scope and complexity, this framework offers a timely lens for enhancing clarity, intentionality, and impact in health professions education.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145820018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Between who we are and who we're asked to be: Understanding professional paralysis as border crossing.","authors":"Justin T H Lam, Maria Athina Martimianakis","doi":"10.1111/medu.70137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.70137","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145810167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The long shadow of assessment in the making of a physician.","authors":"Suzanne Goh, Shiva Sarraf-Yazdi","doi":"10.1111/medu.70157","DOIUrl":"10.1111/medu.70157","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145804989","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fables are a form of storytelling that convey moral, social, and philosophical lessons through carefully constructed allegories and metaphorical characters. Often set in imaginary worlds or distant times, they use fictional protagonists and exaggerated circumstances to illuminate contemporary real-world struggles. They invite readers to recognize and critically reflect on enduring patterns of systemic inequities and power dynamics in ways that are both accessible and thought-provoking. Throughout history, fables have been used to critique power structures, expose hidden injustices, and advocate for change.
“Unheard Voices from Earth: A Fable from 2184” employs a science fiction allegory to illuminate on how power structures within academic knowledge production perpetuate systemic exclusion. By re-imagining contemporary academic publishing as an intergalactic enterprise, the narrative brings to attention the mechanisms by which dominant paradigms silence marginalized voices.
{"title":"Unheard Voices from Earth: A Fable from 2184","authors":"Harm Peters, Jean-Michel Leduc, Ahsan Sethi, Ugo Caramori, Ashley A. Dennis, Marwa Schumann","doi":"10.1111/medu.15688","DOIUrl":"10.1111/medu.15688","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Fables are a form of storytelling that convey moral, social, and philosophical lessons through carefully constructed allegories and metaphorical characters. Often set in imaginary worlds or distant times, they use fictional protagonists and exaggerated circumstances to illuminate contemporary real-world struggles. They invite readers to recognize and critically reflect on enduring patterns of systemic inequities and power dynamics in ways that are both accessible and thought-provoking. Throughout history, fables have been used to critique power structures, expose hidden injustices, and advocate for change.</p><p>“Unheard Voices from Earth: A Fable from 2184” employs a science fiction allegory to illuminate on how power structures within academic knowledge production perpetuate systemic exclusion. By re-imagining contemporary academic publishing as an intergalactic enterprise, the narrative brings to attention the mechanisms by which dominant paradigms silence marginalized voices.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":"60 1","pages":"44-45"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://asmepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/medu.15688","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145794221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>It is a fascinating question—and a rather contentious one, too. The idea of describing people as hawks or doves seems to stem back to at least the War of 1812, when Americans in favour of military action against the United Kingdom were labelled ‘war hawks’, whereas anti-war opposition were termed ‘doves’.</p><p>Nowadays, and certainly within clinical education, the terms are used to describe assessors who differ from one another in the stringency or leniency of their marking.<span><sup>1</sup></span> It has become particularly common parlance within objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), where a high value is placed on inter-rater reliability and standardisation.</p><p>Hawk examiners are stringent and difficult to impress. They are caricatured as being like birds of prey, looking for signs of weakness so that they can swoop. They wait, watch, hover and when a candidate makes a mistake or says the wrong thing, they will strike, scoring them down on their mark sheet.</p><p>Dove examiners are quite the opposite. They are lenient, non-predatory, nice, soft and gentle. They are easier to please, and a candidate will not necessarily have to perform at a high standard to acquire a good mark from them.</p><p>Hawks and doves can both be problematic. If all examiners are hawks, then an assessment becomes very difficult to pass. If all examiners are doves, then an assessment becomes easy to pass—perhaps <i>too</i> easy.</p><p>Over the years, I have met OSCE examiners who seemed to proudly identify as either a hawk or a dove. Not just that, but it is even possible to harbour derogatory views about examiners on the other end of the ornithological spectrum. ‘I'm a hawk – those gentle doves might let anyone pass, but I'm doing my bit to maintain standards.’ ‘I'm a dove – those nasty hawks need to be nicer and remember that medical students aren't consultants.’</p><p>Thankfully, very few examiners are absolute hawks (looking for flawless performance before they award a pass mark) or absolute doves (awarding a pass mark for almost any level of performance, no matter how poor). In reality, an examiner may be slightly more ‘hawkish’ or slightly more ‘dovey’ than another examiner, but they can probably counteract each other over a whole OSCE assessment if there are enough stations and data collection points.</p><p>However, the concept of hawks and doves does raise an interesting thought—if examiners can be too much like hawks or too much like doves, what bird do we actually want them to resemble? In other words, as OSCE examiners, is there a bird that we could aspire to be like?</p><p>I have posed this question to various examiners in the past. The crow is a standard answer. However, although the crow certainly sits somewhere between hawk and dove on the predatory spectrum, there are problems with it. Generally speaking, crows do not have a great image—noisy, dirty, associated with scavenging, graveyards and death. As an examiner, it is not a good lo
{"title":"Hawks, doves and ornithological aspirations—What bird should an OSCE examiner be?","authors":"Stephen Meldrum","doi":"10.1111/medu.70049","DOIUrl":"10.1111/medu.70049","url":null,"abstract":"<p>It is a fascinating question—and a rather contentious one, too. The idea of describing people as hawks or doves seems to stem back to at least the War of 1812, when Americans in favour of military action against the United Kingdom were labelled ‘war hawks’, whereas anti-war opposition were termed ‘doves’.</p><p>Nowadays, and certainly within clinical education, the terms are used to describe assessors who differ from one another in the stringency or leniency of their marking.<span><sup>1</sup></span> It has become particularly common parlance within objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), where a high value is placed on inter-rater reliability and standardisation.</p><p>Hawk examiners are stringent and difficult to impress. They are caricatured as being like birds of prey, looking for signs of weakness so that they can swoop. They wait, watch, hover and when a candidate makes a mistake or says the wrong thing, they will strike, scoring them down on their mark sheet.</p><p>Dove examiners are quite the opposite. They are lenient, non-predatory, nice, soft and gentle. They are easier to please, and a candidate will not necessarily have to perform at a high standard to acquire a good mark from them.</p><p>Hawks and doves can both be problematic. If all examiners are hawks, then an assessment becomes very difficult to pass. If all examiners are doves, then an assessment becomes easy to pass—perhaps <i>too</i> easy.</p><p>Over the years, I have met OSCE examiners who seemed to proudly identify as either a hawk or a dove. Not just that, but it is even possible to harbour derogatory views about examiners on the other end of the ornithological spectrum. ‘I'm a hawk – those gentle doves might let anyone pass, but I'm doing my bit to maintain standards.’ ‘I'm a dove – those nasty hawks need to be nicer and remember that medical students aren't consultants.’</p><p>Thankfully, very few examiners are absolute hawks (looking for flawless performance before they award a pass mark) or absolute doves (awarding a pass mark for almost any level of performance, no matter how poor). In reality, an examiner may be slightly more ‘hawkish’ or slightly more ‘dovey’ than another examiner, but they can probably counteract each other over a whole OSCE assessment if there are enough stations and data collection points.</p><p>However, the concept of hawks and doves does raise an interesting thought—if examiners can be too much like hawks or too much like doves, what bird do we actually want them to resemble? In other words, as OSCE examiners, is there a bird that we could aspire to be like?</p><p>I have posed this question to various examiners in the past. The crow is a standard answer. However, although the crow certainly sits somewhere between hawk and dove on the predatory spectrum, there are problems with it. Generally speaking, crows do not have a great image—noisy, dirty, associated with scavenging, graveyards and death. As an examiner, it is not a good lo","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":"60 1","pages":"39-40"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12717501/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145794195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Nearly a decade after Royal et al's mischievous debut of the ‘Ten Most Wanted’ test cheaters, the landscape of academic dishonesty in medical education has transformed. This tongue-in-cheek update revisits the original offenders, tracks their fates and introduces digital-era successors whose tactics flourished amid COVID-19's shift to online assessment. Framed through the classic ‘fraud triangle’ of motivation, opportunity and rationalisation, the paper humorously exposes how cheating methods have evolved while underscoring serious risks to assessment validity, professional identity and patient safety. The authors argue for a modern counter-offensive blending authentic assessment, smart technologies and cultures of academic integrity.</p><p> <span>Sturrock, A</span>, <span>Myers, G</span>, <span>Rees, E</span>. <span>Cheating 2.0: a reprofiling of the ten most wanted test cheaters in the digital age</span>. <i>Med Educ</i> <span>2026</span>; <span>60</span>(<span>1</span>): <span>14</span>–<span>18</span>.</p><p>Fairy tales have long shaped cultural norms, moral expectations and the behaviours we carry into adulthood. Drawing on this imaginative tradition, this article recasts the story of curriculum change as a modern fable. Once portrayed as a harmonious collective quest—where medical educators joined hands like storybook heroes—the process is re-envisioned as a terrain of productive tension, resistance and debate. By using fairy-tale conventions to explore how emotions, values and social norms influence educational reform, the paper argues that disagreement is not a villain to be vanquished but a necessary force that propels meaningful and sustainable curriculum change.</p><p> <span>Ellaway, R</span>, <span>Wyatt, T</span>, <span>Kelly, M</span>. <span>Grim fairy tales of curriculum change in medical education</span>. <i>Med Educ</i> <span>2026</span>; <span>60</span>(<span>1</span>): <span>25</span>–<span>27</span>.</p><p>This light-hearted article follows Zuki-Med, a fictional AI persona, as she wanders through a medical and health sciences campus, illuminating both the promise and pitfalls of AI in health professions education. Through her encounters, the story playfully explores common challenges—scepticism toward new technologies, ethical dilemmas and the risk of losing the human touch in healthcare. Zuki-Med's journey illustrates why developing critical AI literacies is essential for learners and educators alike. Rather than portraying AI as a replacement for human expertise, the tale champions its use as a supportive companion that enhances teaching, learning, and professional practice.</p><p> <span>Titus-Dawson, S</span>, <span>Meyer, R</span>, <span>Hansen, A</span>. <span>AI: The ‘uninvited’ guest!!</span> <i>Med Educ</i> <span>2026</span>; <span>60</span>(<span>1</span>): <span>55</span>–<span>57</span>.</p><p>This facetious article explores just how painful peer review can be by
{"title":"January in this issue","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/medu.70124","DOIUrl":"10.1111/medu.70124","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Nearly a decade after Royal et al's mischievous debut of the ‘Ten Most Wanted’ test cheaters, the landscape of academic dishonesty in medical education has transformed. This tongue-in-cheek update revisits the original offenders, tracks their fates and introduces digital-era successors whose tactics flourished amid COVID-19's shift to online assessment. Framed through the classic ‘fraud triangle’ of motivation, opportunity and rationalisation, the paper humorously exposes how cheating methods have evolved while underscoring serious risks to assessment validity, professional identity and patient safety. The authors argue for a modern counter-offensive blending authentic assessment, smart technologies and cultures of academic integrity.</p><p>\u0000 <span>Sturrock, A</span>, <span>Myers, G</span>, <span>Rees, E</span>. <span>Cheating 2.0: a reprofiling of the ten most wanted test cheaters in the digital age</span>. <i>Med Educ</i> <span>2026</span>; <span>60</span>(<span>1</span>): <span>14</span>–<span>18</span>.</p><p>Fairy tales have long shaped cultural norms, moral expectations and the behaviours we carry into adulthood. Drawing on this imaginative tradition, this article recasts the story of curriculum change as a modern fable. Once portrayed as a harmonious collective quest—where medical educators joined hands like storybook heroes—the process is re-envisioned as a terrain of productive tension, resistance and debate. By using fairy-tale conventions to explore how emotions, values and social norms influence educational reform, the paper argues that disagreement is not a villain to be vanquished but a necessary force that propels meaningful and sustainable curriculum change.</p><p>\u0000 <span>Ellaway, R</span>, <span>Wyatt, T</span>, <span>Kelly, M</span>. <span>Grim fairy tales of curriculum change in medical education</span>. <i>Med Educ</i> <span>2026</span>; <span>60</span>(<span>1</span>): <span>25</span>–<span>27</span>.</p><p>This light-hearted article follows Zuki-Med, a fictional AI persona, as she wanders through a medical and health sciences campus, illuminating both the promise and pitfalls of AI in health professions education. Through her encounters, the story playfully explores common challenges—scepticism toward new technologies, ethical dilemmas and the risk of losing the human touch in healthcare. Zuki-Med's journey illustrates why developing critical AI literacies is essential for learners and educators alike. Rather than portraying AI as a replacement for human expertise, the tale champions its use as a supportive companion that enhances teaching, learning, and professional practice.</p><p>\u0000 <span>Titus-Dawson, S</span>, <span>Meyer, R</span>, <span>Hansen, A</span>. <span>AI: The ‘uninvited’ guest!!</span> <i>Med Educ</i> <span>2026</span>; <span>60</span>(<span>1</span>): <span>55</span>–<span>57</span>.</p><p>This facetious article explores just how painful peer review can be by","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://asmepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/medu.70124","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145794297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>That's a wrap, folks.</p><p>18 years, 32 000 new submissions and 0 unhappy colleagues … if only!</p><p>I've wondered for ages how I would say ‘farewell’ in this space. Serving as Editor-in-Chief (EIC) of <i>Medical Education</i> has been *the* privilege of my professional life. How does one summarise such an experience in a page or two? Have I learned enough to drop a final bit of wisdom? Is it possible to find one more unused bit of creativity without trotting out a previously worn schtick? Probably not.</p><p>What I can offer in heaps though is both excitement for the future and thanks.</p><p>The excitement derives from where this journal (and, with it, the field) is headed. Most who read this editorial will already be aware that Dr. Rola Ajjawi has been appointed <i>Medical Education's</i> seventh EIC. Dr. Ajjawi comes to us from a physiotherapy background and a PhD in health professions education (HPE). She is an outstanding scholar who has done impactful work in a wide array of topics including clinical reasoning, feedback, workplace-based learning, belonging and the role of emotions in learning and practice. At each and every turn, she has eschewed conventional ways of thinking, offering nuance and sophistication to our understanding of real-world problems.</p><p>What you cannot tell from her biography is that Rola is every bit as good a person as she is a scholar. Kind and generous to the core (yet not to a fault), she is deeply invested in helping trainees, colleagues and the field alike to reach their full potential. I trust her more than I trust just about anyone to call it as she sees it while doing so in a way that is constructive and generative. Full of calm and positive energy, good humour and seemingly endless capacity, Rola is exceptionally well-positioned to manage the challenges ahead, to support diverse interests and to take the journal in creative and stimulating directions. An early member of the Karolinska Institutet's Fellowship for excellence in medical education research, an inaugural member of the <i>Medical Education</i> Editorial Internship and the first Equity, Diversity and Inclusion lead for this journal, Dr. Ajjawi is no stranger to walking new ground. I really could not be more excited, for the field and the journal, to see her take the reins.</p><p>That said, I am every bit as thrilled for Rola herself because she now gets to experience a community for which I will be eternally grateful. In 2006, as deputy editor, I preceded Rola into the ranks of what had already been established as the leading internationally focused HPE journal in the world. The reason I call my affiliation with <i>Medical Education</i> *the* privilege of my professional life is it offered opportunities both to learn from the best the field has to offer and to try to pass those lessons forward to others who strive to ‘stand on their shoulders’. Too many to name are responsible for maintaining the journal's reputations since I became EIC: 40
{"title":"Droppin' it like it's hot","authors":"Kevin Eva","doi":"10.1111/medu.70021","DOIUrl":"10.1111/medu.70021","url":null,"abstract":"<p>That's a wrap, folks.</p><p>18 years, 32 000 new submissions and 0 unhappy colleagues … if only!</p><p>I've wondered for ages how I would say ‘farewell’ in this space. Serving as Editor-in-Chief (EIC) of <i>Medical Education</i> has been *the* privilege of my professional life. How does one summarise such an experience in a page or two? Have I learned enough to drop a final bit of wisdom? Is it possible to find one more unused bit of creativity without trotting out a previously worn schtick? Probably not.</p><p>What I can offer in heaps though is both excitement for the future and thanks.</p><p>The excitement derives from where this journal (and, with it, the field) is headed. Most who read this editorial will already be aware that Dr. Rola Ajjawi has been appointed <i>Medical Education's</i> seventh EIC. Dr. Ajjawi comes to us from a physiotherapy background and a PhD in health professions education (HPE). She is an outstanding scholar who has done impactful work in a wide array of topics including clinical reasoning, feedback, workplace-based learning, belonging and the role of emotions in learning and practice. At each and every turn, she has eschewed conventional ways of thinking, offering nuance and sophistication to our understanding of real-world problems.</p><p>What you cannot tell from her biography is that Rola is every bit as good a person as she is a scholar. Kind and generous to the core (yet not to a fault), she is deeply invested in helping trainees, colleagues and the field alike to reach their full potential. I trust her more than I trust just about anyone to call it as she sees it while doing so in a way that is constructive and generative. Full of calm and positive energy, good humour and seemingly endless capacity, Rola is exceptionally well-positioned to manage the challenges ahead, to support diverse interests and to take the journal in creative and stimulating directions. An early member of the Karolinska Institutet's Fellowship for excellence in medical education research, an inaugural member of the <i>Medical Education</i> Editorial Internship and the first Equity, Diversity and Inclusion lead for this journal, Dr. Ajjawi is no stranger to walking new ground. I really could not be more excited, for the field and the journal, to see her take the reins.</p><p>That said, I am every bit as thrilled for Rola herself because she now gets to experience a community for which I will be eternally grateful. In 2006, as deputy editor, I preceded Rola into the ranks of what had already been established as the leading internationally focused HPE journal in the world. The reason I call my affiliation with <i>Medical Education</i> *the* privilege of my professional life is it offered opportunities both to learn from the best the field has to offer and to try to pass those lessons forward to others who strive to ‘stand on their shoulders’. Too many to name are responsible for maintaining the journal's reputations since I became EIC: 40","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":"60 1","pages":"4-5"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://asmepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/medu.70021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145794197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号