Journal of Interprofessional Care, 2011, 25: 98–104

! 2011 Informa UK, Ltd.

ISSN 1356-1820 print/1469-9567 online
DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2010.505350

Relationships of power: implications for interprofessional education

Lindsay Baker1, Eileen Egan-Lee1, Maria Athina (Tina) Martimianakis2 and Scott Reeves1,3–5
1
Centre for Faculty Development, Faculty of Medicine University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, 2Department of Paediatrics,
University of Toronto, 3Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael’s Hospital, 4Wilson Centre for Research in Education,
University Health Network, and 5Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto

learners’ attitudes, knowledge and skills (Barr Koppel, Reeves,

Interprofessional education (IPE) is considered a key mechan-
J Interprof Care Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Toronto on 02/11/11

Hammick, & Freeth, 2005; Hammick, Freeth, Koppel, Reeves,

ism in enhancing communication and practice among health
& Barr, 2007). As a result, the literature has often overlooked
care providers, optimizing participation in clinical decision
the complex array of underlying factors related to this type of
making and improving the delivery of care. An important,
education, such as the broader organizational priorities, and
though under-explored, factor connected to this form of
the workforce arrangements (funding, regulations, etc.) that
education is the unequal power relations that exist between
affect the ability of individual professions to engage in IPE.
the health and the social care professions. Drawing on data
While some authors have begun to explore such underlying
from the evaluation of a large multi-site IPE initiative, we use
factors in relation to IPE (e.g. Cooper, Braye, & Geyer, 2004;
Witz’s model of professional closure (1992) to explore the
Hean et al., 2009), the unequal power relationships that exist
perspectives and the experiences of participants and the
between all health and social care professions, and underpin
power relations between them. A subset of interviews with a
For personal use only.

their interprofessional activities and interactions, are rarely

range of different professionals (n ¼ 25) were inductively
analyzed to generate emerging themes related to perceptions
of professional closure and power. Findings from this work
highlight how professionals’ views of interprofessional inter-
actions, behaviours and attitudes tend to either reinforce or
attempt to restructure traditional power relationships within
the context of an IPE initiative.
Keywords: Interprofessional education; power; professional
closure; hierarchy; faculty development
INTRODUCTION
Interprofessional education (IPE) is commonly invoked by
policy makers internationally and nationally as a key
mechanism to address current and emerging human health
resource issues (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term
Care, 2007; World Health Organization, 2006) such as
recruitment, retention and satisfaction of health and social
care providers. Specifically, IPE is considered an important
mechanism for enhancing communication and interprofes-
sional practice (IPP) among professionals, optimizing staff
participation in clinical decision making, and improving the
delivery of patient care (e.g. Curran, 2008; Reeves et al.,
2008).
To date, the IPE literature has focused primarily on
programme descriptions and outcomes, reporting changes in
examined.
Power, it has been argued, is the ability or capacity to
act or to exercise influence (Lukes, 1970). As such, it has
many dimensions (gender, race, class, knowledge, etc.)
which can impact interprofessional relations. A small
number of IPE studies are beginning to offer some insight
in the nature of interprofessional relationships (e.g. Barker
& Oandasan, 2005; Cole & Crichton, 2006; Kvarnstrom,
2008), however, power is only alluded to, and rarely
explored in-depth. Instead, this phenomenon is more
commonly (and more comfortably) discussed in terms of
authority, status, territory or influence. The most sig-
nificant contributions to the study of power have been
provided by the sociological literature, which has helped
illuminate the issue of power relations by studying the
historical evolution of the health and social care profes-
sions (e.g. Abbott, 1988; Freidson, 1970; Martimianakis,
Maniate, & Hodges 2009; Reeves MacMillan, & van
Soeren, 2010). According to these studies, the development
of professions as distinct occupations has been based on
different professionalization projects aimed at securing and
protecting exclusive areas of knowledge and tightly
regulating entry and work practices for the aim of
economic, social and political advantage. Professional
groups engage in a process of ‘closure’ to establish a
monopoly over specific areas of knowledge and expertise
in order to effectively secure economic reward and status

Correspondence: Dr. Scott Reeves, Faculty of Medicine, Centre for Faculty Development, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. E-mail: scott.reeves@utoronto.ca

98
 RELATIONSHIPS OF POWER 99

enhancement (Freidson, 1970). These are commonly
referred to as ‘professional projects’.
Friedson’s work offered a critical turning point in thinking
about professions, as traditional accounts of professions
tended to stress their functionality, universalism and
neutrality. Other sociologists have extended Friedson’s
analysis. For example, Larkin (1983) argued that a key part
of the professionalization of occupational groups was the
licensing of their practice through their connections with the
state. Without this formal link, granting the right to a
monopoly of practice, Larkin argues that an occupation
cannot successfully achieve professional closure and its social
and economic rewards:
A profession’s relationship with the state [. . .] is fundamental.
Occupations that attempt to secure for themselves the two
dimensions of professionalism – market control and social
J Interprof Care Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Toronto on 02/11/11
WITZ’S MODEL OF PROFESSIONAL CLOSURE (1992)
Witz’s model defines and discusses the relationships
between four types of closure strategies: exclusionary,
demarcationary, inclusionary and dual closure (see
Table I). As such, this model can be regarded as helpful
in understanding the relationships between professions.
These strategies are arranged into four quadrants; the left-
hand side, which is concerned with intra-professional power
relations, and the right-hand side, which is concerned with
interprofessional power relations (Figure 1).
As the model indicates professions interact as
organized bodies with traditions, strategic orientations
and a desire to protect and advance their members’
interests. In this article, we explore professionals’ percep-
tions of power within an IPE context and therefore

discuss demarcationary and dual closure strategies (the

mobility generally seek to establish a legal monopoly through
right-hand side of the model).
licensure by the state. (p. 48).

Witz’s (1992) conceptual work on professions extends

further the early work undertaken by Freidson, Larkin and
others by illustrating the complex relationship between
various closure strategies employed by different health and
social care professions.
For personal use only.
METHODS
This article draws upon qualitative data generated from the
evaluation of a multi-site IPE initiative based in a large urban

Table I. Definitions of professional closure strategies.

Exclusionary Exclusionary strategies involve a downward use of power by a dominant profession in order to control entry to their
profession and create a monopoly over their skills and knowledge.
Inclusionary Inclusionary strategies are used by subordinate professions to challenge exclusionary strategies and involve an
upward push of power in order to achieve entry into the ranks of the dominant profession.
Demarcationary Demarcationary strategies involve a downward use of power by a dominant profession in order to control
boundaries between related professions to secure their position of power on the professional hierarchy.
Dual closure Dual closure strategies are used by subordinate professions in response to demarcationary strategies and involve
a two-way use of power:
. Usurpationary strategies push upward and are used not to gain entry to the ranks of the dominant profession,
but to challenge demarcationary strategies and change the structure of the hierarchy.
. Exclusionary strategies push downward and are used to secure their place in the hierarchy.

Figure 1. Strategies of closure: A conceptual model (Witz, 1992, p. 4).

! 2011 Informa UK, Ltd.

 100 L. BAKER ET AL.
centre in North America. The initiative was funded by a local
government agency to develop and deliver a series of IPE
activities which would foster knowledge, awareness and skills
for interprofessional collaboration (IPC) among the staff
working in (and across) the participating organizations.
While the commissioned evaluation was focused on
describing processes and outcomes related to the varied IPE
activities, power emerged in the initial analysis as a
significant theme within the data. A secondary analysis of
a subset of the data was undertaken to explore these issues
in greater depth.
Context
The IPE initiative involved a coordinated effort among the
health science disciplines at a single university and its
affiliated teaching hospitals and research institutes. Speci-
J Interprof Care Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Toronto on 02/11/11
fically, it involved six educational and clinical institutions
who collaborated to develop and deliver a series of IPE
activities. Six separate programmes which offered a range of
interprofessional experiences were piloted across several
clinical institutions. Each program was aligned with the
specific goals of their institution however their overall
visions were the same: to create organizational structures
for new channels of communication to enhance student
learning and ultimately patient care; to help prepare
hospital environments for future student IPE placements;
For personal use only.
to train staff to actively practice IPC; and to identify role
models for IPC and new IPE facilitators.
Data collection
The overall evaluation of this initiative involved multiple
methods of data collection including interviews with
program leaders, facilitators, and learners. Participation in
the evaluation was voluntary and a total of 132 individuals
from a variety of professions agreed to be interviewed. A
semi-structured interview protocol was developed which
aimed to explore participant perceptions and experiences of
the programs. Interviews were digitally recorded, tran-
scribed, and anonymized.
Analysis
As noted above, while not an area of focus for the
evaluation, during the initial analysis, issues of power
imbalances amongst the professions emerged as a key
theme. To explore this area in more depth, a separate
analysis was subsequently undertaken with a sub-set of 25
transcripts. This subset of transcripts was sampled
purposefully for representation from a range of different
health and social care professions, specifically, dietetics,
medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, phy-
sical therapy, speech and language therapy and social
work. To overcome the potential bias with transcript
selection (i.e. selecting only those which contained many
references to power), all transcripts were selected by a
researcher who was not involved in the data collection or
initial analysis.
All selected transcripts were read iteratively by
two researchers (L.B., E.E.L.) and were re-analyzed to explore
issues related to power. On-going discussion about the
emergent themes with the other authors (T.M., S.R.) resulted
in an agreement to look at potential theories which could help
us understand these data. After reviewing the sociological
literature, Witz’s model of professional closure was selected as
one framework to help understand how power impacted IPE
experiences. To confirm the findings from the secondary
analysis, an additional 37 transcripts (selected by the process
outlined above) were read by two researchers (L.B., E.E.L.).
Ethics and quality
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Research
Ethics Boards at all participating institutions. A number of
techniques were used to ensure the quality of this work. For
example, as noted above, selection of transcripts was
undertaken by a researcher not involved with the initial
analysis. Two researchers reviewed, coded and agreed upon
the nature of the emergent themes from the secondary
analysis. Themes generated by the two researchers were
discussed and agreed by all authors. Additional transcripts
were read to ensure the secondary analysis resonated more
widely across the dataset (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Findings
Our findings are organized into two sections. The first
section illustrates how the various health and social care
professions perceive and experience power relations. The
second section explores how the perception of these power
relations may have affected participation in this IPE
initiative.
Perceptions and experiences of power
In the following sections, we describe the general environ-
ment in which most health and social care professionals
work and interact on a daily basis. Power relations are
discussed in the context of professional training and
socialization, interprofessional awareness, and determinants
of team climate.
Professional training and socialization
Our data indicated that individuals felt that socialization
through their training affected the way different health
professional groups viewed themselves. In general, physicians
perceived themselves as ‘leaders’ and ‘decision makers’ in
health care while nursing, therapists and other professions (e.g.
pharmacists, dietitians, social workers) saw themselves as ‘team
members’ who tend to adopt a holistic approach to care. The
following quotes show how professional identity may cause
tension in the context of interprofessional decision-making:
Once someone has had their medical condition cleared . . . the
physician wants them out of the hospital whereas . . . we [because
of our holistic approach] would have concerns, yeah their
pneumonia is cleared but . . . their safety is at risk if they go
home (Occupational therapist 1).
A number of physicians also referenced the number of
years of training and the degree of monetary investment
Journal of Interprofessional Care

they made towards becoming a professional which seemed
to justify a hierarchical division of labor with them in a
dominant position. In the following quote, this physician
described his colleagues’ response to this issue:
Like a lot of physicians thought, I killed myself and destituted
myself for years to achieve the training . . . and you’re telling me
now that I am going to . . . have to negotiate with every Tom,
Dick and Harry. You know like somebody who went to say,
occupational therapy school for three years and I have been in
school for twenty years . . . we are not in the same boat . . . (-
Physician 4).
The legal responsibility of physicians for patients also
appeared to legitimize physicians’ status in the health
professional hierarchy. Both medical and non-medical
professions noted that ‘ultimately they were liable’ (physi-
J Interprof Care Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Toronto on 02/11/11
cian 3) if things went wrong.
Interprofessional awareness
Many of the nursing and therapist participants made
frequent references to physicians’ lack of interprofessional
awareness. They often expressed frustration that many
physicians had neither received adequate orientation about
the scopes of practice of other health professional groups
during their extensive training, nor did they appear to have
learned this informally in their daily practice. It was felt that
For personal use only.
this lack of knowledge created a burden on the system with
what many of the nurses and therapists described as
‘inappropriate consultations’:
They [physicians] come onto the floors and they consult us
inappropriately [. . .] so we try to explain what our roles are, but
then it’s just that daily on-going re-education (Occupational
therapist 3).
This lack of understanding surrounding scopes of
practice was perceived by many participants as a possible
disregard for, and devaluing of, other professions.
Determinants of team culture
Our data indicated that physicians were in large part
regarded as ‘setting the tone’ of the local team culture both
with their actions and their attitudes. Many nurses,
therapists and social workers lamented, however, that many
of their medical colleagues (even those in junior positions)
had the potential to determine their local working culture:
You wait to see which resident [junior physician] joins you or
which staff person [senior physician] joins you and then you
decide how your team’s going to function around them rather
than welcoming a new health care member to your team. (Social
worker 1).
In addition, the frequent rotation of junior and senior
physicians, it was felt, undermined the stability of the team,
leading to feelings of disempowerment for other members:
A lot of nurses here in inpatient settings probably feel
disempowered [. . .] Nurses come to work wanting to make a
! 2011 Informa UK, Ltd.
RELATIONSHIPS OF POWER 101
difference [. . .] and when you get here you realize, ‘oh this is the
way it’s done and this is what’s expected of me’, you kind of lose
that drive (Nurse 6).
Also affecting team culture was the notion of medical
dominance in team decision-making processes. This
dominance was perceived to be difficult to counteract by
many of the nurses, therapists and social workers who felt
that they should have input in the direction of patient care
within their areas of expertise. The difficulty was often
attributed to their working conditions. In busy, high-
pressured clinical contexts like the emergency room, some
of the nurses described the need to defer to the physician
due to a ‘lack of time’ or ‘responsibility’, thereby reinforcing
traditional interprofessional hierarchical arrangements.
Participation in IPE
In this section we explore how participation in this IPE
initiative was affected by the power relations between
professions. The data indicated that many nurses, thera-
pists, and social workers often became involved in IPE for a
number of personal and professional benefits. For example,
IPE was perceived by nurses, therapists, and other
professionals (e.g. pharmacists, dietitians, social workers)
as a pathway for empowerment; a way for them to gain
some control over their clinical environment:
I think there is some encouragement in this cultural shift to go
ahead anyway and to say, why are we waiting for physicians to
develop a culture? We need to develop a culture and then let the
physicians know what that culture is and be part of it. (Social
worker 3).
Our data also suggested that an important reason these
participants engaged in IPE was linked to gaining respect
for themselves (individually) and their profession as a
whole. In the following data extract an occupational
therapist discusses her optimism that the use of IPE in
medical school will lead physicians to respect and value
other health professions:
When the physician in charge or the senior resident demonstrates
respect for the other professionals on the team, that’s [. . .] good
[. . .] In the future if there is this IPE in school, then hopefully [. . .]
they will be coming in with an appreciation with knowledge of
what the different professionals do. (Occupational therapist 2).
Furthermore, several participants indicated that IPE
helped them feel more valued and respected, improving
their job satisfaction and retention:
Better for the patients and better for the team. Better for staff. A
good team allows for a real opportunity for openness and
understanding and respect and it’s like good learning. People learn
well in an environment that’s open and accepting. (Social worker 4).
While nurses, therapists and social workers appeared to be
united in describing the potential benefits of IPE and
 102 L. BAKER ET AL.
perceptions of their medical colleagues, they also appeared
to engage in a form of ‘elbowing’ behaviour. It appears that
the aim of this activity was to carve out their own
professional niches. This strategy could be seen as an act
as a ‘boundary setting’ and involved defending the
uniqueness of their professions:
Especially with the divide between OT and PT like that’s the
biggest one because everyone thinks that we’re all the same, so
most of it is trying to show them the differences between what we
do. (Physical therapist 2).
The data suggested that this ‘elbowing’ activity also
extended to their participation in the IPE initiative.
Managers, seeing IPE as a vehicle with which to gain
respect, wanted to ensure their professions were represented
J Interprof Care Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Toronto on 02/11/11
and not excluded in the planning and delivery of this
initiative:
My boss and I didn’t want to lose out on this piece [involvement
in the IPE initiative] because, I mean we don’t have a voice to
begin with [. . .] and when we don’t get a voice things happen and
nutrition and dietitians are always left out. (Dietitian 1).
In contrast to other professionals, physician involvement in
this IPE initiative was limited. This lack of engagement was
For personal use only.
perceived as apathy by numerous participants:
The two doctors that came, it was great to have them but, you
know it was a very small percentage of the group because
certainly in any hospital setting, if you don’t have the doctors on
board it is hard to move forward with some things, so it would
have been good to have more involvement from them. (Physical
therapist 4).
One possible reason for physicians’ lack of engagement in
IPE could be linked to their concerns about its lack of
empirical rigor:
I found in some of the [IPE] presentations where things were
touted as best practice or numbers were given, there wasn’t a lot
of evidence behind those claims. Being used to medical rounds, if
you were going to present you would have to have more data
[evidence] to back your claims. (Physician 5).
Other participants however felt this ‘lack of proof’ argument
as a convenient excuse to not engage in IPE, as this nurse
explains:
Going back to the philosophy, where is the proof? Where is the
proof that this works? Where is the proof becomes a convenient
defense mechanism for not changing, to not embarking on
something new. (Nurse 5).
The data suggested that another possible reason for
physicians’ lack of engagement in IPE could be related to
a perceived threat to its dominant position in the health
professional division of labor:
Physicians [. . .] feel threatened by a potential loss of power, loss of
autonomy, loss of income, and loss of prestige [and] that
interprofessionalism is just another word for further diluting the
quality of work that a physician has previously enjoyed.
(Physician 1).
In this context, poor physician participation was regarded
by some nurses, therapists and social workers as proble-
matic because perceptions of medical ‘apathy’ towards IPE
appeared to compound historically entrenched hierarchical
relationships amongst these professions.
DISCUSSION
As presented above, our findings provide a general
description of a North American environment in which
health and social care professions work and interact on a
daily basis. These findings highlight how different profes-
sional groups perceive and experience power, and how these
perceptions contribute to maintain the traditional hierarchy
of these professions. Our findings also outline varying
perceptions and responses to an IPE initiative that was
introduced into this environment.
Witz’s model of professional closure can help us
understand these findings in more depth. As noted above,
this model describes how professions engage in various
closure strategies in order to stake claims to resources and
opportunities and control boundaries (see Figure 1). More
specifically, it highlights how dominant occupational groups
can engage in demarcationary strategies as a means to
control the boundaries between subordinate occupations to
maintain an advantage over them. For example, historically,
medicine has played a crucial role in defining the areas of
competence of other health professions such as midwifery
and nursing, often referred to as ‘caring professions’ (e.g.
Hugman, R. 1991). In response, Witz argues that these
‘caring professions’ engage in the dual closure strategy of
usurpation as a way to resist and challenge the dominance
of other professions, especially medicine, and exclusion
strategies as way to protect and demarcate the scope and the
boundaries of their work and relative position in the health
professions division of labor. The model thus captures the
two-way exercise of power within a hierarchy of relation-
ships among professions.
Examining our findings using this model illustrates how
interprofessional interactions within an IPE context can be
seen to mirror closure strategies. These interactions can
serve to reinforce traditional power relationships and thwart
efforts to develop more collaborative approaches to care.
For example, professional socialization prompted physi-
cians in our sample to acknowledge that some of their
medical colleagues view their profession-specific training,
knowledge and skills as more ‘valuable’ than that of the
other professions. This belief could translate into a lack
of knowledge about the roles and the responsibilities of their
colleagues from nursing and social work, for example,
leading to poor interprofessional interactions.
Journal of Interprofessional Care

Table II. Summary of closure strategies from data.
Closure strategy Group
Dual closure/usurpationary Nursing and ‘Allied health’
Dual closure/ exlusionary ‘Allied health’
Demarcationary Physicians
Exploring current relations through this particular
theoretical lens helps to set the stage for understanding
why some professions are particularly ‘attracted’ to and
engage in IPE. Our data indicated that IPE was regarded as
an opportunity for improving the conditions of work for
many of the professional groups in this study. As a result, it
J Interprof Care Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Toronto on 02/11/11
could be argued that IPE represents a type of usurpation
strategy (Witz, 1992) for nursing, therapists, and other
professions (e.g. pharmacists, social workers). These
professions may therefore engage in IPE with the aim to
enjoy a similar status and autonomy as their medical
colleagues.
IPE projects the notion that all professions have equally
important roles to play in the delivery of care. For this
reason, in a highly evidence-based setting where medicine
has traditionally defined best practice, IPE may offer a
For personal use only.
means to legitimize the potential clinical and scientific
contributions that other professions can offer to delivering
care. In practice, however, projecting the notion of equality
was not enough to address power imbalances within the
delivery of IPE that stem from the regulatory and work
arrangements of each profession as well as the historically
entrenched attitudes of whose knowledge and skill ‘really’
matters.
Our data also indicated that physicians were largely
absent from many of the IPE experiences. They were
commonly perceived to be the ‘decision makers’ in the
clinical setting, and therefore in a more influential position
to effect change than their non-medical colleagues. This
made their absence from IPE problematic, and could be
considered a demarcation strategy (Witz, 1992) to protect
their position of authority in the health care hierarchy.
The complexity of dual closure strategies (Witz, 1992)
also came through in our data set. In addition to engaging
in IPE as a usurpation strategy, some professions (e.g.
occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech and language
therapists) also engaged in exclusionary strategies as a way
to create and protect boundaries around their own
professional turf. Historically, these professions have been
‘clustered together’ into a homogenous group of health care
providers (sometimes referred to ‘allied health’) on the basis
of not being nurses or physicians, a position which arguably
negates the unique status and contributions to patient care
for each of these professions. As noted above, within our
data, there was some form of ‘elbowing’ activity, undertaken
to delineate boundaries that differentiate their scopes of
practice from each other and to secure their own position in
the health care hierarchy. Table II provides a summary of
! 2011 Informa UK, Ltd.
RELATIONSHIPS OF POWER 103
Examples
Participating in interprofessional education
Vocalizing uniqueness of their profession; securing a voice in IPE
Lack of engagement with IPE; devaluing of IPE; participation from
power positions
the closure strategies identified in our data and the groups
which appeared to employ them.
The situation we have outlined above can create a
tension: while participation in IPE may lead to a range of
perceived gains for some professions it may also lead to
perceived losses, increased competition and friction
amongst others.
While this study offers some illuminating insights into
the nature of how power is perceived between professions
involved in an IPE initiative, it nevertheless has a number of
limitations. For example, this study only included those
individual professionals who volunteered to participate in
the IPE initiative, and therefore did not capture the
perspectives of those who declined participation. In
addition, as the study was not originally designed to
examine perceptions of power, insights gained from data
relating to this phenomenon were therefore limited in
nature. Nevertheless, the complex array of issues that did
emerge from these data suggests that the role that power
plays in IPE requires much further study.
CONCLUSION
In this article we indicated how perceptions, attitudes and
activities of professionals within an IPE context can serve to
reinforce traditional hierarchical relationships amongst
them. Although the professionals in our sample were all
engaged in IPE, we found that their motivations and levels
of engagement were linked to their respective professiona-
lization projects. For example, in this study physicians
noted that some of their medical colleagues regarded IPE as
a potential threat to their professional status, while non-
medical professionals saw it as an opportunity to improve
their standing within the health professions. These attitudes,
it appeared, were expressed through a type of protectionism
where it mattered more to foreground one’s own profes-
sional identity than to find common ground.
While institutions have invested significant effort and
resources in designing interprofessional curricula, little
attention has been given to attitudes, perceptions and
practice that reproduce hierarchies amongst professions and
can affect team functioning. IPE as presented in this article,
while based on notions of collaboration and teamwork, can
have the reverse affect of increasing competition amongst
professions, like the ‘elbowing’ phenomenon we saw emerge
between the ‘allied’ professions. We also indicated that
when professionals engage in IPE they bring along their
 104 L. BAKER ET AL.
respective attitudes and perceptions of each other and can
strategically use the forum to better their conditions of
work. This finding may hold important implications for the
design, delivery and outcomes of IPE activities. For
example, if, as our data indicate, members of individual
professions are likely to protect their own sense of identity
when interacting in IPE, this can interfere with their ability
to learn in a collaborative manner.
The use of Witz’s model of professional closure provided
an important frame for our findings. Indeed, the model
helped indicate how interprofessional interactions within
IPE can mirror closure strategies, reinforcing traditional
power relationships and undermining efforts to collaborate
in the delivery of patient care. Further use of this model,
through studies which focus on how power is employed and
experienced by individuals within various IPE and IPC
J Interprof Care Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Toronto on 02/11/11
initiatives, will deepen our knowledge of a central, yet
under-investigated, area of the interprofessional field.
REFERENCES
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division
of expert labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Barker, K., & Oandasan, I. (2005). Interprofessional care review
with medical residents: Lessons learned, tensions aired – A pilot
study. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(3), 207–214.
Barr, H., Koppel, I., Reeves, S., Hammick, M., & Freeth D. (2005).
For personal use only.
Effective interprofessional education: Argument, assumption &
evidence. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Cole, E., & Crichton, N. (2006). The culture of a trauma team in
relation to human factors. Issues in Clinical Nursing, 15, 1257–
1266.
Cooper, H., Braye, S., & Geyer, R. (2004). Complexity and
interprofessional education. Learning in Health and Social Care,
3, 179–189.
View publication stats
Curran, V. (2008). Interprofessional education for collaborative patient-
centred practice research synthesis paper. Retrieved from http://www.
hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/hhr-rhs/strateg/interprof/synth-eng.php
Freidson, E. (1970). Profession of medicine: A study of the sociology of
applied knowledge. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.
Hammick, M., Freeth, D., Koppel, I., Reeves, S., & Barr, H. (2007). A
best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education.
Medical Teacher, 29, 735–751.
Hean, S., Hammick, M., Miers, M., Barr, H., Hind, M., Craddock, D.,
et al. (2009). Evolving theory in interprofessional education:
Conclusion report. Project Report, Bournemouth University.
Hugman, R. (1991). Power in the caring professions. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Kvarnstrom, S. (2008). Difficulties in collaboration: A critical
incident study of interprofessional healthcare teamwork. Journal
of Interprofessional Care, 22(2), 191–203.
Larkin, G. (1983). Occupational monopoly and modern medicine.
London: Tavistock.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. New York: Macmillan.
Martimianakis, M. A., Maniate, J., & Hodges, B. D. (2009).
Sociological interpretations of professionalism. Medical Educa-
tion, 43, 829–837.
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. (2007). Interprofes-
sional care: A blueprint for action in Ontario. Retrieved from http://
www.healthforceontario.ca/upload/en/whatishfo/ipc%20blueprint
%20final.pdf
Reeves, S., MacMillan, K., & van Soeren, M. (2010). Leadership
of interprofessional health and social care teams: A
socio-historical analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 258–264.
Reeves, S., Zwarenstein, M., & Goldman, J., Barr, H., Freeth, D.,
Hammick, M., et al. (2008). Interprofessional education: Effects on
professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 1., Art. No.: CD002213;
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002213.pub2
Witz, A. (1992). Professions and patriarchy. London: Routledge.
World Health Organization. (2006). World health report 2006:
Working together for health. Geneva: World Health Organiza-
tion. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/whr/2006/whr06_en.pdf
Journal of Interprofessional Care