Research design
This study was based on a descriptive qualitative research design that utilised content analysis to systematically analyse the data. The study was conducted between January and February 2024. A Twelve faculty members specialised in the fields of family medicine, medical education, public health, psychiatry, rheumatology, biostatistics and medical informatics in Erzincan, Erzurum and Trabzon provinces in Türkiye were studied. The study adhered to the “Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research” (COREQ) checklist to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting [12]. This study was designed within an interpretivist paradigm, which seeks to understand the meanings and experiences of participants in their natural settings [13].
Sample and participants
A combination of purposive and snowball sampling was employed to ensure maximum variation in participants’ backgrounds and experiences, enhancing the transferability of findings [13]. Purposive sampling allowed deliberate selection of participants from diverse academic disciplines, while snowball sampling expanded the participant pool through recommendations from initial participants. To enhance maximum variation sampling while addressing potential bias due to prior acquaintance, the study was conducted in two phases: in the first phase, the principal investigator interviewed six participants with whom there was some familiarity; in the second phase, six additional participants were identified through recommendations from these initial participants, and none of them had a prior relationship with the investigator, ensuring a diverse range of perspectives.
Inclusion criteria included being a faculty member at a medical school and having no prior qualitative research experience. Academics who had recently started their academic career and had less than one year of experience, who had no experience in managing an independent research project or taking an active role in the research process, or who had previous collaborations with the researchers, to minimise potential bias, were not included in the study. The decision to exclude participants with less than one year of experience was made to ensure the study focused on academics with a sufficient baseline understanding of research responsibilities, based on the expectation that a minimum level of research maturity and familiarity with academic responsibilities is important for reflecting realistic perceptions and challenges regarding qualitative research.
Structured interviews were used to ensure that all participants were asked the same set of questions, maintaining consistency in data collection. Participants were from diverse fields such as family medicine [4], biostatistics and medical ınformatics [2], medical education [2], public health [2], psychiatry [1], and rheumotology [1]. The specialisation areas of the participants and the sampling method are shown in Fig. 1.
Participants’ Specialisation Areas and Sampling Method
Data collection method and procedure
Two researchers conducted a pilot interview prior to the interviews, but the study did not include it. The pilot interview was conducted exclusively to refine the structured interview questions for clarity and flow, avoiding inclusion in the main analysis to prevent inconsistencies arising from pre-finalised questions. Given the limited time availability and heavy workloads of medical faculty members, structured interviews were chosen to ensure consistent data collection and to efficiently cover all key topics within a limited 15–20 min timeframe. While structured interviews are less typical in qualitative research, they were deemed appropriate in this context to balance practicality with thematic depth. Although structured interviews are less commonly employed in qualitative research than semi-structured formats, they can be appropriate when comparability across participants and time efficiency are essential [14, 15]. They allow researchers to maintain a consistent structure across all interviews, which can facilitate the comparison of responses and reduce variability introduced by different interviewing styles [15]. In our study, the limited time availability of medical academics made structured interviews the most feasible option, while still allowing us to collect rich data on pre-determined topics.
Interviews were conducted face-to-face or via Zoom by the responsible researcher (male). After the purpose and procedure of the study were communicated, all but one of the academics contacted (Psychiatry, due to work intensity) agreed to be interviewed, and interviews were conducted at a convenient place and time.
The questions were developed based on a review of the relevant literature and refined through the pilot interview. During the interviews, the questions specified in Table 1 were asked and the conversations were audio recorded. The recordings were then transcribed verbatim.
Data analysis
Data analysis followed the six-phase thematic analysis approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006): familiarisation with data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the report [16]. Data saturation was considered reached when no new themes emerged from subsequent interviews.
Initially, six broad themes emerged from the data: (1) Knowledge and Awareness (2), Perceptions and Attitudes (3), Barriers and Challenges (4), Support and Resources (5), Career and Professional Development, and (6) Personal Interest and Motivation. However, to improve readability and provide a more integrated understanding of the findings, these six themes were subsequently consolidated into three overarching themes: (1) Perceptions and Knowledge about Qualitative Research (2), Challenges and Barriers, and (3) Opportunities and Facilitators (Fig. 2). This thematic refinement ensured a clearer and more cohesive presentation of the participants’ experiences.
Thematic Analysis Framework Developed in the Study
Throughout the research process, the researchers engaged in continuous reflexivity to acknowledge and critically examine how their backgrounds, assumptions, and professional roles may have influenced the data collection, analysis, and interpretation [17]. The primary researcher’s clinical and academic experience, for example, was considered when interpreting participant responses, ensuring that personal biases and preconceptions were recognized and mitigated to enhance the trustworthiness of the findings.
Paying attention to participant diversity (such as differences in academic roles, disciplines, and experience levels), the researchers agreed on the statements that best represented each sub-theme. NVivo software (version 12) was chosen to assist in organizing, coding, and analyzing qualitative data systematically. Its features enabled the researchers to manage large volumes of interview transcripts efficiently and supported a transparent thematic analysis process. The selected statements or transcribed texts were not forwarded to the academics after the interview or repeated interviews were not conducted. This approach was preferred in order to preserve the natural and spontaneous responses of the participants.
Ethical aspects
The study was conducted with the approval of Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University Clinical Research Ethics Committee numbered 2023-22/7. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before the start of the study and the principles of the revised Declaration of Helsinki were followed at all stages of the study. Participants did not receive any incentives for their participation. In online interviews, the consent form was sent to the participants and they were expected to scan and send it to the researcher. At the beginning of the interviews, the participants were briefly informed about the study and their verbal consent was also obtained. Participant quotes presented in the results section are direct translations from Turkish to English, aiming to preserve the original tone and meaning as closely as possible. During the presentation of the findings and methods, any information that could reveal the identities of the participants was avoided.