4.5 Article

How to do things with words in health professions education

Journal

ADVANCES IN HEALTH SCIENCES EDUCATION
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 857-872

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10459-014-9568-7

Keywords

Communication; Interprofessional education; Patient involvement; Patient-centredness; Professional discourse

Funding

  1. Interprofessional Health Mentors Program by the UBC Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund
  2. College of Health Disciplines

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper reports on a qualitative study of journal entries written by students in six health professions participating in the Interprofessional Health Mentors program at the University of British Columbia, Canada. The study examined (1) what health professions students learn about professional language and communication when given the opportunity, in an interprofessional group with a patient or client, to explore the uses, meanings, and effects of common health care terms, and (2) how health professional students write about their experience of discussing common health care terms, and what this reveals about how students see their development of professional discourse and participation in a professional discourse community. Using qualitative thematic analysis to address the first question, the study found that discussion of these health care terms provoked learning and reflection on how words commonly used in one health profession can be understood quite differently in other health professions, as well as on how health professionals' language choices may be perceived by patients and clients. Using discourse analysis to address the second question, the study further found that many of the students emphasized accuracy and certainty in language through clear definitions and intersubjective agreement. However, when prompted by the discussion they were willing to consider other functions and effects of language.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available