Explaining the factors in the formation and improvement of professional interactions in faculty members

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Paramedicine, Aja University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Infectious Diseases Research Center, Aja University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


Background: Faculty members, as the most important elements in universities, play an important role in realizing the goals and missions of universities and higher education institutions. Establishing interaction and professional communication among faculty members is one of the important topics. The purpose of this study was to explain the factors influencing the professional interactions of faculty members.
Method: The present study was a qualitative research. The semi‑structured interview was used for data collection. The participants in the study were 12 faculty members and 5 students who were selected by purposive sampling. The interviews continued until data saturation was reached. The text of the interviews was analyzed by the thematic analysis using the method of Braun and Clark (2006).
Results: Based on the analysis of the data, 6 main themes and 25 sub-themes were obtained. The main themes included “individual factors”, “human relations”, “faculty professionalism”, “the importance of side studies”, “contextual factors”, and “organizational factors”.
Conclusion: The results of this study indicated the affective factors on the professional interactions of faculty members from the perspective of faculty members and students. It is suggested that universities of medical sciences use the results of this study to create and improve the professional interactions of their faculty members.


  1. Ramklass S, Vithal R. Student‑faculty interactions within a physiotherapy curriculum in South Africa. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2022:27:49–61.
  2. Docan-Morgan T. A typology of relational turning point events in college teacher-student relationships. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2009:9(2): 82–97.
  3. Wu X, Hua R, Yang Z, Yin J. The influence of intention and outcome on evaluations of social Acta Psychologica.2018; (182):75-81.
  4. Chen CJ, Huang JW. How Organizational Climate and Structure Affect Knowledge Management—The Social Interaction Perspective. International Journal of Information Management. 2007; 27(2): 104-18.
  5. Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Vargas-Quesada B, Hassan-Montero Y, González-Molina A, Moya-Anegóna F. New approach to the visualization of international scientific collaboration. Information Visualization. 2010; 9(4): 277-87.
  6. Caffarella RS, Zinn L. Professional development for faculty: A conceptual framework of barriers and supports. Innovative Higher Education. 1999;23(4): 241-54.
  7. Parker III ET, Trolian TL. Student perceptions of the climate for diversity: The role of student-faculty interactions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 2020;13(4): 333–44. 
  8. Jung J, Yangson K. Exploring regional and institutional factors of international students’dropout: The South Korea case. Higher Education Quarterly. 2018; 72(2):141–59.
  9. Ramklass SS, Vithal R. Student‑faculty interactions within a physiotherapy
    curriculum in South Africa. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2022; 27:49–61.
  10. Cuseo J. Student-faculty engagement. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2018;(154): 87–97.
  11. Cox BE. A developmental typology of faculty-student interaction outside the classroom. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011:49–66.
  12. Hagenauer G, Volet S.E. Teacher–student relationship at university: An important yet under-researched field. Oxford Review of Education, 2014;40(3): 370–88.
  13. Moradi R, Zargham-Boroujeni A, Soleymani MR. Factors related to the international research collaboration in the health area: A qualitative study. J Edu Health Promot. 2020; 9:267.
  14. Choi BK, Kim MS. The student–faculty interaction beyond the formal curriculum in South Korea. Higher Education Quarterly, 2021; 75(1):35-50.
  15. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology.2006;3:77-101.
  16. Ayanbode O.F, Fagbe A, Owolabi R, Oladipo S, Ewulo O.R. Students’ interactions, satisfaction and perceived progress in an online class: Empirical evidence from Babcock university Nigeria. Cogent Education, 2022;9: 1,2060783.
  17. Ingraham KC, Davidson SJ, Yonge O. Student-faculty relationships and its impact on academic outcomes. Nurse Education Today.2018;71:17-21.
  18. Trolian TL, Parker ET. Shaping Students’ Attitudes Toward Diversity: Do Faculty Practices and Interactions with Students Matter?. Res High Educ. 2022; 63:849-70.
  19. Trolian TL, Jach EA, Hanson JM, Pascarella ET. Influencing academic motivation: The effects of student-faculty interaction. Journal of College Student Development. 2016; 57(7): 810–26.
  20. You JW. The relationship between participation in extracurricular activities,
    interaction, satisfaction with academic major, and career motivation. Journal of Career
    Development. 2020:47(4):454–68.
  21. Dwyer T. Persistence in higher education through student-faculty interactions in the classroom of a commuter institution. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2017;54(4): 325–34.
  22. Kim YK, Lundberg CA. A structural model of the relationship between student faculty interaction and cognitive skills development among college students. Research in Higher Education. 2016:57(3): 288.   23. Khan A, Khan S, Zia-Ul-Islam S, Khan M. Communication Skills of a Teacher and Its Role in the Development of the Students’ Academic Success. Journal of Education and Practice. 2017;8(1):18-21.
  23. Sparks SD. Why teacher-student relationships matter: New findings shed light on best approaches. Education Week. 2019;38(25):8.
  24. Abedini M, Abassi A, Mortazavi F, Bijari B. The effective factors on the communication between students and faculty members from student’s prospective in Birjand University of Medical Sciences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013; 83:94-98.
  25. Ponjuan L, Conley V.M, Trower C. Career stage differences in pre- tenured faculty perceptions of professional and personal relationships with colleagues. The Journal of Higher Education. 2011:82(3),11-22.
  26. Haghighi Sh, Rokhafroz D, Sayadi N. The Study of the Interaction Effects between Students and Instructors from Shushtar Nursing Students’ Perspective. Future med educ j. 2015;5(4):20-4.
  27. Dipasupil SR, Lee HJ, Ham J-H. Students’ perception on the level of classroom engagement at a Korean university. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET).2019; 14(20): 182–92.
  28. Cho J, Lee S. International students’ proactive behaviors in the United States: Effects of information-seeking behaviors on school life. Journal of College Student Development. 2016; 57(5): 590–603.
  29. Cody BL. Fragmented Exchanges: The Impact of Cultural Mistrust on Student Faculty Interaction in a predominantly White university. The Journal of Pan African.2017;11(1).3-15.
  30. Hoffman EM. Faculty and Student Relationships: Context Matters. College Teaching. 2014;62(1): 13-19.
  31. Schwarz M J. An examination of institutional improvement on measures of out-of-class interactions between faculty and community college transfer students at bachelor's-granting institutions. (Dissertation). (Indiana) Indiana University: 2016.
  32. Soltani A, Boostani D, Golestani S. Exploring the strategies of faculty-student interactions: A grounded theory study in Iranian academic context. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. September 2020;26;100408. DOI:10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100408
  33. Mohammadimehr M, Haji J. Identifying the factors affecting on interaction of faculty member: A meta-synthesis. J Edu Health Promot. 2022;11:343.
  34. Cox BE, Orehovec E. Faculty-student interaction outside the classroom: A typology from a residential college. Review of Higher Education. 2007; 30(4): 343-62.