Exploring Glocalization in the Construction and Implementation of Global Curricula

Despite proposed advantages of global curricular harmonization including physician mobility and improving the quality of care, the challenges and unintended consequences require greater study. The aim of this study was to problematize the concept and implementation of global oncology curricula and their relationship to local contexts of power and culture. Fourteen international participants involved in the development and implementation of global oncology curricula completed in-depth, one-on-one semi-structured interviews lasting 40-60 min. Snowball sampling was employed. Through iterative analyses, using an abductive approach, the study team discussed and reviewed the data and made revisions through collaborative analysis to enhance comprehensiveness and to improve credibility. In the final analysis the meaning and implication of the themes were discussed yielding a conceptual analysis. Our data have articulated 5 key challenges for global curricula including 1) Ambiguous or conflicting perspectives on the purpose and scope of Global Oncology Curricula 2) Insufficient representation of diverse perspectives and realities in the creation of the final curricula 3) A rigid conceptualization of competency requirements 4) A mismatch between the curricular requirements and local context and 5) The influence of power relationships and decision makers. Leveraging the strengths of diversity including fostering representation, addressing power differentials and factoring local contexts may be an approach to mitigating these challenges. Global oncology curricula may serve important advocacy roles within the healthcare system. Leveraging diversity may positively impact the common challenges in the construction and implementation of global oncology curricula.