https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4596-4108
Figures
Abstract
Dental academics are the foundation of dental institutions. They are mostly dental specialists and scientists driven by a passion for teaching and intellectual challenges. Although most have not been trained or certified as educators, they are tasked with educating the next generation of dentists within their fields of expertise. Beyond teaching, dental academics juggle multifaceted roles as educators, researchers, administrators, and clinicians. The effort to balance these multiple roles may lead dental academics to face identity conflicts, loss of work satisfaction and ultimately burnout and attrition from the workforce. Given the limited literature on defining faculty competencies and roles in medical and dental education, and an ongoing retention issues, it is crucial to clearly delineate these roles to assist dental academics establish their academic identity and plan their careers. This study aims to systematically define the specific roles of dental academics using the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM). Engaging 27 experts in the first round and 23 in the second, consensus was reached on items derived from evidence-based literature to define these roles. Analysis yielded 17 accepted items representing the four main roles of dental academics. Each primary role encompassed a diverse range of job descriptions, precluding a single, definitive description. The application of FDM not only refines the understanding of academic roles but also contributes to establishing the identity of dental academics, aiding their adaptation to the multiple roles and supporting their career advancement.
Citation: Ahmad NA, Abu Kasim NH, Musa S, Othman SA, Naimie Z (2025) Defining the multifaceted roles of dental academics: A consensus approach using the Fuzzy Delphi Method. PLoS One 20(8): e0330636. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330636
Editor: Aamir Ijaz, NUST: National University of Sciences and Technology, PAKISTAN
Received: December 23, 2024; Accepted: August 5, 2025; Published: August 22, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Ahmad et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Dental academics play a pivotal role in shaping the future of dental education, serving as the foundation of educational institutions while navigating a complex array of responsibilities that extend well beyond traditional teaching. These professionals, often specialists in their respective fields, are charged with the critical task of preparing the next generation of dentists, despite many lacking formal pedagogical training [1]. The assumption that clinical expertise inherently qualifies them as educators can lead to a reliance on generic teaching principles, which may not adequately address the unique challenges of dental education [2,3], highlighting the need for professional development to enhance their effectiveness as teachers [4]. However, teaching is merely one facet of their multifaceted roles. In addition to instruction, dental academics are frequently involved in research, administrative duties, and clinical practice [5,6], which necessitates targeted professional development and institutional support.
Despite the growing recognition of the importance of faculty development programs tailored to the diverse skill sets required by dental educators [7], literature addressing the definition of faculty roles in dental education remains scarce. Scott (2003) identified four primary roles namely, teaching, research, clinical practice, and administration [8], while Hands (2006) proposed a tripartite classification encompassing clinical teachers, clinical scholars, and research-intensive scholars [9]. More recent classifications have reiterated these roles but emphasized the expectation for dental academics to balance multiple responsibilities due to their interconnected nature [5]. The struggle to manage diverse roles can lead to professional ambiguity, diminished job satisfaction, and ultimately contribute to faculty burnout and attrition within the dental workforce [10–12].
A clearer understanding and definition of dental academic roles are essential not only for enhancing faculty satisfaction and productivity but also for fostering career progression among dental academics. By delineating and reinforcing the distinct responsibilities associated with teaching, research, administration and clinical practices, institutions can provide targeted professional development opportunities that support faculty retention and facilitates the establishment of faculty’s academic and professional identities. Academic identity encompasses self-definition and self-understanding shaped by social institutions and individual relationships [10] while professional identity is rooted in vocational self-concept and is regarded as an individual’s role within a workplace [13].
A nuanced comprehension of academic roles, attributes, and competencies can guide dental academics in solidifying their academic and professional identities. Encouraging individuals to cultivate their skills across various roles will empower them to navigate their academic careers effectively [14]. Moreover, while identity is not the sole determinant of career success, it significantly influences motivation for learning and professional development goals [15], ultimately impacting recognition and rewards within academia [16]. A clear definition of dental academics’ roles can foster a well-defined academic identity, which in turn enhances self-efficacy and job motivation, ultimately contributing to greater career success [17,18].
This study represents the first phase of a larger research project aimed at developing a comprehensive Dental Academic Career Pathway (DACP) model. It seeks to systematically define the specific roles of dental academics using the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM), forming a foundational step toward understanding the attributes, competencies, and developmental needs within dental academia. Through expert consensus, this study offers essential role definitions that can support academic identity formation and inform institutional policy and professional development. While the questionnaire was constructed through literature mapping and expert input, the broader study adopts the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) [19] as its conceptual lens. SCCT will be applied in later phases to interpret how clearly defined academic roles may influence self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and motivation to pursue or sustain a career in dental academia.
Materials and methods
Ethical approval
Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Medical Ethics Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya (Ethics No: DF RD 2212/0070 [L]). Data collection was conducted from 31st January 2023–1st April 2023, with all participants providing informed consent through an online platform.
This study employed the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM), an advanced version of the traditional Delphi method that integrates fuzzy set theory to address the ambiguities often present in expert opinions [20]. The FDM involves a series of stages that must be followed for a study to be considered empirical, with seven specific steps outlined in FDM [21] (see Table 1).
Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) questionnaire development
A FDM questionnaire was developed based on literature review. Databases such as ScienceDirect, IEEE Explore, PubMed and Web of Science were utilized to search for related literatures on the identified variables which in this study were the four main roles, teacher, researcher, administrator and clinician’s definitions. In this questionnaire, each of the variables is referred to as a major element or a construct and each of the statements related to the variables are referred to as a sub-element or an item under construct (Fig 1).
For an item to be incorporated within a construct, it must be supported by the existing literature. Consequently, a literature mapping defining the various roles of dental academics was devised (Table 2).
The FDM questionnaire was designed using the SurveyMonkey platform (SurveyMonkey Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA; www.surveymonkey.com). It provided instructions for the expert panellists, detailing the purpose, duration, and objectives of the study, the investigator’s contact information, and an overview of the Delphi process.
The questionnaire was pre-tested and subsequently piloted with 12 dental academics who were not part of the main expert panel. This pilot study was conducted prior to the first round of the Fuzzy Delphi Method to assess the reliability, clarity, and relevance of the questionnaire items. Amendments were made based on pre-test feedback to improve wording and structure. During the pilot phase, the internal consistency of the constructs was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha (α), standard deviation (SD), inter-item correlation (r), and corrected item-total correlation (CITC). Findings from the pilot test were used to refine item phrasing and ensure reliability before conducting the first round of the FDM. These results are reported under the ‘Fuzzy Delphi Method Questionnaire Reliability’ subheading.
Expert panellists recruitment
Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 3), a purposive sampling strategy was used to identify potential experts from three countries. Expert panellists were identified through institutional websites and publicly available curricula vitae, with selection based on their active involvement in multiple academic roles such as teaching, research, clinical practice, and administration.
Invitations were sent via email to 37 identified experts from 13 dental institutions and healthcare facilities, and those who consented to participate were subsequently provided with the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) questionnaires through the SurveyMonkey platform. A summary of the demographic and professional characteristics of the expert panel is presented in Table 4.
Fuzzy Delphi methods data analysis
All responses were compiled and tabulated in a Microsoft Excel worksheet and then transferred into the FDM Data Analysis template in Microsoft Excel (version 16.80). The first step in data analysis involved converting all linguistic variables into triangular fuzzy numbers (TFN). This process entails transforming the scales of the linguistic variables into TFN which were represented by the values m1, m2, and m3. Here, m1 corresponds to the minimum value, m2 to the most appropriate value, and m3 to the maximum value. In this study, the FDM questionnaire employed a 5-points Likert Scale and were converted into Fuzzy Scale based on their corresponding linguistic variable. [36–38]. Accordingly, each expert’s response was mapped to its corresponding TFN within the Fuzzy Scale as presented in Table 5.
The Likert score given by each of the experts were inserted into the FDM analysis template and matched to their TFN and the average of m1, m2 and m3 were obtained for each of the items in the questionnaire. The difference between the experts’ evaluation data and the average value for each item, identified as the threshold value, ‘d’ was calculated using the formula as below:
Where: d = threshold value
m1 = average of minimum value, n1 = minimum value
m2 = average of plausible value, n2 = plausible value
m3 = average of maximum value, n3 = maximum value
This threshold “d” value is important in determining the levels of agreement among the panel experts upon the items. Following the establishment of the threshold value, the expert agreement percentage was computed for each item. The determination of group consensus was calculated by using the formula below [39]:
It was specified that the group consensus percentage should surpass 75% for the subsequent steps to proceed. Upon reaching a collective consensus within the group, the defuzzification process was carried out using an average of fuzzy numbers. This calculation aims to determine the value of the fuzzy score (A), as well as the rank and priority of each item based on this formula:
The item with the highest defuzzification or Fuzzy Score value (∝-cut value) will be ranked as the first item in the list. The fuzzy score value (A) must exceed the alpha cutting value of 0.5 (α-cut value > 0.5), for the item to be considered acceptable [40,41].
The consensus process in this study was conducted entirely through a quantitative approach. Each item in the questionnaire was analysed using the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM), and items were retained only if they met all three standard conditions: (1) the threshold value (d) reflecting the distance between experts’ opinions was ≤ 0.2; (2) the percentage of agreement among panellists exceeded 75%; and (3) the fuzzy score (α-cut value) was greater than 0.5. These thresholds are consistent with established FDM practices and were applied to ensure that only items with strong consensus and perceived relevance were included. This rigorous and structured approach reduces subjectivity and enhances the reliability and validity of the findings.
Results
Fuzzy Delphi Method questionnaire reliability
Based on the reliability analysis conducted during the pilot study, all four main constructs demonstrated acceptable to good internal consistency. The major element “definition as a clinician” achieved an alpha (α) of 0.760, while “definition as a researcher” attained an alpha (α) of 0.775, both indicating acceptable reliability values. Similarly, “definition as an administrator” scored an alpha (α) of 0.806, and “definition as a teacher” scored an alpha (α) of 0.808, demonstrating a good level of reliability (Table 6). Given these findings, the questionnaire was deemed reliable and was retained without major modifications for use in the subsequent Delphi rounds. The finalised questionnaire consisted of 16 items representing various role definitions of dental academics.
Expert panellists recruitment
The recruitment process for expert panellists yielded a favourable outcome, with approximately 73% of the invited experts (27 in total) agreeing to participate in the study. The initial panel consisted of 24 experienced dental academics, two senior clinical consultants affiliated with the Ministry of Health in Malaysia, and one senior administrator from a public institution. Following the first round, a second round of the Delphi method was conducted based on the analysis from the initial round. All 27 experts were invited to participate again via email; however, only 23 experts responded, resulting in an 85.2% response rate for this round. The composition of the second panel remained largely the same, with the exception of four experienced dental academics who withdrew.
First FDM round data analysis
Based on the first FDM round (FDM 1), five out of the 16 response items did not comply with the FDM requirements (highlighted in Table 7). The FDM analysis revealed that item number 2, with a minimal 41% consensus among experts, a threshold value d = 0.37, and a Fuzzy score (A) α = 0.447, failed to meet the criteria of >75% expert consensus, d ≤ 0.2, and α-cut value > 0.5. Similar findings were observed for item number 6. Regarding items number 4, 8, and 12, they did not meet two of the requirements. The three items scored d > 0.2 and group consensus < 75% (Table 7). Consequently, all five items were excluded from the list while the other 11 items were kept for the second FDM round.
A mapping system was devised to discern the items in the FDM questionnaire according to their respective numbers. This mapping proved valuable for scrutinizing the items in light of the first FDM analysis and for the formulation of the second FDM questionnaire. The non-compliant items were highlighted in Table 8.
Second FDM round data analysis
In the second round of the Delphi method (FDM 2), both quantitative and qualitative findings from the initial round (FDM 1) were considered. The second FDM questionnaire was developed based on the 11 items approved in FDM 1, supplemented by an additional nine items generated from expert feedback. This resulted in a comprehensive questionnaire comprising a total of 20 items, with 23 experts remaining as panellists. The FDM analysis revealed that three items did not meet the established criteria for retention (see Table 9).
Notably, item number 4 achieved only a 39% group consensus, with a threshold value of d = 0.31, which exceeds the acceptable limit. Similarly, item number 20 also recorded a 39% group consensus and a d value of 0.260, both of which were above the acceptable threshold, leading to their exclusion from further consideration. While item number 9 satisfied two of the FDM criteria, it fell short in terms of group consensus, achieving only 65%, which is below the acceptable value of 75%. Consequently, this item was also excluded from the final list. The item mapping process proved instrumental in identifying these items that did not meet retention criteria, as detailed in Table 10.
In the second round of the Delphi method (FDM 2), consensus was achieved on 17 items among the 23 participating experts, encompassing the four primary roles of dental academics The absence of further input indicated that data saturation had been attained. The accepted items are systematically ranked and presented in Fig 2, which tabulates the final definitions for each of the four main dental academic roles, as teacher, researcher, administrator, and clinician as derived through the FDM consensus process.
This figure presents the systematically ranked and categorised definitions of the four main roles as teacher, researcher, administrator, and clinician based on expert consensus using the Fuzzy Delphi Method.
Discussion
Dental academics are required to manage a wide range of responsibilities including teaching, research, clinical duties, and administration which contributes to a demanding work environment. This complexity can lead to challenges such as academic identity crisis [42], reduced job satisfaction, and hindered career progression. Regardless of the factors that motivate clinicians to pursue academic careers, whether it is limited awareness and unclear pathways that may discourage entry [43], or the appeal of intellectual engagement and job security that may encourage it [44] defining the core roles of dental academics remains essential. Clear role definitions are important to support academic identity development, guide career progression, and inform institutional policies across diverse educational settings. Furthermore, the limited literature outlining faculty competencies and role expectations in medical and dental education [45] highlights a significant gap that this study seeks to address.
In the attempt to understand and defined dental academics roles, the Fuzzy Delphi Method was employed. This approach was proposed by Murray et al. (1985) to enhance consensus-building among experts by incorporating fuzzy logic, which allows for more nuanced interpretations of their responses [46]. By using triangular fuzzy numbers, FDM enables a more precise representation of expert consensus, facilitating clearer decision-making and enhancing the reliability of the findings by improving the accuracy of the analysis [36]. This methodology is particularly valuable in contexts where expert opinions are critical, as it allows for a comprehensive understanding of complex issues while minimizing misinterpretations.
The careful selection of experts for the FDM rounds is crucial because the Delphi method does not require random statistical sampling; instead, participants must be chosen from qualified experts. While non-random sampling can introduce bias, the use of purposive sampling with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria in this study ensures sufficient diversity and transparency, mitigating this bias [46]. Furthermore, recruiting experts included clinicians and scientists with over 5 years of experience in academia, qualifies someone as an expert [47]. The heterogeneous panel of experts added in capturing a broad range of opinions. Involving experts and stakeholders from different geographical regions and areas of expertise enhanced the scientific robustness of the findings [48,49].
The definitions of dental academics, as derived from expert consensus, reveal a nuanced understanding of their roles and responsibilities within the educational landscape. The application of the FDM has illuminated the multifaceted nature of these roles, indicating that they cannot be encapsulated by a singular definition. Dental academics serve primarily as teachers, guiding and mentoring students while assessing their progress, all underpinned by their expertise in the field. In addition to their teaching responsibilities, they are also researchers, equipped with specialized skills that enable them to conduct research and foster innovation in dental techniques and knowledge. Furthermore, as administrators, dental academics take on leadership roles such as program directors and curriculum coordinators, where they are instrumental in shaping educational policies and managing institutional operations. Lastly, in their capacity as clinicians, they provide critical patient care while simultaneously educating the next generation of dental professionals. This comprehensive framework underscores the complexity of dental academia and highlights the importance of recognizing the diverse competencies required for effective practice in each role. Such insights are essential for developing targeted faculty development programs that enhance the professional identities and effectiveness of dental educators.
The findings from this study not only enhance our understanding of these roles but also underscore the importance of creating supportive institutional structures that promote career satisfaction and growth among dental faculty [50]. By clarifying these roles, dental schools can better tailor faculty development programs to address the diverse competencies required for success in academia.
Through these definitions, individual dental academic may also reflect who they are or who they have been. This is crucial for initiating career planning and managing career transitions [51,52]. It provides a foundational platform for dental academics to align their current or past identities with their future career goals [53]. In addition, these definitions provide a framework to help dental academics adapt to their multifaceted responsibilities and to support their professional advancement [44]. Furthermore, these findings may act as a self-reflective support tool to establish their academic identity, emphasize the need for dental institutions to invest in targeted faculty development programs that address the broad competencies required for success in academia [12].
Conclusion
A single definition was not discernible for each of the roles, given that each primary role encompassed a diverse range of job descriptions. Based on expert consensus, the following definitions outline the various roles within dental academia:
Dental academic as a teacher can be defined as an educator whose main tasks are educating, guiding, mentoring, teaching, directing, training, assessing and evaluating students in the knowledge of dentistry and other related fields or an individual who is the expert of the field being taught in the academic settings and practices evidence-based dentistry, and evidence-based education.
Dental academic as a researcher can be defined as an individual with specific research skills and specific research-related attributes whose secondary tasks are to conduct, teach/guide research projects for the improvement of patients, society, organization and betterment of mankind or an individual who conducts research and develop new techniques or new knowledge that has the potential to change future dental practices.
Dental academic as an administrator can be defined as an individual who may be appointed as programme directors, course coordinators, curriculum directors or clinical coordinators and helps to develop curriculum and manages academic and student programme or an individual who is expected to manage and lead the educational institution which involves strategic and collaborative activities.
Dental academic as a clinician can be defined as an individual who serves as a clinical teacher in academic settings, and delivers safe, efficient patient care, whilst supervising and teaching students and trainees or an individual who is responsible in educating dental students, dental professionals, providing direct patient care and involved in its relationship with other disciplines which may be non-dental for the holistic care of patients.
Acknowledgments
This study was self-funded by the first author as part of her doctoral research. We extend our gratitude to all the expert panellists for their invaluable support and contributions to this research.
References
- 1. Pape G, Dong F, Horvath Z. Assessing the Professional Identity of Dental School Faculty: An Exploratory Study. J Dent Educ. 2018;82(11):1140–5. pmid:30385679
- 2. Wilkerson L, Irby DM. Strategies for improving teaching practices: a comprehensive approach to faculty development. Acad Med. 1998;73(4):387–96. pmid:9580715
- 3.
McLean M, Ashwin P. The quality of learning, teaching, and curriculum. New languages and landscapes of higher education. 2016:84–102.
- 4. van Dijk EE, Geertsema J, van der Schaaf MF, van Tartwijk J, Kluijtmans M. Connecting academics’ disciplinary knowledge to their professional development as university teachers: A conceptual analysis of teacher expertise and teacher knowledge. High Educ. 2023;86(4):969–84.
- 5. Chuenjitwongsa S, Oliver RG, Bullock AD. Competence, competency-based education, and undergraduate dental education: a discussion paper. Eur J Dent Educ. 2018;22(1):1–8. pmid:27246501
- 6. Hoskin ER, Bertone M, Chun Y-HP, Lee AL, Motahari MZ, Martin AB. Should dental school faculty be measured and compensated using academic productivity models? Two viewpoints. J Dent Educ. 2020;84(5):534–42. pmid:32064617
- 7.
Haden NK, Hendricson WD, Killip JW, O’Neill PN, Reed MJ, Weinstein G, et al. Developing dental faculty for the future: ADEA/AAL institute for teaching and learning, 2006–09. 2009.
- 8. Scott J. Dental education in Europe: the challenges of variety. J Dent Educ. 2003;67(1):69–78. pmid:12540108
- 9. Hand JS. Identification of competencies for effective dental faculty. J Dent Educ. 2006;70(9):937–47. pmid:16954415
- 10. Dugas D, Stich AE, Harris LN, Summers KH. I’m being pulled in too many different directions: Academic identity tensions at regional public universities in challenging economic times. Stud High Educ. 2020;45(2):312–26.
- 11. Piano M, Diemer K, Hall M, Hui F, Kefalianos E, Lawford BJ, et al. A rapid review of challenges and opportunities related to diversity and inclusion as experienced by early and mid-career academics in the medicine, dentistry and health sciences fields. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):288. pmid:37106362
- 12. Sabato E, Doubleday AF, Lee C-T, Correa LP, Huja S, Crain G. Recommendations for remaining agile in the face of a dental faculty workforce shortage. J Dent Educ. 2023;87(3):295–302. pmid:36251365
- 13. Wei L-Z, Zhou S-S, Hu S, Zhou Z, Chen J. Influences of nursing students’ career planning, internship experience, and other factors on professional identity. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;99:104781. pmid:33530029
- 14. Herman N, Jose M, Katiya M, Kemp M, Le Roux N, Swart-Jansen van Vuuren C, et al. ‘Entering the world of academia is like starting a new life’: A trio of reflections from health professionals joining academia as second career academics. Int J Acad Dev. 2021;26(1):69–81.
- 15. Stone S, Ellers B, Holmes D, Orgren R, Qualters D, Thompson J. Identifying oneself as a teacher: the perceptions of preceptors. Med Educ. 2002;36(2):180–5. pmid:11869447
- 16. Mao J, Shen Y. Identity as career capital: enhancing employability in the creative industries and beyond. Career Dev Int. 2020;25(2):186–203.
- 17. Lieff S, Baker L, Mori B, Egan-Lee E, Chin K, Reeves S. Who am I? Key influences on the formation of academic identity within a faculty development program. Med Teach. 2012;34(3):e208-15. pmid:22364478
- 18. Spurk D, Hirschi A, Dries N. Antecedents and outcomes of objective versus subjective career success: Competing perspectives and future directions. J Manag. 2019;45(1):35–69.
- 19. Lent RW, Brown SD, Hackett G. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1994;45(1):79–122.
- 20.
Saffie NAM, Rasmani KA. Fuzzy Delphi method: Issues and challenges. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Logistics Informatics and Service Sciences (LISS), 2016. 1–7.
- 21.
Yusof N, Hashim NLH, Hussain A. A review of fuzzy Delphi method application in human-computer interaction studies. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, 2022;2472(1).
- 22. Saskianti T, et al. Teachers’ role in regular and special need students’ oral health: A narrative review. J Int Dent Med Res. 2021;14(4):1639–43.
- 23. Radford DR, Hellyer P, Meakin N, Jones KA. Identifying and preparing the next generation of part-time clinical teachers from dental practice. Br Dent J. 2015;219(7):319–22. pmid:26450243
- 24. Stenfors-Hayes T, Hult H, Dahlgren LO. Three ways of understanding development as a teacher. Eur J Dent Educ. 2012;16(1):e151-7. pmid:22251339
- 25. McConnell JR III, Teske AH, AtVtwood AI, Barron LL. Preservice teachers’ performance and confidence in their readiness to teach: An exploratory study. SRATE Journal. 2021;30(1):n1.
- 26. Laidlaw A, Aiton J, Struthers J, Guild S. Developing research skills in medical students: AMEE Guide No 69. Med Teach. 2012;34(9):754–71.
- 27. Cumyn A, Ouellet K, Côté AM, Francoeur C, St-Onge C. Role of researchers in the ethical conduct of research: A discourse analysis from different stakeholder perspectives. Ethics Behav. 2019;29(8):621–36.
- 28. Hay-Smith EJC, Brown M, Anderson L, Treharne GJ. Once a clinician, always a clinician: a systematic review to develop a typology of clinician-researcher dual-role experiences in health research with patient-participants. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:95. pmid:27506386
- 29. Carter SD. Increased workforce diversity by race gender and age and equal employment opportunity laws: implications for human resource development. Gender Divers Concepts Methodol Tools Appl. 2019;:380–405.
- 30. Fanoos A, He Y. Curriculum analysis of educational leadership master’s programs in the university system of Maryland. Educ Manag Adm Leadership. 2021;49(5):841–58.
- 31. Weng CH, Tang Y. The relationship between technology leadership strategies and effectiveness of school administration: An empirical study. Computers Educ. 2014;76:91–107.
- 32.
Edmonstone J. Clinical leadership development. Partnership. 2005.
- 33. Sherbino J, Frank JR, Snell L. Defining the key roles and competencies of the clinician-educator of the 21st century: a national mixed-methods study. Acad Med. 2014;89(5):783–9. pmid:24667507
- 34. Cleland J, Roberts R, Kitto S, Strand P, Johnston P. Using paradox theory to understand responses to tensions between service and training in general surgery. Med Educ. 2018;52(3):288–301. pmid:29105861
- 35.
Kennedy JE, Hunt RJ. Meeting the demand for future dental faculty. In: 75th Anniversary Summit Conference Proceedings, Washington DC, 1999.
- 36.
Abdullah MRTL. Development of activity-based mLearning implementation model for undergraduate English language learning. University of Malaya. 2014.
- 37.
Jailani MA. The application of fuzzy delphi method in content validity analysis. EasyChair, 2020.
- 38. Joudar SS, Albahri AS, Hamid RA. Intelligent triage method for early diagnosis autism spectrum disorder (ASD) based on integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods. Informatics Med Unlocked. 2023;36:101131.
- 39. Bui TD, Tsai FM, Tseng ML, Ali MH. Identifying sustainable solid waste management barriers in practice using the fuzzy Delphi method. Resources Conserv Recycl. 2020;154:104625.
- 40.
Darussalam MR. Aplikasi kaedah fuzzy delphi dalam penyelidikan sains sosial. Penerbit Universiti Malaya. 2018.
- 41. Ab Kadir K, Ashaari N, Ramli RZ, Salim J. Islamic information credibility scale development: Factors and indicators validation using fuzzy Delphi technique. Inform Dev. 2023.
- 42. Dugas D, Summers KH, Harris LN, Stich AE. Shrinking budgets growing demands: Neoliberalism and academic identity tension at regional public universities. AERA Open. 2018;4(1):2332858418757736.
- 43. Hayes MJ, Ingram K. Australian dental practitioner perspectives on academic careers. J Dent Educ. 2021;85(3):341–8. pmid:33089520
- 44. Mostert VC. Reasons why South African dentists chose a career in Dentistry, and later opted to enter an academic environment. South African Dental Journal. 2018;73(3):141–5.
- 45. Krupp MM, Barlow PB, Kyle EJ. Developing a self‐assessment tool for dental faculty to map professional growth. J Dent Educ. 2021;85(10):1596–605.
- 46. Murray TJ, Pipino LL, Van Gigch JP. A pilot study of fuzzy set modification of Delphi. Human Systems Management. 1985;5(1):76–80.
- 47. Devaney L, Henchion M. Who is a Delphi ‘expert’? Reflections on a bioeconomy expert selection procedure from Ireland. Futures. 2018;99:45–55.
- 48. Berliner DC. Expert teachers: Their characteristics development and accomplishments. Bull Sci Technol Soc. 2004;24(3):200–12.
- 49. Hussler C, Muller P, Rondé P. Is diversity in Delphi panelist groups useful? Evidence from a French forecasting exercise on the future of nuclear energy. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2011;78(9):1642–53.
- 50. Freitas Â, Santana P, Oliveira MD, Almendra R, Bana E Costa JC, Bana E Costa CA. Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):557. pmid:29703176
- 51. Sharab L, Sonkar J, Thomas PM, Prasannakumar P, Guha U, Leventer M, et al. Reshaping dental faculty development using collective healthcare experiences. J Dent Educ. 2023;87(9):1234–41.
- 52. Del Corso J, Rehfuss MC. The role of narrative in career construction theory. J Vocat Behav. 2011;79(2):334–9.
- 53. Modestino AS, Sugiyama K, Ladge J. Careers in construction: An examination of the career narratives of young professionals and their emerging career self-concepts. J Vocat Behav. 2019;115:103306.