An asynchronous session from the Lilly Conference by Jessica Jochum, Ed Jones, and Joanne Klossner caught my attention with the title: “Learn with Me: The Perceived Benefits and Barriers of Collaborative Interprofessional Research Groups”. This was a collaboration between the University of Indianapolis and the University of Maryland School of Public Health. Programs in MS in Athletic Training and DPT had research projects, but in this study they connected the cohorts with a project. The study sought to evaluate the value and perceived benefits and barriers of this project by pre/post and mid surveys and reflections as well as interviews and focus groups. Two cohorts participated for a total of 22 students. The projects were collaborative research manuscripts and presentations. Participants also completed a knowledge survey and the Interprofessional Experience Survey. Qualitative data analyses followed the Thomas’ strategies for inductive approach with two coders negotiating terminology and themes. Ultimately they want to create a model of the categories. Several steps were taken to ensure data trustworthiness that impressed and taught me new considerations for our SoTL studies: multi-analyst triangulation, methodological triangulation (pre/post interviews, mid reflection, focus groups, interviews), and interpretative data check by another member. Wow! This is thorough and thoughtful. Students perceived benefits from the experience including soft skills, appreciation of other fields, and improved research and clinical outcomes. The challenges perceived by students mainly focused on scheduling, since both cohorts had rotations, coursework, and clinical duties. Interestingly, students wanted additional opportunities to connect with the other cohort including a common research methods course. Several quotes from participants were shown. Students seemed to respect each other and the other profession, collaborate, and learn more or harder ideas. In this case I think their fields are conducive to common projects because of the overlap, but this is certainly not my area. I am now interested in the idea of an interprofessional project for grad students in our Biotechnology courses. I informally do this as teams form for our 500-level grad projects for certain assignments, but I could be more intentional about the groupings! This would be an exciting project and study if we could follow up after the course. The presenters also did a great job mentioning limitations of the study such as truthfulness of participant responses. The faculty seemed to enjoy the experience too. I wonder if I could convince colleagues to collaborate on a project like this?
I have found that connecting courses is really fun and rewarding; interprofessional research groups could be a great educational activity and opportunity!
Carlos C. Goller
