Doctoral Dissertation Research: The Application of Humanistic and Social Knowledge to Medicine

NSF提案1702988首席研究员：John H. evans研究生：Lauren D. OlsenTitle：跨学科合作与医学课程改革摘要本项目将探讨来自不同学科背景的学者如何在医学生教育中成功地将人文社会科学知识与生物医学知识结合起来，以改善未来的患者护理。在21世纪之交，美国医学界面临着一连串的危机（从患者满意度到广泛的健康和医疗保健差距，再到复杂的医疗保健系统），医学界的领袖们将“理解人”的教育目标作为医学教育的国家优先事项。这一举措需要将人文和社会科学知识整合到传统的生物医学学习和工作环境中。该项目将加强对人文和社会科学知识如何产生、评估和应用的基本理论和实践理解，确定大学的制度特征，鼓励文科和实用艺术之间的生产性关系。该项目将成为提高各大学机构多样性和包容性能力的平台，同时也是大学教育项目的跳板，以评估各种旨在改善患者护理的举措。此外，该项目将有助于改善STEM教育和教育工作者的发展，通过揭示医学教育工作者如何跨越认识论和方法分歧来实现他们的目标。最后，通过更好地理解文科和实用文科之间跨学科合作所面临的挑战，大学将能够建立传统和跨学科项目可以实施的更具经验主义的规划。长期以来，科学知识应该用于改善社会的理念一直是学术知识生产和评估组织的基础。运用科学知识解决社会问题的文化价值最近被跨学科合作的前景所补充。随着不同学科的观点集中在一个单一的社会问题上，逻辑是，解决方案越好。尽管人文和社会科学知识越来越多地被要求以应用和跨学科的方式做出贡献，但对于学者如何在跨学科背景下成功地应用这些形式的知识，人们却明显缺乏理解。本项目通过研究人文和社会科学知识如何成功地与生物医学知识整合到医学教育中来承担这一任务，密切关注具有不同认识论和方法论承诺的学者如何构建人文和社会科学知识如何与医学实践“相关”，以及学者如何在从事跨学科合作时协商这些差异。为了回答这些问题，本项目对人文学者、社会科学学者、医学教育者和医学生进行了深入的半结构化访谈；来自专业和立法决定、课程材料和出版物的历史数据；以及在科学会议上的非参与性观察。

NSF Proposal 1702988Principal Investigator: John H. EvansGraduate Student: Lauren D. OlsenTitle: Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Medical Curricular ChangeAbstractThis project will address how scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds successfully integrate humanistic and social scientific knowledge with biomedical knowledge in the education of medical students, with the overarching objective of improving future patient care. Amidst a litany of crises confronting the American medical profession at the turn of the 21st century (from patient satisfaction to widespread health and health care disparities to complex health care systems), the leaders of the medical profession made the education objective of 'understanding people' a national priority for medical education. Such a move entails an integration of humanistic and social scientific knowledge into what traditionally is a biomedical learning and work environment. This project will enhance the basic theoretical and practical understanding of how humanistic and social scientific knowledge is produced, evaluated, and applied, identifying the institutional features of universities that encourage productive relationships between the liberal and practical arts. This project will be both a platform for increasing each university's institutional capacity for diversity and inclusion, as well as a springboard for university-based educational programs to evaluate various initiatives pitched to improve patient care. In addition, this project will contribute to the improvement of STEM education and educator development, by revealing how medical educators collaborate across epistemological and methodological divides toward achieving their goals. Finally, by better understanding the challenges that beset interdisciplinary collaboration between the liberal and practical arts, universities will be able to establish more empirically-informed programming that traditional and interdisciplinary programs can implement. The idea that scientific knowledge should be used to improve society has long underwritten the organization of academic knowledge production and evaluation. The cultural value of applying scientific knowledge to solve social problems has recently been supplemented by the promise of interdisciplinary collaboration. With diverse disciplinary perspectives concentrated on a single social problem, the logic goes, the better the solution. Despite the prevalence of humanistic and social scientific knowledge becoming increasingly called upon to contribute in applied and interdisciplinary ways, there is a remarkable lack of understanding about how scholars successfully apply these forms of knowledge in interdisciplinary contexts. This project takes up that task by examining how humanistic and social scientific knowledge is successfully integrated with biomedical knowledge into medical education, paying close attention to how scholars with different epistemological and methodological commitments construct how humanistic and social scientific knowledge is 'relevant' for medical practice and how scholars negotiate these differences while engaging in interdisciplinary collaboration. To answer these questions, this project uses in-depth, semi-structured interviews with humanities scholars, social science scholars, medical educators, and medical students; historical data from professional and legislative decisions, curricular materials, and publications; and non-participant observation at scientific meetings.