Improving interdisciplinary research through educational trading zones: A mixed methods approach to evaluating communication patterns between physicians and statisticians
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2016 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Gestão e sociedade |
Texto Completo: | https://ges.face.ufmg.br/index.php/gestaoesociedade/article/view/2079 |
Resumo: | The objective of this study was to perform a qualitative study to identify commonalities and differences in reasoning processes between these groups. A phenomenological qualitative study based on transcriptions of physicians and statisticians conceptualizing clinical cases and clinical research questions. Interviews were carried out with nine statisticians and sixteen physicians contacted virtually. The main outcome measures were emerging themes that were common to both expert groups. Both groups used conceptual models -although different models- during their reasoning processes, but their concepts were not common between the groups complicating the exchange of information. Both groups were unaware that their specialty language was frequently inaccessible to non-specialists or specialists from other fields, which leads to communication difficulties. These difficulties were broadly classified into translational problems of field-specific terms and concepts. Field-specific terms would sometimes lead to misinterpretations while the translation of field-specific concepts often leads to content loss. The use of field-specific terms and concepts can lead to confusion and misinterpretation. Teams would benefit from taxonomies containing terms that can be understood by specialists from both disciplines |
id |
UFMG-19_fc7d671d4240479cfba02225f9ba0244 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/2079 |
network_acronym_str |
UFMG-19 |
network_name_str |
Gestão e sociedade |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Improving interdisciplinary research through educational trading zones: A mixed methods approach to evaluating communication patterns between physicians and statisticiansThe objective of this study was to perform a qualitative study to identify commonalities and differences in reasoning processes between these groups. A phenomenological qualitative study based on transcriptions of physicians and statisticians conceptualizing clinical cases and clinical research questions. Interviews were carried out with nine statisticians and sixteen physicians contacted virtually. The main outcome measures were emerging themes that were common to both expert groups. Both groups used conceptual models -although different models- during their reasoning processes, but their concepts were not common between the groups complicating the exchange of information. Both groups were unaware that their specialty language was frequently inaccessible to non-specialists or specialists from other fields, which leads to communication difficulties. These difficulties were broadly classified into translational problems of field-specific terms and concepts. Field-specific terms would sometimes lead to misinterpretations while the translation of field-specific concepts often leads to content loss. The use of field-specific terms and concepts can lead to confusion and misinterpretation. Teams would benefit from taxonomies containing terms that can be understood by specialists from both disciplinesCEPEAD/FACE - UFMG2016-04-28info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://ges.face.ufmg.br/index.php/gestaoesociedade/article/view/207910.21171/ges.v10i25.2079Management & Society Electronic Journal; Vol. 10 No. 25 (2016): Janeiro/Abril; 1164-1180Gestão e Sociedade; v. 10 n. 25 (2016): Janeiro/Abril; 1164-11801980-575610.21171/ges.v10i25reponame:Gestão e sociedadeinstname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)instacron:UFMGporhttps://ges.face.ufmg.br/index.php/gestaoesociedade/article/view/2079/1150Copyright (c) 2016 Gestão e Sociedadeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessVissoci, João Ricardo NickenigAndrade, LucianoBatilana, Adelia PorteroCarvalho, Elias AndradeOliveira, Aline ChotteYen, Talitha YenCalvo, Paulo Rafael SanchesHaglund, Michael HaglundStaton, Catherine Staton2016-12-28T16:13:02Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/2079Revistahttps://www.gestaoesociedade.org/gestaoesociedadePUBhttps://www.gestaoesociedade.org/gestaoesociedade/oaiges@face.ufmg.br||ricardo.ges.ufmg@gmail.com||1980-57561980-5756opendoar:2016-12-28T16:13:02Gestão e sociedade - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Improving interdisciplinary research through educational trading zones: A mixed methods approach to evaluating communication patterns between physicians and statisticians |
title |
Improving interdisciplinary research through educational trading zones: A mixed methods approach to evaluating communication patterns between physicians and statisticians |
spellingShingle |
Improving interdisciplinary research through educational trading zones: A mixed methods approach to evaluating communication patterns between physicians and statisticians Vissoci, João Ricardo Nickenig |
title_short |
Improving interdisciplinary research through educational trading zones: A mixed methods approach to evaluating communication patterns between physicians and statisticians |
title_full |
Improving interdisciplinary research through educational trading zones: A mixed methods approach to evaluating communication patterns between physicians and statisticians |
title_fullStr |
Improving interdisciplinary research through educational trading zones: A mixed methods approach to evaluating communication patterns between physicians and statisticians |
title_full_unstemmed |
Improving interdisciplinary research through educational trading zones: A mixed methods approach to evaluating communication patterns between physicians and statisticians |
title_sort |
Improving interdisciplinary research through educational trading zones: A mixed methods approach to evaluating communication patterns between physicians and statisticians |
author |
Vissoci, João Ricardo Nickenig |
author_facet |
Vissoci, João Ricardo Nickenig Andrade, Luciano Batilana, Adelia Portero Carvalho, Elias Andrade Oliveira, Aline Chotte Yen, Talitha Yen Calvo, Paulo Rafael Sanches Haglund, Michael Haglund Staton, Catherine Staton |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Andrade, Luciano Batilana, Adelia Portero Carvalho, Elias Andrade Oliveira, Aline Chotte Yen, Talitha Yen Calvo, Paulo Rafael Sanches Haglund, Michael Haglund Staton, Catherine Staton |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Vissoci, João Ricardo Nickenig Andrade, Luciano Batilana, Adelia Portero Carvalho, Elias Andrade Oliveira, Aline Chotte Yen, Talitha Yen Calvo, Paulo Rafael Sanches Haglund, Michael Haglund Staton, Catherine Staton |
description |
The objective of this study was to perform a qualitative study to identify commonalities and differences in reasoning processes between these groups. A phenomenological qualitative study based on transcriptions of physicians and statisticians conceptualizing clinical cases and clinical research questions. Interviews were carried out with nine statisticians and sixteen physicians contacted virtually. The main outcome measures were emerging themes that were common to both expert groups. Both groups used conceptual models -although different models- during their reasoning processes, but their concepts were not common between the groups complicating the exchange of information. Both groups were unaware that their specialty language was frequently inaccessible to non-specialists or specialists from other fields, which leads to communication difficulties. These difficulties were broadly classified into translational problems of field-specific terms and concepts. Field-specific terms would sometimes lead to misinterpretations while the translation of field-specific concepts often leads to content loss. The use of field-specific terms and concepts can lead to confusion and misinterpretation. Teams would benefit from taxonomies containing terms that can be understood by specialists from both disciplines |
publishDate |
2016 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2016-04-28 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://ges.face.ufmg.br/index.php/gestaoesociedade/article/view/2079 10.21171/ges.v10i25.2079 |
url |
https://ges.face.ufmg.br/index.php/gestaoesociedade/article/view/2079 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.21171/ges.v10i25.2079 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://ges.face.ufmg.br/index.php/gestaoesociedade/article/view/2079/1150 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2016 Gestão e Sociedade info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2016 Gestão e Sociedade |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
CEPEAD/FACE - UFMG |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
CEPEAD/FACE - UFMG |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Management & Society Electronic Journal; Vol. 10 No. 25 (2016): Janeiro/Abril; 1164-1180 Gestão e Sociedade; v. 10 n. 25 (2016): Janeiro/Abril; 1164-1180 1980-5756 10.21171/ges.v10i25 reponame:Gestão e sociedade instname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) instacron:UFMG |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
instacron_str |
UFMG |
institution |
UFMG |
reponame_str |
Gestão e sociedade |
collection |
Gestão e sociedade |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Gestão e sociedade - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
ges@face.ufmg.br||ricardo.ges.ufmg@gmail.com|| |
_version_ |
1797067419466858497 |