Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp 1015–1022

The disavowed curriculum

Understanding students’ reasoning in professionally challenging situations
Original Articles

Abstract

CONTEXT: Understanding students’ perceptions of and responses to lapses in professionalism is important to shaping students’ professional development.

OBJECTIVE: Utilize realistic, standardized professional dilemmas to obtain insight into students’ reasoning and motivations in “real time.”

DESIGN: Qualitative study using 5 videotaped scenarios (each depicting a student placed in a situation which requires action in response to a professional dilemma) and individual interviews, in which students were questioned about what they would do next and why.

SETTING: University of Toronto.

PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen fourth-year medical students; participation voluntary and anonymous.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A model to explain students’ reasoning in the face of professional dilemmas.

RESULTS: Grounded theory analysis of interview transcripts revealed that students were motivated to consider specific actions by referencing a Principle (an abstract or idealized concept), an Affect (a feeling or emotion), or an Implication (a potential consequence of suggested actions). Principles were classified as “avowed” as ideals of four profession (e.g., honesty or disclosure), or “unavowed” (unacknowledged or undeclared, e.g., obedience or allegiance). Implications could also be avowed (e.g., concerning patients) or unavowed (e.g., concerning others); but students were predominantly motivated by considering “disavowed” implications: those pertaining to themselves (e.g., concern for grades, evaluations, or reputation), which are actively denied by the profession and discouraged as being inconsistent with altruism.

CONCLUSIONS: This “disavowed curriculum” has implications for education, feedback, and evaluation. Instead of denying their existence, we should teach students how to negotiate and balance these unavowed and disavowed implications and principles, in order to help them develop their own professional stance.

Key words

undergraduate education medical education professionalism evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnold L. Assessing professional behaviour: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Acad Med. 2002;77:502–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ginsburg SR, Regehr GR, Hatala R, et al. Context, conflict, and resolution: a new conceptual framework for evaluating professionalism. Acad Med. 2000;75(10 suppl):S6–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christakis DA, Feudtner C. Ethics in a short white coat: the ethical dilemmas that medical students confront. Acad Med. 1993;68:249–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldwin DC, Daugherty SR, Rowley BD. Unethical and unprofessional conduct observed by residents during their first year of training. Acad Med. 1998;73:1195–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Satterwhite RC, Satterwhite WM III, Enarson C. An ethical paradox: the effect of unethical conduct on medical students’ values. J Med Ethics. 2000;26:462–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hicks L, Lin Y, Robertson DW, Robinson DL, Woodward SI. Understanding the clinical dilemmas that shape medical students’ ethical development: a questionnaire survey and focus group study. BMJ. 2001;322:709–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ginsburg SR, Regehr G, Lingard L. The anatomy of the professional lapse: bridging the gap between traditional frameworks and students’ perceptions. Acad Med. 2002;77:516–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lingard L, Garwood K, Szauter K, Stern DT. The rhetoric of rationalization: how students grapple with professional dilemmas. Acad Med. 2001;76(10 suppl):S45–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ginsburg SR, Regehr G, Lingard L. To be and not to be: the paradox of the emerging professional stance. Med Educ. 2003;37:350–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. 1st edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glaser BG, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelle U. Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods, and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Project Professionalism. American Board of Internal Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: American Board of Internal Medicine; 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hafferty FW, Franks R. The hidden curriculum, ethics teaching, and the structure of medical education. Acad Med. 1994;69:861–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stern DT. Practicing what we preach? An analysis of the curriculum of values in medical education. Am J Med. 1998;104:569–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiphra Ginsburg
    • 1
  • Glenn Regehr
    • 2
  • Lorelei Lingard
    • 3
  1. 1.Received from the Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Center for Research in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Center for Research in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Center for Research in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations