Tue, Nov 26, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 11, Issue 29 (2018)
JMED 2018, 11(29): 63-76 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Karimian Z, Abolghasemi M. Comparison between the Viewpoints of Faculty Members Regarding the Share of Scholarship Functions in Different Disciplines. JMED 2018; 11 (29) :63-76
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-943-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-943-en.html
Department of Electoronic Learning,Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract: (17827 Views)
Background & Objective: Previous research suggests that the type and amount of the activities of faculty members vary depending on the nature of various disciplines. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the viewpoints of faculty members regarding the share of scholarship functions in different disciplines.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive survey was conducted in 2014. Sample population consisted of 1,200 faculty members at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences and Shiraz University, Iran. Based on Morgan’s table, 300 members were selected as the research units, and 265 questionnaires were completed. Data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire with 37 items, which were scored based on a Likert scale. Content validity and face validity of the questionnaires were assessed by five experts, and the reliability was confirmed at the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91. Data analysis was performed using ANOVA.
Results: In all disciplines, research had the highest share, and commitment in research (engagement with the community) had the lowest share. Share of research in the disciplines of engineering, basic sciences, and basic medical sciences was higher comparatively (P<0.05). In addition, the optimal status profile in the disciplines of engineering, pure basic sciences, and basic medical sciences had more significant associations, with an inclination toward scholarships. On the other hand, the profile of humanities, paraclinical sciences, and clinical medicine were more inclined toward education.
Conclusion: According to the results, share of the scholarships varied depending on the nature of the disciplines, which should be taken into account in the regulations and modifications of the evaluation systems for faculty members.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive survey was conducted in 2014. Sample population consisted of 1,200 faculty members at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences and Shiraz University, Iran. Based on Morgan’s table, 300 members were selected as the research units, and 265 questionnaires were completed. Data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire with 37 items, which were scored based on a Likert scale. Content validity and face validity of the questionnaires were assessed by five experts, and the reliability was confirmed at the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91. Data analysis was performed using ANOVA.
Results: In all disciplines, research had the highest share, and commitment in research (engagement with the community) had the lowest share. Share of research in the disciplines of engineering, basic sciences, and basic medical sciences was higher comparatively (P<0.05). In addition, the optimal status profile in the disciplines of engineering, pure basic sciences, and basic medical sciences had more significant associations, with an inclination toward scholarships. On the other hand, the profile of humanities, paraclinical sciences, and clinical medicine were more inclined toward education.
Conclusion: According to the results, share of the scholarships varied depending on the nature of the disciplines, which should be taken into account in the regulations and modifications of the evaluation systems for faculty members.
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Education
Received: 2017/09/3 | Accepted: 2018/01/31 | Published: 2018/06/21
Received: 2017/09/3 | Accepted: 2018/01/31 | Published: 2018/06/21
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
