.

BU Medical Sciences
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
There is hypothesis testing involved. Clinical hypotheses. These are just as valid as bench-type hypotheses. No one will look down upon this type of research.
 
E0001234 said:
For nearly four years, I’ve been working on a qualitative study of dementia care—there’s no experiment involved here, we’ve simply interviewed stakeholders (patients, staff, physicians, etc.) to answer research questions. I’ve done literature reviews to inform our research questions, have reviewed medical records to identify eligible participants, have done tons of thorough qualitative analysis of interviews, and have collaborated on a few abstracts/will be submitting a first-author paper soon. About 1000 hours.

Will some schools consider this less valuable than basic science research because there’s not really hypothesis-testing happening? Sort of worried because this is my only significant research experience.
Click to expand...
I agree with others that this experience will be very helpful for your application. Many of the skills you've gained (including manuscript writing) will be highly transferable to other types of research. Most adcom members will be perfectly fine with this and see it positively.

One caveat is that in academia, some people see basic science research and clinical trials as being more "valuable" than other types of research (retrospective clinical research, education-related research, and qualitative studies like yours). I'm on an academic promotion track, and it has been an uphill battle to get some people to recognize the value of these other types of research. These people tend to look down on everyone else though and are in the minority. So when it comes to medical school acceptance (which is determined by a committee rather than select individuals), I don't see it hurting you. But there is a bias for some research snobs. Just my thoughts.
 
E0001234 said:
For nearly four years, I’ve been working on a qualitative study of dementia care—there’s no experiment involved here, we’ve simply interviewed stakeholders (patients, staff, physicians, etc.) to answer research questions. I’ve done literature reviews to inform our research questions, have reviewed medical records to identify eligible participants, have done tons of thorough qualitative analysis of interviews, and have collaborated on a few abstracts/will be submitting a first-author paper soon. About 1000 hours.

Will some schools consider this less valuable than basic science research because there’s not really hypothesis-testing happening? Sort of worried because this is my only significant research experience.
Click to expand...
This is fine!!!
 
Please take the following observation with an appropriate grain of cynical salt:
The value of one's research is often measured by the amount of committed funding and/or the overhead required by the institution.

The reason why bench research may be considered more valuable is that more money is usually involved, and money counts towards "rankings" and "prestige."
Systematic reviews don't usually involve that much money, but someone can prove me wrong on that.
There's a reason why there is a lot of investment in clinical research, especially by pharma or your IP office.
Why would certain schools prefer basic research over clinical? Answer: infrastructure, which has nothing to do with your medical education except for the faculty that need to teach the med school curriculum. Frankly, I think some schools' research infrastructure may favor clinical/community research over bench, but they won't likely be your T20's.

You are fine with what you are doing. Good luck with publishing!
 
Moko said:
One caveat is that in academia, some people see basic science research and clinical trials as being more "valuable" than other types of research (retrospective clinical research, education-related research, and qualitative studies like yours). I'm on an academic promotion track, and it has been an uphill battle to get some people to recognize the value of these other types of research.
Click to expand...
Not relevant to OP’s question, but this really surprises (and kind of disappoints) me. Particularly regarding retrospective clinical or education research. I always found them completely undervalued, especially because of how little funding they require. I never considered what @Mr.Smile12 said, in that less funding may actually go against those types of research because some can equate investment to value (and you can’t “brag” about how much money the NIH gave you).

Especially upsetting because I get really excited about retrospective stuff and even mentioned it constantly in my application.
 
E0001234 said:
I'm a bit confused by what that last sentence means: do you mean that I'll be at a disadvantage for T20s since I don't have significant bench research?
Click to expand...
That's not what I meant, though many believe it to be true since T20s generally have a lot of NIH funding to support bench research. If you wanted to do research, there should be administrative support for students to do research on-campus or away. Most top schools should support community or "dry lab" research too.
 
I would never say "no one" because there will always be basic scientist on the committee with a stick up their a55. That said, if you can state a purpose to the research such as "exploring barriers" "describing perceived locus of control" "identifying common themes within...." you might have more of a case for the purpose of this research.... part of the hesitancy can be lack of familiarity and the fact that faculty have not seen qualitative research used in their clinical settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top