Curriculum Research Solutions: Shifting From “Did It Work Locally?” to Contributing to a Scholarly Conversation

Health professions educators frequently seek to study their curriculum (e.g., a new or revised curriculum for a degree-granting program, a component of that curriculum, or a stand-alone course). Despite local enthusiasm, curriculum-focused studies are often hard to publish and have been repeatedly discouraged. Yet, few authors have proposed practical solutions. The purpose of this article is to articulate common problems with curriculum research and to propose specific ways in which curriculum research can be accomplished (and published) successfully. The authors define "research " as the rigorous, systematic pursuit of new knowledge with the intent to disseminate findings in a peer-reviewed forum. They delineate 5 problems with curriculum-focused research as it is typically done: redundancy (failing to build on prior research), context-specificity, confounding and dilution, superficiality (using data sources of convenience), and conceptual obscurity (failing to employ a relevant conceptual framework). To address these problems, they encourage researchers to stop focusing on their local curriculum and instead join and contribute meaningfully to a global scholarly conversation. Engaging in a scholarly conversation involves listening to the conversation (the literature) to understand what is already known, identifying a gap the researcher can fill with a useful observation, and asking and answering a question that other people will find relevant (to their own local needs), novel (not already known), insightful (shedding light on future action), and credible (well-supported by chosen methods). The authors outline 6 prototypical potentially successful curriculum-focused research studies, including quantitative and qualitative approaches, and cite published examples. They also highlight studies to avoid. They conclude by discussing practical considerations: appraisal of research quality, funding of education research, accessing and acquiring needed research skills, measuring provider behaviors and patient outcomes, ethical issues associated with learners as study participants, and tensions between basic and applied research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Academic Medicine
Published
2025-04-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000006072
Citations
9
Primary Topic
Health Sciences Research and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
25.34
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Curriculum Research Solutions: Shifting From “Did It Work Locally?” to Contributing to a Scholarly Conversation

Jorie M. Colbert‐Getz, Arianne Teherani, Steven J. Durning, Andrea N. Leep Hunderfund et al.
9 citations
Academic Medicine
Health Sciences Research and Education
25.34
article

Curriculum Research Solutions: Shifting From “Did It Work Locally?” to Contributing to a Scholarly Conversation

Jorie M. Colbert‐Getz, Arianne Teherani, Steven J. Durning, Andrea N. Leep Hunderfund, Karen E. Hauer, David A. Cook
article en
9 citations

Abstract

Health professions educators frequently seek to study their curriculum (e.g., a new or revised curriculum for a degree-granting program, a component of that curriculum, or a stand-alone course). Despite local enthusiasm, curriculum-focused studies are often hard to publish and have been repeatedly discouraged. Yet, few authors have proposed practical solutions. The purpose of this article is to articulate common problems with curriculum research and to propose specific ways in which curriculum research can be accomplished (and published) successfully. The authors define "research " as the rigorous, systematic pursuit of new knowledge with the intent to disseminate findings in a peer-reviewed forum. They delineate 5 problems with curriculum-focused research as it is typically done: redundancy (failing to build on prior research), context-specificity, confounding and dilution, superficiality (using data sources of convenience), and conceptual obscurity (failing to employ a relevant conceptual framework). To address these problems, they encourage researchers to stop focusing on their local curriculum and instead join and contribute meaningfully to a global scholarly conversation. Engaging in a scholarly conversation involves listening to the conversation (the literature) to understand what is already known, identifying a gap the researcher can fill with a useful observation, and asking and answering a question that other people will find relevant (to their own local needs), novel (not already known), insightful (shedding light on future action), and credible (well-supported by chosen methods). The authors outline 6 prototypical potentially successful curriculum-focused research studies, including quantitative and qualitative approaches, and cite published examples. They also highlight studies to avoid. They conclude by discussing practical considerations: appraisal of research quality, funding of education research, accessing and acquiring needed research skills, measuring provider behaviors and patient outcomes, ethical issues associated with learners as study participants, and tensions between basic and applied research.

Academic MedicineVol. 100(8)
Twitter (United States) (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Health Sciences Research and Education
25.34
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.