Medical education scholarship: an introductory guide: AMEE Guide No. 89

Editing the editors: Aims and priorities of health professions education journals

PURPOSE

Although health professions education (HPE) scholarship has flourished in recent decades, the influence of HPE journals has received little attention. This study examines the editorial policies and priorities of leading HPE journals.

METHODS

Fourteen HPE journals with the highest impact factors were reviewed for their editorial aims, scope, intended readership, and priority topic areas. Text from journal websites was coded using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

10/14 HPE journals included in this study were linked to regional or national education societies. Two focussed predominantly on medicine, one on dentistry, one on nursing, one on nutrition, and the remaining nine on general HPE. Although journals differed in their projected aims and proposed readerships, four overarching editorial themes were identified: (1) methodological and theoretical rigor; (2) impact on practice; (3) global relevance; (4) advancing knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Leading HPE journals share a number of priority areas and principles, implying some cohesion and consensus amongst the HPE scholarly community. These journals prioritise impact at the level of individual practitioners. Given the importance of policy level change in the development and reform of HPE around the world, the relative lack of focus on policy impact in HPE journals is worthy of further exploration.

Scholarly practice in healthcare professions: findings from a scoping review

Scholarly practitioners are broadly defined as healthcare professionals that address critical practice problems using theory, scientific evidence, and practice-based knowledge. Though scholarly practice is included in most competency frameworks, it is unclear what scholarly practice is, how it develops and how it is operationalized in clinical practice. The aim of this review was to determine what is known about scholarly practice in healthcare professionals. We conducted a scoping review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL from inception to May 2020. We included papers that explored, described, or defined scholarly practice, scholar or scholarly practitioner, and/or related concepts in healthcare professionals. We included a total of 90 papers. Thirty percent of papers contained an explicit definition of scholarly practice. Conceptualizations of scholarly practice were organized into three themes: the interdependent relationship between scholarship and practice; advancing the profession's field; and core to being a healthcare practitioner. Attributes of scholarly practitioners clustered around five themes: commitment to excellence in practice; collaborative nature; presence of virtuous characteristics; effective communication skills; and adaptive change ethos. No single unified definition of scholarly practice exists within the literature. The variability in terms used to describe scholarly practice suggests that it is an overarching concept rather than a definable entity. There are similarities between scholarly practitioners and knowledge brokers regarding attributes and how scholarly practice is operationalized. Individuals engaged in the teaching, research and/or assessment of scholarly practice should make explicit their definitions and expectations for healthcare professionals.

Are We Facing the End of Gross Anatomy Teaching as We Have Known It for Centuries?

The status of anatomy education in undergraduate medical education has dramatically changed over the course of the past century. From the most important and time-consuming component of the preclinical program, anatomy education has reduced in size and status, and yielded in curricular space to accommodate other disciplines and topics. Meanwhile, radiology has become more prominent, as a means to visualize anatomy, not only in clinical care but also in education. For this perspective paper, the authors, all with backgrounds in anatomy, radiology and/or medical education, conducted structured conversations with several academic colleagues with similar backgrounds, reviewed pertinent literature and analyzed the causes of the historical decline of a knowledge domain of medical education, that nevertheless is widely considered essential for medical students and graduates. After this analysis, the authors propose four ways forward. These directions include systematic peer teaching and development of anatomy education as a scholarly domain, further vertical integration with postgraduate medical education, full integration with radiology education, and capitalizing on educational technology. Schools in several industrialized countries have made steps in these directions, which can be further strengthened. In less affluent countries, and in countries with curricula strongly determined by tradition, these steps are less easy to make. To respond to changes in global health and health care, combined with the inevitable technological progress, and international mobility, we believe all schools will move in these directions, slower or faster.

Mentoring Medical Education Research: Guidelines from a Narrative Review

Mentorship is critical to develop research scholars. Current literature provides mentorship guidance for biomedical research; however, mentorship for educational research is scarce. We explored literature to offer evidence-based guidance for medical education research mentors. A librarian searched peer-reviewed literature from 2001 to 2021 to identify guidelines for research mentors. Thirty-five articles were included in this narrative review. Our results identified attributes of mentors, overlapping roles, and barriers and benefits of mentoring. The structures and processes related to mentoring are reviewed and applicability to medical education research mentorship is summarized.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-022-01565-2.

The DoCTRINE Guidelines: Defined Criteria To Report INnovations in Education

PURPOSE

Reporting guidelines assist authors in conducting and describing their research in alignment with evidence-based and expert-determined standards. However, published research-oriented guidelines do not capture all of the components that must be present in descriptions of educational innovations in health professions education. The authors aimed to create guidelines for educational innovations in curriculum development that would be easy for early-career educators to use, support reporting necessary details, and promote educational scholarship.

METHOD

Beginning in 2017, the authors systematically developed a reporting checklist for educational innovations in curriculum development, called Defined Criteria To Report INnovations in Education (DoCTRINE), and collected validity evidence for its use according to the 4 inferences of Kane's framework. They derived the items using a modified Delphi method, followed by pilot testing, cognitive interviewing, and interrater reliability testing. In May-November 2019, they implemented DoCTRINE for authors submitting to MedEdPORTAL, half of whom were randomized to receive the checklist (intervention group). The authors scored manuscripts using DoCTRINE while blinded to group assignment, and they collected data on final editorial decisions.

RESULTS

The final DoCTRINE checklist consists of 19 items, categorized into 5 components: introduction, curriculum development, curriculum implementation, results, and discussion. The overall interrater agreement was 0.91. Among the 108 manuscripts submitted to MedEdPORTAL during the study period, the mean (SD) total score was higher for accepted than rejected submissions (16.9 [1.73] vs 15.7 [2.24], P = .006). There were no significant differences in DoCTRINE scores between the intervention group, who received the checklist, and the control group, who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors developed DoCTRINE, using systematic approaches, for the scholarly reporting of educational innovations in curriculum development. This checklist may be a useful tool for supporting the publishing efforts of early-career faculty.

Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the health of people from communities of color and people of limited socioeconomic means in a disproportionate way due to social determinants of health (SDoH). The Centers for Disease Control defines SDoH as the "conditions in the places where people live, learn, work, and play that affect a wide range of health and quality-of life-risks and outcomes." A related construct, social determinants of learning (SDoL), includes contextual conditions and variables that impact students' ability to optimally participate in their education, including academic and clinical development. SDoL directly impact students' ability to participate in the educational process. During the COVID-19 pandemic, students struggling with SDoH and, by extension SDoL, may be more likely to have sick family members, caregiving responsibilities, food and housing insecurity, and obligations to supplement lost family wages. SDoL are also influenced by individual experiences within and outside of the classroom. Beyond bringing this matter to the attention of our profession, especially clinical and academic educators, we must take action to reach and support students who are at higher academic risk due to the SDoL. The purpose of this paper is to (1) define SDoL, (2) explain how SDoL are impacting doctor of physical therapy and physical therapist assistant students, and (3) discuss actions that physical therapists and physical therapist assistants can take to mitigate the effects of SDoL on current doctor of physical therapy and physical therapist assistant students.

IMPACT

This Perspective is one of the first explorations of how SDoL affect physical therapy students during the pandemic and provides concrete suggestions on how educators in both academic and clinical settings can help students succeed when they are negatively affected by SDoL.

A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in medical schools

BACKGROUND

Mentoring provides mentees and mentors with holistic support and research opportunities. Yet, the quality of this support has been called into question amidst suggestions that mentoring is prone to bullying and professional lapses. These concerns jeopardise mentoring's role in medical schools and demand closer scrutiny.

METHODS

To better understand prevailing concerns, a novel approach to systematic scoping reviews (SSR) s is proposed to map prevailing ethical issues in mentoring in an accountable and reproducible manner. Ten members of the research team carried out systematic and independent searches of PubMed, Embase, ERIC, ScienceDirect, Scopus, OpenGrey and Mednar databases. The individual researchers employed 'negotiated consensual validation' to determine the final list of articles to be analysed. The reviewers worked in three independent teams. One team summarised the included articles. The other teams employed independent thematic and content analysis respectively. The findings of the three approaches were compared. The themes from non-evidence based and grey literature were also compared with themes from research driven data.

RESULTS

Four thousand six titles were reviewed and 51 full text articles were included. Findings from thematic and content analyses were similar and reflected the tabulated summaries. The themes/categories identified were ethical concerns, predisposing factors and possible solutions at the mentor and mentee, mentoring relationship and/or host organisation level. Ethical concerns were found to stem from issues such as power differentials and lack of motivation whilst predisposing factors comprised of the mentor's lack of experience and personality conflicts. Possible solutions include better program oversight and the fostering of an effective mentoring environment.

CONCLUSIONS

This structured SSR found that ethical issues in mentoring occur as a result of inconducive mentoring environments. As such, further studies and systematic reviews of mentoring structures, cultures and remediation must follow so as to guide host organisations in their endeavour to improve mentoring in medical schools.

A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in internal medicine, family medicine and academic medicine

Mentoring's role in medical education is threatened by the potential abuse of mentoring relationships. Particularly affected are mentoring relationships between senior clinicians and junior doctors which lie at the heart of mentoring. To better understand and address these concerns, a systematic scoping review into prevailing accounts of ethical issues and professional lapses in mentoring is undertaken. Arksey and O'Malley's (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19-32, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was employed to explore the scope of ethical concerns in mentoring in general medicine. Databases searcheed included PubMed, ScienceDirect, ERIC, Embase, Scopus, Mednar and OpenGrey. 3391 abstracts were identified from the initialy search after removal of duplicates, 412 full-text articles were reviewed, 98 articles were included and thematically analysed. Unsatisfactory matching, misaligned expectations, inadequate mentor training, cursory codes of conduct, sketchy standards of practice, meagre oversight and unstructured processes have been identified as potential causes for ethical and professional breaches in mentoring practice. Changes in how professionalism is viewed suggest further studies of educational culture should also be carried out. The host organization plays a major role in establishing codes of conduct, expectations, and holistically, longitudinally oversight of the mentoring process and mentoring relationships.

A scoping review of mentor training programs in medicine between 1990 and 2017

Effective mentoring enhances the personal and professional development of mentees and mentors, boosts the reputation of host organizations and improves patient outcomes. Much of this success hinges upon the mentor's ability to nurture personalized mentoring relationships and mentoring environments, provide effective feedback and render timely, responsive, appropriate, and personalized support. However, mentors are often untrained raising concerns about the quality and oversight of mentoring support.To promote effective and consistent use of mentor training in medical education, this scoping review asks what mentor training programs are available in undergraduate and postgraduate medicine and how they may inform the creation of an evidenced-based framework for mentor training.Six reviewers adopted Arksey and O'Malley's approach to scoping reviews to study prevailing mentor-training programs and guidelines in postgraduate education programs and in medical schools. The focus was on novice mentoring approaches. Six reviewers carried out independent searches with similar inclusion/exclusion criteria using PubMed, ERIC, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and grey literature databases. Included were theses and book chapters published in English or had English translations published between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2017. Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis was adopted to circumnavigate mentoring's and mentor training's evolving, context-specific, goal-sensitive, learner-, tutor- and relationally dependent nature that prevents simple comparisons of mentor training across different settings and mentee and mentor populations.In total, 3585 abstracts were retrieved, 232 full-text articles were reviewed, 68 articles were included and four themes were identified including the structure, content, outcomes and evaluation of mentor training program.The themes identified provide the basis for an evidence-based, practice-guided framework for a longitudinal mentor training program in medicine and identifies the essential topics to be covered in mentor training programs.

How are clinician-educators evaluated for educational excellence? A survey of promotion and tenure committee members in the United States

Background: In recent years, educational leaders have proposed domains of educational excellence and corresponding metrics to objectively measure contributions of clinician-educators for promotion and tenure (P&T). The purpose of this study was to explore whether P&T committees in United States (US) have incorporated these recommendations into practice. Method: The authors conducted a survey of P&T leaders across institutions in US. Items included questions related to institutional tracks for P&T, domains included in promotional packets, metrics for their measurement, and use of an Educator's Portfolio (EP). Results: Respondents from 55 institutions completed the survey. The presence of a teaching academy/society was associated with the presence of a promotion track for clinician-educators (p = 0.04). Only teaching activities (91%), assessment of learners (55%), and educational scholarship (51%) were required by a majority of institutions. Few institutions used objective methods for measuring impact and less than half (47%) required an EP. Discussion: These results highlight both progress in the recognition of clinician-educators while also suggesting discordance in the perspective of educational leaders and the practice of P&T committees. The authors advocate for establishing a national community of expert medical educators who may assist P&T committees in adopting consensus-based criteria and metrics to evaluate clinician-educators' contributions.

Boyer and Beyond: An Interview Study of Health Professions Education Scholarship Units in the United States and a Synthetic Framework for Scholarship at the Unit Level

PURPOSE

Health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) in the United States are large in number and diverse in purpose, activities, and contributions. Although each of these units shares a commitment to scholarship, there is no synthetic framework to accurately represent and evaluate their activities and contributions. This study aimed to provide such a framework.

METHOD

The authors examined data collected from 11 U.S. HPESU directors. Interviews occurred between April 2015 and February 2016. The research team used a combination of deductive and inductive qualitative techniques to analyze the interview transcripts. The deductive portion drew on Boyer's four-part framework of scholarship; the inductive portion produced a new conceptualization of scholarship at the HPESU level.

RESULTS

The scholarly activities of HPESUs generally align with Boyer's four types of scholarship-discovery, integration, application, and teaching. However, this categorization fails to capture the interconnectedness and variety of purposes served by these activities. Both are important when considering how best to represent the scholarly contributions made by HPESUs. From their analysis of interviews, the authors developed a three-part framework characterizing HPESU scholarly activities: supporting a scholarly approach to education, supporting educational scholarship within the institution, and supporting HPESU members' scholarship.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors contend that the three-part, unit-level framework for scholarship constructed in this study brings clarity and understanding to the purpose, activities, and contributions made by HPESUs in the United States. The proposed framework may allow unit directors to better justify and advocate for the resources needed to further promote the work of HPESUs.

Gender Differences in Academic Medicine: Retention, Rank, and Leadership Comparisons From the National Faculty Survey

PURPOSE

Prior studies have found that women in academic medicine do not advance or remain in their careers in parity with men. The authors examined a cohort of faculty from the 1995 National Faculty Survey to identify predictors of advancement, retention, and leadership for women faculty.

METHOD

The authors followed 1,273 faculty at 24 medical schools in the continental United States for 17 years to identify predictors of advancement, retention, and leadership for women faculty. Schools were balanced for public or private status and the four Association of American Medical Colleges geographic regions. The authors used regression models to adjust for covariates: seniority, department, academic setting, and race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

After adjusting for significant covariates, women were less likely than men to achieve the rank of professor (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78) or to remain in academic careers (OR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94). When number of refereed publications was added to the model, differences by gender in retention and attainment of senior rank were no longer significant. Male faculty were more likely to hold senior leadership positions after adjusting for publications (OR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Gender disparities in rank, retention, and leadership remain across the career trajectories of the faculty cohort in this study. Women were less likely to attain senior-level positions than men, even after adjusting for publication-related productivity. Institutions must examine the climate for women to ensure their academic capital is fully utilized and equal opportunity exists for leadership.

Using the METRICS model for defining routes to scholarship in healthcare simulation

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, we explored the utility and value of the METRICS model for modeling scholarship in healthcare simulation by: (1) describing the distribution of articles in four healthcare simulation journals across the seven areas of METRICS scholarship; and (2) appraising patterns of scholarship expressed in three programs of simulation scholarship and reflecting on how these patterns potentially influence the pursuit of future scholarly activities.

METHODS

Two raters reviewed abstracts of papers published between January 2015 and August 2017 in four healthcare simulation journals and coded them using METRICS. Descriptive statistics were calculated for scholarship type and distribution across journals. Twenty-eight articles from three scholars were reviewed, with patterns of scholarship within articles mapped to METRICS. Descriptive synthesis was constructed through discussion between two reviewers.

RESULTS

A total of 432 articles from four journals were reviewed. The three most commonly published areas of scholarship were: 32.2% (139/432) evaluation, 18.8% (81/432) innovation, and 15.3% (66/432) conceptual. The METRICS model was able to represent different kinds of scholarship expressed in all of the papers reviewed and across programs of research. Reflecting on patterns of scholarship within their scholarly programs was helpful for research in planning future directions.

CONCLUSIONS

The METRICS model for scholarship can describe a wide range of patterns of simulation scholarship within individual articles, programs of research, or across journals.

Comparative Analysis of Junior and Senior Clinician Educator Evaluation of Relevant Articles Within Medical Education

Introduction

It may be difficult for junior clinician educators (JCEs) to get a grasp of pertinent literature and determine which are most relevant to their learning, due to limited experience and lack of formalized system to rank all available resources with respect to their value for JCEs. Our study aimed to identify whether senior clinician educators (SCEs) and JCEs differ in their selection of what they perceive as key medical education articles.

Methods

As a part of the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Faculty Incubator program, we developed a series of primer articles for JCEs by identifying and discussing key articles within specific medical education arenas, which were designed to enhance the reader's educational growth. Each set of articles within the primer series were selected based on data collected from JCEs and SCEs, who ranked the specific articles with respect to their perceived relevancy to the JCEs. ANOVA analysis was performed for each of the series to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between JCE and SCE rating of articles.

Results

Two-hundred-and-sixteen total articles were evaluated within the nine primer topics. No statistically significant difference was found between the rankings of papers by JCEs and SCEs (effect size: 0.06; 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.40). However, a subgroup analysis of the data found that three of the nine primers showed statistically significant divergence based on seniority (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Based on the data, the involvement of JCEs in the consensus-building process was important in identifying divergence in views between JCEs and SCEs in one-third of cases. Our findings suggest that it is important to involve JCEs in selecting articles that are worthwhile for their learning, since SCEs may not fully understand their needs.

Commentary: Racism and Bias in Health Professions Education: How Educators, Faculty Developers, and Researchers Can Make a Difference

The Research in Medical Education (RIME) Program Planning Committee is committed to advancing scholarship in and promoting dialogue about the critical issues of racism and bias in health professions education (HPE). From the call for studies focused on underrepresented learners and faculty in medicine to the invited 2016 RIME plenary address by Dr. Camara Jones, the committee strongly believes that dismantling racism is critical to the future of HPE.The evidence is glaring: Dramatic racial and ethnic health disparities persist in the United States, people of color remain deeply underrepresented in medical school and academic health systems as faculty, learner experiences across the medical education continuum are fraught with bias, and current approaches to teaching perpetuate stereotypes and insufficiently challenge structural inequities. To achieve racial justice in HPE, academic medicine must commit to leveraging positions of influence and contributing from these positions. In this Commentary, the authors consider three roles (educator, faculty developer, and researcher) represented by the community of scholars and pose potential research questions as well as suggestions for advancing educational research relevant to eliminating racism and bias in HPE.

Excellence in PhD dissertations in health professions education: Toward standards and expectations

The authors of this perspective contribution have served two terms (2014 and 2016) in the Jury of the biennial Best PhD Dissertation Award committee of the Netherlands Association for Medical Education. During this period, the committee reviewed 32 dissertations. Based on discussions among the jury regarding elements of an award winning dissertation and existing literature, we propose seven criteria to evaluate PhD dissertations: size, breadth of research skills exhibited, coherence of studies, relevance to field, validity, style, communicative power and ethics, and impact of the work. We anticipate these may not only assist similar committees but also provide criteria of excellence for future doctoral work in health professions education.

Multiple Wins: Embracing Technology to Increase Efficiency and Maximize Efforts

Clinician educators (CEs) are challenged to produce meaningful scholarship while balancing various clinical and administrative roles. The increasing availability of technology provides new opportunities for scholarly output and dissemination. This article proposes three strategies for utilizing technology to enhance scholarly output for the busy CE. The strategies are supported by real examples of these techniques, followed by a discussion of potential limitations and future directions.

Educational Scholarship and Technology: Resources for a Changing Undergraduate Medical Education Curriculum

Returning to the original emphasis of higher education, universities have increasingly recognized the value and scholarship of teaching, and medical schools have been part of this educational scholarship movement. At the same time, the preferred learning styles of a new generation of medical students and advancements in technology have driven a need to incorporate technology into psychiatry undergraduate medical education (UGME). Educators need to understand how to find, access, and utilize such educational technology. This article provides a brief historical context for the return to education as scholarship, along with a discussion of some of the advantages to this approach, as well as several recent examples. Next, the educational needs of the current generation of medical students, particularly their preference to have technology incorporated into their education, will be discussed. Following this, we briefly review the educational scholarship of two newer approaches to psychiatry UGME that incorporate technology. We also offer the reader some resources for accessing up-to-date educational scholarship for psychiatry UGME, many of which take advantage of technology themselves. We conclude by discussing the need for promotion of educational scholarship.

Academic Primer Series: Five Key Papers about Study Designs in Medical Education

Introduction

A proper understanding of study design is essential to creating successful studies. This is also important when reading or peer reviewing publications. In this article, we aimed to identify and summarize key papers that would be helpful for faculty members interested in learning more about study design in medical education research.

Methods

The online discussions of the 2016–2017 Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Faculty Incubator program included a robust and vigorous discussion about education study design, which highlighted a number of papers on that topic. We augmented this list of papers with further suggestions by expert mentors. Via this process, we created a list of 29 papers in total on the topic of medical education study design. After gathering these papers, our authorship group engaged in a modified Delphi approach to build consensus on the papers that were most valuable for the understanding of proper study design in medical education.

Results

We selected the top five most highly rated papers on the topic domain of study design as determined by our study group. We subsequently summarized these papers with respect to their relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers.

Conclusion

This article summarizes five key papers addressing study design in medical education with discussions and applications for junior faculty members and faculty developers. These papers provide a basis upon which junior faculty members might build for developing and analyzing studies.

What makes a doctor a scholar: a systematic review and content analysis of outcome frameworks

BACKGROUND

Many national outcome frameworks (OF) call for a sound scholarship education and scholarly behaviour of physicians. Educators however are known to interpret the scholar role in markedly different ways and at least one major initiative to unify several national outcome frameworks failed to agree on a common definition of the scholar role. Both circumstances currently limit the development of educational and assessment strategies specific for the scholar role. Given increasing physician mobility together with the global perspective inherent in a doctor's role as a scholar, we were interested in what different OFs define as the scholar role and attempted to identify communalities and differences between them.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review for OF in medical education in PubMed and google. After in- and exclusion processes, we extracted all content listed under the scholar role (if present) and categorized it based on Boyer's established model of scholarship. Next, we extracted all content related to scholarship from OFs not explicitly defining a scholar role and used it to validate the categories resulting from step one.

RESULTS

From 1816 search results, we identified 13 eligible OFs, seven of which explicitly specified a scholar role. The outcomes only partly map onto Boyer's definition of scholarship: Discovery, Integration, Application, and Teaching. We adapted and validated a model extending this definition to contain Common Basics (partly overlapping with Integration and Teaching), Clinical Application (specifying Application), Research (Discovery and partly Integration), Teaching and Education (partly overlapping with Teaching) and Lifelong Learning (no equivalent in Boyer's model). Whereas almost all OFs cover Common Basics, Clinical Application, and Lifelong Learning, fewer and less specific outcomes relate to Research or Teaching.

CONCLUSIONS

The need to adapt existing models of scholarship may result from the changing demands directed at medical scholars. The considerable differences identified between OFs may explain why educators have difficulties defining the scholar role and why the role is rarely assessed. We may have missed OFs due to our in- and exclusion criteria but the results provide a solid basis on which to build a common understanding of what makes a doctor a scholar.

Cultivating Medical Education Research Mentorship as a Pathway Towards High Quality Medical Education Research

The lack of effective and consistent research mentorship and research mentor training in both undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) is a critical constraint on the development of innovative and high quality medical education research. Clinical research mentors are often not familiar with the nuances and context of conducting education research. Clinician-educators, meanwhile, often lack the skills in developing and conducting rigorous research. Mentors who are not prepared to articulate potential scholarship pathways for their mentees risk limiting the mentee's progress in early stages of their career. In fact, the relative paucity of experienced medical education research mentors arguably contributes to the perpetuation of a cycle leading to fewer well-trained researchers in medical education, a lack of high quality medical education research, and relative stagnation in medical education innovation. There is a path forward, however. Integration of doctoral-level educators, structured inter-departmental efforts, and external mentorship provide opportunities for faculty to gain traction in their medical education research efforts. An investment in medical education research mentors will ensure rigorous research for high quality innovation in medical education and patient care.