Simulated patient encounters, in which a trained layperson role-plays a patient, have become increasingly important in medical education. One such type is the gynecological teaching associate (GTA), who teaches medical students how to perform the pelvic examination using her own body. This paper considers the role that simulation like the GTA session plays in medical students' professional socialization. Drawn from interviews and archival sources gathered from medical students, medical faculty, and GTAs, this paper explores the tensions between artificiality and authenticity in order to understand how, through pedagogical practice, medical students come to embody medical culture through simulation. This paper uses the theoretical framework of the medical habitus to understand the role of emotion in medical student socialization. It argues that simulation is an example of affective practice: any rehearsal of techniques or styles of expressing, experiencing, or managing emotion that reshape the body's capacity to feel.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 24 July 2015.
All research outputs
#4,045,055
of 28,833,811 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#3,868
of 12,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,554
of 284,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#55
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,833,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,826 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 284,777 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
