Call for Papers for Special Themed Issue
The Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education (SACME) is inviting authors for a supplement issue to the Journal of Continuing Education in Health Professions (JCEHP). Advances in CPD are built and dependent on stimulating and developing new and emerging conceptual foundations for continuing professional development (CPD). The aim of this supplement is to stimulate educators and researchers in CPD and beyond to challenge existing assumptions and commitments, be productively disruptive, and to present new or emerging philosophical and theoretical insights for the CPD community to consider. By doing so we hope to stimulate constructive discussion and research, and ultimately meaningful practical advances in CPD.
Continuing professional development is a complex personal and socio-psychological educational process that continues to challenge educators, clinicians, and health systems. Studies questioning the effectiveness of CPD have stimulated the field to understand the effectiveness of CPD interventions, think differently about what CPD means, and how CPD should be better positioned, organized, and translated into practice. For example, there have been calls to better understand and distinguish concepts such as continuing medical education (CME), lifelong learning (LLL) and learning through work. Some research initiatives are focusing on improving CPD models through faculty development, leveraging implementation science, and highlighting connections to continuous quality improvement. Others call on experts in related areas such as simulation, coaching, performance improvement, knowledge translation, patient safety, or audit and feedback to do and offer more, and to understand what clinicians select for CPD and why. Calls for enhancements and change are necessary and stimulating, and can span all levels of CPD, from the micro level (e.g., changes in educational activities) to macro level ideas and shifts (e.g., large conceptual system level changes).
Laying beneath scholarly and practical pursuits are deeply held assumptions and commitments (i.e., ways of thinking) and behaving that can both identify and mis-identify problems, that in turn, shape the possibility and creation of innovative CPD solutions. The utility, adoption, and acceptance of eventual CPD choices is dependent on the underlying conceptual, theoretical, or philosophical assumptions and arguments in play (i.e., what we “know” about CPD). These ideas provide important insights into the questions and solutions we explore. When these underlying assumptions are articulated, they provide scope and space for discussion, create opportunity for critical analysis of old, existing or new arguments, shift the valuing and devaluing of ideas, introduce new solutions and more. When considering the assumptions that shape CPD, thoughtful reflection is needed, likely to be generative and to lead to meaningful shifts in how CPD should be advanced. Advances in CPD are built and dependent on new conceptual or theoretical assumptions and ideas (as well empirical insights), while also letting go of others. It is these underlying assumptions and commitments (old and new) that serve as the basis for this invitation to contribute to this supplement issue.
Authors are invited to be conceptually creative, and engage in productive disruption of CPD assumptions, and commitments (i.e., ways of thinking) and practice, by answering one or both of the following questions:
- What new conceptual shift or idea is ready for implementation or generative in advancing CPD for scholars, educators and/or health professionals?
- What conceptual arguments, assumptions or practices are holding CPD back, that we should let go of?
The following article types will be considered: original research, review articles, innovations, short reports, forums, foundations, rapid communications.
Deadline for manuscript submission: December 1, 2022.
Please read over JCEHP’s Instructions for Authors
before submitting your manuscript. Submitted manuscripts that are not formatted in accordance with our instructions and guidelines are more likely to be rejected without peer-review.