No abstract

This study reworks the concept of genre from rhetorical, dialectical, and dialogic perspectives. From these perspectives, genre is redefined as a stabilized-for-now or stabilized-enough site of social and ideological action. This definition is then applied to a specific literacy practice—medical record keeping—evolving in a specific context—a veterinary college. Data were gathered during a 6-month ethnographic study of the college. The larger research project focused on the teaching and learning practices that constituted literacy, i.e., the ways of speaking, reading, writing, and listening characteristics of veterinary medicine. The project consisted of interviews, observation, and document collection. Triangulation was achieved both within and between methods. Data were analyzed using Glaser and Strauss's “grounded theory” techniques. When the concept of genre is applied to medical record keeping, the complexity of this literacy practice becomes apparent. A specific record-keeping system—the Problem Oriented Veterinary Medical Record (POVMR) system—was the site of intense controversy at the college. The system articulated a set of values that one group of faculty and clinicians espoused and another group rejected. The system itself was embedded in the exam structure of the college, and a good deal of evidence emerged that the POVMR itself was promoting certain types of literacy abilities and making others less likely.

This story of collaboration in a distributed team calls into question two premises underpinning current models of IPC and IPE: the notion that stable professional roles exist, and the ideal of a unifying objective of 'caring for the patient'. We suggest important elaborations to these premises as they are used to conceptualise and teach IPC in order to better represent the intricacy of everyday collaborative work in health care.

This article explores the politics of identity in an interdisciplinary health research team that has been engaged in a qualitative research program for over five years. We draw on sociological theories of power and knowledge to explore our experiences of identity conflict, team socialization, and knowledge production. Structurally, our article integrates individual and group perspectives through personal narratives and collaborative critique as we explore the complex negotiations required to realize and maintain our team dynamic. These negotiations take place not only with one another as particularly positioned individuals, but also with the ideological and organizational forces that structure our scholarly worlds. We conclude with articulating `lessons learned' that we hope will enable other interdisciplinary research teams to realize the rich potential of their collaborative qualitative work.

Progress toward understanding the links between interprofessional communication and issues of medical error has been slow. Recent research proposes that this delay may result from overlooking the complexities involved in interprofessional care. Medical education initiatives in this domain tend to simplify the complexities of team membership fluidity, rotation, and use of communication tools. A new theoretically informed research approach is required to take into account these complexities. To generate such an approach, we review two theories from the social sciences: Activity Theory and Knotworking. Using these perspectives, we propose that research into interprofessional communication and medical error can develop better understandings of (1) how and why medical errors are generated and (2) how and why gaps in team defenses occur. Such complexities will have to be investigated if students and practicing clinicians are to be adequately prepared to work safely in interprofessional teams.