Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Validity is frequently conceptualized in health professions education (HPE) assessment as an argument that supports the interpretation and uses of data. However, previous work has shown that many validity scholars believe argument and argumentation are relatively lacking in HPE. To better understand HPE's discourse around argument and argumentation with regard to assessment validity, the authors explored the discourses present in published HPE manuscripts. METHODS: The authors used a bricolage of critical discourse analysis approaches to understand how the language in influential peer reviewed manuscripts has shaped HPE's understanding of validity arguments and argumentation. The authors used multiple search strategies to develop a final corpus of 39 manuscripts that were seen as influential in how validity arguments are conceptualized within HPE. An analytic framework drawing on prior research on Argumentation Theory was used to code manuscripts before developing themes relevant to the research question. RESULTS: The authors found that the elaboration of argument and argumentation within HPE's validity discourse is scant, with few components of Argumentation Theory (such as intended audience) existing within the discourse. The validity as an argument discourse was legitimized via authorization (reference to authority), rationalization (reference to institutionalized action), and mythopoesis (narrative building). This legitimation has cemented the validity as an argument discourse in HPE despite minimal exploration of what argument and argumentation are. DISCUSSION: This study corroborates previous work showing the dearth of argument and argumentation present within HPE's validity discourse. An opportunity exists to use Argumentation Theory in HPE to better develop validation practices that support use of argument.