The word authenticity seems to be used more recently in practice related literature, though in reviewing the literature the term has been around awhile. In a paper from the Netherlands, they found that students and educators varied on their perceptions of authenticity, defining authenticity as "resembling students' (future) professional practice."

I just find this whole "searching for authenticity" to be a useless descriptor. They students are learning about practice. Of course it's "authentic" practice. What other kind is there?

What do you think?

quote:

They students are learning about practice. Of course it's "authentic" practice.

In what way are they learning? If they are learning by meeting and treating actual patients, then of course it's authentic. If they are reading about the subject in books, or listening to lectures, not so much.

Well, both ways, I suppose. They do learn from lectures in the classroom, but that really is background for their learning to practice in the clinical arena. I can see you point, however. Maybe I was being too literal.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh: They students are learning about practice.

Practicing your Ebonics, Kalleh?

Ah, well. It was late.

I don't know if this is only for doctor training, but... Another method of medical training I've heard of is to engage actors to pretend to have an illness or condition, and the trainees are supposed to practice their diagnostic and interview techniques on them. I'd say that would be fairly inauthentic a lot of the time, but I suppose it depends a lot on how well briefed the actors are, and the sort of performances they give. I don't think they are actually professional actors, by the way, just sundy unemployed people and students looking to pick up a little extra money.

Interesting that you should bring that up, arnie, because we are studying simulation and standardized patients (what you described). The great thing about standardized patients is that they can communicate with the student. Simulators can as well (through microphones with the technician), but it's not the same. However, the standardized patient can't have any symptoms (increased heart rates, decreased blood pressures, abnormal lab values, bleeding, etc.), while simulators can. So both are somewhat "authentic" I guess, but not completely.

Or is "authentic" either there or not, like being "pregnant"? Not sure.

You can certainly have degrees of authenticity. To take one example, when I was a little kid I had a clockwork "O gauge" model train set. The model was not very authentic, with it not looking very much like the original. Later, I got an electric "OO gauge" set. That was a lot more authentic, despite the fact that it was half the size of the O gauge set, and that both were a fraction of the size of the real thing, of course.

Good point, arnie.

Here is a typical quote about authenticity...and this is what started my thinking about it:

“Authentic leaders are not made nor are they born; they are enabled or disabled by the organizations in which they work.”

Authentic leaders? What would an "inauthentic" leader be?

I was in a cafe, wearing a 1950's prom dress, having a pot of Earl Grey tea. (It was the 1980s at the time.) The owner of the cafe came up to me and said how much he admired people who wore authentic clothing. (How I pitied those poor other blighters in their artificial clothes!)

(At around the same time, I would also wear a fake fur coat. It was a source of frequent bemusment to me when people would approach me and demand to know whether my coat was real.)

quote:

Authentic leaders

It's just a posh way of saying "real". In fact, you don't really need anything there at all, although you could use "good", "excellent", and so on to convey what the writer means.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

And, Alphabet, all this time I have thought you were a man.

I shall endeavour to post in falsetto in future, to prevent further confusion.

Falsetto? In keeping with the thread's theme, post in inauthenticetto, not false-etto.

Alphabet Soup, could I cajole you into posting a bit about yourself in the bio section? Then we'd all know the authentic you!

quote:

I shall endeavour to post in falsetto in future, to prevent further confusion.

Ah...I just checked your profile, and it says "unspecified." That's an interesting gender.

I think I always assume the posters here are male, unless otherwise specified. I guess it's because there have always been more men than women here.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
Falsetto? In keeping with the thread's theme, post in inauthenticetto, not false-etto.

Alphabet Soup, could I cajole you into posting a bit about yourself in the bio section? Then we'd all know the authentic you!

I'm afraid I've woefully little to say about myself...Maybe I'll make something up - a false set o' biodata, if you will.

Kalleh - I think 'unspecified' is the default setting. I must confess, I rather like it.

Considering your having registered on 1 April, this could all be a bit of merrie mischief!

See, Alphabet, now we're dying to know more about you.

Meghan Daum wrote an article on "authenticity" that I completely agree with. She says that it has become a buzz word to mean, as she says:

quote:

I'm referring not to the traditional definition of authenticity, but its expanded contemporary definition. Call it "aw, shucks authenticity." Instead of "true to one's own personality, spirit or character" (Webster's words), it's more like "successfully evoking a culturally agreed-upon idea of ordinariness." That is, rolling one's sleeves up to one's elbows or convincingly wearing plaid shirts, being "plain-spoken," or displaying small-town roots as proof of trustworthiness.

I think the word is thrown about these days and not used seriously. Here is her article. We talked a little about it on the chat today, and z sees the definition as "evolving." I suppose, but I don't like the evolution then. It has become an "aw shucks" word, instead of meaning to be true to who you are.

on "authenticity"

I erad a book by Theodor Adorno called The Jargon of Authenticity which was a critique of Heidegger's philosophy and especially his use of language to mystify things and to obfuscate. (A common enough critique of philosophers and their writing.

As I was trying to imply on the chat yesterday when this article came up, I am leery of words with only one meaning. Especially polysemous words that folks insist have only one, true meaning.

Yes, I agree on the words with one meaning idea. However, to come up with a definition that in some ways is the opposite of the true definition, merely to espouse one's agenda (in this case, a political agenda), I don't think is right.

I know. I am not a linguist, so this is an opinion of an amateur.