The diversity of educational research in the health professions: More opportunities than challenges
Katrin Schüttpelz-Brauns 1Jan Matthes 2,3
Stefan Schauber 4
Michaela Wagner-Menghin 5,6
1 Medical Faculty Mannheim at Heidelberg University, Division for Study and Teaching Development, Medical Education Research Department, Mannheim, Germany
2 University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine, Student Dean’s Office, Cologne, Germany
3 University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Center for Pharmacology, Cologne, Germany
4 University of Oslo, Faculty of Medicine, Section for Health Sciences Education (HELP), Oslo, Norway
5 Medical University of Vienna, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Clinical Division of Social Psychiatry, Vienna, Austria
6 Medical University of Vienna, Comprehensive Center for Clinical Neurosciences and Mental Health, Vienna, Austria
Editorial
Researchers from disciplines such as medicine, psychology, sociology, education and the natural sciences, to name but a few, are involved in educational research in the health professions. The wide diversity of disciplines involved, with their different foundations and research methods, can be very challenging in scientific discourse. The fact that different research cultures clash here is illustrated not least by discussions on questions about what kind of knowledge should be gained [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], which topic and outcomes should be investigated [8], [9], [10], [11], whether and what role theories play in educational research [5], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], which research methods should be used [5], [12], [13], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] and how study designs are assessed [8], [12], [18], [23], [24].
Since 2006, the Committee for Educational Research Methodology of the DACH Society for Medical Education (GMA) has provided a forum for the reflection and integration of different research cultures [25]. This has resulted in regular training courses on methods in educational research [26], since 2018 in the form of a winter school. With regard to the planning and implementation of educational research studies, first recommendations on ethical aspects were published in 2009 [27], to which an article in this issue refers [28]. With regard to the quality and reproducibility of the publication of research results, recommendations on writing and reviewing manuscripts for the GMS J Med Educ were published [29], [30]. In the course of the committee's work, the desire evolved over time to contribute to the discussion and mutual understanding of research cultures by editing a special issue on educational research in the health professions. The articles in the special issue are assigned to one of three focal points: Fundamentals, research methods and perspectives on educational research.
What are the aims of educational research? This question is addressed in the article by Schüttpelz-Brauns et al. [31] in the section on the fundamentals of educational research. Using an analysis of 169 publications in pertinent journals, the authors develop a system of categories that can be used to define the topics and objectives of medical education research more precisely and to differentiate between different types of research and their relevance. Taking the theory of cognitive load as an example, Paridon [32] deals with the role of empirically tested theories in medical education research. She discusses the development of theories on the basis of findings and their contribution to the development of teaching/learning methods and materials for educational practice. The commentary by Ellaway [33] also invites reflection on one's own goals and theories against the background of the wish to further develop educational practice and educational research. She advocates reflecting on the role of philosophy in medical education. In doing so, she poses some key philosophical questions relating to medical education, the answers to which can ensure the quality and usefulness of educational research in the health professions.
The part focusing on research methods reflects the diversity of educational research in the healthcare professions, which ultimately prompted the publication of this special issue: different types of research questions require different research methods. Articles from the "How to" category give an impression of the resulting range of methods. In their article, Giesler & Fabry [34] convey a basic understanding of the quantitative investigation of psychological characteristics such as personality traits or attitudes. They describe the development of test and questionnaire procedures, from the definition of the construct to be measured to test statistics. With the Q-method, Schick & Jedlicska [35] present a scientific procedure at the interface of qualitative and quantitative research. They do this using the example of physicians' role expectations with respect to dying and death. Ortloff et al. [36] introduce document analysis using a case study. This is usually used as part of a multi-method approach and draws on existing data and information. The article by Homberg [37] is dedicated to the Delphi method as a gold standard of consensus procedures. Her article can serve as a guideline for planning Delphi surveys and shows their possibilities and limitations. Finally, Gadewoltz [38] deals in her article with the scientific theoretical foundations and research methodological background of the Research Program Subjective Theories, whose dialogical approach opens up possibilities for systematic investigation of individual thought processes. She explains that this qualitative method not least can help to meet the challenges of interprofessional education in healthcare professions.
In the third focus of this special issue, authors take a critical look at educational research in the healthcare professions and provide impulses for how it can be further developed. Steinberg [39] discusses the challenges of applying psychological theories and methods on learning in educational research in the healthcare professions from the perspective of educational psychology. Wijnen-Meijer & Norcini [40] comment on the sources, applications and challenges of patient-related outcome variables. Al-Buhaly’s [41] article deals with co-creation in health professions education and discusses the benefits of involving different stakeholders in the joint development of educational programs. Hirsch et al. [28] elaborate on ethical aspects of planning, conducting and publishing scientific studies, which also and possibly especially represent a challenge in educational research in the health professions. The article offers practical support in the consideration of these aspects and their implementation.
This special issue thus not only reflects the diversity of disciplines involved in research, but also shows that this diversity and the know-how from the various research cultures can be used to answer a wide range of research questions on training and education in the healthcare professions using scientific methods. Although the research traditions face us with major challenges, we should consider this diversity as a potential and thus as an opportunity. This special issue is therefore also a call for action: let’s develop a common understanding of the different research cultures and their view of learning and teaching. By this, we can find the adequate methodology for each research question and exploit the full potential of educational research methodology in the healthcare professions.
Authors’ ORCIDs
- Katrin Schüttpelz-Brauns: [0000-0001-9004-0724]
- Jan Matthes: [0000-0003-2754-1555]
- Stefan Schauber: [0000-0002-1832-2732]
- Michaela Wagner-Menghin: [0000-0003-1645-7577]
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
[1] Bunniss S, Kelly DR. Research paradigms in medical education research. Med Educ. 2010;44(4):358-366. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03611.x[2] Eva KW. Broadening the debate about quality in medical education research. Med Educ. 2009;43(4):294-296. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03342.x
[3] Norman G. Why? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017;22(3):577-580. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-017-9780-3
[4] Regehr G. It's NOT rocket science: rethinking our metaphors for research in health professions education. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):31-39. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03418.x
[5] Singh M, Shipman AR. Embracing medical education research: gaps, needs and opportunities. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2022;47(12):2077-2080. DOI: 10.1111/ced.15399
[6] Sukhera J, Fung CC, Teherani A, Wyatt TR, Schumacher DJ, Leep Hunderfund AN. What Are We Made For? Mobilizing Medical Education Research for Impact. Acad Med. 2024;99(11):1177-1180. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005850
[7] Young M, LaDonna K, Varpio L, Balmer DF. Focal Length Fluidity: Research Questions in Medical Education Research and Scholarship. Acad Med. 2019;94(11S Association of American Medical Colleges Learn Serve Lead: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Research in Medical Education Sessions):S1-S4. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002913
[8] Baernstein A, Liss HK, Carney PA, Elmore JG. Trends in study methods used in undergraduate medical education research, 1969-2007. JAMA. 2007;298(9):1038-1045. DOI: 10.1001/jama.298.9.1038
[9] Biesta GJ, van Braak M. Beyond the medical model: Thinking differently about medical education and medical education research. Teach Learn Med. 2020;32(4):449-456. DOI: 10.1080/10401334.2020.1798240
[10] Chen FM, Burstin H, Huntington J. The importance of clinical outcomes in medical education research. Med Educ. 2005;39(4):350-351. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02117.x
[11] Shea JA. Mind the gap: some reasons why medical education research is different from health services research. Med Educ. 2001;35(4):319-320. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00913.x
[12] Albert M, Hodges B, Regehr G. Research in medical education: balancing service and science. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12(1):103-115. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-006-9026-2
[13] Albert M, Reeves S. Setting some new standards in medical education research. Med Educ. 2010;44(7):638-639. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03726.x
[14] Melvin A, Patel RS. Applying educational theory to medical education research. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2022;47(12):2085-2089. DOI: 10.1111/ced.15287
[15] Norman G. Editorial - how bad is medical education research anyway? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12(1):1-5. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-006-9047-x
[16] Rees CE, Monrouxe LV. Theory in medical education research: how do we get there? Med Educ. 2010;44(4):334-339. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03615.x
[17] Gill D, Griffin AE. Reframing medical education research: let's make the publishable meaningful and the meaningful publishable. Med Educ. 2009;43(10):933-935. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03451.x
[18] Hope D, Dewar A, Hay C. Is There a Replication Crisis in Medical Education Research? Acad Med. 2021;96(7):958-963. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004063
[19] Imafuku R, Saiki T, Woodward-Kron R. Revisiting discourse analysis in medical education research. Int J Med Educ. 2022;13:138-142. DOI: 10.5116/ijme.6278.c1b7
[20] Rashid M, Goldszmidt M. Critical ethnography: implications for medical education research and scholarship. Med Educ. 2024;58(10):1185-1191. DOI: 10.1111/medu.15401
[21] Sandars J, Cecilio-Fernandes D, Patel R, Gandomkar R. Avoid 'running before we can walk' in medical education research: The importance of design and development research. Med Teach. 2021;43(11):1335-1336. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1854452
[22] Wilhite JA, Altshuler L, Zabar S, Gillespie C, Kalet A. Development and maintenance of a medical education research registry. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):199. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-020-02113-5
[23] Cook DA. If you teach them, they will learn: why medical education needs comparative effectiveness research. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012;17(3):305-310. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-012-9381-0
[24] Norman G. Is experimental research pass. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15(3):297-301. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-010-9243-6
[25] Brauns K, Marienhagen J, Eitel F, Schubert S, Hahn EG. GMA-Ausschuss Methodik der Ausbildungsforschung: Ein Projektplan des GMA-Ausschusses Methodik der Ausbildungsforschung. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2006;23(4):Doc74. Zugänglich unter/available from: https://journals.publisso.de/de/journals/jme/volume23/zma000293
[26] Schüttpelz-Brauns K, Kiessling C, Ahlers O, Hautz WE. Symposium 'methodology in medical education research' organised by the Methodology in Medical Education Research Committee of the German Society of Medical Education May, 25th to 26th 2013 at Charité, Berlin. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2015;32(1):Doc3. DOI: 10.3205/zma000945
[27] Schüttpelz-Brauns K, Koch R, Mertens A, Stieg M, Boonen A, Marienhagen J. Ethik in der Medizinischen Ausbildungsforschung. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2009;26(1):Doc08. DOI: 10.3205/zma000600
[28] Hirsch J, Giesler M, Matthes J, Homberg A, Himmelbauer M, Bauer D, Boeker M, Schüttpelz-Brauns K. Developing recommendations on ethical aspects affecting studies in health professions education research. GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1):Doc1. DOI: 10.3205/zma001795
[29] Schüttpelz-Brauns K, Stosch C, Matthes J, Himmelbauer M, Herrler A, Bachmann C, Huwendiek S, Huenges B, Kiessling C. Recommendations for reviewing a manuscript for the GMS Zeitschrift fr Medizinische Ausbildung. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2010;27(5):Doc75. DOI: 10.3205/zma000712
[30] Schüttpelz-Brauns K, Homberg A, Giesler M, Schneider A, Gadewoltz PN, Boeker M, Möltner A, Matthes J. Recommendations for reviewing manuscripts of the article types project report and how to for the GMS Journal for Medical Education. GMS J Med Educ. 2024; 41(4):Doc36. DOI: 10.3205/zma001691
[31] Schüttpelz-Brauns K, Schneider A, Fabry G, Matthes J, Himmelbauer M, Buss B, Giesler M. What is medical education research? An analysis and definition of subjects, objectives and types of research based on articles that have undergone a peer review process. GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1): Doc12. DOI: 10.3205/zma001806
[32] Paridon H. Evidence-based teaching: The examination and use of psychological theories in medical education research using the example of cognitive load theory. GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1): Doc11. DOI: 10.3205/zma001805
[33] Ellaway R. Reflecting on philosophies of medical education science. GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1): Doc10. DOI: 10.3025/zma001804
[34] Giesler M, Fabry G. How do I develop a psychological test or questionnaire? GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1): Doc9. DOI: 10.3205/zma001803
[35] Jedlicska N, Lichtenberg S, Berberat PO, Schick K. How to design a Q-sample: A seven-step approach based on interview data. GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1): Doc8. DOI: 10.3205/zma001802
[36] Ortloff JH, Fiedler M, Boelmann N, Schmitz D. Researching teaching-learning concepts in the health professions using document analyses? GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1): Doc7. DOI: 10.3205/zma001801
[37] Homberg A. Conducting Delphi surveys in medical education research. GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1): Doc6. DOI: 10.3205/zma001800
[38] Gadewoltz PN. The research program subjective theories: A methodological concept for a wide range of applications. GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1): Doc5. DOI: 10.3205/zma001799
[39] Steinberg E. An educational psychology perspective on health sciences education research. GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1): Doc4. DOI: 10.3205/zma001798
[40] Wijnen-Meijer M, Norcini J. Patient-related outcome research in medical education: Significance and practical application. GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1): Doc3. DOI: 10.3205/zma001797
[41] Al-Bualy R. Co-creation in Health Professions Education: Triangulating perspectives and processes for a deeper insights. GMS J Med Educ. 2026;43(1): Doc2. DOI: 10.3205/zma001796
