Michalec, Barret

Abstract Context Myth busting engages scholars in the critical examination of commonly accepted but poorly evidenced claims with the goal of instilling quality and trust in knowledge making. The debunking of such knowledge “myths” and associated misguided practices purportedly serves to avert resources and attention from wasteful and dangerous scholarship. We address the myth that “all myths in medical education deserve to be busted”. Methods Using a critical narrative approach, we searched the medical education literature for orientations to myths and myth busting, and reviewed this literature analytically drawing from the sociology of science and Merton's concepts of manifest and latent functions. The results of this analysis are presented in the form of a narrative that deploys the articles reviewed to explore the utility of myth busting for medical education reform and begins with a brief exploration of the etymology of “myth” and how meaning making is related to symbols, practices and storytelling. Results Our analysis revealed the important function of myths in the social practice of medical education and practice. A deconstruction of five salient examples of the contemporary myth in medical education (the myth of the “ideal candidate”, the myth of “cut‐throats”, the myth of “cadaver stories”, the myth of “learning styles”, and the myth of “patient information leaflets”) demonstrates that myths continue to have material effects even after they have been busted. Conclusions Our analysis makes evident that myth busting disrupts, renegotiates and reconstitutes socio‐epistemic relationships rather than simply correcting falsehoods. We also argue that myths play important and inescapable roles in the social practice of medical education and the negotiation of values, and in constructing the conditions for group change and transformation. Imperatives related to humanism , compassion and patient engagement offer a healthy humanising counter‐mythologising that we suggest must survive any contemporary myth‐busting endeavour aimed at improving medical education practice.

Purpose Minimal attention has been paid to what factors may predict peer nomination or how peer nominations might exhibit a clustering effect. Focusing on the homophily principle that “birds of a feather flock together,” and using a social network analysis approach, the authors investigated how certain student- and/or school-based factors might predict the likelihood of peer nomination, and the clusters, if any, that occur among those nominations. Method In 2013, the Jefferson Longitudinal Study of Medical Education included a special instrument to evaluate peer nominations. A total of 211 (81%) of 260 graduating medical students from the Sidney Kimmel Medical College responded to the peer nomination question. Data were analyzed using a relational contingency table and an ANOVA density model. Results Although peer nominations did not cluster around gender, age, or class rank, those students within an accelerated program, as well as those entering certain specialties, were more likely to nominate each other. The authors suggest that clerkships in certain specialties, as well as the accelerated program, may provide structured opportunities for students to connect and integrate, and that these opportunities may have an impact on peer nomination. The findings suggest that social network analysis is a useful approach to examine various aspects of peer nomination processes. Conclusions The authors discuss implications regarding harnessing social cohesion within clinical clerkships, the possible development of siloed departmental identity and in-group favoritism, and future research possibilities.