Abstract
Background and objectives
Faculty development plays a pivotal role in enhancing teaching, research, educational, and clinical leadership, as well as in fostering career and professional development, which helps improve medical education. Despite its importance, engagement in faculty development programs is roughly variable among educators. This study aimed to identify and explain the factors influencing the participation of basic and clinical science faculty members in an online medical education faculty development course at medical universities.
Methods
This study was conducted in Iran between July 2022 and May 2023. Data were collected through an online qualitative survey and semi-structured telephone interviews with faculty members who were actively involved in or graduated from a virtual master's program in medical education. An online qualitative survey was first conducted with 86 participants in the faculty development program to obtain a wide understanding of their experiences. Subsequently, follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with faculty members who were engaged in the program to gain richer and deeper information, and this continued until data saturation was achieved (N = 8). All data were analyzed thematically to identify factors linked to faculty participation.
Results
Five major themes emerged: (1) professional and occupational factors, highlighting the importance of career advancement and job requirements; (2) individual factors, focusing on intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy; (3) social factors, reflecting the influence of peer support and social status; (4) educational and academic factors, emphasizing the necessity of innovative teaching methods; and (5) managerial/leadership and organizational factors, addressing the significance of institutional support and leadership in promoting development.
Conclusion
This research provides valuable insights into the factors affecting faculty participation in development programs. By understanding these dynamics, educational institutions can consider initiatives (such as material and immaterial incentives, flexibility in program delivery, balancing teaching, research, and clinical service delivery, and promoting organizational culture and support) that enhance faculty engagement.
Keywords
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated the shift to online learning in medical education, with a reported 80% of medical schools adopting online platforms. 1 This resulted in faculty development becoming increasingly important to maintaining academic standards, especially in the context of the fast pace of advances in medical science. 2 Faculty development programs promote faculty members’ professional competence, pedagogical skills, and teaching performance. 3 These programs, typically consisting of workshops, seminars, and courses in curriculum development, educational technology, teaching methods, and assessment, provide faculty with the competencies to enhance teaching effectiveness and update themselves with the latest academic advances. 4 In addition, participation in these programs has been linked to improved job satisfaction and institutional commitment among faculty. 5
One of the widely adopted approaches to faculty development is the master's degree programs in health professions education (MHPE). Medical education as an official discipline began in 1959 when George Miller initiated a research unit. 6 In Iran, a master's degree in medical education was approved in 1994 and has been evolving since then, with e-learning programs now providing greater accessibility and flexibility to faculty members. 7
Recent literature emphasizes the impact of MHPE on faculty development, particularly in supporting professionalization, pedagogical expertise, and educational leadership.8–10 For example, Artino et al, 8 explain that graduate programs in health professions education (HPE) have an important role in preparing academic leaders to face the increasing demands of graduate medical education (GME). These programs equip educators with competencies that extend beyond clinical knowledge and skills, preparing them for roles in leadership, teaching and learning, curriculum development, assessment and evaluation, educational research, and academic scholarship.
A scoping review by O’Callaghan et al, 9 which synthesized results of 19 studies, further highlights the importance of these programs in enhancing pedagogical knowledge, increasing confidence and professional credibility, career advancement and educational leadership, promoting professional interactions and networking, and educational scholarship development.
Similarly, Heide et al 10 identified ease of topic selection, timely supervisors’ feedback, submission of the project, and support from home institutions as individual and institutional determinants of successful MME program completion in Germany. Long interruptions were found to be a major obstacle.
Although MHPE programs are delivered in various formats (including in-person, online, distance, and blended learning) in different countries and have shown positive effects on faculty development, 9 empirical evidence on faculty members’ motivations for participation remains limited. 11
A recent study on faculty participation in the digital health professions educator (d-HPE) program, a 200-h interprofessional faculty development course at Charité University of Medicine, identified autonomy, competence, and relatedness as primary motivational drivers. Autonomy was linked to an intrinsic interest in teaching and a self-directed decision to pursue advanced qualifications; competence reflected the need to master evidence-based teaching practices and acquire advanced digital skills; and relatedness highlighted the significance of interprofessional collaboration and mentorship in promoting educational innovation. 12 Although the d-HPE program differs from MHPE, it provides valuable insights into faculty motivations for engaging in professional development.
Some faculty members do not participate in development courses or exhibit inconsistent participation, 13 which can have damaging effects on the quality of teaching and access to innovative methods. 14 Research indicates several reasons for faculty members’ low participation in development initiatives. Frequently mentioned obstacles include lack of enthusiasm, time limits, accessibility problems, and inadequate organizational support. For example, academic staff frequently balance teaching, research, and administrative obligations, which leaves them with little time for professional development. 15 Motivation levels can also be impacted by how development programs are regarded to be relevant and applicable. Faculty members may be less likely to engage if they do not perceive a clear advantage to their professional development or teaching.16,17
Furthermore, support and organizational culture are important factors in promoting faculty growth. Higher levels of participation are more common in institutions that actively and proactively emphasize faculty development through resources, incentives, and policies. 18
Given the central role of faculty development in enhancing medical education, this study attempts to address the current gap by explaining determinants of faculty engagement in a virtual master's program in medical education in Iran.
Methods
Study Design
The present study was conducted in Iran from July 2022 to May 2023. A sequential qualitative design, incorporating both an online open-ended survey and semi-structured telephone interviews, was used. The methodological approach was based on the rationale of Braun et al, 19 who argue that online qualitative surveys are useful instruments to gather extensive perspectives from participants. Accordingly, an online qualitative survey was administered to a large and diverse sample to identify broad thematic patterns. This was followed by semi-structured phone interviews with a sub-sample to gain more richness in data and to achieve thematic saturation. Data were analyzed using the inductive content analysis approach proposed by Elo and Kyngäs, involving 3 phases: preparation, organization, and reporting. 20
The reporting of this research conforms to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guideline 21 (Supplementary File 1).
Setting, Participants, Eligibility Criteria, and Data Collection
The study included faculty members from the basic and clinical sciences departments at medical universities nationwide in Iran, who were enrolled in the virtual medical education master's program at Smart University of Medical Sciences and Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. Based on a 3-year analysis of institutional records from 2 universities, 600 individuals had enrolled in the faculty development program. Of these, 211 were determined eligible for participation in the present study, which included active engagement in course, program completion with success, and graduation within a timely manner. The inclusion criteria included basic and clinical science faculty members who were enrolled or had graduated from the virtual master's program in medical education and had provided informed consent to participate in the study. Withdrawn consent participants or those who were unable to respond to the qualitative survey and follow-up interviews were excluded.
Participants were selected using purposeful sampling with the method of maximum variation to ensure diverse representation across gender, education level, field of work, and graduation status. The qualitative survey sample size was determined according to methodological considerations specific to online qualitative research. According to Braun et al, 19 online qualitative surveys often require larger samples than traditional qualitative methods since they span a wider range of data and the typically narrower depth of individual participant response. They suggest that sample sizes for qualitative surveys commonly range from 60 to 99 participants or more, depending on population heterogeneity, research question, and richness of response.
Ultimately, 86 faculty members completed the online qualitative survey. Semi-structured telephone interviews were subsequently conducted with faculty members engaged in the program and continued until data saturation had been reached (n = 8). Data were collected remotely using both the online qualitative survey and the follow-up telephone interviews.
The central questions in the online qualitative survey were: “What brought you to participate in the virtual medical education program?” and “What specific factors prompted you to join this program?” The online survey averaged 15 min, while the semi-structured phone interviews averaged 30 min. There were 2 researchers collecting data: one conducted the online survey, and the other conducted telephone interviews. The telephone interview guide was developed based on early analysis of qualitative survey data and included additional exploratory and follow-up questions (Supplementary File 2).
Reflexivity and Relationship With Participants
Two members of the research team (Z.Kh and H.Kh) hold PhD degrees and are faculty members in medical education departments. The first author, Z.Kh (female), is working in the Department of Medical Education at Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. The corresponding author, H.Kh (male), working in the Department of Medical Education at Smart University of Medical Sciences, conducted the semi-structured telephone interviews. The second author, Sh.Kh (female), a student in the same virtual master's program, carried out the online qualitative survey. Although some participants had prior academic contact with the interviewers, none of the researchers had supervisory or evaluative roles over them. The research team considered potential a priori assumptions and subject-matter expectations before data collection to minimize bias and enhance reflexivity. The interview guide was developed with due care to be neutral. Finally, the research objectives were clearly explained to participants before data collection began.
Data Analysis
Data collection and data analysis were conducted concurrently. In the first step, the online qualitative survey responses were reviewed to identify broad patterns among a large and diverse group of participants. These overarching thematic patterns served as the basis for developing the main categories. In Step 2, all audio-recorded phone interviews were transcribed verbatim to explore the patterns in greater depth. After that, meaningful units were coded. These units were categorized based on similarities to form subcategories, which were then synthesized into main categories. Initial analysis, conducted by the second author (Sh.Kh), using an inductive content analysis. The same analysis was subsequently independently replicated by the corresponding author (H.Kh), who has substantial experience in conducting qualitative research. Any discrepancies in data analysis were discussed with the first author (Z.Kh) and were resolved through consultation with the research team.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were used to summarize demographic variables such as age, gender, education level, academic discipline, and graduation status. All analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel.
Rigor
In order to ensure data trustworthiness, the study adhered to Guba and Lincoln's 4 criteria: credibility, confirmability, dependability, and transferability. 22
Strategies applied to enhance credibility and confirmability included concurrent analysis and data collection, member checking (sharing summaries of data and interpretations with the participants), prolonged engagement, peer check, and external auditing to review the interview transcripts, relevant codes, and emergent categories. To ensure dependability, strategies such as maintaining an audit trail (ie, documenting step by step each stage of the research process to allow transparency and replication), coding and analysis of data by 2 researchers independently to increase inter-rater reliability and minimize personal bias, and resolving discrepancies by consensus were utilized. Finally, in order to increase transferability, the study used maximum variation sampling (gender, education level, discipline, and field of work) and included direct participant quotations to support findings.
Results
Quantitative Findings
A total of 94 participants took part in the present study. Table 1 presents the distribution of participants according to age, gender, education level, field of work, and graduation status.
Description of demographic characteristics of study participants.
Qualitative Findings
Five major themes, 19 categories, and 58 subcategories were derived (Table 2). Although both data sources, the online qualitative survey and semi-structured phone interviews, were used to identify the themes, interview data were prioritized for reporting quotations due to their richer narrative depth and clearer expression. Key findings are summarized below, with example quotations from participants provided to further illustrate them.
Themes, categories, and subcategories extracted from online qualitative survey and telephone interviews.
Based on the data analysis, 5 themes emerged as determinants of basic and clinical science faculty members from medical universities’ participation in development courses. These factors are: professional and occupational factors, individual factors, social factors, educational and academic factors, and managerial/leadership and organizational factors.
a.
According to the results of this study, one of the factors influencing the motivation of basic and clinical science faculty members from medical universities to enroll in a virtual medical education master's program is the professional and occupational factor. This component includes elements such as job status conversion and career advancement, job compulsion and obligation, self-efficacy and professional development, and strategic career field change.
Participant No. 5 (telephone interview) said: In my opinion, there is a possibility that this course will become mandatory for all groups in the future. Therefore, I thought it might be better to take this course now. Hence, my motivation for participating in this course was to benefit from the incentive-based approach, and alongside these, scientific considerations were also involved.
b.
According to the findings of this study, another reason and motivation for basic and clinical science faculty members from medical universities to enroll in a virtual medical education master's program is the individual factor. This category includes elements such as perfectionism and achieving a new identity, personal self-efficacy, and personal development.
Participant No. 2 (telephone interview) stated: I felt that by taking this course, I would develop my abilities and perform more successfully in educational settings, or other words, in my role as a medical teacher.
c.
In addition to professional, occupational, and individual factors, social factors are also significant in influencing the motivation of faculty members to enroll in a virtual medical education master's program. According to the findings of this study, social factors include elements such as social pressure and stimuli, modeling from a reference group, social advancement, teamwork, and interprofessional learning.
In this regard, Participant No. 4 (telephone interview) said: I initially entered this field to enhance my academic degree, and the second reason was the presence of my friends and colleagues, which led me to become interested in fully registering in this field.
d.
Another factor influencing the reasons and motivations of basic and clinical science faculty members from medical universities to enroll in a virtual medical education master's program is the educational and academic factor. This category includes elements such as academic interest, dynamism, and innovation in teaching; principled and professional approach to teaching/instruction, and academic and educational competence.
Participant No. 8 (telephone interview) said: In my opinion, faculty members (especially clinical) need awareness and knowledge related to teaching methods and other aspects of education as teachers. They should be familiar with the latest available methods as teachers.
e.
Finally, based on the results of this study, another factor influencing the reasons and motivations of basic and clinical science faculty members from medical universities to enroll in a virtual medical education master's program is the managerial/leadership and organizational factor. This category includes elements such as changes in managerial structure, educational decision-making and policy-making, effective management of the learning system, and classroom leadership/clinical education environment leadership.
Participant No. 3 (telephone interview) said: Teaching methods in clinical settings vary based on context, time, and other factors. Therefore, a structured perspective is needed to lead the clinical educational environment. These conditions are only provided in these courses, and that is why I participated in this course.
Discussion
This research employed a sequential qualitative design, incorporating an online open-ended survey and semi-structured telephone interviews. The use of both the online qualitative survey and the follow-up interviews enabled us to combine broad perspectives with deep contextual understanding. Although the surveys allowed us to identify broad themes, the interviews provided narrative depth and insight into the participants’ motives.
Five overarching themes that shape faculty participation in the virtual master's program in medical education were derived by this study: professional and occupational, individual (personal), social, academic and educational, and managerial/leadership and organizational. Each theme has multiple categories and subcategories, marking the complexity that dictates faculty motivation and engagement in development programs. These results affirm the multidimensionality of faculty participation as well as the need for targeted interventions.
According to the results of this study, faculty participation in a virtual medical education master's program in Iran is driven by career-oriented incentives such as obtaining permanent jobs, enhancing promotion opportunities, career development, evading work pressure within the clinical setting, and reducing burnout. The majority sought to improve job satisfaction and teaching ability while evading professional stagnation. These findings support Meng and Sun, 23 Valdez et al, 24 Caena, 25 Çelik and Kıral, 26 Heide et al, 10 Mojaddami et al, 27 and Fatholahzade et al, 28 Opportunities for development and support empower staff, boosting job satisfaction and reducing stress, as reported by Valdez et al, 24 whereas Heide et al 10 similarly indicated that such programs are used by faculty to prevent clinical stressors.
Faculty were also motivated by personal development goals such as intrinsic motivation, lifelong learning, self-directed growth, personal achievement, and dynamic change. These individual aspirations aligned with findings from Mahande and Akram, 29 Seref and Mizikaci, 30 Valdez et al, 24 Al-Harbi, 31 Caena, 25 Dehghan, 32 and Heide et al, 10 Mahande and Akram, 29 identified learning motivation as critical to academic success, while Caena, 25 emphasized intrinsic motivation's role in sustaining educational engagement.
Social motivations included competition among peers, social status of university credentials, professional recognition, support from colleagues, and added status through membership in scholarly and professional associations. These findings are supported by Seref and Mizikaci, 30 Meng and Sun, 23 Caena, 25 Çelik and Kıral, 26 Dehghan, 32 and Heide et al, 10 Caena 25 noted that faculty development enhances teaching culture, peer teaching, and shared professional values, whereas Heide et al 10 concluded that social motives such as credentialism lead to participation in developmental courses.
Based on the qualitative findings of our study, another set of reasons and motivations for faculty members relates to academic and pedagogical factors. Participants cited intellectual interest, curiosity, and a desire for enhanced teaching practice as principal drivers. They sought to enhance their understanding of instructional design, integrate theory and practice, and transform the teaching and learning process. These justifications were aligned with findings of Seref and Mizikaci, 30 Valdez et al, 24 Caena, 25 Heide et al, 10 Ghasemi et al, 33 and Fatholahzade et al, 28 Heide et al 10 and Ghasemi et al 33 both confirmed the importance of building scientific and educational competencies. However, these results contradicted Delbari et al, 34 who argued that online education yields less skill development.
Finally, as indicated by our study findings, another group of motivations and reasons is managerial, leadership, and organizational in origin. The goal for faculty engagement in this program was to address managerial issues and enable participatory decision-making in medical education practice. These findings agreed with Meng and Sun, 23 Valdez et al, 24 and Çelik and Kıral, 26 who emphasized development of the faculty as essential to the quality of education and institutional effectiveness.
Overall, although no explicit codes were given for clinical or basic science faculty, the data indicated sharply different patterns in how each group outlined their problems and incentives. Clinical faculty mentioned issues such as workload stress, career tensions, and the need for collaborative leadership in clinical teaching settings more often. In contrast, faculty in basic science emphasized the formation of academic identity, intrinsic motivation to innovate teaching, and sustainable commitment to scholarship. Although these orientations were not categorized as separate codes in the analysis, they reflect subtle but significant differences between the 2 groups, a difference that future studies might want to investigate.
Faculty members are the pillars of success of a university, and their development has direct outcomes for quality in higher education. 35 The issues that emerged from this research indicate that engagement of faculty members in development programs is driven both by intrinsic and extrinsic motives. In other words, faculty are influenced by career development and job security, as well as by personal growth, intellectual interests, peer influence and pressure, and organizational commitments.
Based on our research findings and the literature, some practical suggestions can be made to enhance faculty participation in development programs. These strategies include offering flexible scheduling and blended learning methods to accommodate clinical and teaching duties; providing academic credit, promotion points, or other career incentives as tangible motivators; enhancing communities of practice through peer mentoring; and strengthening institutional culture by ensuring visible leadership support and consistent communication about the importance of faculty development. The same procedures have been found effective in other studies addressing faculty engagement.24,25,27
Furthermore, by aligning faculty development initiatives with these various motivators, institutions of higher education are able to maximize continued engagement, minimize burnout, and improve teaching performance. The study reveals that context-sensitive, targeted interventions are essential to enhance participation in the faculty development programs, ultimately contributing to the overall quality of medical education. Finally, the research provides valuable directions for program designers and developers and policymakers to improve faculty development programs through effective, multi-faceted, comprehensive, and balanced opportunities.
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions
This study has several strengths. Firstly, triangulating data sources, namely, online qualitative questionnaires and semi-structured telephone interviews, provided a richer, more comprehensive understanding of faculty motivations and reasons. Secondly, the inclusion of heterogeneous participants across basic and clinical sciences provides greater transferability of results to a broad range of related contexts. Thirdly, the use of the maximum variation sampling strategy allowed for the analytical depth of the data by capturing a wide range of perspectives.
However, there were also limitations in this study. One of the limitations is the low rate of response to the online qualitative survey. Although 86 participants took the online qualitative survey, this is less than half of the eligible faculty population (211 faculty members). This must be taken into account while interpreting the findings, as the perspectives of non-respondents may differ from those who participated.
Another limitation is that the virtual nature of the program may have affected the scope and extent of interaction among participants. Although this facilitated greater access and inclusion, it may have limited the opportunity for peer-to-peer interaction and networking, elements that are typically considered essential for the success of faculty development programs. Future research should explore how virtual environments can be designed to remain flexible and encourage real interpersonal relationships.
One other limitation of this study is that it might not be generalizable to short-term interventions in faculty development, eg, workshops or seminars. Compared to long-term programs, eg, master's degrees, short-term actions are typically briefer in time commitment, can include participants who are initially less invested, and offer fewer opportunities for reflective practice and institutional networking. Yet, some of the key motivational drivers identified in this study, such as intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, perceived relevance to teaching, and institutional support, have also been identified in short-term intervention research.8,10,17 Additional work is needed to determine if and how the shared motivational drivers occur differently by intervention methods, particularly within contexts where resource constraints favor shorter programs.
Additionally, the findings of this study suggest several directions for future research. First, comparisons across different institutions of medical education might reveal how varying organizational cultures influence faculty participation. Furthermore, additional qualitative research could explore the experiences of successful “overcomers,” those faculty members who have overcome barriers to engagement, and yield valuable insights for program development and implementation.
Conclusion
This study highlights the complex interaction of professional, personal, social, academic, and organizational motives driving faculty participation in development programs. Identifying these diverse motives enables institutions to develop more effective support strategies and initiatives, such as tangible and intangible incentives, flexible program delivery, a better balance between teaching, research, and clinical tasks, and the positive and supportive organizational culture, that promote long-term faculty engagement, enhance teaching quality, and ultimately improve learning outcomes in medical education.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-mde-10.1177_23821205251384382 - Supplemental material for Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in Medical Education Development Programs: A Qualitative Case Study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mde-10.1177_23821205251384382 for Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in Medical Education Development Programs: A Qualitative Case Study by Zohreh Khoshgoftar, Sheida Khaledian and Hamed Khani in Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-mde-10.1177_23821205251384382 - Supplemental material for Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in Medical Education Development Programs: A Qualitative Case Study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-mde-10.1177_23821205251384382 for Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in Medical Education Development Programs: A Qualitative Case Study by Zohreh Khoshgoftar, Sheida Khaledian and Hamed Khani in Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The research team gratefully acknowledges the faculty members from the basic and clinical sciences departments of medical universities across the country for their sincere participation in this study.
Author Contributions
Z.Kh and H.Kh were the major contributors to conceptualizing and formulating the research question and designing the study. H.Kh and Sh.Kh collected and analyzed the data. The first draft of the manuscript was written by H.Kh and Sh.Kh. Z.Kh contributed to reviewing and critically appraising the manuscript. H.Kh and Sh.Kh revised and developed the first draft based on a critical appraisal. All authors commented on the modified draft, and the final version of the manuscript was prepared. Finally, all authors approved the final manuscript.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical Approval
This research received ethical approval (code: IR.SBMU.SME.REC.1401.037) from the Ethics Committee of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. Ethical considerations were aligned with the highest standards and included provision of an introduction letter from the School of Medical Education and Learning Technologies, coordinating to receive the email and phone numbers of participants, clearly explaining the study objectives, giving the right to withdraw consent to the participants at any time, and provision of research findings upon request.
Consent to Participate
From all participants, both the online qualitative survey respondents and the phone interviews, written informed consent was obtained before data collection. This covered participation in the research, permission to record interviews, and the use of anonymized data for publication. All procedures conformed to the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Clinical Trial Number
Not applicable.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
