Making sense of differences between medical schools through Bourdieu’s concept of ‘field’

Abstract

Most basic medical education studies focus on one medical school, and the social and educational significance of differences between schools remains poorly understood. Sociologists have called for more comparative studies and for research on the institutional context of medical education. This paper introduces Bourdieu's concept of 'field' as a tool for conducting such analyses. A 'field' is any arena in which there is a struggle over resources (capital), akin to a 'game' between players who occupy different positions depending on the resources they have. Prior studies show that higher education institutions compete in a field for various forms of capital which are reflected in their curricula and the students they attract. This paper argues that medical education can be conceptualised as a field within which medical schools compete for different forms of capital, such as students, funding and prestige. The structure of the UK medical education field is analysed as a specific example of how Bourdieu's framework can be applied. It is argued that UK medical schools' varying curricula and admissions criteria serve to distinguish them from their competitors and to facilitate access to different forms of capital. Competition within the field helps to maintain inter-school differences, with implications for both curriculum reform and students' beliefs and aspirations. Medical schools have varying curricula, reputations, and types and levels of resources. They compete with one another on all these fronts and attract different types of students and staff. Research and practice in basic medical education must take account of the position of any given medical school in relation to its competitors and to external agencies in order to critically consider the ethos of its curriculum and the perspectives of its students and staff. Bourdieu's concept of field offers one useful way of accomplishing this.