Exploring cross-cultural and interprofessional faculty development: perspectives from Vietnamese health professions educators

PURPOSE: Faculty development (FD) is a strategic priority in health professions education, yet its impact in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is often limited by contextual and cultural factors. This study explored how Vietnamese health professions faculty engaged with and applied learning from a cross-cultural, interprofessional FD certificate program. METHOD: Using a qualitative approach informed by a constructivist paradigm, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with 10 faculty from a single academic institution in Vietnam who completed a nine-month international FD program. Interviews, conducted from December 2024-February 2025, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed following Braun and Clarke's six phases; coding was conducted in pairs with regular reconciliation meetings. Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) served as an interpretive lens to analyze systemic tensions. RESULTS: Three interrelated themes characterized participant experiences. First, cultural norms of hierarchy and conflict avoidance, compounded by language barriers and time zone differences, limited open dialogue and learner engagement. Second, contextual barriers, including heavy clinical workloads, structural constraints, and a lack of locally relevant case examples, impeded the translation of educational theory to practice. Third, while interprofessional education (IPE) broadened participants' perspectives, its implementation was limited by role ambiguity between health professions, insufficient institutional support, and a lack of local IPE expertise. Viewed through CHAT, these findings highlight three key tensions: between cultural rules and the learning community; between program instruments (curriculum and pedagogical approaches) and the object of improving teaching capacity; and between the interprofessional learners and the object of applying new teaching practices in local contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-cultural and interprofessional FD can foster significant professional growth, but its sustainability in LMIC contexts requires system-level alignment. To enhance relevance and impact, programs should embed cultural humility and psychological safety, co-design locally relevant content, and use layered learning designs that balance interprofessional breadth with profession-specific depth.