{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025856496444731737, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00904977375565611, 'mean_word_length': 5.559322033898305, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Anatomy departments and anatomy education: Reflections and myths

This report is based on the basic postulate that if the overall goal of anatomy departments is to function as vigorous academic and scholastic communities welcoming research and innovative thinking, there will be implications for the nature of anatomy teaching. In developing this theme, perceptions about the meaning of the term “anatomy” are explored, as are the repercussions of teaching anatomy entirely within the context of a medical curriculum. There have been a variety of responses to the perceived demise of anatomy, resulting in a discipline that is heterogeneous, both in terms of teaching and research emphases. The options open to university departments are assessed by way of the model of third‐wave departments, with their characteristics of excellence, flexibility, planning, networking, and risk‐taking. The consequences of this model for anatomy departments include the importance of a research emphasis, a close conceptual link between teaching and research, and a structural base for the research. In view of these consequences, three distinct forms of teaching are recognized: undergraduate teaching to medical and other health science students, undergraduate teaching to science students, and postgraduate teaching. Some of the distinctive features of the two forms of undergraduate teaching are explored. Various central contentions (myths) regarding anatomy departments and anatomy education are rejected. Clin. Anat. 10:34–40, 1997 © 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.