The "Glocalization" of Medical School Accreditation: Case Studies From Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan
The "Glocalization" of Medical School Accreditation: Case Studies From Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/acm.0000000000001999
复制
发表时间：
2017-12-01
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Shaw, Kevin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ho, Ming-Jung;Abbas, Joan;Shaw, Kevin
目的在医学教育全球化的时代，医学院认证已被誉为一种外部质量保证的方法。然而，各国的认证标准可能差异很大。为了获得世界医学教育联合会（WFME）的认可，国家认证机构必须制定适合当地情况和国际认可的标准。本研究以“全球本土化”的观点来探讨这个议题，并借由探讨台湾、南韩和日本的认证制度，来阐明这个复杂的多方利益相关者过程。方法本研究采用了比较案例研究设计，研究了东亚三个认证机构利用国际参考标准制定的国家标准。在2015-2016年，作者对标准的英文版本进行了文件分析，以确定国家和国际参考标准之间的差异，以及如何以及为什么采用外部标准。每个国家的认证机构都力求平衡当地需求和全球需求。每一个都使用外部标准作为模板（例如，医学教育联络委员会、全科医学理事会或WFME标准），并修订（台湾、韩国）或注释（日本）标准以适应当地情况。出现了四类差异来解释国家标准如何以及为什么偏离外部参考：结构性，监管性，发展性和期望性。结论这些国家的医疗认证标准的全球本地化为其他国家提供了范例，以使其认证实践与全球标准保持一致，同时确保当地价值观和社会需求得到充分考虑。
Purpose In an age of globalized medical education, medical school accreditation has been hailed as an approach to external quality assurance. However, accreditation standards can vary widely across national contexts. To achieve recognition by the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME), national accrediting bodies must develop standards suitable for both local contexts and international recognition. This study framed this issue in terms of "glocalization" and aimed to shine light on this complicated multistakeholder process by exploring accreditation in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. Method This study employed a comparative case-study design, examining the national standards that three accreditation bodies in East Asia developed using international reference standards. In 2015-2016, the authors conducted document analysis of the English versions of the standards to identify the differences between the national and international reference standards as well as how and why external standards were adapted. Results Each country's accreditation body sought to balance local needs with global demands. Each used external standards as a template (e.g., Liaison Committee on Medical Education, General Medical Council, or WFME standards) and either revised (Taiwan, South Korea) or annotated (Japan) the standards to fit the local context. Four categories of differences emerged to account for how and why national standards departed from external references: structural, regulatory, developmental, and aspirational. Conclusions These countries' glocalization of medical accreditation standards serve as examples for others seeking to bring their accreditation practices in line with global standards while ensuring that local values and societal needs are given adequate consideration.