Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Research Center
2 Department of Public Health, School of Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: One of the important criteria in the promotion of faculty members is in the scope of
their educational roles and duties. The purpose of this study was the assessment of reasonability
and attainability of educational criteria for scientific rank promotion from the perspective of
the faculty members of Medical Sciences Universities in Iran. Materials and Methods: This
descriptive study was conducted in 2011 in 13 Universities of Medical Sciences in Iran. Through
stratified sampling method, 350 faculty members were recruited. A questionnaire developed by
the researchers was used to investigate the reasonability and attainability of educational criteria
with scores from 1 to 5. The self-administered questionnaire was distributed and collected
at each university. The mean and standard deviation of reasonability and attainability scores
were calculated and reported by using the SPSS software version 16. Results: Faculty members
considered many criteria of educational activities reasonable and available (with a mean score
of more than 3). The highest reasonability and attainability have been obtained by the quantity
and quality of teaching with the mean scores (3.93 ± 1.15 and 3.82 ± 1.17) and (3.9 ± 1.22
and 4.13 ± 1.06) out of five, respectively. The mean and standard deviation of total scores of
reasonability of educational activities were 50.91 ± 14.22 and its attainability was 60.3 ± 13.72
from the total score of 90. Discussion and Conclusion: The faculty members of the Universities of
Medical Sciences in Iran considered the educational criteria of promotion moderately reasonable
and achievable. It is recommended to revise these criteria and adapt them according to the mission
and special conditions of medical universities. Furthermore, providing feedback of evaluations,
running educational researches, and implementing faculty development programs are suggested.
Keywords
institutions of higher education and medical research: The Islamic
Republic of Iran, 2008. Available from: http://www.net.hbi.ir/new/
statics/moavenat/aeinnameh-ertegha-heiat-elmi.php [Last cited
2012 Mar 08].
2. Smesny AL, Williams JS, Brazeau GA, Weber RJ, Matthews HW,
Das SK. Barriers to scholarship in dentistry, medicine, nursing, and
pharmacy practice faculty. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71:91.
3. Ten steps for promotion, 2006-2007. Available from: http://www.
med.umich.edu/medschool/faculty/ [Last cited 2012 May 01].
4. Criteria for appointment and promotion, 2012. Available from: http://
www.facultypromotions.hms.harvard.edu/index.php?page=steps.
[Last cited 2012 Mar 08].
5. Promotion and tenure, 2012. Available from: http://www.med.umn.
edu/medical-school-faculty/faculty-affairs/promotion-and-tenure/
index.htm [Last cited 2012 Apr 24].
6. Procedures for faculty appointment, reappointment, promotion &
tenure, 2012. Available from: http://www.uky.edu/Provost/APFA/
Promotion_Tenure [Last cited 2012 Mar 08].
7. Doostdar HM, Mirhossini SA. Comparative study of faculty
promotion criteria in higher education. Siyasat Elm va Fanavary
2008;1:91-106.
8. Annual promotion instructions and determining the scientific records
of faculty members, 2. Available from: http://www.aac.behdasht.gov.
ir/index.aspx?siteid=179&pageid=10063 [Last cited 2012 May 04].
9. Simpson D, Fincher RM, Hafler JP, Irby DM, Richards BF,
Rosenfeld GC, et al. Advancing educators and education by
defining the components and evidence associated with educational
scholarship. Med Educ 2007;41:1002-9.
10. Beasley BW, Wright SM, Cofrancesco J Jr, Babbott SF, Thomas PA,
Bass EB. Promotion criteria for clinician-educators in the United
States and Canada. A survey of promotion committee chairpersons.
JAMA 1997;278:723-8.
11. DaRosa DA, Skeff K, Friedland JA, Coburn M, Cox S, Pollart S, et al.
Barriers to effective teaching. Acad Med 2011;86:453-9.12. Green ME, Ellis CL, Frémont P, Batty H. Faculty evaluation in
departments of family medicine: Do our universities measure up?
Med Educ 1998;32:597-606.
13. Ahmady S, Changiz T, Masiello I, Brommels M. Organizational role
stress among medical school faculty members in Iran: Dealing with
role conflict. BMC Med Educ 2007;7:1-14.
14. Tootoonchi M, Yamani N, Changiz T, Yousefy A. Research priorities
in medical education: A national study. J Res Med Sci 2012;17:83-91.
15. Jones RF, Froom JD. Faculty and administration views of problems
in faculty evaluation. Acad Med 1994;69:476-83.
16. Atasoylu AA, Wright SM, Beasley BW, Cofrancesco J Jr,
Macpherson DS, Partridge T, et al. Promotion criteria for clinicianeducators. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:711-6.
17. New regulations for the promotion of the faculty members, 2011.
Available from: http://www.aac.behdasht.gov.ir/index.
aspx?siteid=179&pageid=1006. [Last cited 2012 May 04].
18. Zibrowski EM, Weston WW, Goldszmidt MA. ‘I don’t have time’:
Issues of fragmentation, prioritisation and motivation for education
scholarship among medical faculty. Med Educ 2008;42:872-8.
19. Majumder MA. Issues and priorities of medical education research
in Asia. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2004;33:257-63.
20. Mensah LL. Academic espionage: Dysfunctional aspects of the
publish or perish ethic. J Adv Nurs 1982;7:577-80.
21. Jackson M, Maclnnes I. Promotion and tenure in family practice in
US medical schools. J Fam Pract 1984;18:435-9.
22. Papaconstantinou HT, Lairmore TC. Academic appointment and
the process of promotion and tenure. Clin Colon Rectal Surg
2006;19:143-7.
23. Beasley BW, Simon SD, Wright SM. A time to be promoted. The
Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia (Prospective Study
of Promotion in Academia). J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:123-9.
24. Whitman N, Schwenk T. Faculty evaluation as a means of faculty
development. J Fam Pract 1982;14:1097-101.
25. Trotman CA, Haden NK, Hendricson W. Does the dental school
work environment promote successful academic careers? J Dent
Educ 2007;71:713-25.
)