Communicative positioning of one's own profession in interprofessional settings

Interprofessional education (IPE) is taking on increasing importance in our complex healthcare system and receiving ever greater attention in the teaching of health science. The majority of concepts and methods employed in this area are based on normative ideas about interprofessional cooperation and only seldom based on empirical research. This paper is an initial attempt to augment this deductive approach with an inductive perspective for the purpose of subsequently providing empirical support for IPE teaching methods.

Drawing on the qualitative approach to linguistic conversation analysis, language-based professional markers are identified on the basis of recorded classroom simulations with nursing and midwifery students; it is assumed that these markers are significant in relevant interprofessional communication processes and, as a result, influence actual collaboration between the health professions. These markers are classified and commented on, and their importance to teaching and practical implementation in interprofessional interaction is emphasized.

Students routinely use various professional markers in simulations. However, these occur much less frequently than initially expected, except when marking difference in relation to physicians. At the same time, all the interactions are shaped by pronounced self-presentation among the students, and this comprises a large aspect of the interactions observed here. Profession-specific communication and differentiation processes also appear to be slow in establishing themselves in terms of students delegating tasks or voicing expectations. In addition, the role of "student" has a function that should not be underestimated in these interactions.

Professional markers are an essential component of interprofessional communication and are based on numerous, observable linguistic phenomena, of which only a few are presented here. This empirical approach has not yet appeared in the discourse surrounding IPE; however, it is, in the authors' opinion, not only necessary to compare interprofessional interactions with lived reality, but also to be in a position to operationalize interprofessional practice and ultimately assign it to competency areas. For this reason, further empirical observations and analyses are needed to tighten the still unclear definition of interprofessional communication and to develop empirically founded, measurable criteria for teaching and testing.