Factors affecting the quality of education in clinical and academic settings from the perspective of stakeholders: a qualitative study
TL;DR
The findings suggest that investment in faculty development may yield faster and greater returns than investment in infrastructure alone, and perceived faculty competence as capable of compensating for structural deficiencies, suggesting that it may act as an enabling factor.
Abstract
Quality education is critical to developing competent human resources in clinical settings. Identifying the factors that influence educational quality can help improve educational programs. This study, conducted at X University of Medical Sciences, aims to explain these factors from the perspective of diverse stakeholders. This six-month qualitative study used a conventional content analysis approach. Twenty participants: university faculty, clinical instructors, students, education development officials and patients were purposefully selected until data saturation was reached, ensuring maximum diversity. Data were gathered through semistructured interviews (20–65 min) and analyzed concurrently using an inductive method. Data analysis yielded 5 themes and 23 subthemes. Four themes reflected structural barriers to educational quality: the marginalization of education relative to clinical service, limited facilities amid rising student numbers, a career outlook shaped by credentialism and declining intrinsic motivation and inconsistent curriculum supervision. The fifth theme, student flourishing in the presence of competent faculty members, emerged as the richest (nine subthemes) and most central: across all stakeholder groups, instructors’ morale-building, motivational support and conflict-management skills, and innovative teaching methods were described as compensating for the very deficiencies identified in the other themes, rather than merely coexisting alongside them. This study has several limitations. First, it was conducted in a single university setting, which may limit the transferability of the findings to other contexts. Second, as a qualitative study, the findings are based on interpretive analysis and may be influenced by researchers’ perspectives. Finally, the mediating role of capable faculty members was conceptually derived from thematic relationships rather than statistically tested. Future studies using mixed-methods or quantitative designs are recommended to further validate the proposed model. Balancing education with research and treatment in university policies. Increasing educational budgets and equipment. Strengthening curriculum oversight and standardizing assessments. Providing career and educational counseling to enhance genuine motivation for learning. Paying attention to the economic and social status of professors and providing professional development. These measures can pave the way for improving the quality of education by training a skilled and capable workforce. Future studies can examine the impact of these innovative interventions with a mixed approach. Psychometric testing of the proposed dimensions can be used in future studies in different university communities. Participants perceived faculty competence as capable of compensating for structural deficiencies, suggesting that it may act as an enabling factor. Drawing on role-modeling theory extended here beyond professional education to educational quality more broadly, the findings suggest that investment in faculty development may yield faster and greater returns than investment in infrastructure alone.