Lived Experiences of Iranian Novice Nursing Faculty in Their Professional Roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have focused on understanding the novice nursing faculty experiences on their roles and challenges that they encounter. But there are merely little evidences about Iranian novice nursing faculty experiences to perform their roles. In many universities of Iran, a novice faculty has to attend in a set of educational workshops (e.g. teaching and assessment methods), which are not based on their specific needs. Qualitative approach may provide first hand data needed to understand novice nursing faculty perceptions to develop an actual empowerment program. A qualitative design based on phenomenological approach was applied to uncover the meaning of novice nursing faculties' lived experiences in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Iran). Five main themes emerged from data as: "Importance of support", "Bewilderment", "Efficiency concern", "Concern of being accepted" and "Clinical education: Walking on the edge". These themes implied to uncertainty about fulfilling the academia expectations by novice faculty, desire to overcome the challenges, time limitation, and, unfriendly behavior from senior colleagues. Findings support that more than formal programs, such as workshops, the novice faculty can be empowered by other approaches (e.g. mentorship programs) where they can safely transit into academia under supervision of experienced colleagues. Also, this may facilitate the socialization process of novice faculty to academia and clinical fields.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".