Changing dominance in mixed profession groups: putting theory into practice

An extended professional identity theory is proposed to enhance interprofessional collaboration. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether comparative feedback on interprofessional interaction can decrease the degree of profession-based dominance and general dominance in mixed profession groups. This observational study comprised a randomized double-blind pretest-posttest control group design with 19 mixed profession groups (10 intervention and nine control groups, each with three dental and three dental hygiene students). All groups received reflective feedback during two consecutive two hour team development meetings. Intervention groups also received comparative feedback. Profession-based dominance concerned the sum of three observation items (conversational turn-taking, dominance and contributing ideas) with a three-point scale: ?1 = dental dominance, 0 = no dominance, +1 = dental hygiene dominance. Polychoric correlations confirmed positive associations with the latent trait and an unidimensional underlying structure. Observation items were internally consistent (α > .70). General dominance concerned the sum of absolute values of observation items with a minimum value of zero (no dominance) and the maximum value of three (strong dominance). A two-way factorial ANOVA was performed. The results revealed a significant interaction effect with regard to general dominance, F(1,17) = 6.630, p = 0.020 and large effect size (partial eta squared = 0.28). Comparative feedback on interprofessional interaction decreases general dominance in mixed profession groups.     

Do reasoning limitations undermine discourse?

Why does discourse so often seem shallow, with people arguing past one another more than with one another? Might contributing causes be individual and logical rather than only dialogical? We consider here whether there exist errors in reasoning that could be particularly damaging in their effects on argumentive discourse. In particular, we examine implications for discourse of two such errors – explanation as a replacement for evidence and neglecting the likelihood of multiple causes contributing to an outcome. In Studies 1 and 2, we show these errors to be prevalent in a cross section of adults, as well as samples of community college students and young adolescents, with minimal age-related improvement. They also occur, although less frequently, among a sample of highly educated adults, and in Study 3, we examine their role in the discourse of college-educated adults. We point finally to evidence that these individual reasoning errors are potentially addressable through education.     

Un cadre psychosocial d’intervention pour accompagner le développement et le déploiement d’une technologie nouvelle

This article presents a psychosocial intervention framework to support the development and deployment of a new technology. This methodology articulates the three phases necessary for the study of the representation of the use and its evolutions (i.e., the usual trajectory): acceptability, acceptance and appropriation. After an argumentative presentation of the methodological choices made, the article continues with the presentation of an example of accompaniment carried out within the framework of the IDViandes project aimed at the development of a traceability device for meat containers Of slaughter within the company SVA Jean-Rozé, subsidiary of the Intermarché group. This example argues in favor of the idea that the use of such a method makes it possible to optimize the successful accompaniment of the development of a technology and thus ensure its future diffusion.