LAUSR

Anatomy is a subject that has a long standing relationship with using students or trainees as teachers (Ocel et al., 2003; Gill et al., 2006; Bulte et al., 2007; Sugand et al., 2010). The application of near-peer teaching (NPT) is prevalent in our discipline and much research has been undertaken in the field to inform the anatomical community about the value of implementing it within curriculums; both in terms of objective outcome measures of performance and with regards to the student learning experience (Ten Cate and Durning, 2007; Lockspeiser et al., 2008; Jackson and Evans, 2012; Hall et al., 2013, 2014). Arguably, the student teachers who gain the most from the experience feel trusted, empowered and valued by faculty anatomists (Stephens et al., 2016). The benefits of working with students in this way are also well recognized, particularly if the NPT programs are sustainable and provide opportunities for scholarship and the development of professional and transferable skills (Evans and Cuffe, 2009). In fact, many of the attributes fit nicely with the Higher Education Academy’s (HEA) criteria for good practice when engaging with students as partners on educational projects (Healey et al., 2014). The document, entitled engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education is a toolkit which makes an excellent case for why we should work with students as partners in education in some key areas, such as learning, teaching and assessment, subject based inquiry, scholarship of teaching and learning, and curriculum design and pedagogic consultancy. Due to the nature of their delivery, medical curriculums are particularly conducive to providing these opportunities when compared to other undergraduate programs. So, what exactly is the issue here (?), well, the crux of the problem is that staff and students do not really share the same definition of what constitutes a partnership. Although they are mostly underpinned by similar values there appears to be some differences. Staff tends to focus more on the joint working aspect or the agreed shared goals which exist, while students understand it to be more about an equal relationship and shared responsibility (Healey et al., 2014). The key point of interest here comes with exploring and unpacking the differences between the rather generic term “student engagement” and what constitutes a true and meaningful partnership. It is possible to take a partnership approach, such as when listening to and asking the opinion of students, but this does not constitute true partnership. With specific reference to the way we as anatomists work with trainees and students I would argue that we achieve the best results for all parties when partnership does imply an equal relationship and where decisions are taken jointly. To use the established NPT program in neuroanatomy at the University of Southampton as an example, the longevity of the project is a product of an authentic relationship which is irrespective of institutional hierarchy; it is built on trust whereby all members get to know each other and are confident to share ideas. The scholarship embedded within the delivery of our NPT fosters critical and analytical thinking resulting in academic rewards such as authorship on publications (twice in ASE) (Hall et al., 2014, 2016). As the HEA document (Healey et al., 2014) clearly states, partnership is an ethos rather than an activity and the total sum of engagement within any given faculty does not equal partnership. However, my concern is that most universities are risk averse to this kind of working relationship because of the potential tensions and challenges that exist; the traditional barriers between staff and students needs to be rethought if institutions are likely to embrace the full meaning of partnerships as outlined by Healey et al. (2014). While it is not unreasonable for academics to be concerned over conflicting priorities, it should be understood that the partnership model does challenge existing assumptions about how staff and students should work together and this will involve thinking and acting differently to what we are used to. This might mean sharing working space with students or giving them privileged access to resources and facilities (such as the dissecting room)—essentially adopting a more collaborative and informal approach to working. However, anatomy is a traditional subject steeped in a rich history associated with the birth of universities. Anatomy as a discipline could be considered partly responsible for the established chain of command in academia (professor, reader, dissector) that remains today in its various guises (Moxham and Plaisant, 2014). The original dissecting rooms and anatomy theatres such as those at Padua and Bologna were designed with this strict hierarchy in mind. We should not forget that the most famous anatomist of all time, Andreas Vesalius disliked hierarchy intensively and insisted on undertaking dissection himself even when he was elevated to the position of professor of surgery and anatomy at the University of Padua (Moxham and Plaisant, 2014). He expected students to contribute to medical knowledge as well as receive it making his legacy as much about changing the *Correspondence to: Dr. Scott Border, Centre for Learning Anatomical Sciences, Southampton General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]