Developing a Conceptual Academic Governance Framework for Faculty Evaluation in Medical Universities Based on a Critical Review

Effective faculty evaluation is critical for quality assurance and professional development in medical universities; however, prevalent systems often lack integration, transparency, and contextual sensitivity-particularly in settings such as Iran. This study addresses this research gap by proposing a comprehensive, locally adapted framework aimed at enhancing evaluation practices and strengthening the connections between assessment, academic governance, and faculty growth.

A critical review methodology was employed, following the four-stage framework established by Carnwell and Daly (2001). A systematic literature search was conducted across international databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, Google Scholar) and national databases (SID, Magiran, IranMedex) for studies published between 2000 and 2025. Search terms covered faculty evaluation, performance, appraisal, assessment, and teaching effectiveness, combined with terms related to medical education, medical schools, academic medicine, and health professions education. Thematic analysis was used forthe conceptual synthesis of existing faculty evaluation systems to develop an evidence-based model.

Analysis of eight international and national frameworks-including the AAMC Mission-Based management (MBM) model, Merit Review system, University of Minnesota multi-track system, MCDA, BSC-AHP-TOPSIS hybrid model, Textual Feedback Analysis Model, S-UDLCD data-driven model, and Iran's SHOA system-revealed that no single model was sufficient. Mission-based, merit-oriented, and data-driven systems each offered only partial strengths, with notable limitations in addressing the multidimensional nature of faculty roles, ensuring organizational justice, and linking evaluation to professional development and governance. Findings underscore the necessity for a hybrid, context-specific system that integrates quantitative, qualitative, and multi-source evidence.

A localized, mission-aligned, multi-criteria, and feedback-driven academic governance framework is proposed. This integrated model is organized around four key features: (1) explicit alignment of academic pathways with institutional missions, (2) integration of both quantitative and qualitative performance indicators, (3) multi-source assessment mechanisms that combine electronic data, structured weighting, and textual feedback analysis, and (4) a continuous feedback and development cycle that links evaluation outcomes to annual academic contracts, resource allocation, and promotion decisions. This model provides a foundation for educational policymakers and university administrators to design fair, transparent, and development-oriented evaluation systems. Future studies should focus on pilot implementation, empirical validation of the model in Iranian medical universities, and longitudinal assessment of its impact on faculty performance, satisfaction, and institutional outcomes.