113 Polarity map | 5 the failed practices we had encountered (problem) and the intended purpose of portfolio use (possibility). Secondly, we formulated an explanation/underlying reason for these problems (moving FROM) and the situation that one intends to reach through portfolio use (moving TO). These actions were performed individually by the four team members (RG, BT, SH, NS). Thereafter, the proposed polarities of the different team members were discussed in a meeting, which resulted in the selection of one overarching polarity. Step 2: Mapping During this step, the components at the centre of the polarity map® were completed. First, the four team members (RG, BT, SH, NS) formulated these components individually. Then, the different suggestions were assembled, discussed and adjusted during multiple iterations, until the final version of the GPS, deeper fear, values and fears was established. Step 3: Tapping/leveraging The third step encompasses the formulation of action steps and early warnings through discussion with stakeholders. We organised a stakeholder session to formulate these components. We wanted to weigh-in a diversity of viewpoints and therefore aimed to include representatives of relevant stakeholder groups of the Dutch GP specialty training. These representatives were purposively approached via email and asked to participate in the stakeholder session. The final participants were two trainees, two faculty members, two supervisors who guide residents during workplace learning, and one team leader. Due to the COVID-19 guidelines in place at the time, the stakeholder session took place through videoconferencing (Zoom). The session was moderated by the first author. First, the polarity thinking TM framework was presented. Next, the stakeholders were introduced to the polarity map® on multipurpose portfolios, which had been drawn up during the first two steps. When it was clear that all participants understood the concept of polarity thinkingTM and the different components of the polarity map® on multipurpose portfolio use, the participants were invited to propose and discuss potential action steps and early warnings. The suggestions of participants were noted and shared on screen by the moderator. After fifty minutes the discussion ended, as the participants did not offer any new ideas on possible actions steps or early warnings. The stakeholder session was audio recorded and later transcribed verbatim. After the stakeholder session, the first researcher critically reviewed the suggested action steps and early warnings, in order to make sure that they were clear (i.e. easily comprehendible), concrete (i.e. easily observable) and distinctive (i.e. only applicable to the pole they were assigned to). Some adjustments were made and the adapted version was sent to the participants of the stakeholder session, together with an explanation of the changes made to the initial version. Participants were invited to reply to this new version.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw