Abstract
Interprofessional education (IPE) often fails to bridge the gap between student transformation and faculty disciplinary silos. This article examines the paradox of educators teaching collaboration while maintaining rigid professional identities. Faculty members traditionally derive authority from disciplinary expertise, which can unintentionally reinforce educational fragmentation. True interprofessional transformation requires a shift from transmitting specialized knowledge to facilitating collective learning. We propose that faculty development must move beyond activity-based training to support deep reflection on professional identity. Successful IPE depends on educators who model distributed leadership and shared expertise.
Introduction
Interprofessional education (IPE) has become a central concept in contemporary discussions about health professions education. Health systems increasingly rely on collaborative practice to address the complexity of patient care, particularly in contexts characterized by fragmented care delivery, chronic disease, and multimorbidity. As a result, educational institutions around the world have begun to incorporate interprofessional learning experiences intended to prepare students to work effectively across professional boundaries. 1
Despite this progress, an apparent paradox remains, as educational programs seek to cultivate collaborative competencies among students, the faculty responsible for teaching them often operate within strongly disciplinary identities. In many academic environments, educators continue to see themselves primarily with their first professional identity as representatives of their professional field rather than as facilitators of interprofessional learning. As a consequence, the transformation expected from students is not always reflected in the teaching practices and professional identities of those who guide their learning. This tension suggests that the success of interprofessional education may depend not only on curricular design but also on the professional identity of the educators who implement it. If collaboration is to become a defining feature of health professions practice, it must also become a defining feature of health professions teaching.
Professional Identity and the Persistence of Disciplinary Boundaries
Professional identity plays a key role in shaping how educators understand their role within health professions education. Traditionally, faculty members derive their authority and legitimacy from years of expertise in the discipline and professional affiliation. This identity is reinforced through interaction in academic structures, professional accreditation systems, and cultural norms within health professions training. 2
These disciplinary identities have historically contributed to the development and consolidation of the health professions; however, they have also reinforced boundaries between professions which can inadvertently reproduce fragmentation in education and practice. For example, faculty members who identify strongly with their discipline may unintentionally emphasize the primacy of their professional perspective, reinforcing hierarchies and limiting opportunities for collaborative learning.
In the context of interprofessional education, this dynamic can become particularly visible. Through interprofessional education, students are encouraged to learn with, from, and about other professions, yet the educational environment often continues to be structured around disciplinary authority. In such contexts, the hidden curriculum of professional hierarchy may undermine the collaborative values that interprofessional education seeks to promote. This tension highlights a critical but often underexplored dimension of interprofessional education, the identity of the educators.
The Faculty Identity Challenge in Interprofessional Education
If interprofessional education aims to prepare students for collaborative practice, educators must also navigate a transformation in their professional role. Teaching in interprofessional contexts requires more than disciplinary expertise; it requires the ability to facilitate dialogue across professions, negotiate differences in professional perspectives, and guide learners through complex collaborative processes.
As shown in Figure 1, this shift can be understood as a transition along three interconnected dimensions: the faculty roles toward the facilitation of collaborative learning, the nature of professional authority, and educators’ own professional identity. Transition on dimensions of faculty identity in interprofessional education
First, faculty roles must expand from the transmission of disciplinary knowledge toward the facilitation of collaborative learning. In traditional educational models, educators are often positioned as experts responsible for delivering specialized content. In interprofessional contexts, however, faculty must create environments where knowledge is constructed collectively through interaction among professions.
Second, the nature of professional authority must evolve. Traditional hierarchies that place certain professions in dominant positions can hinder open dialogue and mutual learning. Interprofessional education requires educators who are comfortable working within more distributed models of leadership, where authority emerges from shared expertise rather than disciplinary rank.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, educators may need to reconsider aspects of their own professional identity. Rather than acting solely as representatives of a particular profession, interprofessional educators become facilitators of a broader learning community that includes multiple professional perspectives. This shift does not diminish disciplinary expertise; rather, it situates that expertise within a collaborative framework where the contributions of different professions are recognized as complementary.
These identity shifts are not always easy. They require reflection on deeply embedded professional norms and may challenge long-standing assumptions about authority, expertise, and professional boundaries.
Implications for Health Systems
These considerations suggest that faculty development initiatives must move beyond training educators to implement specific interprofessional activities. Instead, they should support deeper reflection on professional identity and the cultural dimensions of collaboration.
The significance of faculty identity in interprofessional education extends beyond the classroom. Educational environments shape how students understand professional roles, collaboration, and leadership within health systems. When students observe educators who model collaborative behaviors, mutual respect, and shared decision-making, these practices become part of their emerging professional identity.
Conversely, when educational settings continue to reflect strong disciplinary silos, students may internalize fragmented models of care even while participating in nominally interprofessional activities. In this sense, faculty identity functions as a powerful component of the hidden curriculum.
The implications for health systems are substantial. Collaborative practice has been linked to improved communication, enhanced coordination of care, and safer patient outcomes. If educational institutions aim to contribute to these goals, they must recognize that faculty development is a central element of interprofessional transformation.
Educators who are prepared to facilitate interprofessional learning can help shape new generations of health professionals who see collaboration not as an additional skill but as a fundamental aspect of professional practice.
Rethinking Faculty Development for Interprofessional Education
These considerations suggest that faculty development initiatives must move beyond training educators to implement specific interprofessional activities. Instead, they should support deeper reflection on professional identity and the cultural dimensions of collaboration.
Faculty development for interprofessional education may therefore include opportunities for educators to engage in shared learning experiences across professions, explore the dynamics of professional power and hierarchy, and develop facilitation skills suited to collaborative learning environments. For example, in a hospital setting, medical and nursing faculty, by conducting a joint information session focused exclusively on team dynamics, would demonstrate mutual respect to the students. The faculty would teach that authority arises from shared experience, not from disciplinary rank. Such initiatives can help educators move from disciplinary isolation toward a more integrated understanding of their role within health professions education.
Conclusion
Interprofessional education cannot achieve its transformative potential if it focuses solely on students. The professional identities of educators themselves play a crucial role in shaping the culture of collaboration within health professions education.
Preparing students for collaborative practice requires educators who are willing to teach beyond the boundaries of their discipline. In this sense, the future of interprofessional education may depend not only on new curricula but on the emergence of a new kind of educator, one whose professional identity is grounded not only in disciplinary expertise, but also in the capacity to foster collaboration across the professions that together define modern health care.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Author [Lopez, Mildred ] is a member of the Editorial Board of [Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development]. The authors did not take part in the peer review or decision-making process for this submission and has no further conflicts to declare.