بررسی موانع و مشکلات روند ارتقاء: نا گفته‌های اعضاء هیأت علمی

Abstract Background and purpose: performance evaluation of faculty members always is involved with various issues hence, this study is designed and performed to describe and recognize the experiences of faculty members about promotion process. Material and methods: this study is Sectional – descriptive and data was collected by using researcher – made questionnaire, it's validated obtained by using specialist advice and to make sure of its reliability the Cronbach alpha coefficient was measured (% 76). Contributors were faculty members of Mashhad medical Science University whom were entered the study by number of 122 persons randomly. The data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics Results: : % 66.2 of clinical sciences and the base science faculty members about “cultural clause“ sub criteria and %54.1 about “audit board performance“ , also clinical sciences group members of faculty about “promotion process generalities“ sub criteria and absorption executive board performance have selected “I DISAGREE“ option %55.1 and %63.5. Respectively and the only meaningful statistical difference was observed between two clinical education group and the sciences for the variable “cultural clause“(P< 0.02). Faculty members about the sub criteria “education clause “ , “research clause “ , “executive clause“, “initial assessment “ , “selected committee performance “ and “expert committee performance “ selected respectively %63.1 , %59 , %59 , %74.6 , %66.4 , %63.1 “ I AGREE “ option and only there was meaningful statistic difference between two clinical and science education groups regarding the variable of "Selected Committee Performance" ( P <0.05 ) . In the questionnaire open questions part faculty members expressed automatically promotion process as the best choice to resolve questions in this context. Conclusion: in the current study , generalities of upgrade process , cultural clause , absorption executive board performance and audit board performance have gained less average , therefore transparent and just promotion methods , codification of appropriate quantitative and qualitative indicators to measure activities , processes homogenization and utilization of experts in university upgrading committees seems to be necessary.