↓ Skip to main content

May I see your ID, please? An explorative study of the professional identity of undergraduate medical education leaders

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
May I see your ID, please? An explorative study of the professional identity of undergraduate medical education leaders
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0860-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina Sundberg, Anna Josephson, Scott Reeves, Jonas Nordquist

Abstract

The mission of undergraduate medical education leaders is to strive towards the enhancement of quality of medical education and health care. The aim of this qualitative study is, with the help of critical perspectives, to contribute to the research area of undergraduate medical education leaders and their identity formation; how can the identity of undergraduate medical education leaders be defined and further explored from a power perspective? In this explorative study, 14 educational leaders at a medical programme in Scandinavia were interviewed through semi-structured interviews. The data was analysed through Moustakas' structured, phenomenological analysis approach and then pattern matched with Gee's power-based identity model. Educational leaders identify themselves more as mediators than leaders and do not feel to any larger extent that their professional identity is authorised by the university. These factors potentially create difficulties when trying to communicate with medical teachers, often also with a weaker sense of professional identity, about medical education. The perceptions of the professional identity of undergraduate medical education leaders provide us with important notions on the complexities on executing their important mission to develop medical education: their perceptions of ambiguity towards the process of trying to lead teachers toward educational development and a perceived lack of authorisation of their work from the university level. These are important flaws to observe and correct when improving the context in which undergraduate medical education leaders are trying to develop and improve undergraduate medical programmes. A practical outcome of the results of this study is the facilitation of design of faculty development programmes for educational leaders in undergraduate medial education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Lecturer 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,622,789
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,352
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,743
of 424,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#23
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.