The personal is political in the struggle for equity in global medical education research and scholarship

Abstract

Medical education research is rooted in a long tradition of objectivity, evidence-based methods, and clinical surety. However, the inexorable confidence, health professions research education, and scholarship have in the manifest supremacy of western science as the foundational epistemology is questionable. Is this bravado legitimate and if so by what authority? How does this dominance of western epistemic frames determine how we are seen and how we see ourselves as health professions educators scholars and researchers? In what ways does western epistemic dominance influence how and why we conduct research? What do we consider as important to research in health professions education (HPE)? The answers are different depending on where we position ourselves or are placed in a hierarchy of scholarly privilege. I pose that the supremacy of Western scientific epistemology in modern medical education, research, and practice blurs differently colored scientific lenses and silences marginalized voices from legitimate contribution to HPE.

Keywords:

• EDI
• education environment
• epistemic injustice
• equity, diversity, inclusion
• health professions education 
• international medical education
• medical education research

Disclosure statement

The author reports no conflicts of interest. The author alone is responsible for the content and writing of the article.

Glossary

Coloniality: The long-standing patterns of power that emerged from colonialism, but that define culture, labor, relationships, and knowledge production beyond the limits and existence of colonial administrations.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Notes on contributors

Thirusha Naidu

Thirusha Naidu, MA (Clin Psych), PhD, Department of Behavioural Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.