Vahideh Zarea Gavgani
1،2 
, Hossein Beydokhti
3 , Hasan Ashrafi-Rizi
4 , Maryam Okhovati
5 , Karim Saberi
6 , Azra Daei
2،7* 1 Tabriz Health Services Management Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2 Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
3 Department of General Courses, School of Medicine, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran
4 Health Information Technology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
5 Department of Medical Library and Information Science, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
6 Department of Nursing, Shirvan Faculty of Nursing, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran
7 Department of General Courses, School of Medicine, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
Abstract
Background. Continuous review and updating of educational programs within higher education is of paramount importance, serving as a fundamental pillar in achieving sustainable development goals. Specifically within the field of medical library and information science, the remarkable and ongoing expansion in the volume and breadth of scientific information, coupled with the rapid evolution of technological advancements within the healthcare sector, has rendered curriculum revision an absolutely essential undertaking. This article aimed to present a detailed account of the experience gained in implementing a curriculum revision process at the undergraduate level, specifically within the domain of medical library and information science.
Methods. This study employed a qualitative research approach, utilizing a conventional content analysis method as its core analytical framework. Data collection was conducted through a series of semi-structured interviews, organized into focus group discussions. Individuals were included as participants based on their demonstrated interest in the subject matter, coupled with prior experience in curriculum design and development. Conversely, those unwilling to participate were excluded from the study. A total of 14 were ultimately involved in the data collection process. Data collection continued until saturation was reached. To ensure the trustworthiness and rigor of the findings, Lincoln and Guba's four criteria for trustworthiness were meticulously applied throughout the research process. MAXQDA 10 software was used for data analysis and management.
Results. The analysis yielded five main categories and twelve subcategories. The main categories included: structural barriers at the macro-policy level, organizational obstacles, resistance to change and innovation, challenges pertaining to collaboration and alignment within the higher education and employment systems, and operational and implementation challenges.
Conclusion. Curriculum revision requires the active involvement of all stakeholders, including faculty members, students, administrators, and employers. The importance of employing systematic research methods and well-defined theoretical frameworks in this process was clearly evident. However, the barriers and challenges identified in this study need to be directly addressed, and practical solutions must be developed to ensure higher quality and more effective curriculum revisions in the future.
Extended Abstract
Background
Curriculum revision represents a fundamentally crucial process within any educational system, serving as a cornerstone for enhancing the overall quality of education, ensuring its alignment with the evolving needs of society, and establishing a strong foundation for future growth and development. In the field of medical librarianship and information science, the rapidly growing volume and diversity of scientific information, along with the rapid and transformative advancements in healthcare technologies have made curriculum revision an unavoidable necessity. Therefore, such revisions must not only address the present educational needs of students, but also equip them with the skills and knowledge necessary to excel in emerging professional roles, such as those found within information centers, research units, scientometric services, and within the evolving landscape of hospital environments.
Numerous studies have consistently highlighted the need for improvement in education of medical librarianship and information science. Zare-Gavgani, et al., Zare-Farashbandi and Daei, Daei and Zare-Farashbandi, Daei, et al., Hashemian et al., Zarghani, et al., and Eshaghi, et al. have all emphasized in their studies the need for changes in curricula, educational structures, and alignment of educational programs with information technologies and labor market demands.
Since no systematic study or research has yet examined the specific barriers, challenges, and lessons learned during the process of developing revised undergraduate curricula in this field, this article aimed to address this critical gap by presenting a detailed account of the curriculum development experience for the undergraduate program in medical librarianship and information science. By documenting this lived experience, the article seeks to provide a practical model that can be utilized for future curriculum revisions or development efforts in similar disciplines and at comparable educational levels. The absence of such documentation may lead to repeated mistakes, resource waste, and reduced effectiveness of future revisions.
Methods
This study employed a qualitative research approach using conventional content analysis methodology. The participants consisted of faculty members within the field of medical librarianship and information science across the country, selected through purposive sampling. A total of 14 faculty members from the medical sciences universities of Tabriz, Iran, Tehran, Isfahan, Kerman, Bushehr, Shahid Beheshti, and Hamedan participated in the study. Inclusion criteria consisted of: engagement or prior research experience in the field of curriculum reform, holding a PhD in disciplines related to medical librarianship and information science, willingness to participate in the study, and teaching experience in medical librarianship and information science. Conversely, the study excluded participants who lacked demonstrable involvement in curriculum reform within the field, or unwilling to participate in the research.
Data were collected through six focus group discussion (FGD) sessions. Each session was conducted with 5 to 14 faculty members and facilitated by a moderator from the research team, lasting a minimum of four hours. To deepen the findings and extract more comprehensive concepts, supplementary semi-structured interviews were also conducted with some faculty members. These sessions were held online via the Google Meet platform, with informed consent obtained from participants prior to each session. For each session, a semi-structured interview guide was designed to steer the discussions within defined themes while allowing flexibility for open expression of ideas. Sessions were audio-recorded by a research team member and detailed notes were taken simultaneously. At the beginning of each session, the study's purpose, data usage procedures, confidentiality of information, and participants' right to withdraw at any time were explained. The moderator aimed to foster a participatory and nonjudgmental environment to ensure all members had the opportunity to contribute.
Following transcription of the collected data, semantic units were extracted by identifying key sentences in each paragraph. The analysis proceeded with the initial stage of content analysis, namely open coding, where each semantic unit was carefully examined for both explicit and implicit content. Each unit was assigned a specific code, which was subsequently organized into subcategories and main categories based on the identified similarities and differences. Throughout the analysis process, codes were repeatedly reviewed, and any disagreements among research team members were resolved through discussion and consensus. For organizing, managing, and analyzing the data, MAXQDA version 10 software was used, which enabled structured coding, categorization, and data review.
Results
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the experiences and lessons learned regarding the challenges and obstacles encountered during the implementation of the undergraduate curriculum revision process in the field of medical librarianship and information science, a combination of focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews was conducted with faculty members within the discipline to collect the data.
After a thorough analysis of the collected data, five main categories were identified: structural barriers at the macro policy-making level, organizational obstacles, resistance to change and innovation, collaboration and alignment challenges within the higher education and employment systems, and operational and executive challenges. Within the main category of structural barriers at the macro policy-making level, two subcategories emerged: lack of a theoretical framework and operational model for curriculum revision, and weak financial policy-making and inadequate allocation of sustainable funding.
In the category of organizational obstacles, three subcategories were identified: complexity of administrative processes and obstructive bureaucracy, limitations in resources, equipment, and infrastructure, and lack of time capacity for effective participation and the overload of responsibilities.
In the main category of operational and executive challenges, two subcategories emerged: insufficient educational support capacities and lack of an effective incentive system for academic participation. In the main category of collaboration and alignment challenges within the higher education and employment systems, three subcategories were extracted: lack of active student participation, the gap between the university and the labor market, and the lack of coordination and collaboration among key stakeholders and related institutions. In the main category of resistance to change and innovation, two subcategories were identified: cognitive and behavioral resistance to educational changes and tendency toward conservative approaches and lack of motivation for innovation.
Conclusion
This study was conducted using a qualitative approach to gain lessons learned from the barriers and challenges encountered during the implementation of the undergraduate curriculum revision process in the field of medical librarianship and information science Despite the numerous obstacles, the curriculum revision process ultimately proved to be a highly beneficial and productive experience, yielding positive outcomes. The process underscored the critical importance of active and comprehensive stakeholder involvement, encompassing faculty members, students, administrators, and employers. It also emphasized the importance of utilizing systematic research methods and well-defined theoretical frameworks throughout the process.
Nevertheless, the study also highlighted the significant impact of factors such as limited time, insufficient funding, and resistance to change. These challenges demand careful consideration and the development of practical and effective solutions to ensure the quality and effectiveness of future curriculum revisions.
Practical Implications of Research
Lived experiences always encompass implicit knowledge and insights that can contribute to future growth, improvement, and shifts in overarching policies and strategies. Currently, no comprehensive framework or practical guideline exists in Iran for the revision and development of educational curricula. Therefore, these lived experiences can serve as a valuable resource in the process of revising curricula in this field and related disciplines, ultimately enhancing quality and reducing procedural challenges. Accordingly, it is recommended that policymakers in the Supreme Council for Curriculum Planning of the Ministry of Health formulate and adopt a clear and systematic policy for curriculum revision, both from scientific and executive perspectives.