Schumacher, Daniel J.

Meaningful Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) efforts may be stymied by concerns about whether proposed initiatives are performative or tokenistic. The purpose of this project was to analyze discussions by the Research in Medical Education (RIME) Program Planning committee about how best to recognize and support underrepresented in medicine (URiM) researchers in medical education to generate lessons learned that might inform local, national, and international actions to implement meaningful EDI initiatives. Ten RIME Program Planning Committee members and administrative staff participated in a focus group held virtually in August 2021. Focus group questions elicited opinions about “if and how” to establish a URiM research award. The focus group was recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Recognition of privilege, including who has it and who doesn’t, underpinned the focus group discussion, which revolved around 2 themes: (1) tensions between optics and semantics, and (2) potential unintended consequences of trying to level the medical education playing field. The overarching storyline threaded throughout the focus group discussion was intentionality. Focus group participants sought to avoid performativity by creating an award that would be meaningful to recipients and to career gatekeepers such as department chairs and promotion and tenure committees. Ultimately, participants decided to create an award that focused on exemplary Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) scholarship, which was eventually named the “RIME URiM Research Award.” Difficult but productive conversations about EDI initiatives are necessary to advance underrepresented in medicine (URiM) scholarship. This transparent commentary may trigger further critical conversations.

In this Commentary, the authors seek to build on prior RIME commentaries by considering how researchers transition from worldviews, focal lengths, and research goals to research directions and methodological choices. The authors use the analogy of a hiker to illustrate how different researchers studying a similar phenomenon can choose among different research directions, which lead down different paths and offer different perspectives on a problem. Following the hiker analogy, the authors use the “Research Compass” to categorize the 15 research papers included in the 2020 Research in Medical Education supplement according to their research aim and corresponding methodological approach. The authors then discuss implications of the relative balance of these study types within this supplement and within health professions education research at large, emphasizing the critical importance of studying a topic from multiple vantage points to construct a richer and more nuanced understanding of health professions education challenges. The authors conclude by recognizing the challenges we face in the current era of COVID-19 and by calling health professions education researchers and practitioners to continue our collective efforts to improve learner education and patient care, as we together navigate the unfamiliar terrain of the present day.