ReviewMedical education2025
Taking a definitional stance in health professions education scholarship.
Review in Medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Taking a definitional stance in health professions education scholarship.Medical education · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
problemDefinitions are fundamental to the work of scholarship. Indeed, all scholarship has a definitional stance, even if that stance is not to use definitions. A definitional stance is the position scholars take regarding the use, interpretation or treatment of definitions within their work. In this paper, the authors explore definitional stances that shape inquiry in health professions education (HPE), from the formulation of research questions to the interpretation and dissemination of findings. Despite their ambient presence, definitional stances are rarely acknowledged in scholarly work, nor are they explicitly and consistently examined in peer review processes, critical appraisal, the methodological literature or in graduate education. As a result, definitional ambiguity and misalignment often goes unnoticed, and the coherence of scholarly discourse is undermined. DEFINITIONAL STANCES: The authors describe eight distinct types of definitional stances taken in health professions education. These range from adefinitional (avoiding any definitions) and rhetorical (adopting definitions as tools of persuasion) positions that resist fixed meanings, to realist, construct and pattern-based stances that embrace definitional coherence while allowing for ongoing inquiry and conceptual evolution. The authors illustrate the utility of this framework through a worked example (using the construct of professionalism), showing how different stances yield different understandings and scholarly pathways. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: There is no one 'right' definitional stance, but rather to promote thoughtfulness, reflexivity and transparency in how definition stances are taken and the implications thereof. The paper offers practical guidance to help scholars identify, articulate and justify their definitional stances in ways that are aligned with their epistemological commitments and research purposes. By making definitional stances more deliberate, transparent and open to discussion, HPE scholarship can make stronger knowledge claims based on a richer understanding of the kinds of knowledge that different stances afford, which has the potential to advance HPE in both principled and pragmatic ways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.