When theory joins practice: A design-based research approach for leader identity development

Abstract

Introduction

Inclusive educational leaders promote teacher team functioning. To support leader inclusiveness, we designed and implemented a faculty development programme focusing on leader identity formation. We investigated (1) how participants’ leader identity developed throughout the programme and (2) how the design principles contributed to this process, according to participants.

Methods

A design-based research approach was followed. Participants were 7 course coordinators, leading an interdisciplinary teacher team. To study leader identity development, participants repeatedly filled out a validated questionnaire. To investigate how design principles contributed, observational field notes, facilitator debriefings, a programme evaluation questionnaire and a semi-structured focus group were used. Thematic analysis was applied for qualitative data.

Results

Participants gained broader views on leadership, moving from individual dominance towards engaging team members. Most participants initially experienced a deconstruction of their former leader identity and became motivated to improve leadership qualities. Competence-building, reflecting and receiving feedback on workplace experiences, and practicing in a safe environment were perceived to be key for identity development.

Conclusions

We developed and evaluated a leader identity programme which can convert teachers’ classic leadership views towards views incorporating social interactions and relationships. We demonstrated how social interactions provide opportunities to learn from pe.ers in the work environment.

Keywords:

• Faculty development
• teacher teams
• leader identity
• identity formation
• leadership

Introduction

Many professionals in healthcare and healthcare education are given leadership roles based on their expertise in the field. Such appointment procedure, however, does not necessarily guarantee effective leadership capacity in practice; leaders often do not know how to improve their leadership or whom to turn to for help. Up to now, leadership development interventions, if any, have primarily focused on behavioural skills acquisition; their efficacy was studied by exploring the effects on participant attitude, knowledge, skills and behaviour (Steinert et al. 2012; Steinert et al. 2016). These evaluations focused on visible effects rather than assessing whether the underlying mindset or identity of participating leaders with respect to their views on leadership had changed. Steinert et al. (2012) were keen to recognise this and pointed to the field of management sciences where researchers focused on how people perceived themselves as leaders and gave meaning to leadership, which would determine how they perceived situations and how they responded to them (Avolio et al. 2009; DeRue and Myers 2014).

Practice points

• A leader identity programme can convert teachers’ views on leadership from personal dominance towards incorporating the importance of social interactions and relationships.

• This faculty development programme was based on the design principles competence-based learning, workplace-based learning, learning by doing, small-group learning and tailor-made learning.

• A combination of (1) constructing new knowledge and insights, (2) practicing in a safe environment, and (3) reflecting and receiving feedback on recognisable, specific workplace-based experiences turned out to be key elements of the applied design principles for leader identity formation.

• Institutes should take into account that leader identity development takes time and evolves across leaders’ individual careers. Moreover, institutes should deliberately cultivate learning communities among teachers.

The concept of ‘leader identity’ soon entered the leadership discourse. Defined as the way professionals give meaning to their leadership, leader identity encompasses the multiple personal views they hold on leadership, on what makes someone a leader, and of themselves as leaders (Avolio et al. 2009). Zaar et al. (2020) argued that the more these views are in alignment, the stronger the leader identity. For instance, someone who feels leadership is about engaging others, but describes him/herself as a leader who commands and controls does not have a particularly strong leader identity as the two views are in conflict. What matters is that leaders have a strong leader identity that is aimed at engaging and including team members. More specifically, a team climate of inclusiveness and belonging, which leaders with strong hierarchical views are unlikely to create (Greer et al. 2018; Zaar et al. 2020), have been found to boost member engagement and, with that, team performance (Nembhard and Edmondson 2006; Schaufeli 2015; Meeuwissen, Gijselaers, Wolfhagen, et al. 2021). Effective leaders should therefore work towards such inclusiveness and engagement in their team.

With this knowledge, we set out to design a faculty development intervention aimed at cultivating a leader identity based on behavioural attributes such as leader inclusiveness and a keenness to engage team members and facilitate social interactions among them (Meeuwissen, Gijselaers, van Oorschot, et al. 2021). We based the intervention on the following five well-known learning or design principles: (1) competency-based learning, as this approach calls for an integration of leadership knowledge, skills, values and attitudes and could therefore contribute to a stronger leader identity (Day et al. 2009); (2) workplace-based learning and (3) learning by doing (Bartram and Roe 2005), two principles that were found to promote leader identity formation in previous interventions (Miscenko et al. 2017); (4) small-group learning, because peers can support participants’ development (Steinert et al. 2012); and (5) tailor-made learning that takes into account the potential impact of the various roles, situations and social system on leadership development (Day and Harrison 2007). We included this latter design principle because leader identity interventions are said to be more successful when the personal and interpersonal context are considered, including the leader’s team and organisation (Day and Harrison 2007). In the current study, these five learning principles were applied to create a leadership development intervention. After implementing the leadership programme, we investigated: (1) how participants’ leader identity developed throughout the intervention, and (2) how, in participants’ view, the aforementioned design principles supported this process.

Methods

Study approach

We used a design-based research (DBR) approach to develop a theory-based leader identity development programme and investigated its effectiveness by taking the opinions of various stakeholders into account (Dolmans and Tigelaar 2012). DBR develops and tests theory, simultaneously aiming to design an innovative learning environment and trying to get insight into how and why something works in a real-life approach. Since DBR studies aim to gain insight into complex learning processes, they often take place in specifically designed contexts with few participants (Dolmans and Tigelaar 2012).

Setting

The study was conducted at the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, The Netherlands. Participants were course coordinators working in three undergraduate programmes: Health Sciences, Medicine, and Biomedical Sciences (on average 250, 316 and 375 students per cohort, respectively). All three programmes offer integrated courses with a problem-based learning approach, in which students learn actively by discussing problems in small groups (10–12 persons) guided by a tutor who is usually a staff member. Courses are structured around themes, addressing realistic problems from an interdisciplinary perspective. Course coordinators chair teacher teams consisting of staff from a variety of academic disciplines, including clinical, social, and basic sciences. Together, each team is responsible for the continuous improvement, execution, and evaluation of their thematic course.

Leader identity development programme

The programme, entitled ‘Leadership development for course coordinators,’ was designed by faculty developers, course coordinators and researchers (see Supplemental Appendix 1). The programme strived to make course coordinators aware of their leadership views and behaviour to develop specific leadership competences aimed at effective collaborations. Leader identity formation was supported by tackling personal, interpersonal and organisational aspects of leadership.

The programme took place from May through October 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we used a flipped-classroom online environment (Moffett 2015) and included five 2-h plenary sessions preceded by individual assignments; the total workload was 20 h. During preparations, prior knowledge was activated using reflective assignments and didactic videoclips. During the programme, we used structured, open questions on leader identity, developed by Zaar et al. (2020) to facilitate participants’ reflection on leader identity over the course of the programme. The assignments stimulated participants' self-reflection and reflection on their team, which allowed deeper learning during plenary, online sessions with expert-facilitators. All plenary meetings consisted of an interactive Q&A session based on a videoclip, a reflection and discussion session based on the preparation, and role plays based on participants’ real-life experiences i.e. ‘critical incidents’ with feedback and reflections.

Participants

Potentially interested course coordinators were invited to participate in this new programme. Participation was only deemed useful for coordinators that were available to participate in all planned programme activities, allowing them to practice and apply what was learned. Seven coordinators were able to join and registered to improve their leadership skills. They were considered to be a good representation of all coordinators active in the three undergraduate programmes at FHML, including both experienced and relatively unexperienced coordinators with various backgrounds (i.e. public health, genetics, pulmonology). Participants had been active as coordinator of their current course for 1 to 7 years, and two of them participated in another leadership course before. Their mean age was 43 years (range 35–54) and six of them were women. More information is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographics participants.

Participant	Age (years)	Gender	Current leadership position (years)	Discipline
1	42	Female	7	Public Health Genomics
2	41	Female	1	Health Services Research
3	48	Female	1	Neurosciences
4	44	Male	1	Epidemiology
5	54	Female	4	Pulmonology
6	35	Female	1	Health Services Research
7	37	Female	1	Data Science

Evaluation instruments

To evaluate how participants’ leader identity developed throughout the programme, the participants were asked to complete the validated and structured, open-ended leader identity questionnaire (e.g. ‘Describe your view on leadership. What is leadership to you?,’ see Zaar et al., 2020) before the start of the programme, mid-way, and at the end. To understand the contribution of the design principles in this process, all plenary sessions were observed by SM, with the use of a semi-structured observation guide (Supplemental Apendix 2). In addition, field notes were made of debriefings with the two expert-facilitators (Supplemental Appendix 3), and participants were asked to complete an anonymous programme evaluation questionnaire (Supplemental Appendix 4) which informed a semi-structured focus group (Supplemental Appendix 5).

Data collection

All data collection methods were discussed in advance within the research team, and the evaluation questionnaire was piloted by an independent faculty development instructor. Data collection and analysis took place in an iterative manner (Kuper et al. 2008), which means that early analyses of observations and evaluation questionnaires influenced the guides for the observations of the following meetings and the focus group. SM acted as non-participant observer and made field notes related to the underlying design principles. She also moderated the focus group with six participants which was recorded, transcribed and pseudonymised. She had prior experience with interviewing, observing and analysing quantitative and qualitative questionnaires. Participants were requested to comment on the transcript’s summary and agreed on its accuracy; they did not add additional information.

Data analysis

Leader identity development was investigated using the validated leader identity questionnaire with its thirty-four predefined codes, including various leadership traits such as ‘determination’ and ‘sociability’ (Zaar et al. 2020). SM and a research assistant analysed participants’ answers independently. After discussions, they agreed on twenty-nine predefined codes and their evolvements and decided to add ‘coach’ as an extra leader traits code.

The quantitative programme evaluation questionnaire data were analysed descriptively and used as input for the subsequent focus group. Field notes from the observations and debriefings, qualitative programme evaluation questionnaire data, and focus group transcripts were analysed by conducting a theoretical thematic analysis, driven by our interest in the design principles’ roles (Braun and Clarke 2006). SM and a research assistant coded independently from each other. After meeting 2, 3 and 4, they discussed codes and preliminary categories of codes from observation field notes, related to the different design principles. Discussions continued until they reached consensus, sometimes leading to altered code names. After analysis of observation field notes, the debriefings, qualitative programme evaluation questionnaire data, and focus group transcripts were coded. The latter codes were added to and combined with the codes derived from the observation field notes. The resulting coding tree is presented in Supplemental Appendix 6. The entire research team was involved in organising the resulting codes, which facilitated the step from an analytic level to a more conceptual one. This resulting organisation of codes and categories led to a conceptual theory on the relation between participants’ leader identity development and design principles. ATLAS.ti version 8 was used to manage data analysis.

Ethical considerations

The FHML Ethics Review Committee at Maastricht University granted ethical approval for this study (FHML-REC/2019/046).

Results

In the following section, we report how leader identity development occurred over time, based on participants’ views on leadership. Subsequently, we triangulated data to describe the perceived contribution of each design principle for leader identity development.

Leader identity development

According to participants’ answers in the leader identity questionnaire and the programme evaluation questionnaire data (PEQ), three key themes concerning the longitudinal development of participants’ leader identity were identified: ‘discovery and growth,’ ‘deconstruction,’ and ‘insecurity vs. reinforcement’. Participants gained awareness of their own behaviour and views on leadership. This process was often characterised by a leader identity deconstruction and feelings of insecurity. No relation seemed apparent between different participants [and their backgrounds] and the way they developed their leader identity.

Discovery and growth: broadening views, aligning perspectives

Over time, the majority of participants changed their leadership perceptions from personal dominance to more interpersonal influence and relational dialogue. This coincided with a shift in their views on leader traits and behaviours. For example, rather than seeing a leader’s drive and passion, strategic skills and task-oriented behaviour as important personal leadership traits, participants started to consider other qualities, such as being agreeable, having sociable communication skills and showing relations-oriented behaviour. The following quote by one of the participants clearly expresses his/her initial view of leadership being synonymous with personal dominance:

A leader knows what he/she is talking about. He/she has a helicopter view of everything and of what should be done and how. […] is able to defend the vision and choices of a planning group. […] I am a leader because I have an overview and know what should be taken into account. I welcome the opinion and questions of the planning group and am not afraid to take a decision. Sometimes I should assert myself more in order to ‘sell’ or defend my [teaching] and the decision made by my planning group. (Participant 3)

As the programme progressed, the participant in the following example came to take a different view on what constitutes effective leadership:

Beginning: A leader is a skilled person who takes sensible and optimal decisions […].

Mid-way: People who are inspiring, have a vision and enable you to follow it are leaders. [They] have behaviours that generate trust and respect. […] I can be directive but also have my own vision and this enables me to support or direct my team according to the overall picture.

End: I have leadership abilities, but I need to work on improving them. […] I am good at recognizing team skills and having them contribute based on those skills. (Participant 7)

Better alignment between personal views on leadership in education and the own perception on how he/she behaves as a leader, describing inclusive and interpersonal skills, was identified.

Deconstruction: from claiming identities towards partial and provisional identities

Despite new insights gained, most participants struggled to integrate a new leader identity into their global self-view. Abandoning their original ‘claiming’ identities, some realised that their leader identity was only partly aligned with the leadership role they now envisaged and, consequently, they did not consider themselves a leader yet. Their broadened perspectives led to the discovery that they did not possess the abilities they started to attach to leadership. To mend this, participants needed to deconstruct their former identity and construct a new one to align their views on leadership, on others as leaders, and their self-views as a leader:

I think I am still more a manager than a leader. I could focus more on integrated teamwork […] thereby making optimal use of all the disciplines and knowledge/expertise within a team.’ (Participant 4, mid-way).

At the end of the programme, this participant explicated:

‘Not as much [a leader] as I would like regarding certain features, also depending on the situation and context. I could for instance be more inspiring and motivating. A work in progress. (Participant 4)

Insecurity vs. reinforcement: ongoing learning and development

For most participants, the deconstruction of their leader identity led to feelings of insecurity: ‘I’ve obtained new insights with respect to leadership, which is very helpful. It also provided me with insights as to what I wasn’t doing right. This made me somewhat uncertain; however, [it] offers the opportunity to grow’ (anonymous, PEQ).

However, throughout the programme, participants became more motivated to develop a stronger leader identity and started to show more self-awareness and confidence in their actions. One unexperienced coordinator felt his/her leader identity had already fully developed before the programme started. This person’s perception of self as a leader was already aligned with his/her take on what constitutes leadership. The programme merely reinforced this identity, although the need for ongoing learning and development was recognised:

A leader is a coach who keeps an eye on the major objectives and takes the steps required to reach that objective together […] ensures trust and peace […] I do consider myself a leader. I keep the broader aim in mind and, while coaching, make sure the group reaches these goals. Sometimes I should focus more on feelings and on creating a safe environment. (Participant 2, beginning)

Contribution of design principles

To understand how the five design principles were perceived to contribute to leader identity development (research question 2), we used field notes from the observations, debriefings with expert-facilitators (D), participants’ anonymous programme evaluation questionnaire data (PEQ) and the focus group transcript (FG). We found that ‘turning points’ for leader identity development (i.e. awareness on leadership, their own behaviour and who they perceived as good leaders, and whether these aligned) could be linked to the different design principles.

Competence-based learning

From the observations, it became clear that participants were processing information and new insights for initial identity deconstruction and later identity-building. During the first meeting, participant 4 was checking out-loud: ‘This is maybe not what a leader should do, right?’ Participants agreed that the programme helped them to become more aware of their views and knowledge about leadership, specifically related to group dynamics. One participant described the following:‘[…] insights into my own leadership style, knowing what my strengths, […] weaknesses [and] possible pitfalls are. Also, acting from my gut and getting to interpret and recognise personalities from my members’. (anonymous, PEQ). In the focus group, the participants agreed that by constructing knowledge, practising and reflecting they gained more insights about leadership: ‘I think what this course [has] helped [to do], is to raise consciousness, [by] hearing other experiences, and then we have to try it out as well’ (Participant 1, FG).

At the explicit request of one participant, the meeting’s structure was outlined so participants recognised the different meeting’s components that reflected both knowledge and skills building (e.g. reflections with theoretical underpinnings, and role-play exercises). Also, to aid identity construction, participants requested an online repository and an overview of all information, which led to an additional video summarising all models and theories used.

Workplace-based learning

Participants mentioned that they learned from discussing positive and negative experiences since they recognised both from practice. However, during the first sessions, they felt it was too early to enact the leadership role they had started to envision, since they had much to process: ‘much information and examples passed by’ (Participant 5, FG). For some, the COVID-19 pandemic also hindered application because they needed to be more directive in times of crisis; yet others felt now was the time to create a good team. Most participants agreed that more time and experiences were needed to apply newly gained insights:

And maybe, we are in a course group that is sane, which also means that you’re maybe more likely to experience the same situations. And you may need a few years and different groups, to experience different situations [and act like the leader you now envision]. (Participant 1, FG)

Consequently, most participants felt a need for regular peer feedback sessions, as they started to realise that becoming a leader required continuous development. They felt that this would also prevent them from reverting to old behaviours in practice.

Learning by doing

Participants learned about new approaches thanks to role-play exercises combined with constructive feedback. This stimulated intentions to try out such behaviour in practice and confront their team or individual members to improve team dynamics. Also, participants learned how to apply insights over time:

They are starting to become adept at leadership thinking, […] and to contemplate, from a leader’s perspective, what should I do differently? There is not just one solution, and that’s what they should be starting to feel now. (Facilitator, D4)

As participants recognised situations, they became more willing to practice. By role-playing each other’s opponents, they also began to understand reactions of team members, in turn leading to a better recognition of their own pitfalls as a leader: ‘Role-play and other examples help me to realise and look back on some situations and think “OK, it was not so smart to react in that way”’ (Participant 5, FG).

Participants struggled to prepare situations that were suitable for role-play. They interpreted ‘critical incidents’ as major events, while these actually referred to meaningful, common events (e.g. ‘I have to address missed deadlines, despite clear agreements made earlier’). As a result, preparation assignments were changed: ‘think about meaningful experiences’.

Small-group learning

Participants revealed that the current, small participant number contributed to the group functioning well. They perceived the small group size enabled a safe environment and good online interactions, yet it was big enough to provide diversity in experiences and viewpoints. Despite their shared academic employment, most participants were not direct colleagues. They considered this a benefit as they could freely share their views and experiences without feeling threatened. Another benefit was that the different people allowed them to broaden their views and learn from different approaches.

As time went by, the group became more interactive: participants started to ask for each other’s views and discussed given suggestions. One participant explained this learning atmosphere as follows: ‘People join because they are interested, they want to learn and are ready to share’ (Participant 1, FG). There were even signals of a community of peers starting to appear: ‘I really like the interaction between us. We are really getting to know each other’ (Participant 2, observation). The realisation that participants were not alone in their struggles and that struggling was part of the process of becoming a leader, helped them to build confidence. Also, one participant explained: ‘I think I even recognised problems that I wasn’t even aware of before. That I have problems [leading my team]’ (Participant 2, FG).

Tailor-made learning

Since sessions took place online, participants missed the opportunity to have small talk with each other or to ask facilitators for tailored, context-specific advice during breaks. During the second meeting, feelings of insecurity among some participants were observed. Participant 4, for instance, pointed out that ‘sometimes you really want to know “OK, how should I do it?”’ (FG). To mitigate these feelings, participants requested the answers to the reflective assignments. Facilitators, in response, stressed the importance of discussing participants’ insecurity with peers:

The reflective assignments reflect the difficulty and learning process of being a leader, and not something that you ‘need to do right’. That friction is part of it and that’s OK. […] you can come to the session with a question mark. (Facilitator, D2)

During the fourth session, the facilitators reflected on some participants’ remaining insecurity, acknowledging that participants’ development required long-term investment and practice: ‘It [the programme] did strike home. That’s how we intended to start [today], by pointing out, like: “look, you should start practicing this”’ (Facilitator, D4). Participants eventually recommended ongoing support with periodical peer feedback sessions, tailored to experiences in time.

Discussion

Leadership development becomes meaningful by investing in leaders’ roles and how they give meaning to it, since this will influence their behaviour (Avolio et al. 2009; DeRue and Myers 2014). The current study uniquely demonstrates how educational leaders, participating in a faculty development programme, started to change their views on leadership. They moved from classic views concerning personal dominance (‘A leader is a skilled person who takes decisions’) towards views acknowledging the importance of social interactions and relationships (‘Have behaviours that generate trust and respect’); this turned out to be the starting point to develop into an inclusive leader. The changing view on leadership often meant that participants needed to deconstruct their former leader identity, which sparked feelings of insecurity but propelled their motivation to improve leadership qualities. In the end, their views of what constitutes good leadership and their self-views as leader were more aligned. Moreover, our results led to a conceptual theory on the relation between participants’ leader identity development and the design principles used to create the faculty development intervention. Our findings indicate that a combination of (1) constructing new knowledge and insights, (2) practicing in a safe environment, and (3) reflecting and receiving feedback on recognisable, specific workplace-based experiences turned out to be key elements of the applied design principles for leader identity formation. To our knowledge, we were the first ones who designed, implemented and adapted a leader identity development programme, while observing longitudinally how various design principles were perceived to play a role in leader identity development. With this work, we answer the call to align leadership development with modern, inclusive leadership thinking and to implement professional leadership development programmes and experiential, workplace-based learning opportunities (Gordon et al. 2015; Cadieux et al. 2017).

Our results are in accordance with findings from management sciences that, first, a leader identity deconstruction is needed for eventual leader identity construction (Miscenko et al. 2017). The new meanings participants learn to associate with their leadership role, force them to doubt and reconsider their existing leader identity. Since deconstruction can lead to insecurity, support is needed to move participants forward. Institutes should be aware that leader identity development is an interactive process over time. Participants’ explicit call for ongoing peer feedback sessions shows the importance of valuing and deliberately cultivating learning communities among teachers by educational organisations (Buckley et al. 2019). Through these communities, an engaging, inclusive institutional leadership capacity could be built (Watkins 2016).

Participants became more aware of their views about leadership, especially regarding group dynamics, through gaining knowledge, practising and reflecting. At first, individuals’ insight in their leadership-related behaviour and knowledge were not aligned; becoming aware about this was a turning point in their development. Sharing of individual experiences was considered key for the whole group’s learning process and should be recommended for future interventions. In contrast to suggestions by Day et al. (2009) that negative experiences may weaken leader identity, we found that both positive and negative workplace-based experiences were considered meaningful for development. Feelings of trust and safety to share experiences and participate in role-plays likely contributed to individuals’ development. Therefore, small-group learning and sharing of individual experiences in a safe environment can be highly recommended in leader identity interventions. Although the online mode likely further facilitated this psychologically safe environment, at the same time it may have hampered one-on-one, context-specific questions and the recognition of non-verbal behaviours (among both participants and trainers). Therefore, research should continue post-pandemic and focus on how context-specific elements can be fostered face-to-face.

Methodological reflections and future research

A strength of this paper is that it adds to a better theoretical understanding about leader identity development in higher education and adds to the more superficial faculty development programmes’ evaluation of visible effects (Steinert et al. 2016). The study sample was small but appropriate given its base in DBR, which foregrounds understanding of learning in authentic contexts and providing guidance for design decisions using small-scale pilots (Dolmans and Tigelaar 2012). A point of attention is that our participants registered themselves, and their intrinsic motivation may have influenced their development in a positive way. Future research could therefore investigate effects of the programme on less motivated participants. Researchers could also study concrete effects on identity development of the separate design principles, using experimental designs.

Given the move to technology-aided faculty development that maximises staff’s available time, evaluation of online programmes is useful for practice. However, in our study, the pandemic has probably impacted the work environment which plays a role in training transfer (Jackson et al. 2019). A longitudinal research design could explore long-term effects on participants’ leader identity, inclusiveness behaviour and their teams’ functioning.

Conclusion

The current study uniquely demonstrated how educational leaders, participating in a faculty development programme, develop leadership by focusing on leader identity instead of the acquisition of behavioural skills. Specifically, we empirically showed that participants benefited from gaining broader leadership views and moving from classic views about leadership (personal dominance) towards considering social interactions and relationships. The construction of leaders’ identity needs continuous attention with support from peers and the organisation.

Glossary

Leader identity: The way professionals give meaning to their leadership, including the possession of different views (their personal view on leadership and on what makes someone a leader, and how they view themselves as a leader)

Avolio et al. 2009; Zaar et al. 2020.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all course coordinators for participating, Herma Roebertsen and Kasia Czabanowska for co-developing the programme, and Tanguy Dewaele for providing assistance on data analysis.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stephanie N. E. Meeuwissen

Stephanie N. E. Meeuwissen, MD, PhD, is a Resident Internal Medicine at the Maastricht University Medical Center. At the time of this study, she was a PhD candidate at the School of Health Professions Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.

Wim H. Gijselaers

Wim H. Gijselaers, PhD, is a Professor of Educational Research and chair of the Department of Educational Research and Development, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Angelique E. de Rijk

Angelique E. de Rijk, PhD, is a Professor of Work and Health, specialising in Re-integration into Work, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Wilma J. M. Huveneers

Wilma J. M. Huveneers, MSc, is an Educationalist at the taskforce Faculty Development, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Ineke H. A. P. Wolfhagen

Ineke H. A. P. Wolfhagen, PhD, is an Associate Professor and Deputy Director of the Institute for Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Mirjam G. A. oude Egbrink

Mirjam G. A. oude Egbrink, MHPE, PhD, is a Professor of Implementation of Educational Innovations, Scientific Director of the Institute for Education, and Vice Dean Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.