跨越差异的对话:在卫生专业教育中开展社会公正和包容性教学。

IF 4.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1111/medu.15556
Arno K. Kumagai, Umberin Najeeb
{"title":"跨越差异的对话:在卫生专业教育中开展社会公正和包容性教学。","authors":"Arno K. Kumagai,&nbsp;Umberin Najeeb","doi":"10.1111/medu.15556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>How does one teach for social justice and inclusion? As we have advocated through our teaching and scholarship, education in this space can be most constructively framed, not through content alone, but through a process that is enriched with the interrelated concepts of dialogue, storytelling and critical consciousness. Unlike discussions or lectures, which are rooted primarily in cognitive exchange and information transfer, dialogues demand engagement of the individual as a whole person, including social and personal identities, emotions, life experiences, values and perspectives. It is fundamentally <i>relational</i>: an interaction in which each interlocutor brings in their own story in open-ended exploration.<span><sup>1</sup></span></p><p>Stories often form the basis of dialogue. As a means of communication, they provide affective bridges that span identities, origins, space and time and have the potential to foster empathy and identification. Stories can ‘make strange’—that is, twist ever so slightly the perception of taken-for-granted ideas, habits and assumptions to generate new ways of seeing—and can open up our understanding to new ways of knowing and being in the world.<span><sup>2</sup></span> In this way, the ‘cross-cultural dialogues’ that comprise this issue of the journal are effectively exchanges of stories: not necessarily in the traditional sense of having a beginning, middle and end, but in the form of ‘directions of travel’<span><sup>3</sup></span> that are informed by experience and identities.</p><p>In engaging stories for justice, however, it is fundamentally important to ask, ‘who speaks for whom?’ and ‘whose stories are told and who is not being heard?’ Reflexivity in this context is absolutely critical. Any meaningful approach must be foregrounded in an explicit acknowledgement of one's social identities and positions of relative privilege and power. A section on reflexivity has become an essential component of qualitative research methods; however, this process requires, in our view, more than a disclosure of identities or geographic representation. It demands an acknowledgement of how those intersectional identities may influence, shape, support or even undermine the very efforts to lend voice to the dispossessed and silent. This acknowledgement is illustrated in the fundamental ambivalence and questioning that the authors express when they pose the question of whether, given their positions of privilege and power, they should be writing in this space at all.<span><sup>3</sup></span> Indeed, much of their conversation represents a sincere and at times uncomfortable but much needed exploration of how to do the work of both scholarship and education with justice. The very idea of agency is also at the centre of the paper on inclusive assessment,<span><sup>4</sup></span> especially inclusion of those with disabilities. The Disability Movement's motto of ‘nothing about us without us’<span><sup>5</sup></span> resonates in this approach.</p><p>Coupled with this questioning is a matter of method. We have previously argued that learning in medical education involves different epistemologies: Learning the pathophysiologic mechanisms of complications of diabetes is a different way of knowing than understanding the root causes of increased mortality associated with diabetic complications in individuals from historically marginalized communities.<span><sup>6, 7</sup></span> While the former requires knowledge and mastery of biomedical principles, in the latter, this knowledge must be tightly intertwined with an exploration of the historical, social and societal context in which diabetes is experienced and treated. In other words, a radical questioning of ‘who’ must be accompanied by an equally radical questioning of ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘what now’? Methods aimed at capturing unique lessons across difference, must be rethought in such a way that they reveal new insights rather than reproducing existing epistemological structures of power. As Audre Lord said, ‘the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house’.<span><sup>8</sup></span></p><p>In that regard, the ‘duo-ethnography’ of Frambach and van Schalkwyk<span><sup>3</sup></span> can be considered a thoughtful, in-depth mutual interrogation of everything from the understanding each scholar has of the term ‘social justice’ to the power dynamics underlying student–supervisor interactions in postgraduate health education programmes. The exchange between Finn et al.<span><sup>4</sup></span> similarly offers another example of how scholars from different backgrounds can centre their conversation on a common cause—the overarching importance of inclusive assessment in HPE—and how this value may be realized across geographic, societal and cultural differences. Both papers illustrate the power of dialogue to create, in the words of the German hermeneutic philosopher Hans Georg Gadamer, a ‘fusion of horizons’, an interplay of different identities and perspectives to open up new ways of seeing, thinking and being in the world.<span><sup>9</sup></span></p><p>Both sets of authors explicitly state that they cannot claim to represent anything beyond themselves, but rather, anchor their perspectives and work within the specific contexts in which they live. In doing so, they avoid the epistemological trap of claiming to ‘represent’ the Global North and South. For contrast, consider Hofstede's model of national cultural differences, commonly used when such claims are made. Based on work done in the 1970s and 1980s, it frames behaviour, perspectives and values in terms of national characteristics and a relatively static view of culture, uninformed by such questions as history, power, intersectional identities and coloniality.<span><sup>10, 11</sup></span> Hofstede's model is an example of what Walter Mignolo calls a ‘zero point perspective’, one that implicitly assumes that Western ways of knowing and being are the objective ‘zero point’ of normalcy against which all other knowledges and cultures are compared.<span><sup>12</sup></span></p><p>To avoid these epistemological traps and to make health professions education, research and practice truly inclusive and just, the fostering of critical consciousness is essential. In contrast to the chiefly cognitive, analytical processes of critical thinking, critical consciousness involves a recognition of individual as conscious, reflective, social beings, coupled with an awareness of societal inequities and a commitment to address injustice.<span><sup>13, 14</sup></span> Viewing medical education, including education across difference, through the lens of critical consciousness will encourage the unveiling of historical assumptions and biases, anchor efforts in the specific lived contexts of learners and teachers and allow us to be more intentional about teaching with justice. An oft-stated goal in these papers is that of creating space for teaching, learning, supervision and assessment with equity and inclusion. We would agree with these goals and believe that the overarching aim of medical education—and health care itself—is not only to eliminate suffering and oppression but to foster the conditions for human flourishing in all its forms. Paulo Freire once said that teaching is the practice of freedom,<span><sup>15</sup></span> and we propose that the papers collected in this issue are entirely aligned with that goal.</p><p>Both the authors participated in the conceptualization, writing and editing the original draft and revision.</p><p>None for either author.</p><p>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":"59 1","pages":"11-13"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11662291/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dialogues across difference: Teaching for social justice and inclusion in health professions education\",\"authors\":\"Arno K. Kumagai,&nbsp;Umberin Najeeb\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/medu.15556\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>How does one teach for social justice and inclusion? As we have advocated through our teaching and scholarship, education in this space can be most constructively framed, not through content alone, but through a process that is enriched with the interrelated concepts of dialogue, storytelling and critical consciousness. Unlike discussions or lectures, which are rooted primarily in cognitive exchange and information transfer, dialogues demand engagement of the individual as a whole person, including social and personal identities, emotions, life experiences, values and perspectives. It is fundamentally <i>relational</i>: an interaction in which each interlocutor brings in their own story in open-ended exploration.<span><sup>1</sup></span></p><p>Stories often form the basis of dialogue. As a means of communication, they provide affective bridges that span identities, origins, space and time and have the potential to foster empathy and identification. Stories can ‘make strange’—that is, twist ever so slightly the perception of taken-for-granted ideas, habits and assumptions to generate new ways of seeing—and can open up our understanding to new ways of knowing and being in the world.<span><sup>2</sup></span> In this way, the ‘cross-cultural dialogues’ that comprise this issue of the journal are effectively exchanges of stories: not necessarily in the traditional sense of having a beginning, middle and end, but in the form of ‘directions of travel’<span><sup>3</sup></span> that are informed by experience and identities.</p><p>In engaging stories for justice, however, it is fundamentally important to ask, ‘who speaks for whom?’ and ‘whose stories are told and who is not being heard?’ Reflexivity in this context is absolutely critical. Any meaningful approach must be foregrounded in an explicit acknowledgement of one's social identities and positions of relative privilege and power. A section on reflexivity has become an essential component of qualitative research methods; however, this process requires, in our view, more than a disclosure of identities or geographic representation. It demands an acknowledgement of how those intersectional identities may influence, shape, support or even undermine the very efforts to lend voice to the dispossessed and silent. This acknowledgement is illustrated in the fundamental ambivalence and questioning that the authors express when they pose the question of whether, given their positions of privilege and power, they should be writing in this space at all.<span><sup>3</sup></span> Indeed, much of their conversation represents a sincere and at times uncomfortable but much needed exploration of how to do the work of both scholarship and education with justice. The very idea of agency is also at the centre of the paper on inclusive assessment,<span><sup>4</sup></span> especially inclusion of those with disabilities. The Disability Movement's motto of ‘nothing about us without us’<span><sup>5</sup></span> resonates in this approach.</p><p>Coupled with this questioning is a matter of method. We have previously argued that learning in medical education involves different epistemologies: Learning the pathophysiologic mechanisms of complications of diabetes is a different way of knowing than understanding the root causes of increased mortality associated with diabetic complications in individuals from historically marginalized communities.<span><sup>6, 7</sup></span> While the former requires knowledge and mastery of biomedical principles, in the latter, this knowledge must be tightly intertwined with an exploration of the historical, social and societal context in which diabetes is experienced and treated. In other words, a radical questioning of ‘who’ must be accompanied by an equally radical questioning of ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘what now’? Methods aimed at capturing unique lessons across difference, must be rethought in such a way that they reveal new insights rather than reproducing existing epistemological structures of power. As Audre Lord said, ‘the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house’.<span><sup>8</sup></span></p><p>In that regard, the ‘duo-ethnography’ of Frambach and van Schalkwyk<span><sup>3</sup></span> can be considered a thoughtful, in-depth mutual interrogation of everything from the understanding each scholar has of the term ‘social justice’ to the power dynamics underlying student–supervisor interactions in postgraduate health education programmes. The exchange between Finn et al.<span><sup>4</sup></span> similarly offers another example of how scholars from different backgrounds can centre their conversation on a common cause—the overarching importance of inclusive assessment in HPE—and how this value may be realized across geographic, societal and cultural differences. Both papers illustrate the power of dialogue to create, in the words of the German hermeneutic philosopher Hans Georg Gadamer, a ‘fusion of horizons’, an interplay of different identities and perspectives to open up new ways of seeing, thinking and being in the world.<span><sup>9</sup></span></p><p>Both sets of authors explicitly state that they cannot claim to represent anything beyond themselves, but rather, anchor their perspectives and work within the specific contexts in which they live. In doing so, they avoid the epistemological trap of claiming to ‘represent’ the Global North and South. For contrast, consider Hofstede's model of national cultural differences, commonly used when such claims are made. Based on work done in the 1970s and 1980s, it frames behaviour, perspectives and values in terms of national characteristics and a relatively static view of culture, uninformed by such questions as history, power, intersectional identities and coloniality.<span><sup>10, 11</sup></span> Hofstede's model is an example of what Walter Mignolo calls a ‘zero point perspective’, one that implicitly assumes that Western ways of knowing and being are the objective ‘zero point’ of normalcy against which all other knowledges and cultures are compared.<span><sup>12</sup></span></p><p>To avoid these epistemological traps and to make health professions education, research and practice truly inclusive and just, the fostering of critical consciousness is essential. In contrast to the chiefly cognitive, analytical processes of critical thinking, critical consciousness involves a recognition of individual as conscious, reflective, social beings, coupled with an awareness of societal inequities and a commitment to address injustice.<span><sup>13, 14</sup></span> Viewing medical education, including education across difference, through the lens of critical consciousness will encourage the unveiling of historical assumptions and biases, anchor efforts in the specific lived contexts of learners and teachers and allow us to be more intentional about teaching with justice. An oft-stated goal in these papers is that of creating space for teaching, learning, supervision and assessment with equity and inclusion. We would agree with these goals and believe that the overarching aim of medical education—and health care itself—is not only to eliminate suffering and oppression but to foster the conditions for human flourishing in all its forms. Paulo Freire once said that teaching is the practice of freedom,<span><sup>15</sup></span> and we propose that the papers collected in this issue are entirely aligned with that goal.</p><p>Both the authors participated in the conceptualization, writing and editing the original draft and revision.</p><p>None for either author.</p><p>Not applicable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"11-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11662291/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/medu.15556\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/medu.15556","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Dialogues across difference: Teaching for social justice and inclusion in health professions education

How does one teach for social justice and inclusion? As we have advocated through our teaching and scholarship, education in this space can be most constructively framed, not through content alone, but through a process that is enriched with the interrelated concepts of dialogue, storytelling and critical consciousness. Unlike discussions or lectures, which are rooted primarily in cognitive exchange and information transfer, dialogues demand engagement of the individual as a whole person, including social and personal identities, emotions, life experiences, values and perspectives. It is fundamentally relational: an interaction in which each interlocutor brings in their own story in open-ended exploration.1

Stories often form the basis of dialogue. As a means of communication, they provide affective bridges that span identities, origins, space and time and have the potential to foster empathy and identification. Stories can ‘make strange’—that is, twist ever so slightly the perception of taken-for-granted ideas, habits and assumptions to generate new ways of seeing—and can open up our understanding to new ways of knowing and being in the world.2 In this way, the ‘cross-cultural dialogues’ that comprise this issue of the journal are effectively exchanges of stories: not necessarily in the traditional sense of having a beginning, middle and end, but in the form of ‘directions of travel’3 that are informed by experience and identities.

In engaging stories for justice, however, it is fundamentally important to ask, ‘who speaks for whom?’ and ‘whose stories are told and who is not being heard?’ Reflexivity in this context is absolutely critical. Any meaningful approach must be foregrounded in an explicit acknowledgement of one's social identities and positions of relative privilege and power. A section on reflexivity has become an essential component of qualitative research methods; however, this process requires, in our view, more than a disclosure of identities or geographic representation. It demands an acknowledgement of how those intersectional identities may influence, shape, support or even undermine the very efforts to lend voice to the dispossessed and silent. This acknowledgement is illustrated in the fundamental ambivalence and questioning that the authors express when they pose the question of whether, given their positions of privilege and power, they should be writing in this space at all.3 Indeed, much of their conversation represents a sincere and at times uncomfortable but much needed exploration of how to do the work of both scholarship and education with justice. The very idea of agency is also at the centre of the paper on inclusive assessment,4 especially inclusion of those with disabilities. The Disability Movement's motto of ‘nothing about us without us’5 resonates in this approach.

Coupled with this questioning is a matter of method. We have previously argued that learning in medical education involves different epistemologies: Learning the pathophysiologic mechanisms of complications of diabetes is a different way of knowing than understanding the root causes of increased mortality associated with diabetic complications in individuals from historically marginalized communities.6, 7 While the former requires knowledge and mastery of biomedical principles, in the latter, this knowledge must be tightly intertwined with an exploration of the historical, social and societal context in which diabetes is experienced and treated. In other words, a radical questioning of ‘who’ must be accompanied by an equally radical questioning of ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘what now’? Methods aimed at capturing unique lessons across difference, must be rethought in such a way that they reveal new insights rather than reproducing existing epistemological structures of power. As Audre Lord said, ‘the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house’.8

In that regard, the ‘duo-ethnography’ of Frambach and van Schalkwyk3 can be considered a thoughtful, in-depth mutual interrogation of everything from the understanding each scholar has of the term ‘social justice’ to the power dynamics underlying student–supervisor interactions in postgraduate health education programmes. The exchange between Finn et al.4 similarly offers another example of how scholars from different backgrounds can centre their conversation on a common cause—the overarching importance of inclusive assessment in HPE—and how this value may be realized across geographic, societal and cultural differences. Both papers illustrate the power of dialogue to create, in the words of the German hermeneutic philosopher Hans Georg Gadamer, a ‘fusion of horizons’, an interplay of different identities and perspectives to open up new ways of seeing, thinking and being in the world.9

Both sets of authors explicitly state that they cannot claim to represent anything beyond themselves, but rather, anchor their perspectives and work within the specific contexts in which they live. In doing so, they avoid the epistemological trap of claiming to ‘represent’ the Global North and South. For contrast, consider Hofstede's model of national cultural differences, commonly used when such claims are made. Based on work done in the 1970s and 1980s, it frames behaviour, perspectives and values in terms of national characteristics and a relatively static view of culture, uninformed by such questions as history, power, intersectional identities and coloniality.10, 11 Hofstede's model is an example of what Walter Mignolo calls a ‘zero point perspective’, one that implicitly assumes that Western ways of knowing and being are the objective ‘zero point’ of normalcy against which all other knowledges and cultures are compared.12

To avoid these epistemological traps and to make health professions education, research and practice truly inclusive and just, the fostering of critical consciousness is essential. In contrast to the chiefly cognitive, analytical processes of critical thinking, critical consciousness involves a recognition of individual as conscious, reflective, social beings, coupled with an awareness of societal inequities and a commitment to address injustice.13, 14 Viewing medical education, including education across difference, through the lens of critical consciousness will encourage the unveiling of historical assumptions and biases, anchor efforts in the specific lived contexts of learners and teachers and allow us to be more intentional about teaching with justice. An oft-stated goal in these papers is that of creating space for teaching, learning, supervision and assessment with equity and inclusion. We would agree with these goals and believe that the overarching aim of medical education—and health care itself—is not only to eliminate suffering and oppression but to foster the conditions for human flourishing in all its forms. Paulo Freire once said that teaching is the practice of freedom,15 and we propose that the papers collected in this issue are entirely aligned with that goal.

Both the authors participated in the conceptualization, writing and editing the original draft and revision.

None for either author.

Not applicable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
期刊最新文献
Untapped opportunities: Leveraging the entire health care team in workplace learning. Issue Information March in this issue Beyond the classroom: The transformative experience of short rural immersion programs for health professional students: A narrative review. Tolerance for uncertainty and medical students' specialty choices: A myth revisited.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1