TY - JOUR
T1 - ‘Whispers and shadows’
T2 - A critical review of the professional identity literature with respect to minority physicians
AU - Wyatt, Tasha R.
AU - Balmer, Dorene
AU - Rockich-Winston, Nicole
AU - Chow, Candace J.
AU - Richards, Joslyn
AU - Zaidi, Zareen
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education
PY - 2021/2
Y1 - 2021/2
N2 - Objectives: Professional identity formation (PIF) is a growing area of research in medical education. However, it is unclear whether the present research base is suitable for understanding PIF in physicians considered to be under-represented in medicine (URM). This meta-ethnography examined the qualitative PIF literature from 2012 to 2019 to assess its capacity to shine light on the experiences of minoritised physicians. Methods: Data were gathered using a search of six well-known medical education journals for the term ‘professional identit*’ in titles, keywords, abstracts and subheadings, delineated with the date range of 2012-2019. All non-relevant abstracts were removed and papers were then further reduced to those that focused only on learners’ experiences. This left 67 articles in the final dataset, which were analysed using a collaborative approach among a team of researchers. The team members used their professional expertise as qualitative researchers and personal experiences as minoritised individuals to synthesise and interpret the PIF literature. Results: Four conceptual categories were identified as impacting PIF: Individual versus Sociocultural Influences; the Formal versus the Hidden Curriculum; Institutional versus Societal Values; and Negotiation of Identity versus Dissonance in Identity. However, a major gap was identified; only one study explored experiences of PIF in URM physicians and there was an almost complete absence of critical stances used to study PIF. Combined, these findings suggest that PIF research is building on existing theories without questioning their validity with reference to minoritised physicians. Conclusions: From a post-colonial perspective, the fact that race and ethnicity have been largely absent, invisible or considered irrelevant within PIF research is problematic. A new line of inquiry is needed, one that uses alternative frameworks, such as critical theory, to account for the ways in which power and domination influence PIF for URM physicians in order to foreground how larger sociohistorical issues influence and shape the identities of minoritised physicians.
AB - Objectives: Professional identity formation (PIF) is a growing area of research in medical education. However, it is unclear whether the present research base is suitable for understanding PIF in physicians considered to be under-represented in medicine (URM). This meta-ethnography examined the qualitative PIF literature from 2012 to 2019 to assess its capacity to shine light on the experiences of minoritised physicians. Methods: Data were gathered using a search of six well-known medical education journals for the term ‘professional identit*’ in titles, keywords, abstracts and subheadings, delineated with the date range of 2012-2019. All non-relevant abstracts were removed and papers were then further reduced to those that focused only on learners’ experiences. This left 67 articles in the final dataset, which were analysed using a collaborative approach among a team of researchers. The team members used their professional expertise as qualitative researchers and personal experiences as minoritised individuals to synthesise and interpret the PIF literature. Results: Four conceptual categories were identified as impacting PIF: Individual versus Sociocultural Influences; the Formal versus the Hidden Curriculum; Institutional versus Societal Values; and Negotiation of Identity versus Dissonance in Identity. However, a major gap was identified; only one study explored experiences of PIF in URM physicians and there was an almost complete absence of critical stances used to study PIF. Combined, these findings suggest that PIF research is building on existing theories without questioning their validity with reference to minoritised physicians. Conclusions: From a post-colonial perspective, the fact that race and ethnicity have been largely absent, invisible or considered irrelevant within PIF research is problematic. A new line of inquiry is needed, one that uses alternative frameworks, such as critical theory, to account for the ways in which power and domination influence PIF for URM physicians in order to foreground how larger sociohistorical issues influence and shape the identities of minoritised physicians.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089661271&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/medu.14295
DO - 10.1111/medu.14295
M3 - Article
C2 - 33448459
AN - SCOPUS:85089661271
SN - 0308-0110
VL - 55
SP - 148
EP - 158
JO - Medical Education
JF - Medical Education
IS - 2
ER -