Understanding the debate on medical education research: a sociological perspective

Since the mid-1990s, a debate has taken place among medical education scholars regarding the forms that research should take and the roles it should play. Editors of major journals in medical education and prominent researchers in the domain have repeatedly addressed the issue and have attempted to define what medical education research should be. The goal of this article is to look at the debate from a sociological perspective and to outline the social factors shaping it. An analysis of the texts published since 1990 addressing the issue shows that the debates can be deconstructed in four topics: epistemology, methodology, the primary purpose of medical education research, and the "quality" of the projects carried out in the domain. However, the debates can also be amalgamated and synthesized using the concept of "field" as developed by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. A "field" refers to the configuration of power relations among individuals, social groups, or institutions within a domain of activities. Scientific fields are typically structured around a "bipolar" opposition pattern. At one pole stand those individuals who promote greater collaboration with nonscientists as well as research aimed at responding to practical needs. At the opposite pole stand those individuals who aspire to achieve independence of the field from such external constraints. The use of the concept of "field" allows us to understand the debate from a larger perspective and to establish parallels with similar debates in other scientific fields. In doing so, we will have the opportunity to learn from the experience of these other fields and be more reflective about the debate in which we engage.