CONTEXT Medical education researchers are inherently collaborators. This paper presents a discussion of theoretical frameworks, issues and challenges around collaborative research to prepare medical education researchers to enter into successful collaborations. It gives emphasis to the conceptual issues associated with collaborative research and applies these to medical education research. Although not a systematic literature review, the paper provides a rich discussion of issues which medical education researchers might consider when undertaking collaborative studies.METHODS Building on the work of others, we have classified collaborative research in three dimensions according to: the number of administrative units represented; the number of academic fields present, and the manner in which knowledge is created. Although some literature on collaboration focuses on the more traditional positivist perspective and emphasises outcomes, other literature comes from the constructivist framework, in which research is not driven by hypotheses and the approaches emphasised, but by the interaction between investigator and subject.DISCUSSION Collaborations are more effective when participants overtly clarify their motivations, values, definitions of appropriate data and accepted methodologies. These should be agreed upon prior to commencing a study. The way we currently educate researchers should be restructured if we want them to be able to undertake interdisciplinary research. Despite calls for researchers to be educated differently, most training programmes for developing researchers have demonstrated a limited, if not contrary, response to these calls. CONCLUSIONSCollaborative research in medical education should be driven by the problem being investigated, by the new knowledge gained and by the interpersonal interactions that may be achieved. Success rests on recognising that many of the research problems we, as medical educators, address are fundamentally interdisciplinary in nature. This represents a transition to bridge the dichotomy often presented in medical education between theory building and addressing practical needs.

Faculty instructors in medical education are often pressed for time, so clarifying role expectations is a low-cost scheme to enhance results. Using the typology can align instructor behavior with the desired learner outcomes and enhance efficient use of instructional time.

Medical students and residents are familiar with clinical teaching methods in which a faculty member poses a series of questions to them. This technique is often called the BSocratic method,^but it is frequently perceived by learners as an attempt to demean them, a practice that is colloquially known as Bpimping.^The distinction between Socratic teaching and pimping lies in the perception of Bpsychological safety.^Psychological safety allows learners to answer questions or ask for help without threats to their dignity or worthiness. In a psychologically safe clinical teaching context, learners recognize that questions posed by attending physicians probe their current understanding and guide them to expand their knowledge. In pimping, questions are posed to embarrass the learner and to reinforce the teacher's position of power over them. Absent a threat of disparagement or condemnation, learners are able to focus on building schema for knowledge, skills, and attitudes, rather than worrying about shielding their self-worth. This article presents the proper Socratic method, as intended by Socrates, and contrasts it with pimping. This perspective defines psychological safety as the pivotal factor distinguishing Socratic teaching from pimping, and establishes the foundation for empirical studies of these common practices in medical education.

Concern about compromised academic performance appears to be an invalid reason to avoid service-learning participation. The benefits of participation appear to outweigh the costs.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Improvements in test scores found in previous studies may have been due to the inclusion of questions in the lecture rather than the use of ARS. Embedding questions into lectures is beneficial, either with or without ARS technology.