| Title |
The invisible work of distributed medical education: exploring the contributions of audiovisual professionals, administrative professionals and faculty teachers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Health Sciences Education, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10459-016-9695-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna MacLeod, Olga Kits, Karen Mann, Jonathan Tummons, Keith W. Wilson |
| Abstract |
Distributed medical education (DME) is becoming increasingly prevalent. Much of the published literature on DME has focused on the experiences of learners in distributed programs; however, our empirical work leads us to believe that DME changes the context significantly, not only for learners, but also for other important members of the educational community including audiovisual professionals, administrative professionals and faculty teachers. Based on a three-year ethnographic study, we provide a detailed account of how alliances between various workers involved in DME develop to produce and deliver an undergraduate medical curriculum across geographically separate campuses. We explore the question 'What is the work involved in the delivery of a DME program?' and cast a critical gaze on the essential but invisible, and therefore potentially unrecognized and underappreciated, contributions of AV professionals, administrative professionals, and faculty teachers. Our goal is to make visible the complexity of DME, including the essential contributions of these workers. The study was theoretically framed in sociomateriality and conceptually framed in Star and Strauss' notion of articulation work. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 29% |
| Canada | 3 | 18% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 53% |
| Scientists | 5 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 15% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 29% |
| Unknown | 16 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 19 October 2021.
All research outputs
#3,117,016
of 24,950,117 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#115
of 930 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,248
of 360,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#1
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,950,117 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 930 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 360,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.