Article

Does the Consistent Application of Criteria for Faculty Promotion Lead to Fair Decisions?

Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges (Impact Factor: 3.47). 11/2008; 83(10):891-2. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318188cd86
Source: PubMed
0 Followers
 · 
23 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One preliminary step to strengthen medical education research would be determining the research priorities. The aim of this study was to determine the research priorities of medical education in Iran in 2007-2008. This descriptive study was carried out in two phases. Phase one was performed in 3 stages and used Delphi technique among academic staffs of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The three stages included a brainstorming workshop for 140 faculty members and educational experts resulting in a list of research priorities, then, in the second and third stages 99 and 76 questionnaires were distributed among faculty members. In the second phase, the final questionnaires were mailed to educational research center managers of universities type I, II and III, and were distributed among 311 academic members and educational experts to rate the items on a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 10. The most important research priorities included faculty members' development methods, faculty members' motives, satisfaction and welfare, criteria and procedures of faculty members' promotion, teaching methods and learning techniques, job descriptions and professional skills of graduates, quality management in education, second language, clinical education, science production in medicine, faculty evaluation and information technology. This study shows the medial education research priorities in national level and in different types of medical universities in Iran. It is recommended that faculty members and research administrators consider the needs and requirements of education and plan the researches in education according to these priorities.
    Journal of research in medical sciences 01/2012; 17(1):83-91. · 0.61 Impact Factor