Cited by 36Innovations in Medical EducationDiversity and Career in MedicineSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Adaptive reinventing: implicit bias and the co-construction of social change

Sukhera, Javeed, Milne, Alexandra, Teunissen, Pim W., Lingard, Lorelei, Watling, Chris·2018·Advances in Health Sciences Education

Abstract

Emerging research on implicit bias recognition and management within health professions describes individually focused educational interventions without considering workplace influences. Workplace learning theories highlight how individual agency and workplace structures dynamically interact to produce change within individuals and learning environments. Promoting awareness of individual biases shaped by clinical learning environments may therefore represent a unique type of workplace learning. We sought to explore how individuals and the workplace learning environment interact once awareness of implicit biases are triggered within learners. In accordance with longitudinal case study methodology and informed by constructivist grounded theory, we conducted multiple longitudinal interviews with physician and nurse participants over 12 months. Our results suggest that implicit bias recognition provokes dissonance among participants leading to frustration, and critical questioning of workplace constraints. Once awareness is triggered, participants began reflecting on their biases and engaging in explicit behavioural changes that influenced the perception of structural changes within the learning environment itself. Collaboration, communication and role modeling within teams appeared to facilitate the process as individual and workplace affordances were gradually transformed. Our findings suggest a potential model for understanding how individual learners adaptively reinvent their role in response to disruptions in their learning environment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10459-018-9816-3

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sukhera, J., Milne, A., Teunissen, P. W., Lingard, L., & Watling, C.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • London Health Sciences Centre (CA)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Sukhera, Javeed
Venue
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Published
2018-02-17
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
587-599
ISSN
  • 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1677
OpenAlex
W2794321710
Cited by
36
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
5.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario
  • Associated Medical Services
  • Children's Health Foundation - London Health Sciences Centre
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
implicit bias, bias awareness, workplace learning, clinical learning environment, social change, role modeling, team collaboration, individual agency, health professions education
MeSH terms
Awareness, Communication, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Inservice Training, Interviews as Topic, Learning, Longitudinal Studies, Nurses, Physicians, Prejudice, Social Change, Workplace, Organizational Case Studies, Grounded Theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review