My research is resistance.

My research interests are shaped by resistance to a culture of complacency, oppression, objectification, and dehumanization - in everyday practices. Through my research, I aim to reduce inequities that are sustained by colonized attitudes and processes. I apply my expert knowledge of theories of cognition, behaviour, and measurement to advance a view of clinical practice and learning as dynamic, context-dependent, and fundamentally shaped by human judgment, social interaction, and the values embedded within our institutions. 

Resistance, in this sense, is not just critique; it is intervention — a commitment to evidence-informed change that confronts attitudes and structures that enable exclusion while claiming fairness.

I have contributed to research demonstrating the benefits of aligning purpose and objectives with education design. The allocation and optimization of human and technical resources cannot be separated from educational intent. A systems driven focus on efficiency and effectiveness limits our ability to engage with skilled educators who can implement value-driven education design. In our current system, we must constantly decide if we are to reinforce or resist harmful norms and profit based education design.

Standardized approaches to gathering information about human behaviour and preferences reduces people to categories, variables, and averages, obscuring context, voice, and relational meaning. Standardized approaches are favoured when we assume that objectivity and neutrality can reduce discrimination and bias. In an education and healthcare system that prioritizes efficiency, and profit, objectivity and neutrality become weapons against humanity, compassion and community.

Recent trends in health professions education incorporate an“everything, all at once” approach to curriculum design and social accountability. Lengthy list of competencies and professional responsibilities has overburdened individuals, obscuring the structural and institutional conditions that shape practice. The pursuit of comprehensiveness in professional competencies perpetuates a harmful myth that we are all individually responsible for societal change, shifting responsibility away from systems and onto learners. Yet, we know that health and education inequities are produced and sustained by collective, structural, and cultural conditions. ominant models of reasoning privilege certain ways of knowing while excluding others. 

Our decisions about career aspirations are shaped by unequal distributions of labor, expectation, and consequence within gendered institutional structures. I reveal how narratives of choice obscure systemic inequities and shift responsibility away from the conditions that produce them.

Our reasoning - our beliefs, values and priorities - cannot be separated from our cultural, social, and situational contexts. Context shapes what is noticed, how it is interpreted, and how we react. I argue that attempts to isolate or standardize reasoning risk misrepresenting expertise and overlooking the conditions that give it meaning.

Across this work, we show how decisions about sample size, reliability, and analytic approach depend on purpose, design, and judgment. I emphasize that methodological rigor is not about following rules, but about aligning analytic choices with the questions, contexts, and values that shape the work.

Across this work, we show how scores are shaped by design features, rater behavior, timing, and data capture processes. Claims of fairness and precision depend on ongoing judgment, contextual awareness, and alignment with purpose.