Identification of Factors Related to the Research Vitality of Faculty Members in Medical Universities: A Scoping Review

Parvaneh Ranjbar, Mousa Alavi, Rahele Samouei, Mohammad Reza Soleymani

Abstract


Background: Vitality, as a key component of mental wellbeing, is considered essential within research systems and academic institutions. This study aims to identify the factors associated with the research vitality of faculty members at medical universities. Materials and Methods: This scoping review was conducted in 2024 following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses) guidelines. Between April and August 2024, a comprehensive search was performed across databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest (based on MeSH), as well as the Persian databases such as Magiran, Noormags, and the Scientific Information Database. A total of 1998 studies were initially retrieved. After removing duplicates and screening the records, 27 studies were ultimately selected for inclusion. The extracted data were summarized, synthesized, and categorized based on the study objectives. Results: The findings were organized into four main categories, ten subcategories, and 66 codes. The main categories included individual factors (e.g., personality traits and professional characteristics), organizational factors (e.g., management style, regulations, and facilities), professional factors (e.g., nature and importance of research), and environmental factors (e.g., interaction and collaboration, rewards and recognition, and institutional values). Conclusions: Policymakers and academic administrators should prioritize enhancing the key factors that influence research vitality across individual, organizational, professional, and environmental domains. Addressing these dimensions can foster greater motivation, creativity, and productivity, among faculty members, ultimately contributing to the improvement of research quality in medical universities.

 


Keywords


Academic vitality, faculty members, organizational culture, research productivity, research vitality, work engagement

Full Text:

PDF

References


Commission on Health Research for Development. Health research: essential link to equity in development. Oxford University Press, USA; 1990.

Taherian H. Management and organizational factors affecting happiness in universities and their impact on science production. J Educ Health Promot. 2013;2:12.

Dankoski ME, Buchwald D, Fryer GE. An expanded model of faculty vitality in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2012;87:477-83.

Lavrusheva O. The concept of vitality: review of the vitality related research domain. J Occup Health Psychol. 2020;25:169–184.

Bishwas S. LIFE: An integrated view of meta organizational process for vitality. Indian J Organ Behav. 2016;4:1-15.

Houston T. Vitality as a renewable resource: strengthening self confidence. J Psychol Res. 2005;39:305-14.

Gilstrap JB. Research vitality as sustained excellence: What keeps the plates spinning? J Acad Res 2011;5:98–112.

Malik SZ, Sharma P, Kumar R. Conceptualizing vitality at work: bridging the gap between individual and organizational health. J Organ Psychol 2015;15:32-47.

Chan SS, Burton J. Faculty vitality in the comprehensive university: changing context and concerns. Educ Rev 1995;47:237–250.

Huston TA. Expanding the discussion of faculty vitality to include productive but disengaged senior faculty. J High Educ Manag 2007; 22:23–35.

Taylor KW. Bloody but unbowed: an exploration of faculty vitality in “the people's college”. J Educ Adm 2007;45:12–28.

Polk J, Thompson B. Sustained productivity and innovation among faculty: keys to vitality. Acad Med. 2013;88:1312–318.

Ables AZ, Shan L, Broyles IL. Faculty vitality in osteopathic medical schools: a pilot study. J Osteopath Med. 2018;118:622-8.

Lieberman D. Enhancing faculty vitality and institutional commitment: smart leadership in difficult times. Educ Leadersh J. 2011;15:43-56.

Pololi LH, Krupat E, Civian JT, Ash AS, Brennan RT. Faculty vitality–surviving the challenges facing academic health centers: a national survey of medical faculty. Acad Med 2015;90:258– 267.

Altshuler TC. Maintaining faculty vitality. J High Educ. 1985;56:603-22.

Pensavalle CA, Solinas MG, Gardoni C, Giorgi G, Antognozzi T, Alessio F. PRISMA flow diagram for scoping review process [Internet]. Figshare; 2024.

Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.

Pollock D, Evans C, Jia RM, Alexander L, Pieper D, Brandão de Moraes É, Peters MDJ, Tricco AC, Khali H, Godfrey CM, Saran A, Campbell F, Munn Z. “How to:” scoping review? J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Dec;176:111572.

Tricco AC, Munn Z, Pollock D, Saran A, Sutton A, White H, Khalil H, F. Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different the “Big Picture” review family. Syst Rev. 2023;12.

Khalid AZ, Al Kohawis N. Academic leadership styles and faculty members’ job satisfaction at the King Saud University. J Educ Adm 2020;58:517-34.

Vaziri M. Investigating the relationship between organizational climate and happiness and vitality among faculty members of Al Zahra University. J Psychol Res 2010;17:88-102.

Baldwin RG. Faculty vitality beyond the research university. J High Educ. 1990;61:160–80.

DeFelippo AM. Vitality in the academic workplace: sustaining professional growth for mid career faculty. J High Educ Manag.2022;34:1-18.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.