Authors
1 Medical Education, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Professor, Medical Education, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Educational centers accommodate people of varying generations. Indeed, each
generation has its specific priorities and values that affect its performance and decisions in various
aspects, including educational aspects. Understanding the traits of members of a given generation
facilitates understanding how their performance can be improved inside and outside the classroom.
So, this study was designed to identify the non‑educational characteristics of MD students in the
universities of medical sciences in Iran.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study adopted a qualitative exploratory approach.
Data were collected through face‑to‑face, semi‑structured interviews. Participants included general
medicine students who had completed at least one semester. Sampling was purposive with maximum
variation. Sampling was continued until data saturation, and a total of 32 interviews were conducted.
Graneheim and Lundman’s content analysis approach was adopted to analyze the data. Lincoln and
Guba’s reliability criteria were used to achieve the accuracy and reliability of the data.
RESULTS: A total of 32 students were interviewed (n = 18 women and n = 14 men; age range:
19–27 years). The participants had completed 2–13 semesters and had between one and six siblings.
A total of 10 major categories emerged as the generational traits of students. The main categories
included devoted parents, money as the key reference of value, non‑sexism, religious perplexity,
experiencing oneself with others, my life’s address, tunnel vision, evasion from responsibility, winning
fame, and I and nothing else.
CONCLUSION: For them, gender and religion have lost their former meaning and they believe
in more freedom. They are also one‑dimensional people, lethargic and night people, who evade
responsibility and have a strong desire to be seen, approved, and respected. They also prioritize
themselves and their peace of mind. Since these characteristics can have many direct and indirect
effects on various aspects of their lives, including the educational aspect, it can be very beneficial
for people interacting with them to identify and consider these characteristics.
Keywords
- Evans KH, Ozdalga E, Ahuja N. The medical education of
generation Y. Acad Psychiatry 2016;40:382‑5.
2. Walsh DS. Mind the gap: Generational differences in medicine.
Northeast Florida Med 2011;62:12‑5.
3. Monaco M, Martin M. The millennial student: A new generation
of learners. Athl Train Educ J 2007;2:42‑6.
4. Johnson SA, Romanello ML. Generational diversity: Teaching
and learning approaches. Nurse Educ 2005;30:212‑6.
5. Bickel J, Brown AJ. Generation X: Implications for faculty
recruitment and development in academic health centers. Acad
Med 2005;80:205‑10.
6. Howell LP, Servis G, Bonham A. Multigenerational challenges
in academic medicine: UCDavis’s responses. Acad Med
2005;80:527‑32.
7. Borges NJ, Manuel RS, Elam CL, Jones BJ. Differences in motives
between millennial and generation X medical students. Med Educ
2010;44:570‑6.
8. Jonas‑Dwyer D, Pospisil R. The Millennial effect: Implications
for academic development. Available from: https://www.
herdsa.org.au/publications/conference‑proceedings/researchand-development-higher-education-transforming-18.pdf. [Last
accessed on 2022 Jul 23].
9. Lancaster LC, Stillman D. When Generations Collide: Who They
Are, Why They Clash, How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at
Work. New York: HarperCollins; 2002.
10. McCrindle Research. New Generations at Work: Attracting,
Recruiting, Retraining and Training Generation Y. Sydney,
Australia: McCrindle Research; 2006. Available from: www.tanz.
ac.nz/pdf/NewGenerations AtWork.pdf.
11. Hopkins L, Hampton BS, Abbott JF, Buery‑Joyner SD, Craig LB,
Dalrymple JL, et al. To the point: Medical education, technology,
and the millennial learner. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218:188‑92.
12. Borges NJ, Manuel RS, Elam CL, Jones BJ. Comparing millennial
and generation X medical students of one medical school. Acad
Med 2006;81:571‑6.
13. Eckleberry Hunt J, Tucciarone J. The challenges and opportunities
of teaching “generation Y”. J Grad Med Educ 2011;3:458‑61.
14. Black A. Gen Y: Who they are and how they learn. Educ Horiz
2010;88:92‑101.
15. Mill JE. Describing an exploratory model of HIV illness among
aboriginal women. Holist Nurs Pract 2000;15:42‑58.
16. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in
nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve
trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004;24:105‑12. - 17. Strubert Speziale HY, Alen J, Carpenter DR. Qualitative Research
in Nursing. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Williams & Wilkings; 2003.
18. Olson‑Buchanan J. Helicopter parents: An examination of the
correlates of over‑parenting of college students. Educ Train
2014;56:314‑28.
19. Ruspini E. Millennial men, gender equality and care: The dawn
of a revolution? Teorija Praksa 2019;56:985‑1000
20. Fosse, Ethan. 2015. Cultural Continuity and the Rise of the
Millennials: Generational Trends in Politics, Religion, and
Economic Values. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University,
Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.
21. Twenge JM. The evidence for generation me and against
generation we. Emerg Adulthood 2013;1:11‑6.
22. Buzza JS. Are you living to work or working to live? What
millennials want in the workplace. J Hum Resour Manag Labor
Stud 2017;5:15‑20.
23. Stapleton P, Luiz G, Chatwin H. Generation validation: The role
of social comparison in use of Instagram among emerging adults.
Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2017;20:142‑9.
24. Patalay P, Gage SH. Changes in millennial adolescent mental
health and health‑related behaviours over 10 years: A population
cohort comparison study. Int J Epidemiol 2019;48:1650‑64.
)