The Investigation of Challenges in Developing and Implementing New Academic Disciplines in Iranian Universities: Views of the Faculty Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">The move on decentralization of curriculum development in recent decade has become one of the major tasks in developing scientific fields in Iran. By implementing these programs some drawbacks have become evident. The objective of this study was to identify and assess the existing challenges involved in the development of academic disciplines from the faculty members’ views. For this aim, through a descriptive study, a body of 125 faculty members involved in academic disciplines development from state universities of Isfahan, Tehran and Ferdowsi are randomly selected. The study pursued seven research questions using a researcher-made questionnaire. Findings showed that interdisciplinary challenges, structural challenges and management challenges significantly exceeded the moderate level. Moreover, scientific-professional and financial challenges significantly affected the curriculum development of the academic disciplines. Results of MANOVA further showed that there were significant differences between the mean scores of faculty members’ views regarding the structural and management challenges in different universities. In general, results of the study highlighted the challenges which can be considered as important obstacles in the development process of disciplines and society at large. Optimization of this process needs the correctly addressed opinions of the faculty members in this respect.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".