Search

The book review discusses "Autistic Intelligence: Interaction, Individuality, and the Challenges of Diagnosis" by Douglas W. Maynard and Jason Turowetz. The authors use a Conversation Analysis approach to investigate how clinicians determine whether a child meets the criteria for an autism diagnosis. They highlight the importance of understanding the contributions of autistic children in the diagnostic process and challenge the biomedical perspective on autism. The book emphasizes the need for society to adapt to the unique sense-making of autistic individuals and appreciate their competence and skill. The review acknowledges the strengths and weaknesses of the Conversation Analysis approach and suggests reading the book in conjunction with accounts from autistic individuals themselves. Overall, the book provides a detailed examination of the autism diagnostic process and advocates for a more inclusive and understanding approach. [Extracted from the article]

An exciting development in the sociology of medical education has been its recent return as a distinct scholarly conversation in medical sociology. During the 1980s and 1990s, the sociology of medical education, an historically prominent subfield in sociology, seemed to disappear from the scholarly conversation despite ongoing development in this area. In this narrative review I describe this "missing period" of sociology of medical education, discussing complementary explanations for why it receded and describing what research activity did take place during those decades. In reviewing this work, I argue that articulating theoretical advances made within sociology of medical education research during these decades allows us to link foundational research from the 1950s and 1960s with the renaissance of this subfield in the early 2000s. Fundamentally, understanding the intellectual history and development of this subfield supports a broader movement to understand the import of studies of medical training for exploring questions of interest in general sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problem: COVID‐19 created new research, clinical, educational, and personal challenges, while simultaneously separating work teams who were under work‐from‐home restrictions. Addressing these challenges required new forms of collaborative groups. Approach: To support the department community and the rapid sharing of new research, educational, clinical, and personal efforts, a Core Team from the Department of Learning Health Sciences at the University of Michigan developed a meeting series called the COVID Conversations. This Experience Report shares the organizational structure of the COVID Conversations, proposes a comparison to traditional Learning Communities, and reports the results of a questionnaire that gathered details about department members' COVID‐related activities. Outcomes: We identify and describe salient similarities and differences between the COVID Conversations and the characteristics of Learning Communities. We also developed and piloted a taxonomy for characterizing LHS research projects that may be further developed for use in Learning Community planning, in conjunction with other maturity grids and ontologies. We propose the term "Meta‐Learning Community" to describe the structure and function of the COVID Conversations. Next Steps: In academic medicine, remote work, telemedicine, and virtual learning may be here to stay. The COVID Conversations constitute a distinct and innovative form of collaborative work in which separate teams addressing distinct goals, yet sharing a common passion to tackle the issues brought by the pandemic, are able to share experiences and learn from one other. The challenges of COVID‐19 have made evident the need for multiple forms of organizing teamwork, and our study contributes the notion of a "Meta"‐Learning Community as a new form of collaborative work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The rapid response to COVID‐19 has necessitated infrastructural development and reorientation in order to safely meet patient care needs. Methods: A qualitative case study was constructed within a larger ethnographic field study. Document collection and fieldnotes and recordings from nonparticipant observation of network activities were compiled and chronologically ordered to chart the network's response to changes in epilepsy care resulting from COVID‐19 and the rapid transition to telemedicine. Results: The network's response to COVID‐19 was characterized by a predisposition to action, the role of sharing as both a group practice and shared value, and the identification of improvement science as the primary contribution of the group within the larger epilepsy community's response to COVID‐19. The findings are interpreted as an example of how group culture can shape action via a transparent and mundane shared infrastructure. Conclusions: The case of one multi‐stakeholder epilepsy Learning Network provides an example of the use of infrastructure that is shaped by the group's culture. These findings contribute to the development of a social theory of infrastructure within Learning Health Systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]