See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360464729

ACADEMIC RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY MODEL FOR STATE UNIVERSITIES AND

PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN DAVAO CITY

Research · March 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17257.36960/1

CITATIONS READS

0 505

1 author:

Amylyn Fano Labasano

Department of Education
9 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Amylyn Fano Labasano on 09 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

ACADEMIC RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY MODEL FOR STATE

UNIVERSITIES AND PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS IN DAVAO CITY

AMYLYN F. LABASANO, PhD

RESEARCHER
Email ad: [email protected]

This study aimed to construct a model for academic research

productivity for state universities and private higher education
institutions in Davao City. The study used descriptive statistics for
describing the demographic profile of the respondents, exploratory
factor analysis for exploring the dimensions, and negative binomial
regression for modeling research productivity using over dispersed
count outcome variable. The conceptual framework of this study
integrated empirical research findings on academic research
productivity anchored on the theories of cumulative advantage, utility
maximization theory, and the obsolescence theory. The result of the
Exploratory Factor Analysis produced seven factors labelled as external
pressures, value of research, institutional requirements, institutional
reputation, individual attributes, social influences, and extrinsic
motivation. On the average, the extent of dimensions of research
productivity is very high which means that majority of the respondents
had strong agreement on the items describing the factors affecting their
research productivity. Moreover, the extent of the research outputs of
the respondents revealed that attending research conferences got the
highest frequency while publishing authored books had the lowest.
While in terms of the number of researchers who produced research
outputs, most of the researchers opted to have unpublished researches
while securing patents had the lowest frequency. Further, in terms of
 2

the average research output per researcher, attending research

conferences got the highest average while securing patents yielded the
lowest. Furthermore, the findings of the negative binomial regression
revealed that the predictors of academic research productivity are sex,
work status, educational attainment, academic rank, age, years in
teaching, number of children, external pressures, value of research,
institutional requirements, individual attributes, social influences, and
extrinsic motivation. Marital status and institutional reputation are not
significant predictors of academic research productivity.

Keywords: Academic research productivity, state universities, private higher

education institutions, exploratory factor analysis, negative binomial regression

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Research has always been part of the three-fold function of the

academe, together with instruction and extension. As an institution of

higher learning, colleges and universities are mandated not only to

teach (instruction) but also to produce knowledge (research) and apply

the fruits of the intellect to benefit the greater community (extension).

Out of this three-fold function, the hardest to comply is the productivity

of the colleges and universities in terms of research. The factors

influencing academic research productivity have been studied for many

years. Most of these studies focused their analyses on institutional level

across colleges and universities. Other recent studies focus their

 3

investigation on some other possible determinants of research

productivity which arises with the demands of the time specifically with

the advent of modern technology.

Correspondingly, publication in high status refereed journals has

become a major criterion of academic success in the competitive

environment of global higher education. Appearing in internationally

circulated journals published in English is especially prestigious.

Universities are engaged in a global arms race of publication; and

academics are the shock troops of the struggle (Altback, 2014). This

global research phenomenon is a manifestation that indeed research

productivity is part of every universities priority in order for them to

sustain their goal towards excellence and contribute to the development

of new knowledge in their respective areas of interest.

In the Philippines, as observed by Bernardo as cited in Salazar-

Clemeňa and Almonte-Acosta (2007) in his study on typology of HEIs in

the Philippines, only 15 out of 223 HEIs in the sample met the

requirements for academic-capable HEI category, and only two HEIs

met the criteria for doctoral/research university categories. This shows

that majority of the HEIs in the Philippines are teaching institutions.

Despite Commission on Higher Education (CHED) initiatives, the

current state of higher education research in the Philippines leaves

 4

much to be desired in terms of quantity, quality, thrusts, and

contribution to national development.

During the 5th International Conference on Public Organization

(ICONPO) held at Ateneo de Davao University last August 27-28, 2015,

Undersecretary Janet Lopoz, executive director of the Mindanao

Development Authority (MinDA) underscored the importance of

investing in research and development to improve the competitiveness

of ASEAN economies in the pursuit of the objectives of the ASEAN

Economic Community (AEC). According to her, based on studies

conducted by the ASEAN Development Bank and the Japan

International Cooperation Agency, research and development play

major roles in the creation of development plans that will drive the

growth among ASEAN economies. This statement stresses the

importance of research not only as part of the mandate of academic

institutions but it also extends to its contribution to economic

development and innovation. It cannot be denied that most of the

researches, if not all, originate from the academe.

In the academe, the schools are also under pressure to increase

its research productivity, not only as a requirement from them, but

rather as part of their corporate social responsibility, however, different

factors affecting research productivity of the teacher-researchers

influence a lot in pursuing this target. Thus, this study had been
 5

conceptualized to seek answers to this phenomenon which had long

been a problem of the universities.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to construct a model for academic research

productivity of SUCs and HEIs in Davao City. To fulfill its main objective,

the study sought to address the following specific questions:

1. What is the socio-demographic profile of the academic

researchers of SUCs and private HEIs in Davao City?

2. What are the explored dimensions of academic research

productivity of SUCs and private HEIs in Davao City?

3. What is the extent of the dimensions of the academic research

productivity?

4. What is the extent of the research outputs of the respondents

in terms of patents, citations, journal articles, authored books,

published research, unpublished research, research projects, and

research conference presentations when grouped according to:

a. total research outputs produced;

b. total number of researchers who produced research

outputs; and

c. average research output produced per researcher?

 6

5. What model can be constructed for the academic research

productivity of SUCs and private HEIs in Davao City?

Objectives of the Study

The factors influencing academic research productivity have been

studied for many years and across places but few were conducted in

local setting. The study aimed to construct a model for academic

research productivity of state universities and higher education

institutions in Davao City. It explored the various dimensions of

research productivity of the faculty researchers in the academe. It also

determined the extent of each dimension and the extent of the research

outputs of the respondents. Different models were sought to represent

the academic research productivity of the respondents such as patents

productivity model, citations productivity model, journal articles

productivity model, authored books productivity model, published

research productivity model, unpublished research productivity model,

research project productivity model, and research conference

productivity model.

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study maybe beneficial to the following:

 7

School Administrators. This may guide them in re-designing

their policies and guidelines in research which will become more

encouraging and favorable to both the researchers and the school.

Teachers. This would serve as a guide for them to review their

perceptions about research and appreciate the importance and

contributions of research to their teaching pedagogy, their present and

future career, and its benefits to their students, society and mankind.

Government. This maybe useful to them in re-aligning their

policies and programs to promote research and development initiatives

among their stakeholders.

Future researchers. This may guide them in constructing future

models of academic research productivity as a result of changing

approaches and technological innovations in research.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This investigation was conducted to generate a model for state

universities and higher education institutions in Davao City among the

full-time college faculty researchers in the academe during the school

year 2016-2017, through stratified random sampling with equal

allocation. The dimensions of research productivity were explored

through EFA and produced eight (8) new indicators which were
 8

demographic profile, external pressures, value of research, institutional

requirements, institutional reputation, individual attributes, social

influences, and extrinsic motivation. The researcher sent letters to

different SUCs and HEIs in Davao City, many responded and approved

the request although there were few who did not respond.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined operationally:

Demographic profile refers to are socio-economic characteristics

of the population being studied. In this research, this is expressed in

terms of age, sex, marital status, number of children, highest

educational attainment, work status, academic rank, and number of

years in teaching.

Age refers to the length of time of the person’s existence from birth

to present. In this study, the respondents were asked of their actual

years of their existence.

Sex refers to the state of being male or female. The same category

is applied in this study.

Marital status pertains to the state of being married or not

married. In this study, it is categorized into three categories: single,

married, and widowed.

 9

Number of children refers to the count of the children that a

family support for a living. In this study, it is specified in actual number.

Highest educational attainment indicates the highest degree of

education that an individual has completed. In this research, it is

categorized into three: bachelor, masters, and doctorate.

Work status pertains to the classification of employees in the

workplace. In this study it is divided into two categories: probationary,

and regular.

Academic rank specifies the standard professional titles a faculty

member holds. In this study, it is classified into four: Instructor,

Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor.

Years in teaching refers to the length of service that a respondent

rendered as a college faculty. In this study, it is measured in actual

years.

External pressures refer to the circumstances that arise outside

of the system or the school. In this study, these composed of 17

statements which describe the circumstances faced by the researcher

which include, but are not limited to, peer recognition, government

support, future opportunities of the researcher, external funding, and

ethical considerations.

Value of research pertains to the benefits or usefulness of

research in the society. In this research, these consist of 14 statements

 10

which described the benefits of research to the academe, including but

not limited to, solution to practical problems, enhances quality of

teaching, generates knowledge and latest development in the field,

satisfies one’s curiosity and creativity.

Institutional requirements refer to the things established by the

institution. In this research, these consist of nine statements describing

the culture of research which is supposed to be practiced by the

institution, including but not limited to, conduct of research training

workshops, appropriate scheme for giving incentives, access to research

facilities and resources, and publication of research works.

Institutional reputation pertains to beliefs or opinions that are

generally held by the institution. In this study, it has nine (9) statements

which described the beliefs or opinions of the respondents on the

contribution of research to the prestige of their institution which include

but is not limited to, classifies the institution as an elite institution,

promotes school’s reputation to shareholders, boost university ranking,

and earns respect of the community.

Individual attributes refer to the traits inherent to someone. In

this study, these consist of seven statements describing the individual

traits which could improve his research productivity such as in-depth

knowledge about research, innate interest in the field, and confidence

to conduct research.
 11

Social influences pertain to circumstances which could affect a

person’s emotions, opinions, or behaviors. In this research, it has seven

statements which described this phenomenon including but not limited

to, family responsibilities, health condition, and financial pressures.

Extrinsic motivation refers to behavior driven by external

rewards. In this research, it has four statements describing this

behavior such as boss encouragement, support of co-workers, and

family support.

Patents refers to one of the research outputs of the respondents

which pertains to an exclusive right granted by a government for their

invention for a designated period of time.

Citations refers to one of the research output of the respondents

which pertains to a book, research paper, or any of their scholarly work

cited by their colleagues or co-researchers in support of their own

research work.

Journal articles refers to one of the research outputs of the

respondents which pertains to their scholarly papers that report their

research findings or review research developments within their specific

subject area.

Published research refers to one of the research outputs of the

respondents which pertains to their researches which had been

published in the local, national, or international research journals.

 12

Unpublished research refers to one of the research outputs of the

respondents which pertains to their finished researches which had NOT

been published yet to any research journals.

Research projects refers to one of the research outputs of the

respondents which pertains to their engagement in any research work

funded or unfunded which requires application of their research skills.

Research conference presentations refers to one of the research

outputs of the respondents which pertains to a symposium or gathering

of researchers in a local, national, or international venues which aims

to showcase and discuss the research works of the researchers.

State Universities (SUcs) pertains to the universities supported

and controlled by the government of the Philippines as part of its public

educational system. In this study, this pertains to the two SUCs.

Private Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) pertains to the

private tertiary institutions administered and regulated by the

Commission on Higher Education (CHED) which offered various degree

programs. In this study, this refers to a private university and private

colleges.
 13

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter consists of the review of related studies, the

framework itself including its presentation in the form of a paradigm,

the hypotheses, and the discussion on key variables.

Related Literature and Studies

The following sub-sections are discussing about the related

studies arranged into variables used in the study such demographic

factors, external pressures, value of research, institutional

requirements, institutional reputation, individual attributes, social

influences, and extrinsic motivation.

Demographic factors. In the study of Abramo, Angelo, &

Caprasecca (2008), the literature dedicated to the analysis of the

difference in research productivity between the sexes tends to agree in

indicating better performance for men. Through bibliometric

examination of the entire population of research personnel working in

the technological-scientific disciplines of the entire Italian academic

system, the study confirms the presence of significant difference in

productivity between men and women. Males do demonstrate a higher

average productivity with respect to that of females for all the

performance indicators considered. However, one of the new and

interesting facts is that it is above all in the quantitative dimension of

 14

output where the major gap is considered. In terms of quality index and

contribution intensity, the gap between the sexes, though still present,

seems less pronounced. The performance gap also seems to reduce with

career advancement. This result seems to coincide with the conclusions

by Stack [2004], whose work suggests that women with preschool aged

children publish less than others. In effect the average age of female

research professionals in the Italian academic system for the period

under observation is 43 years, falling within the final family life phase

for the presence of very young children.

Correspondingly, the study of Ogbugo (2009) pointed out that

marital status, religion, academic position, and number of hours of

lecture per week had an impact on their ability to carry out research

and publish the results. The study also concluded that female

academics made contributions that are more significant to teaching

than research. In terms of the higher research productivity of non-

tenured faculty, Attis and Bevino (2012) which discussed that declines

in productivity after tenure typically arise from a range of predictable

and addressable issues such as increases in administrative

responsibilities, new family obligations, or changing research interest.

The rigor of the tenure process and the hiring process (particularly in

the current competitive environment) means that faculty are almost

without exception competent and (initially at least) highly motivated.

 15

When it comes to age, the article of Matthews (2016) presented

different views on why research productivity declines with age. It was

stated that it was discovered that career age “negatively affects the

quality of published works, which means that as the career of the

researchers progresses they tend to produce on average lower quality

papers”, as measured by citations. In addition, it found that scientists

authored more papers per year as they got older, until around 12 years

into their career, at which point their output started to drop – although

their funding continued to grow. The study also discovered that the

bigger a researcher’s team, the more productive they were and the more

citations their papers got. However, this was true only for younger

researchers. “As the career age of researchers increases, working in

larger teams reduces their productivity and the quality of their papers,”

it found. Co-author Ashkan Ebadi, a postdoctoral associate in the

biomedical engineering department of the University of Florida, said the

age-related drop in quality and frequency of publications was hard to

explain, but that “ambition might be one of the key factors”. “Younger

researchers might be more ambitious in order to prove themselves in

the scientific community, or to find a full-time faculty position,” he said.

Lertputtarak (2008) stated that age of lecturers was found to be

important because lecturers who are older and nearly at retiring age,

seldom do research.
 16

In addition, in the study of Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo & Dicrisi

(2002), the result showed that the factors affecting faculty research

productivity are nearly identical for men and women, and family-related

variables, such as having dependent children exhibit little or no effects

on research productivity. Hunter & Leahey (2010) suggested in their

findings that children account for part of the productivity gender gap in

sociology and linguistics. Given the gendered division of labor in the

household, it is not surprising that women suffer greater penalties than

men. Moreover, the demanding family work-balancing acts that

academics, particularly women, feel necessary to perform (Grant et. Al.,

2000, as cited) may grow more challenging to sustain and less effective

as a career progresses, contributing to women’s stagnating productivity

growth rates.

Also, Hu and Jill (2002) in their study on the analysis of academic

research productivity of Information Systems (IS) faculty constructed a

number of hypotheses about research productivity based on the life-

cycle model of academic research and previous studies. Tests were

conducted using data collected via national survey of IS faculty. The

results showed that while there were only two significant factors

contributing positively to the research productivity: the time allocated

to research activity and the existence of IS doctoral programs, many

other factors appear to have significant adverse effect on research

 17

productivity, such as the number of years of the faculty, the teaching

load when exceeding 11 hours weekly, and non-IS, non-academic

employment experience. The result also suggested that some of the

commonly proposed influential factors such as tenure status, academic

rank, school type, as well as IS-related employment experience, have no

significant effect at all.

Further, Callaghan (2015) studied the intrinsic antecedents of

academic research productivity of a large South African university using

structural equation modeling to test the model of relationships predicted

by the body of theories. He found three effects which dominated as

antecedents of research output: two positively and one negatively. Years

as a researcher and research self-efficacy were found to positively

predict the research outputs of academics. While in the paper of Dubois,

Rochet & Schlenker (2013), they used an exhaustive database on

academic publications in mathematics all over the world, they studied

the patterns of productivity by mathematicians over the period 1984-

2006. They uncovered some surprising facts, such as the weakness of

age related decline in productivity and the relative symmetry of

international movements. In the paper of Sabharwal (2013), he stated

that research performance declines as faculty members progress in their

careers supporting obsolescence theory. Further, aging shifts the output

mix more towards books for social scientists, making them the most
 18

productive group when books or monographs are taken as a measure of

research productivity.

Furthermore, in the study of Hadjinicola & Soteriou (2005), it was

stated that the number of doctoral students associated with a group of

production and operations management academics, promotes the

research productivity and the quality of their research output. However,

doctoral students cannot be regarded as the driving force behind

research productivity and quality.

External Pressures. Banerjee (2013) pointed some historic

reasons for poor productivity in research, including unproductive

competition among institutions due to a false sense of self-sufficiency,

lack of adequate research infrastructure at the institution level and,

long standing government policy in India that has considered teaching

to be the core activity in the University system.

Hadjinicola & Soteriou (2005) found out that the presence of

research center on production and operations management, increases

the productivity of the professors affiliated with the center, in terms of

the total number of articles published, as well as the number of articles

that have appeared in the elite journals of the field. Further, the result

suggested that the funding received from external sources by professors

of a production and operations management group, increases the

number and the quality of the articles published by professors of the

 19

group. The study also showed that better library facilities also promote

the research productivity of researchers in terms of the number of

articles and their quality.

Moreover, the paper of Gordon & Maassen (n.d.) identified four

main factors which influenced research productivity, which were

individual factors, organizational factors, funding and research culture.

Funding had been found to have a major impact on the nature and

sustainability of research capacity, and, consequently on the

university’s research productivity. The contextual realities of academics,

such as the low salaries, absence of incentive structures, the poor

infrastructure, and the lack of a professional research management are,

to a large extent, a result of the lack of consistent and adequate funding

earmarked for research.

Value of Research. In the study of Salazar-Clemeňa and

Almonte-Acosta (2007), they developed a framework of research culture

in the Philippines in order to analyze the dynamics of the interaction of

policies and mandates of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED),

the practices of HEIs in relation to developing a research orientation in

their institutions, and the perspectives of faculty who are tasked to do

research along with their other functions (i.e., teaching and community

service). The study found that the faculty did not consider any of the

aspects of research culture in their institutions as being strong. The

 20

faculty further perceived that factors necessary for improving research

productivity include: time, strong belief in research endeavor, faculty

involvement, positive group climate, working conditions and

organizational communication, decentralized research policy, research

funding, and clear institutional policy for research benefits and

incentives.

Institutional Requirements. The research of Zhang (2014) both

quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed the factors which

influenced research productivity were teaching load, social network,

research support, faculty size and culture. However, the factor “culture”

received the highest agreed rate. He cited that his findings were similar

to the studies of Bland et al., (2002) which reported that the

environmental features of the workplace are the most powerful

productivity factors. The more that the environment facilitates

productivity, the more productive the faculty member will be. He further

cited the study of Fogg (2006) who found out that professors place a

higher value on work-related climate and culture than on workload and

compensation. Collegiality and mentoring by senior faculty members are

an essential part of a productive academic culture.

Moreover, Kendagor, Kosgei, Tuitoek & Chelangat (2012)

investigated the factors affecting research output in Moi university. The

study used a descriptive survey design to collect the pertinent data. The
 21

Pearson correlation indicated that research environment, funding,

researcher’s qualification were significantly and positively related to

research output. Nevertheless, time was negatively related to research

output. Multiple regression (MLR) results reported that time allocated

to research, researcher’s qualification, research environment and

funding explain 50.9% variation of research output. Further MLR

showed that the staff qualifications positively influenced research

output the most (β = .441) followed by research environment (β = .200),

and lastly funding (β = .145.) Time negatively influenced research output

(β = -.433).

Institutional Reputation. Correspondingly, in the research of

Lertputtarak (2008) chose to integrate empirical research findings on

faculty role performance and productivity with two existing motivation

theories, namely Expectancy theory and Efficacy theory. Based on a

review of pertinent literature, it appears that there are five important

factors that impact on academic research productivity. These are

environmental factors, institutional factors, personal career

development factors, social contingency factors, and demographic

factors. According to the findings of the study, these five important

factors can be conveniently divided into three main groupings which

have been termed essential factors, desirable factors, and side-affect

 22

factors. Each of these factors, it is claimed, need resolution, in a

sequential way.

Individual Attributes. The study of Jung (2012) examined the

research productivity of Hongkong academics. Specifically, it explored

the individual and institutional factors that contribute to their

productivity while also comparing determinants across academic

disciplines. He conducted OLS regression analysis using the

international survey data from the “The Changing Academic Pofession”.

He found out that Hongkong academics are highly internationalized in

terms of research activities. Moreover, research activity is influenced by

a number of factors, including personal characteristics, workload,

differences in research styles, and institutional characteristics. In

addition, considerable variation existed regarding the determinants of

research productivity across disciplinary categories.

In addition, Bai (2010) analyzed the research productivity of TEFL

(Teaching Language as a Foreign Language) teachers in China. The

study made use of mixed-method in investigating research productivity

of Chinese TEFL academics and associated influences, with the ultimate

objective of constructing a framework to help build research capacity in

the future. The study identified four influences that impacted on

Chinese TEFL academics’ research productivity: TEFL disciplinary

influences, institutional and departmental research environments,

 23

individual characteristics desirable for research, and TEFL academics’

perceptions about research.

Danchisko and Thomas (2012) in their paper on assessing faculty

research productivity at public research institutions had identified

common indicators of faculty research productivity across contact

institutions. These indicators are categorized into individual indicators

and academic program indicators. For individual indicators, these are:

grant award funding (as the most objective indicator), institution and

field-specific honors, total research expenditures, publications,

citations, degrees conferred, and number of postdoctoral appointees;

the academic program indicators are: sum of all individual indicators,

number of student applications, number of grant proposals and number

of graduate programs.

Social Influences . Lertputtarak (2008) revealed that there were

five important factors that impact on academic research productivity.

These were environmental factors, institutional factors, personal career

development factors, social contingency factors, and demographic

factors. However, as one outcome of the data findings of this study,

these factors can be condensed into three main groupings, essential

factors, desirable factors, and side-effected factors. The essential factors

were those necessary elements that were very important and strongly

affect the desire of lecturers to do or not to do research. Desirable factors

 24

were those that support and encouraged the willingness of staff to be

involved in research and act to increase and individual’s motivation to

engage in project work. The side-effect factors included the demographic

factors and social contingency factors, it was found that these normally

do no strongly impact research productivity.

Extrinsic Motivation. In the research of (Chen, Nixon, Gupta &

Hoshower, 2010) on research productivity of accounting faculty, they

examined: their research productivity and the intrinsic and extrinsic

motivators to conduct research. They found out that receiving or having

tenure is the most important reward, while getting a possible

administrative position was the least important. There were significant

differences in the importance of these rewards between tenured-

untenured and between male and female faculty members. Faculty

perceives a strong link between research productivity and the

attainment of the rewards of tenure and promotion. However, in the

minds of the faculty, the link between publications and salary increase

is not strong.

Zhang (2014) discussed that in the context of education, many

factors impact on academic staff motivation: working conditions, reward

and pay, chance of promotion, and so on. On the other hand, motivators

are intrinsic to the job itself. They are closely linked to job content such

as desire for achievement, sense of responsibility, performance

 25

recognition, job potential, job significance and personal growth. It was

also mentioned that based on the literature review, the external factors

and internal factors are quite relevant to academic staff motivation of

doing research work.

Theory Base

This part describes the theories for this study which are commonly

used in research productivity, based on review of pertinent literature. In

this study, the predominant theories used are the Theory of Cumulative

Advantage, Utility Maximization Theory, and the Obsolescence Theory.

The theory of Cumulative Advantage states that once a social agent

gains a small advantage over other agents, that advantage will

compound over time into an increasingly larger advantage. This is also

known as the Matthew effect. The term was coined by sociologist Robert

Merton in a 1968 paper which described how the more eminent scientists

in a group tend get the most credit for the group's work, regardless of who

did the work. The greatest advantage a social agent can have is a

reinforcing feedback loop that increases (cumulates) their competitive

advantage. This is an explanation of how inequalities developed and

influence the quality of life of societies, cohorts and individuals. A central

premise is that “social systems generate inequality, which is manifested

over the life course via demographic and developmental processes.”

 26

Applying it in research, researchers who already gained prestige and

integrity in research mostly get the credit over newbie researchers. If

this inequality will not be arrested soon, this may lead to premature exit

of newbie researchers.

On the other hand, the Utility Maximization Theory provides a

methodological framework for the evaluation of alternative choices

made by individuals, firms and organizations. Utility refers to the

satisfaction that each choice provides to the decision maker. Thus,

utility theory assumes that any decision is made on the basis of the

utility maximization principle, according to which the best choice is the

one that provides the highest utility to the decision maker. In the case

of the academic researchers as decision makers, it is understood that

they will only choose to do research if the return of doing it will give

them their highest satisfaction level, which are likely in terms of salary

increases or promotion.

Further, the Obsolescence Theory suggests that research

performance declines as faculty members progress in their careers

(Sabharwal, 2013). Obsolescence means the process of becoming

obsolete or the condition of being nearly obsolete. It explains the

relationship between age and scientific productivity. As applied in

research, such as in fields where the production of new knowledge is

fast and where new scientific methods and equipment are continuously
 27

introduced, researchers may have problems coping and thus become

obsolescent. Older faculty may tend to be less productive than young

faculty members.

Other supporting theories may include the theories of McCleland

Achievement Theory, and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory.

McCleland Achievement Theory indicates that workers with high

achievement motivation are more interested in motivators

(achievements, achievement recognition, responsibility, advancement

and growth) and desire feedback on how well they are doing their job.

McCleland also stated that such individuals require concrete or job

relevant feedback that allows them to improve productive performance

(cited in Lertpurrak, 2008). Conducting research is a form of

achievement, affiliation as well as power.

Nonetheless, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory argues that humans act

according to their conscious expectations that a particular behavior will

lead to specific desirable goals. Vroom pointed out that people are

motivated to work when they expect that job performance will lead to

desired outcomes and when they value work activities. (cited in

Lertpurrak, 2008). Research requires focus and motivation for an

individual to pursue, on the other hand, it also gives rewards for the

output produced, may it be in monetary form or a recognition.

 28

Conceptual Framework

From the given theories and literatures which were

discussed above, the concept of this study is defined in Figure 1. The

box on the left shows the independent variables of the model, while the

box on the right presents the dependent variables. The arrow connecting

the boxes shows the relationship between the variables. The uppermost

box on the left displays about the demographic profile of the faculty

researchers which include age, sex, work status, marital status,

academic rank, years in teaching, number of children, and highest

educational attainment. These variables composed the independent

variables of the model. The box on the lower left side, presents the seven

identified dimensions of academic research productivity which came out

after running an exploratory factor analysis. These dimensions were

labelled as external pressures, value of research, institutional

requirements, institutional reputation, individual attributes, social

influences, and extrinsic motivation. These were included in the

independent variables of the model as well, in addition to the

demographic factors. The box on the right side of the arrow consisted of

the research outputs of the respondents in terms of number of patents,

number of citations, number of journal articles, number of authored

books, number of published research, number of unpublished research,

number of research projects, and number of research conference

 29

presentations. These variables composed the dependent variables of the

model. In total, the independent variables of the model, as shown in the

diagram below, composed of eight demographic factors, seven identified

dimensions, and eight research outputs.

Demographic Profile Dependent Variables

▪ Age
Research Outputs
▪ Sex
▪ Work Status
▪ Number of Patents
▪ Marital Status
▪ Number of Citations
▪ Academic Rank
▪ Number of Journal
▪ Years in Teaching
Articles
▪ Number of Children
▪ Number of Authored
▪ Highest Educational
Books
Attainment
Identified Dimensions ▪ Number of Published
• External Pressures Research
• Value of Research ▪ Number of Unpublished
• Institutional Research
Requirements ▪ Number of Research
• Institutional Projects
Reputation ▪ Number of Research
• Individual Attributes Conference Presentations
• Social Influences
• Extrinsic Motivation

Figure 1. Research Paradigm Showing Dimensions of Academic

Research Productivity

Research Hypothesis

This study aimed to test the following alternative hypotheses:

1. There are items that are factorable.

 30

2. Demographics and identified dimensions best predict

academic research productivity of SUCs and HEIs in Davao City.

METHODOLOGY

This chapter includes descriptions of the method used, sources of

data, the data gathering instruments, sampling technique, procedure of

the study and statistical treatment.

Method Used

The researcher used quantitative approach using descriptive and

causal research design. According to Waltz et al. (2010) as cited in the

article of Rudison (2015), quantitative research design is used when the

researcher uses the mathematical and statistical data obtained from the

observational research methods to analyze the outcome of the research.

The researcher engaging in quantitative research generally asks narrow

closed-ended questions to produce unbiased results. Tashakkori &

Teddlie as cited in the same article, suggested that it is justifiable to use

quantitative data in cases where the researcher wants to compare the

data in a systematic way or the researcher is attempting to test a theory

with hypothesis.

Ritchie et al. (2013) as cited in the same article of Rudison (2015)

opined that by using the descriptive method, the researcher will be able
 31

to observe a large mass of target population and make required

conclusions about the variables. The researcher by using descriptive

research can effectively design a pre-structured questionnaire with both

open-ended and closed-ended questions. The multiple choice questions

used in the descriptive method gives the respondent the attributes from

which they need to choose and enables the researcher to connect the

choice of the respondent with the choice of the researcher. It enables

the researcher to measure the results rather than exploring the results.

The authors also added that all variables are derived from concepts,

however, all concepts are independent and are not considered to be

variables unless they are provided with levels. Thus, the existence of the

concept is independent, however; the variable may not exist without

being linked with a particular concept.

The study also used causal design. Causal research, also known

as explanatory research is conducted in order to identify the extent and

nature of cause-and-effect relationships. This can be conducted in order

to assess impacts of specific changes on existing norms, various

processes etc. It focuses on an analysis of a situation or a specific

problem to explain the patterns of relationships between variables

(Zikmund et al., 2012). The presence of cause-and-effect relationships

can be confirmed only if specific evidence exists.

 32

Sources of Data

This study used primary data. It consisted of the data on the

socio-demographic profile of the respondents such as age, years in

teaching, number of children, sex, marital status, work status, highest

educational attainment, and academic rank. The data on the

dimensions of academic research productivity were given in Likert scale

from 1 to 5 with 1 as strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree. Moreover,

the data on research outputs of the respondents were given in terms of

the number of research output that they produced over a period of five

years such as data on the number of patents, number of citations,

number of journal articles, number of authored books, number of

published research, number of unpublished research, number of

research projects, and number of conference presentations.

The research respondents were the fulltime-probationary faculty

members, and the fulltime-regular/permanent faculty members from

state universities and selected higher education institutions in Davao

City.

Data Gathering Instrument

The main instrument used in this study was a self-constructed

survey questionnaire. It is consisted of three parts. Part I of the

questionnaire consisted of the demographic profile of the respondents

 33

which included age, sex, school, work status, marital status, academic

rank, years in teaching, number of children, highest educational

attainment. Part II pertained to several situational statements about the

degree of agreement of the respondents on the statements describing

the dimensions of academic research productivity, which had been

sourced from intensive literature reviews, with a total of 75 items.

Measurement of variables was rated using the five-point Likert scale.

Part III consisted of the data on the number of research outputs

produced by the participants in terms of the, number of patents,

number of citations, number of journal articles, number of authored

books, number of published research, number of unpublished research,

number of research projects, and number of research conference

presentations over the span five years (2012-2017).

The questionnaire was validated by three research experts, one

Research Director from a private university, one former Education

Program Supervisors in Research from the Department of Education

(DepEd), and one professor from a state university. It was pilot tested to

50 online respondents who were faculty members from colleges and

universities. The items of the questionnaire undergone reliability test

with a Cronbach alpha index of 93.0%. This was considered high;

therefore, the instrument was reliable and fit for the purpose it intended

to serve in the study. Presented below is the five-point Likert scale with
 34

its corresponding descriptive equivalent and interpretation. It was used

in rating the dimensions of academic research productivity in the Part

II of the survey questionnaire.

Scale Range of Descriptive Interpretation

Means Equivalent
5 4.50 - 5.00 Strongly This indicates that the
Agree respondents had expressed very
high agreement on the item
which they believed could affect
their perceptions about
academic research productivity.
4 3.50 - 4.49 Agree This indicates that the
respondents had expressed high
agreement on the item which
they believed could affect their
perceptions about academic
research productivity.
3 2.50 - 3.49 Moderately This indicates that the
Agree respondents had expressed an
average agreement on the item
which they believed could affect
their perceptions about
academic research productivity.
2 1.50 - 2.49 Disagree This indicates that the
respondents had expressed low
agreement on the item which
they believed could affect their
perceptions about academic
research productivity.
1 1.00 - 1.49 Strongly This indicates that the
Disagree respondents had expressed very
low agreement on the item which
they believed could affect their
perceptions about academic
research productivity.
 35

Sampling Technique

A stratified random sampling with equal allocation was used in

selecting the respondents of the study. It was stratified random

sampling since the researcher divided the population into separate

groups called strata which consisted of SUCs and HEIs, random

samples were taken from each of the strata. The members in each of the

stratum formed have similar attributes and characteristics. In each

stratum, each member of the population had been chosen randomly

from each college or university through a lottery method where everyone

had been assigned a number from which to pick from. The distribution

of the sample is shown below.

Distribution of the Respondents of the Study

School Sample Percentage

SUCs 100 50

HEIs 100 50

Total 200 100

Procedure of the Study

First, after the researcher had conceptualized the research

problem, a thorough and extensive literature search was carried out to

gather the dimensions of academic research productivity. Second, the

 36

data gathering procedure was prepared for the data collection. A

research instrument was finalized and had been subjected to validation

and reliability measures.

Third, the research instrument was conducted to the

respondents. Before the survey questionnaire was given, a letter of

permission was sent to the school heads of the sampled SUCs and HEIs.

The signed consent letter granting permission to conduct data collection

to their faculty members was first obtained. A general invitation to

participate in the survey had been extended to the faculty through the

department heads before the survey questionnaire was administered. A

letter to the respondent was attached to the survey questionnaire,

assuring the participants that participation should be voluntary, and

that anonymity and confidentiality should be observed during data

collection, storage, and reporting. The survey questionnaire was

distributed to the respondents following stratified random sampling

procedure.

Lastly, the data had been encoded, tabulated and analyzed

according to the sequence of the statements of the problem. The choice

of the statistical treatment used was also considered first before

deciding to run the data.

 37

Statistical Treatment

The study utilized the following statistical tools in interpreting the

research data. Descriptive statistics was used for getting the frequency

and percentage distribution of the demographic profile; Mean was used

for getting the extent of the dimensions of the academic research

productivity; Standard Deviation was used for determining the

variations in the responses in each dimension of academic research

productivity. In exploring the dimensions of research productivity, an

Exploratory Factor Analysis was utilized for that purpose.

The Negative Binomial Regression was used for modeling

academic research productivity using over-dispersed count outcome

variable. It was used to test for associations between predictor and

confounding variables on a count outcome variable when the variance

of the count is higher than the mean of the count. The count model had

a large number of zeroes, i.e no research outputs among the population

being studied. The Poisson and the Negative Binomial models are

usually employed to fit this kind of data. The Poisson distribution

however has the property of equal dispersion. The negative binomial

model estimates the academic research productivity of the college

professors and instructors by measuring it as count utilization. The

negative binomial distribution is derived as a compound Poisson

process where the parameter of the Poisson distribution includes a

 38

gamma distributed random variable reflecting individual heterogeneity

(Malonzo, 2007).

According to Zwilling (2013), negative binomial regression is

implemented using maximum likelihood estimation. It is a type of

generalized linear model in which the dependent variable is a count of

the number of times an event occurs. A convenient parametrization of

the negative binomial distribution is given by Hilbe (2011) as cited in

the article of Zwilling (2013):

(1)

where is the mean of and is the heterogeneity parameter.

Hilbe (2011) derives this parametrization as a Poisson-gamma mixture,

or alternatively as the number of failures before the success,

though we will not require to be an integer.

The traditional negative binomial regression model is:

(2)

where the predictor variables are given, and the population

regression coefficients are to be estimated.

Given a random sample of subjects, we observe for subject the

dependent variable and the predictor variables . Utilizing

vector and matrix notation, we let , and we gather the

predictor data into the design matrix as follows:

 39

Designating the row of to be , and exponentiating (2), we can then

write the distribution (1) as

We estimate and using maximum likelihood estimation. The

likelihood function is

and the log-likelihood function is

(3)

The values of and that maximize will be the maximum

likelihood estimates we seek, and the estimated variance-covariance

matrix of the estimators is , where is the Hessian matrix of

second derivatives of the log-likelihood function. Then the variance-

covariance matrix can be used to find the usual Wald confidence

intervals and -values of the coefficient estimates.

 40

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the results of data analysis and data

interpretation of findings. Discussion of topics is arranged in the

following subheadings: socio-demographic profile of the respondents;

explored dimensions of academic research productivity; extent of the

dimensions of academic research productivity; extent of the research

outputs of the respondents; and, academic research productivity models

for SUCs and HEIs in Davao City.

Socio-demographic Profile of the Respondents

Table 1 presents the sample’s distribution in terms of sex, school

type, work status, marital status, academic rank, number of children,

and highest educational attainment. The result depicted that female

teachers represent the majority (59.5%) of the sample. More than half

of the sample (57.5%) were regular/permanent faculty members and the

rest were probationary (42.5%). Majority of the sample (52.0%) were

legally married, followed by single teachers (44.0%). Almost half (47.0%)

of the sample were Instructors, followed by Associate Professors

(26.0%). More than half (56.5%) of the sample were master’s degree

holders followed by bachelors’ degree holder (26.0%).

 41

Table 1. Distribution of the Sample’s Demographic Profile

Frequency Percent
Sex Male 81 40.5
Female 119 59.5

Work Status Probationary 85 42.5

Regular/Permanent 115 57.5

Marital Status Single 88 44.0

Married 104 52.0
Widowed 8 4.0

Academic Rank Instructor 94 47.0

Assistant Professor 52 26.0
Associate Professor 36 18.0
Professor 18 9.0

Highest Bachelor 52 26.0

Educational Masters 113 56.5
Attainment Doctorate 35 17.5

Total 200 100.0

Table 2 presents the average age, average years of teaching and

number of children of the respondents. It shows that the average age of

the teacher-researchers was 37.41 years with Sd = 11.18 and age range

of 21 to 68 years old. The result was lower that what came out in the

paper of Abramo, Angelo and Caprasseca (2008) which stated that the

average age of female research professionals in the Italian academic

system for the period under observation was 43 years, falling within the

final family life phase for the presence of very young children.
 42

While their average years of teaching was 12.17 years with Sd =

10.39 and years range in teaching of 1 to 48 years. In terms of number

of children, on the average researchers had only one child.

Table 2. Distribution of Age, Years in Teaching and Number of

Children
N Min Max Mean Sd
Age 200 21.00 68.00 37.41 11.18
Years in
200 1.00 48.00 12.17 10.39
Teaching
No. of Children 200 .00 9.00 1.2050 1.40

Explored Dimensions of Academic Research Productivity

The factor analysis program generates a variety of tables

depending on which options had been chosen. The researcher run all

options necessary for interpreting the analysis including its

assumptions, such as the descriptive statistics to make sure that there

were no missing respondents (N=75); the correlation matrix which

showed how each of the 75 items was associated with each other

(Determinant = 4.67E-022) which was greater than .0001. Other

assumptions are discussed below.

A total of 200 college and university instructors and professors of

state universities and higher education institutions of Davao City were

chosen as respondents to answer the questionnaire on academic

 43

research productivity. The total number of respondents satisfied the

requirement of 10 is to 1 subject-item ratio of Nunnally (1978).

Measures of Sampling Adequacy and Sphericity

Based from the result in Table 3, a KMO of .827 which is near 1

signifies a pattern for correlations that are relatively compact which

provide reliable factors. In general, a KMO coefficient must be greater

than 0.50. Literatures indicate that KMO values between 0.5 to 0.7are

mediocre; values between 0.7 to 0.8 are considered good; and values

between 0.8 to 0.9 are great; while values above 0.93 are deemed

superb, with the latter suggestive of strong confidence that factor

analysis fit for the data (Tamayo, 2012).

Moreover, Bartletts Test of Sphericity with a chi-square value of

8505.245 is significant with a sig-value of .000, which confirms that

statements presented have patterned relationships. This means that the

respondents understood the question the same with others.

Table 3. Measures of Sampling Adequacy and Sphericity

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .827
Approx. Chi-Square 8505.245

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 2775

Sig. .000
 44

Factor Loadings from Principal Axis Factor Analysis with Varimax

Rotation for a Seven-Factor Solution for Academic Research
Productivity Questions (N=200)

The tables below display the factor loadings indicating the

dimensions. The selected items have communality values above .30,

which is considered good. The orthogonal rotation (varimax) was used

which means that the final factors are at the right angles with each

other., which can be assumed that the information explained by one

factor is independent of the information in the other factors. Factors are

rotated so that they are easier to interpret. Rotation makes it so that, as

much as possible, different items are explained or predicted by different

underlying factors, and each factor explains more than one item. This

is a condition called simple structure.

The analysis had sorted 75 academic research productivity

questions into seven somewhat overlapping groups of items. Only items

with factor loadings higher than absolute value of .30 were included in

the analysis. The items with highest loadings in all factors were listed

from highest loading to lowest loading. All factors loadings had positive

values since the questions were written only following one angle which

was positive. Loadings of .40 or greater are typically considered high,

higher than .50 would be very unusual.

 45

Factor Loading for External Pressures

Table 4 presents the first factor, which index external pressures

as one factor sees to affect academic research productivity. This factor

had the most number of items with 17 items with related statements

pointing to external pressures. It had strong loadings on the first eleven

items with loadings of >.50 and six items had factor loadings of >.40 but

< .50. Item 63, “Peer recognition is important in any research endeavor”

and item 62 “The researcher’s work should be cited by some authors”

had highest loadings of 0.63. It was followed by item 66, “Research

increases the financial opportunities of the researcher”, and item 64

“Research gives a name and recognition to the researcher” which yielded

both a loading of 0.59. Other statements with higher loadings under this

dimension were discussing about awareness of the researcher on his

responsibilities to the external funders, the role of research in

enhancing one’ professionalism and in opening doors for future

opportunities. While the item 59, “The researcher should know about

the ethical considerations in conducting research” had lowest loading of

0.41 under this factor. The other two statements with lower loadings of

0.43 were item 58, “Researchers who have lots of family responsibilities

have less time to do research”, and item 74 “Teacher-researcher should

encourage their students to read and cite their research works”.

 46

Table 4. Factor Loading for External Pressures

Items Statements Factor Dimensions
Loadings
63 Peer recognition is important in any 0.63 External Pressures
research endeavor.
62 The researcher’s work should be cited 0.63 External Pressures
by some authors.
66 Research increases the financial 0.59 External Pressures
opportunities of the researcher.
64 Research gives a name and recognition 0.59 External Pressures
to the researcher.
72 The researcher should be aware of 0.57 External Pressures
her/his responsibilities to the external
funders.
68 Research widens one’s perspective and 0.57 External Pressures
enhances professionalism.
61 Research opens the door to future 0.56 External Pressures
opportunities.
65 It is also motivating to have award- 0.55 External Pressures
giving bodies for research.
67 The government should support 0.54 External Pressures
universities to conduct research.
75 Research funding should not be limited 0.51 External Pressures
only to internal funding but should be
open also to external grants and
funding.
70 In the academe, being a researcher 0.50 External Pressures
serves an edge over a non-researcher.
73 There is a need to have special 0.47 External Pressures
recognition for researchers in research
conferences.
23 Research needs patience and thorough 0.45 External Pressures
planning.
26 Research makes one a part of the 0.45 External Pressures
academic community.
58 Researchers who have lots of family 0.43 External Pressures
responsibilities have less time to do
research.
74 Teacher-researchers should encourage 0.43 External Pressures
their students to read and cite their
research works.
59 The researcher should know about the 0.41 External Pressures
ethical considerations in conducting
research.
 47

Factor Loading for Value of Research

Table 5 presents the second factor which is the value of research.

This factor had the second most number of items (14 items) among the

factors mentioned. There were 13 items had all strong loadings of > .50,

and only one item had a loading of .40.

Table 5. Factor Loading for Value of Research

Items Statements Factor Dimensions
Loadings

8 Research can help solve practical 0.76 Value of

problems in the field. Research
4 Research enhances the quality of 0.76 Value of
teaching. Research
6 Research satisfies one’s curiosity and 0.72 Value of
creativity. Research
10 Teaching and formal research work are 0.69 Value of
equally important. Research
7 Research boosts the moral and integrity 0.60 Value of
of teachers. Research
5 Research can help earn respect of 0.58 Value of
students. Research
15 Research generates new knowledge and 0.57 Value of
latest development in the field. Research

11 It is important to know the facts and 0.57 Value of

methods of research. Research

9 Research is an important part of teaching 0.54 Value of

employment. Research

1 0.53 Value of
Research is not a waste of time.
Research
13 Research is critical to the advancement 0.53 Value of
of one’s good reputation. Research
30 Research develops network of 0.53 Value of
communication with other researchers. Research
29 Research stimulates internal drive in the 0.52 Value of
quest for new knowledge. Research
2 0.40 Value of
Research is useful for promotion.
Research
 48

Under this factor, item 8 “Research can help solve practical

problems in the field.”, and item 4 “Research enhances the quality of

teaching” had the highest loadings of 0.76. It was followed by item 6,

“Research satisfies one’s curiosity and creativity” with a loading of 0.72.

While item 2, “Research is useful for promotion” garnered the lowest

loading of 0.40.

Factor Loading for Institutional Requirements

The third factor which is institutional requirements is displayed

in Table 6. It had nine items, and the first five items of this factor had

strong loadings of above .50 and four had factor loadings above .40. In

this factor, item 40, “The management should organize research

methodology training workshops” had the highest loading of 0.70,

followed by item 39 which stated “The management should invite

scholars to talk about current researches” with a loading of 0.64. The

other items which got a high loadings were discussion about the need

for newbie researcher to be guided, the passion for research, and the

need for the encouragement of the management to researchers. While

item 32, “Research needs ready access to reading resources” got the

lowest loading (.41). Item 60 on “There is a need to have easy access to

research facilities and research organizations outside ones school” also

got a lowest loading under this factor.

 49

Table 6. Factor Loading for Institutional Requirements

Items Statements Factor Dimensions
Loadings
40 The management should organize 0.70 Institutional
research methodology training Requirements
workshops.
39 The management should invite 0.64 Institutional
scholars to talk about current Requirements
researches.
45 Newbie researchers should be 0.60 Institutional
guided by research Requirements
leaders/mentors when they are
engaged in research.
17 0.56 Institutional
Research is a passion. Requirements
41 The management should 0.52 Institutional
encourage the conduct and Requirements
publication of research works.
44 There should be appropriate 0.48 Institutional
scheme in giving monetary Requirements
incentives for conducting
research.
16 0.46 Institutional
Research is a skill. Requirements
60 There is a need to have easy 0.45 Institutional
access to research facilities and Requirements
research organizations outside
one's school.
32 Research needs ready access to 0.41 Institutional
reading resources. Requirements

Factor Loading for Institutional Reputation

Table 7 displays the fourth factor of academic research

productivity which index institutional reputation. This factor had also

nine items, four items had strong loadings of above .50 while the other

five items had loadings above .40. There were no items with cross-
 50

loadings observed under this factor. Item 36, “Prestige in research can

classify the institution an elite institution” yielded the highest loading

(.70) while item 14, “Teaching load should be reduced to have extra time

for research” had the lowest loading (.41).

Table 7. Factor Loading for Institutional Reputation

Item Statements Factor Dimensions
s Loading
s
36 Prestige in research can classify 0.70 Institutional
the institution an elite institution. Reputation
37 Research is a yardstick by which 0.65 Institutional
academic reputation is measured. Reputation
35 Research can promote university’s 0.54 Institutional
achievement to shareholders. Reputation
34 Research should have equal 0.53 Institutional
compensation with teaching loads. Reputation
33 There should be financial 0.49 Institutional
incentives in doing research. Reputation
31 Research can boost university 0.48 Institutional
ranking. Reputation
38 Conducting research should have 0.47 Institutional
corresponding teaching load Reputation
equivalent.
42 The institution earns respect of 0.45 Institutional
the community if its research is Reputation
highly regarded.
14 Teaching loads should be reduced 0.41 Institutional
to have extra time for research. Reputation

Factor Loading for Individual Attributes

Presented in Table 8 is the factor loadings for individual

attributes. Out of seven items under this factor, two of them had strong
 51

loadings of above .50 while the other five items had loadings of .40

above. Item 24, “Research requires in-depth knowledge about the field”

yielded the highest loading (.63) and item 20 “It needs confidence to

conduct research” got the lowest loading (.42).

Table 8. Factor Loading for Individual Attributes

Items Statements Factor Dimensions
Loadings
24 Research requires in-depth 0.63 Individual
knowledge about the field. Attributes
28 Research is the overall test of stock 0.54 Individual
knowledge in one’s field. Attributes
21 Research requires innate interest 0.49 Individual
in the field. Attributes
19 Research is an expression of 0.45 Individual
oneself. Attributes
22 Research makes one to stay 0.42 Individual
current in the field. Attributes
25 Research identifies experts within 0.42 Individual
and outside the field. Attributes
20 It needs confidence to conduct 0.42 Individual
research. Attributes

Factor Loading for Social Influences

Shown in Table 9 is the sixth factor of academic research

productivity which is social influences. This factor had also seven items,

three of which had loadings of .50 and above while the other four items

had loadings of .40 above. Item 48, “Research does not interfere with

family responsibilities” had the highest loading (.61) while item 57, “The

researcher should not be under financial pressures while doing

research” got the lowest loading (.43).

 52

Table 9. Factor Loading for Social Influences

Items Statements Factor Dimensions
Loadings
48 Research does not interfere with 0.61 Social
family responsibilities. Influences
47 Researchers are praised for doing 0.53 Social
research. Influences
46 0.50 Social
Research is not a boring endeavor.
Influences
56 The researcher should not have 0.48 Social
fear of being corrected or being Influences
questioned.
55 The researcher’s health condition is 0.46 Social
a prime factor in conducting Influences
research.
53 A researcher should be willing to 0.44 Social
sacrifice family time for research. Influences
57 The researcher should not be under 0.43 Social
financial pressures while doing Influences
research.

Factor Loading for Extrinsic Motivation

Table 10 reveals the seventh factor which indexed extrinsic

motivation as one of the factors of academic research productivity. There

were only four items under this factor, and all of these items had strong

loadings of .50 above. Item 51, “It is important to have the boss

encouragement in doing research” garnered the highest loading (.71)

and item 49, “It is important to have family support while doing

research” got the lowest loading (.52). Other two items under this factor

were discussing about provision of the office on research resources, and

the importance of the support of the co-workers.

 53

Table 10. Factor Loading for Extrinsic Motivation

Item Statements Factor Dimensions
s Loading
s
51 It is important to have the boss 0.71 Extrinsic
encouragement in doing research. Motivation
50 The office should provide 0.68 Extrinsic
resources in conducting research. Motivation
52 The support of the co-workers is 0.62 Extrinsic
also important in doing research. Motivation
49 It is important to have family 0.52 Extrinsic
support while doing research. Motivation

Extent of the Dimensions of Academic Research Productivity

Revealed in Table 11 is the extent of the dimensions of academic

research productivity, with the sample size equal to 200, and a Likert

scale range of 1 to 5.

Among the seven dimensions identified through exploratory factor

analysis, institutional requirements got the highest average (M=4.74;

Sd=.36) or very high extent, which means that the respondents had

showed strong agreement on the items indicating that institutional

requirements is one of the factors which could affect academic research

productivity. On the other hand, social influences yielded the lowest

average (M=4.25; Sd=.51), but still with high extent, which means that,

though it got the lowest average, the respondents still expressed

agreement on the items describing that social influences also serves as

one of the factors which could affect academic research productivity.

 54

Table 11. Extent of the Dimensions of Academic Research Productivity

Dimensions Mean Std. Descriptive
Deviation Equivalent
Strongly
External Pressures 4.70 .34 Agree
Strongly
Value of Research 4.58 .43 Agree
Strongly
Institutional Requirements 4.74 .36 Agree
Strongly
Institutional Reputation 4.64 .41 Agree

Individual Attributes 4.44 .47 Agree

Social Influences 4.25 .51 Agree

Strongly
Extrinsic Motivation 4.61 .57 Agree
Strongly
Average 4.57 .44 Agree

The general average (M=4.57; Sd=0.44) indicated that the

respondents, on the average, showed a very strong agreement that the

seven dimensions of academic research productivity mentioned through

exploratory factor analysis could affect their perceptions about

academic research productivity.

Extent of the Research Outputs of the Respondents

The figures below displayed the extent of research outputs of the

respondents over a period of five-year in terms of patents, citations,

journal articles, authored books, published research, research projects,

 55

and research conference presentations which was grouped into three

different presentations: total research outputs produced; total number

of researchers who produced research outputs; and, average research

output produced per researcher.

Total Research Outputs Produced Over Five-Year Period

Presented in Figure 2 is the research outputs produced by the

respondents over a five-year period (2012-2017) in terms of patents,

citations, journal articles, authored books, published research, research

projects, and research conference presentations.

270
238

146
126
111
61

34
25

Figure 2. Research outputs produced over five-year period (2012-2017)

 56

The data show that attending research conference presentations

got the biggest number of 270 followed by unpublished research with a

total of 238 while securing patents was the hardest thing to do since it

only got a total of 25 for five years followed by publishing authored

books which only had 34.

Total Number of Researchers Who Produced Research Outputs For

Five-Year Period

Figure 3 reveals the total number of researchers who produced

research outputs over the period of five years in terms of producing

patents, citations, journal articles, authored books, published research,

unpublished research, research projects, and attending research

conferences.
93 (46.5%)

59 (29.5%)
55 (27.5%)

64 (32%)
42 (21%)
21 (10.5%)

20 (10%)
15 (7.5%)

Figure 3. Total number of researchers who produced research outputs

over five-year period (N=200)
 57

The figure shows that out of 200 respondents, 93 of them (46.5%)

were able to produced unpublished research followed by research

projects which got 64 respondents (32%) of the total number of

respondents. However, the lowest number was in terms of acquisition

of patents, only 15 respondents or 7.5% of the total respondents had

secured patents for their research outputs followed by publication of

authored books with 20 respondents which was 10% of the

respondents.

Average Research Outputs Produced Per Researcher Over Five-

Year Period

Figure 4 shows the average number of research outputs produced

per researcher over a span of five years in terms of producing patents,

citations, journal articles, authored books, published research,

unpublished research, research projects, and attending conference

presentations.

The data disclosed that attending research conference

presentations got the highest average of 4.58. It means that, on the

average, for those who attended research presentations, a researcher

had attended four to five research presentations in five years. It was

followed by producing citations which revealed that for those who had

citations, each researcher had an average of 2.90 or two to three

citations for five years. While securing patents still got the lowest
 58

average of 1.67, which means that for those who acquired patents, they

got an average of one or two patents in five years.

4.58
2.90

2.64

2.56
2.29

2.28
1.70
1.67

Figure 4. Average research outputs produced per researcher over five-

year period (2012-2017)

Academic Research Productivity Models for SUCs and HEIs in

Davao City

The tables below present the seven models of academic research

productivity in terms of patents productivity model, citations

productivity model, journal articles productivity model, authored books

productivity model, published research productivity model,

unpublished research productivity model, research projects

productivity model, and research conference presentations productivity

model, using negative binomial regression analysis.

 59

Patents Productivity Model

Table 12 presented below shows the model predicting the average

number of patents that a respondent could secure over a five-year

period.

Table 12. Negative Binomial Regression Analysis Predicting Average

Number of Patents
Hypothesis Test
Std.
Parameter B Wald Chi- Exp(B)
Error df Sig.
Square
(Intercept) .950 6.6248 .021 1 .886 2.586
[Sex=1.00] .417 .7120 .343 1 .558 1.518
[Sex=2.00] 0a 1
[Mar_Status=1.00] -.402 1.9047 .045 1 .833 .669
[Mar_Status=2.00] -.001 1.5499 .000 1 1.000 .999
[Mar_Status=3.00] 0a 1
[Work_Status=1.00] 1.463 .7427 .078 1 .590 4.317
[Work_Status=2.00] 0a 1
[Educ_Attainment=1.00] .045 1.0386 .002 1 .965 1.046
[Educ_Attainment=2.00] -.980 .7403 1.752 1 .186 .375
[Educ_Attainment=3.00] 0a 1
[Acad_Rank=1.00] .179 1.3732 .017 1 .896 1.197
[Acad_Rank=2.00] 2.032 1.2375 2.696 1 .101 7.630
[Acad_Rank=3.00] 1.710 1.2192 1.967 1 .161 5.528
[Acad_Rank=4.00] 0a 1
Age -.195 .0912 4.564 1 .033 .823
Years in Teaching .186 .0889 4.382 1 .036 1.205
No of Children .577 .2828 4.160 1 .041 1.780
External Pressures -.090 1.3057 .005 1 .945 .914
Value of Research 2.333 1.3697 2.901 1 .089 10.307
Institutional -.001 1.1711 .000 1 1.000 .999
Requirements
Institutional Reputation .966 .9989 .935 1 .334 2.628
Indi Attributes .129 .9696 3.821 1 .028 1.138
Social Influences .152 .6871 .049 1 .825 1.164
Extrinsic Motivation 1.508 .4757 10.045 1 .002 4.517
(Scale) 1.048b
(Negative binomial) 1c
Likelihood Chi-square= 33.336
df=19
p-value=.022

As indicated in the table, the goodness of fit measure has large observed

significance level (Chi-square=33.369; df=19; p=.022), hence the model

 60

fits. The result revealed that, work status (Wald= 3.878; p=.049), age

(Wald=4.564; p=.033), years in teaching (Wald=4.382; p=.036), number

of children (Wald=4.160; p=.041), individual attributes (Wald=3.821;

p=.028) and extrinsic motivation (Wald=10.045; p=.002) were found to

be significant predictors (p<.05) of securing patents.

The result also indicates that in terms of work status, the

probationary faculty is more likely to secure patents 4.317 times than

their regular faculty members, holding other variables constant. This is

supported by the findings of the Custom Research Brief of Attis and

Bevino (2012) which discussed that declines in productivity after tenure

typically arise from a range of predictable and addressable issues such

as increases in administrative responsibilities, new family obligations,

or changing research interest. The rigor of the tenure process and the

hiring process (particularly in the current competitive environment)

means that faculty are almost without exception competent and

(initially at least) highly motivated.

In terms of age, a year increase in age is .823 times more likely

decrease the chance of faculty members to secure patents. Dubois,

Rochet & Schlenker (2013) supported this results which stated that,

weakness of age is related to the decline in productivity. In the article of

Matthews (2016), it was stated that younger researchers might be more

 61

ambitious in order to prove themselves in the scientific community, or

to find a full-time faculty position.

For years in teaching, a year increase in teaching is 1.205 times

more likely increase researchers’ acquisition of patents. The result

supports the findings of Callaghan (2015) which stated that the years

as a researcher was found to positively predict the research outputs of

the academics. But, the finding was opposed by the study of Hu and Jill

(2002) which pointed out that number of years of the faculty has adverse

effect on research productivity. Moreover, an increase in the number of

children in the family of a researcher is 1.780 times more likely to get

patents, holding other variables constant. Sax, L.J., Hagedorn, L.S.,

Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi III, F.A. (2002) stated that having dependent

children exhibit little or no effects on research productivity.

Further, an increase in the perception of the respondents on

individual attributes (say, from high to very high) would more likely

increase researchers’ acquisition of patents by .119 times. Bai (2010)

found out that individual characteristics desirable for research and

academics’ perceptions about research impact academics’ research

productivity. Extrinsic motivation also significantly predicts the

likelihood of securing patents by 4.517 positively, ceteris paribus.

Furthermore, it should be cautiously noted also, that the value of

research can also be considered a significant predictor of securing

 62

patents at p=.10. Hence, an increase in the perception of the

respondents on the value of research can significantly increase their

likelihood of securing patents by 10.307 times, holding other factors

constant.

The estimated model is:

AcadProd1 = 2.586 + .823Age + 1.205YrsT + 1.780Child +

10.307Value + 1.138IndA + 4.517ExtM + e

where:

AcadProd – academic productivity

Age – age of the respondents

YrsT – years in teaching

Child – number of children

Value – value of research

IndA – individual attributes

ExtM – extrinsic motivation

e – error term

Citations Productivity Model

Table 13 displays the model predicting the average number of

citations that a respondent could have over a five-year period.

Table 13. Negative Binomial Regression Analysis Predicting Average

Number of Citations
Parameter B Hypothesis Test
 63

Wald
Std. Exp(
Chi- Df Sig.
Error B)
Square
(Intercept) -7.917 8.3826 .892 1 .345 .000

[Sex=1.00] .585 .7304 .642 1 .423 1.796

[Sex=2.00] 0a 1
[Mar_Status=1.00] -1.898 2.0860 .828 1 .363 .150
[Mar_Status=2.00] -1.188 1.7308 .471 1 .493 .305
[Mar_Status=3.00] 0 a 1
[Work_Status=1.00 -.344 .8990 .146 1 .702 .709
]
[Work_Status=2.00 0a 1
]
[Educ_Attainment -3.635 1.8561 3.836 1 .050 .026
=1.00]
[Educ_Attainment -2.614 1.0757 5.905 1 .015 .073
=2.00]
[Educ_Attainment 0a 1
=3.00]
[Acad_Rank=1.00] 1.034 1.5317 .456 1 .500 2.813
[Acad_Rank=2.00] 2.262 1.3433 2.836 1 .092 9.604
[Acad_Rank=3.00] -1.632 1.4881 1.202 1 .273 .196
[Acad_Rank=4.00] 0 a 1
Age -.040 .0763 .274 1 .600 .961
Years in Teaching .016 .0829 .036 1 .849 1.016
No of Children -.049 .2919 .028 1 .867 .952
External Pressures -4.115 2.1679 3.602 1 .058 .016
Value of Research 2.885 2.0080 2.064 1 .151 17.89
9
Institutional -.298 1.9872 .022 1 .881 .742
Requirements
Institutional -1.353 1.5953 .719 1 .396 .258
Reputation
Indi Attributes .342 1.3442 .065 1 .799 1.408
Social Influences 1.691 1.1043 2.346 1 .126 5.427
Extrinsic 3.015 1.7227 3.062 1 .080 20.38
2
Motivation
(Scale) 2.340b
(Negative binomial) 1c
Likelihood Chi-square= 47.715
df=19
p-value=.000

As indicated in the table, the goodness of fit measure has large observed

significance level (Chi-square=47.715; df=19; p=.000), hence the model

fits. The result revealed that educational attainment 1 (Wald=3.836;

 64

p=.050), and educational attainment 2 (Wald=5.905; p=.015) were

significant predictors to have citations. This means that in terms of

educational attainment, bachelor’s degree holder is .026 times less

likely to have citations than doctorate degree holder. Similarly, master’s

degree holder is .073 times less likely to have citations than doctorate

degree holder, ceteris paribus. The findings support the study of

Hadjinicola & Soteriou (2005) which revealed that the number of

doctoral students may promote research productivity and quality of

research output but it cannot be regarded as the driving force behind

research productivity and quality.

Interestingly, academic rank (Wald= 2.836; p=.092), external

pressures (Wald=3.602; p=.058), extrinsic motivation (Wald=3.062;

p=.080) can also be significant predictors of having citations at p=.10.

This explains that Assistant Professors are more likely 9.604 times

to increase citations than the Professors. An increase in the perception

of the researchers in terms of external pressures is .016 times less likely

to have citations. Correspondingly, an increase in the extrinsic

motivation of the researchers is 20.382 more likely to have citations,

holding other factors constant.

The estimated model is:

AcadProd2 = .000 + .026EducA1 + .073EducA2 + 9.604AcadR2 +

.016ExtP + 20.382ExtM + e
 65

where:

AcadProd – academic productivity

EducA – educational attainment

AcadR – academic rank

ExtP – external pressures

ExtM – extrinsic motivation

e – error term

Journal Articles Productivity Model

Revealed in Table 14 is the model predicting the average number of

journal articles that a respondent could publish over a five-year period.

As indicated in the table, the goodness of fit measure has large observed

significance level (Chi-square=79.793; df=19; p=.000), hence the model

fits. The result revealed that educational attainment 1 (Wald=9.774;

p=.002), educational attainment 2 (Wald=15.904; p=.000), and

academic rank 2 (Wald=4.693; p=.030) were significant predictors of

publishing journal articles. However, according to Hu and Jill (2002),

tenure status, academic rank and school type have no significant effect

to research productivity.

Table 14. Negative Binomial Regression Analysis Predicting Average

Number of Journal Articles
Hypothesis Test
Std. Wald Exp(B
Parameter B
Error Chi- )
Square df Sig.
(Intercept) -4.680 3.8479 1.480 1 .224 .009
 66

[Sex=1.00] .166 .3904 .180 1 .671 1.180

[Sex=2.00] 0 a 1

[Mar_Status=1.00] .148 1.2315 .015 1 .904 1.160

[Mar_Status=2.00] 1.055 1.1351 .863 1 .353 2.871

[Mar_Status=3.00] 0 a 1

[Work_Status=1.00] -.640 .4663 1.885 1 .170 .527

[Work_Status=2.00] 0a 1

[Educ_Attainment=1.00 -2.441 .7809 9.774 1 .002 .087

]
[Educ_Attainment=2.00 -2.010 .5040 15.904 1 .000 .134
]
[Educ_Attainment=3.00 0a 1
]
[Acad_Rank=1.00] .321 .7642 .176 1 .675 1.378

[Acad_Rank=2.00] 1.519 .7012 4.693 1 .030 4.568

[Acad_Rank=3.00] -.442 .6240 .502 1 .479 .643

[Acad_Rank=4.00] 0 a 1

Age -.050 .0376 1.777 1 .183 .951

YiT .008 .0401 .035 1 .851 1.008

No_Children -.060 .1393 .183 1 .669 .942

External Pressures -.216 .8794 .060 1 .806 .806

Value of Research .547 .5962 .841 1 .359 1.728

Institutional -.210 .8575 .060 1 .807 .811

Requirements
Institutional -.064 .7072 .008 1 .928 .938
Reputation
Indi Attributes .984 .5767 2.914 1 .088 2.676

Social Influences .609 .4816 1.598 1 .206 1.838

Extrinsic Motivation -.263 .3691 .508 1 .476 .769

(Scale) 1.287b

(Negative binomial) 1c

Likelihood Chi-square= 79.793

df=19
p-value=.000

The result shows that in terms of educational attainment, bachelor’s

degree holder is .087 times less likely to publish journal articles than

doctorate degree holder. Similarly, master’s degree holder is .134 times

 67

less likely to publish journal articles than doctorate degree holder,

ceteris paribus.

Remarkably, individual attributes (Wald=2.914; p=.088) can also

serve as significant predictor of publishing journal articles at p=.10.

This means that an increase in the perception of the respondents on

their individual attributes can more likely increase their publication of

journal articles by 2.676 times, holding other factors constant. Jung

(2012) also expressed in his study that research productivity is

influenced by personal characteristics and institutional characteristics.

The estimated model is:

AcadProd3 = .009 + .087EducA1 + .134Educ2 + 4.568AcadR2 +

2.676IndA + e
where:

AcadProd – academic productivity

EducA – educational attainment

AcadR – academic rank

IndA – individual attributes

e – error term

Authored Books Productivity Model

Table 15 shows the model predicting the average number of authored

books that a respondent could publish over a five-year period. As

indicated in the table, the goodness of fit measure has large observed
 68

significance level (Chi-square=80.761; df=19; p=.000), hence the model

fits. The result revealed that educational attainment 2 (Wald=5.160;

p=.023), academic rank 2 (Wald=7.204; p=.007), institutional

requirements (Wald=5.336; p=.021), were significant predictors of

publication of authored books.

The result shows that in terms of educational attainment, master’s

degree holder is .302 times less likely to publish authored books than

doctorate degree holder. Assistant professors is 17.795 times more likely

to have authored books than the professors, holding other variables

constant.

Further, institutional requirements would more likely increase the

publication of authored books by .070 times, which is supported by the

study of Lertputtarak (2008) who found out that there are five important

factors that impact on academic research productivity. These are

environmental factors, institutional factors, personal career

development factors, social contingency factors, and demographic

factors.
 69

Table 15. Negative Binomial Regression Analysis Predicting Average

Number of Authored Books
Hypothesis Test
Std. Wald
Parameter B Exp(B)
Error Chi- df Sig.
Square
(Intercept) -3.067 4.4091 .484 1 .487 .047

[Sex=1.00] .328 .5901 .309 1 .579 1.388

[Sex=2.00] 0a 1

[Mar_Status=1.00] -1.939 1.4318 1.833 1 .176 .144

[Mar_Status=2.00] -.524 1.1716 .200 1 .655 .592

[Mar_Status=3.00] 0a 1

[Work_Status=1.00] -.018 .6370 .001 1 .977 .982

[Work_Status=2.00] 0a 1

[Educ_Attainment=1.0 - 4.238E-
30.792b 14
0]
[Educ_Attainment=2.0 -1.198 .5272 5.160 1 .023 .302
0]
[Educ_Attainment=3.0 0a 1
0]
[Acad_Rank=1.00] .984 1.3074 .566 1 .452 2.674

[Acad_Rank=2.00] 2.879 1.0726 7.204 1 .007 17.795

[Acad_Rank=3.00] 1.900 1.0382 3.348 1 .067 6.683

[Acad_Rank=4.00] 0a 1

Age -.100 .0699 2.031 1 .154 .905

Years in Teaching .102 .0690 2.174 1 .140 1.107

No_Children -.166 .2286 .528 1 .467 .847

External Pressures -.854 1.3819 .382 1 .537 .426

Value of Research .555 .6652 .697 1 .404 1.742

Institutional -2.658 1.1506 5.336 1 .021 .070

Requirements
Institutional .229 1.0566 .047 1 .829 1.257
Reputation
Indi Attributes 1.706 .9320 3.350 1 .067 5.506

Social Influences .901 .6795 1.757 1 .185 2.461

Extrinsic Motivation 1.013 .9492 1.138 1 .286 2.753

(Scale) .795c

(Negative binomial) 1d

Likelihood Chi-square= 80.761

df=19
p-value=.000
 70

Nonetheless, it should also be noted that academic rank 3 (Wald=

3.348; p=.067), and individual attributes (Wald=3.350; p=.067) can also

significantly predict publication of authored books. This indicates that

associate professors can more likely publish authored books 6.683

times than the professors. Moreover, an increase in the perception of

the researchers’ individual attributes can more likely increase their

production of authored books by 5.506 times, ceteris paribus.

Danchisko and Thomas (2012) had also pointed out that individual

indicators is one of the identified common indicators of faculty research

productivity.

The estimated model is:

AcadProd4 = .047 + .302EducA1 + 17.795AcadR2 + .070InstR +

5.506IndA + e

where:

AcadProd – academic productivity

EducA – educational attainment

AcadR – academic rank

InstR – institutional requirements

IndA – individual attributes

e – error term
 71

Published Research Productivity Model

Table 16 discloses the model predicting the average number of

published research that a respondent could publish over a five-year

period. As indicated in the table, the goodness of fit measure has large

observed significance level (Chi-square=111.027; df=19; p=.000), hence

the model fits.

Table 16. Negative Binomial Regression Analysis Predicting Average

Number of Published Research
Hypothesis Test
Std.
Parameter B Wald Chi- Exp(B)
Error df Sig.
Square
(Intercept) -1.911 3.0031 .405 1 .525 .148

[Sex=1.00] .761 .3125 5.928 1 .015 2.140

[Sex=2.00] 0a 1

[Mar_Status=1.00] -.244 .9368 .068 1 .794 .783

[Mar_Status=2.00] .011 .8122 .000 1 .989 1.011

[Mar_Status=3.00] 0 a 1

[Work_Status=1.00] -1.291 .3812 11.462 1 .001 .275

[Work_Status=2.00] 0a 1

[Educ_Attainment=1.00] -2.494 .6515 14.659 1 .000 .083

[Educ_Attainment=2.00] -1.338 .3821 12.256 1 .000 .262

[Educ_Attainment=3.00] 0a 1

[Acad_Rank=1.00] -.487 .5427 .806 1 .369 .614

[Acad_Rank=2.00] .433 .4946 .765 1 .382 1.541

[Acad_Rank=3.00] -.352 .4829 .531 1 .466 .703

[Acad_Rank=4.00] 0a 1

Age -.025 .0307 .646 1 .422 .976

Years in Teaching -.012 .0319 .135 1 .713 .988

No_Children -.061 .1323 .214 1 .644 .941

External Pressures -1.310 .7223 3.291 1 .070 .270

Value of Research 1.215 .5845 4.319 1 .038 3.370

Institutional Requirements .396 .6753 .344 1 .558 1.486

Institutional Reputation -.146 .6069 .058 1 .809 .864

Indi Attributes .030 .4416 .005 1 .945 1.031

Social Influences .635 .3622 3.077 1 .079 1.888

Extrinsic Motivation .032 .3079 .011 1 .918 1.032

 72

(Scale) .952b

(Negative binomial) 1c

Likelihood Chi-square= 111.027

df=19
p-value=.000

The result revealed that sex (Wald=5.928; p=.015); work status

(Wald=11.462; p=.001), educational attainment 1 (Wald=14.659;

p=.000), educational attainment 2 (Wald=12.256; p=.000), and, value of

research (Wald=4.319; p=.038) were significant predictors of published

research.

The date also indicates that males would more likely publish

research 2.140 times than their female counterparts. The result

supports the study of Abramo, Angelo, and Caprasecca (2008), which

states that males do demonstrate a higher average productivity with

respect to that of females. Probationary faculty members can less likely

publish researches by .275 times than the regular faculty members. In

terms of educational attainment, bachelor’s degree holder would less

likely publish research .083 times than the doctorate degree holder, and

master’s degree holder is .262 times less likely to publish researches

than the doctorate degree holder, ceteris paribus.

Further, an increase in the perception of the researchers about the

value of research would more likely increase their research publication

by 3.370 times, holding other variables constant. This is also explained

 73

by the study of Salazar-Clemeňa and Almonte-Acosta (2007) stating that

strong belief in research endeavor improves research productivity.

Another worth noting is the case of external pressures (Wald=3.291;

p=.070), and social influences (Wald=3.077; p=.079) which can also be

considered significant predictors of published research at p=.10. This

means that an increase in the perception of the researchers on the

influence of external pressures would less likely decrease research

publication by .270 times. Social influences would more likely increase

their research publication by 1.888 times, holding other factors

constant.

The estimated model is:

AcadProd5 = .148 + 2.140Sex + .275WorkS + .083EducA1 +

.262Educ2 + .270ExtP + 3.370ValueR + 1.888SocI + e

where:

Sex – sex of the respondents

WorkS – work status

EducA – educational attainment

ExtP – external pressures

ValueR – value of Research

SocI – social influences

e – error term
 74

Unpublished Research Productivity Model

Presented in Table 17 is the model predicting the average number

of unpublished research that a respondent could conduct over a five-

year period. As indicated in the table, the goodness of fit measure has

large observed significance level (Chi-square=60.897; df=19; p=.000),

hence the model fits.

Table 17. Negative Binomial Regression Analysis Predicting Average

Number of Unpublished Research
Hypothesis Test
Std.
Parameter B Wald Chi- Exp(B)
Error df Sig.
Square
(Intercept) - 3.0439 4.675 1 .031 .001
6.582
[Sex=1.00] -.056 .2747 .041 1 .840 .946
[Sex=2.00] 0 a 1
[Mar_Status=1.00] .725 .9225 .618 1 .432 2.065
[Mar_Status=2.00] .813 .8351 .947 1 .330 2.254
[Mar_Status=3.00] 0a 1
[Work_Status=1.00] -.751 .3054 6.044 1 .014 .472
[Work_Status=2.00] 0a 1
[Educ_Attainment=1.00] - .4953 10.739 1 .001 .197
1.623
[Educ_Attainment=2.00] - .3605 9.760 1 .002 .324
1.126
[Educ_Attainment=3.00] 0a 1
[Acad_Rank=1.00] 1.003 .5216 3.700 1 .054 2.727
[Acad_Rank=2.00] .894 .5079 3.100 1 .078 2.446
[Acad_Rank=3.00] -.247 .4955 .249 1 .618 .781
[Acad_Rank=4.00] 0a 1
Age -.031 .0253 1.500 1 .221 .970
Years in Teaching .019 .0286 .433 1 .510 1.019
No_Children .019 .1275 .023 1 .880 1.019
External Pressures -.371 .5926 .393 1 .531 .690
Value of Research .041 .3976 .011 1 .917 1.042
Institutional 1.394 .6187 5.077 1 .024 4.031
Requirements
Institutional Reputation .238 .4936 .232 1 .630 1.269
Indi Attributes .065 .3830 .029 1 .865 1.067
Social Influences .231 .2997 .593 1 .441 1.260
 75

Extrinsic Motivation -.030 .2490 .014 1 .905 .971

(Scale) 1.205 b

(Negative binomial) 1c

Likelihood Chi-square= 60.897

df=19
p-value=.000

The result revealed that work status (Wald=6.044; p=.014),

educational attainment 1 (Wald= 10.739; p=.001), educational

attainment 2 (Wald=9.760; p=.002), academic rank 1 (Wald=3.700;

p=.054), institutional requirements (Wald=5.077; p=.024) were

significant predictors of unpublished research.

The result indicates that probationary faculty members can less

likely conduct unpublished research by .472 times than the regular

faculty members. In terms of educational attainment, bachelor’s degree

holder would more likely conduct unpublished research .197 times than

the doctorate degree holder, and master’s degree holder is .324 times

less likely to conduct unpublished researches than doctorate degree

holder, ceteris paribus. On the other hand, instructors can more likely

conduct unpublished researches 2.727 times than professors.

Moreover, an increase in the perception of the researchers about the

institutional requirements would more likely increase the conduct of

unpublished research by 4.031 times, holding other factors constant.

Further, academic rank 2 (Wald=3.100; p=.078) can also be

considered significant predictor at p=.10. This means that asssitant

 76

professors can more likely conduct unpublished researches 2.446 times

than professors, ceteris paribus.

The estimated model is:

AcadProd5 = .001 + .472WorkS + .197EducA1 + .324EducA2 +

2.727AcadR1 + 2.446AcadR2 + 4.031InsR + e

where:

AcadProd – academic productivity

WorkS – work status

EducA – educational attainment

AcadR – academic rank

InsR – institutional requirements

e – error term

Research Projects Productivity Model

Table 18 reveals the model predicting the average number of research

projects that a respondent could engage over a five-year period. As

indicated in the table, the goodness of fit measure has large observed

significance level (Chi-square=63.269; df=19; p=.000), hence the model

fits. The result revealed that sex (Wald=4.815; p=.028), work status

(Wald=5.562; p=.018), educational attainment 1 (Wald= 5.945; p=.015),

educational attainment 2 (Wald=8.496; p=.004), academic rank 1

 77

(Wald=4.234; p=.040), and academic rank 2 (Wald=3.931; p=.047) were

significant predictors of engagement in research projects.

This result shows that male faculty members can more likely engage

in a research project 1.950 times than their female counterparts.

Probationary faculty members would less likely engage in a research

project .438 times than the regular faculty members. Bachelor’s degree

holder would less likely engage in a research project .252 times than the

doctorate degree holder, and master’s degree holder would more likely

engage in a research project .288 times than the doctorate degree

holder. Instructors would more likely engage in a research project 3.691

times than the professors, and assistant professors would more likely

engage in a research project 3.256 times than the professors, ceteris

paribus.

Furthermore, age (Wald=3.660; p=.056), value of research

(Wald=3.121; p=.077), and social influences (Wald=2.900; p=.089) can

also be considered as significant predictors of engagement in research

projects. This means that a year increase in age of the researchers would

more likely decrease engagement in a research project by .946 times.

An increase in the perception of the faculty members about the value of

research and social influences would more likely increase their

engagement in a research project 2. 626 times and 1.851 times

respectively, holding other factors constant. The impact of social

 78

influences as a determinant of academic research productivity was also

mentioned in the study of Lertputtarak (2008) which included other

related factors of research productivity such as environmental factors

and institutional factors.

Table 18. Negative Binomial Regression Analysis Predicting Average

Number of Research Projects
Hypothesis Test
Std.
Parameter B Wald Chi- Exp(B)
Error df Sig.
Square
(Intercept) -3.296 3.1736 1.079 1 .299 .037

[Sex=1.00] .668 .3045 4.815 1 .028 1.950

[Sex=2.00] 0 a 1

[Mar_Status=1.00] -.912 1.0603 .739 1 .390 .402

[Mar_Status=2.00] .188 .9819 .037 1 .848 1.207

[Mar_Status=3.00] 0 a 1

[Work_Status=1.00] -.826 .3502 5.562 1 .018 .438

[Work_Status=2.00] 0a 1

[Educ_Attainment=1.00] -1.377 .5649 5.945 1 .015 .252

[Educ_Attainment=2.00] -1.243 .4266 8.496 1 .004 .288

[Educ_Attainment=3.00] 0 a 1

[Acad_Rank=1.00] 1.306 .6346 4.234 1 .040 3.691

[Acad_Rank=2.00] 1.181 .5955 3.931 1 .047 3.256

[Acad_Rank=3.00] -.580 .6307 .846 1 .358 .560

[Acad_Rank=4.00] 0a 1

Age -.056 .0292 3.660 1 .056 .946

Years in Teaching .027 .0335 .658 1 .417 1.028

No_Children -.127 .1371 .862 1 .353 .881

External Pressures .039 .7181 .003 1 .957 1.040

Value of Research .965 .5464 3.121 1 .077 2.626

Institutional .282 .6116 .213 1 .645 1.326

Requirements
Institutional -.532 .5245 1.027 1 .311 .588
Reputation
Indi Attributes .098 .4595 .045 1 .831 1.103

Social Influences .616 .3615 2.900 1 .089 1.851

Extrinsic Motivation -.331 .2526 1.713 1 .191 .719

(Scale) 1.145 b

(Negative binomial) 1c

Likelihood Chi-square= 63.269

 79

df=19
p-value=.000

The estimated model is:

AcadProd5 = .037 + .438WorkS1 + .252EducA1 + .288EducA2 +

3.691AcadR1 + 3.256AcadR2 + .946Age +
2.626ValueR + 1.851SocI + e

where:

AcadProd – academic productivity

WorkS – work status

EducA – educational attainment

AcadR – academic rank

Age – age of the respondents

ValueR – value of research

SocI – social infleunces

E – error term

Research Conferences Productivity Model

Table 19 presented above shows the model predicting the average

number of research conferences that a respondent participated over a

five-year period. As indicated in the table, the goodness of fit measure

has large observed significance level (Chi-square=97.573; df=19;

p=.000), hence the model fits. The result revealed that work status

(Wald=14.160; p=.000), educational attainment 1 (Wald= 6.756;

 80

p=.009), educational attainment 2 (Wald=11.421; p=.001) were

significant predictors of participation to research conferences.

The result reveals that probationary faculty members are less likely

to have .160 times participation in research conferences than the

regular faculty members. Bachelor’s degree holders would less likely

participate in research conferences .152 times than doctorate degree

holders, while master’s degree holders are less likely to participate .184

times than the doctorate degree holders, ceteris paribus.

Table 19. Negative Binomial Regression Analysis Predicting Average

Number of Research Conferences
Hypothesis Test
Std.
Parameter B Wald Chi- Exp(B)
Error df Sig.
Square
(Intercept) -2.842 4.3836 .420 1 .517 .058

[Sex=1.00] .101 .4019 .063 1 .802 1.106

[Sex=2.00] 0a 1

[Mar_Status=1.00] -.785 1.3366 .345 1 .557 .456

[Mar_Status=2.00] -.062 1.1826 .003 1 .958 .940

[Mar_Status=3.00] 0 a 1

[Work_Status=1.00] -1.834 .4874 14.160 1 .000 .160

[Work_Status=2.00] 0a 1

[Educ_Attainment=1.00] -1.885 .7253 6.756 1 .009 .152

[Educ_Attainment=2.00] -1.692 .5006 11.421 1 .001 .184

[Educ_Attainment=3.00] 0 a 1

[Acad_Rank=1.00] -.037 .7522 .002 1 .960 .963

[Acad_Rank=2.00] 1.054 .7100 2.202 1 .138 2.868

[Acad_Rank=3.00] .052 .6269 .007 1 .934 1.053

[Acad_Rank=4.00] 0 a 1

Age -.080 .0428 3.499 1 .061 .923

Years in Teaching .005 .0447 .012 1 .911 1.005

No_Children -.121 .1744 .479 1 .489 .886

External Pressures -.200 .9620 .043 1 .836 .819

Value of Research .779 .6620 1.384 1 .239 2.179

Institutional .538 .8227 .428 1 .513 1.713

Requirements
 81

Institutional Reputation .651 .7641 .726 1 .394 1.918

Indi Attributes -.661 .5442 1.474 1 .225 .516

Social Influences .409 .4504 .824 1 .364 1.505

Extrinsic Motivation .097 .3532 .075 1 .784 1.102

(Scale) 1.894 b

(Negative binomial) 1c

Likelihood Chi-square= 97.573

df=19
p-value=.000
Nonetheless, age (Wald=3.499; p=.061) can also be considered a

significant predictor of participation in research conferences. This

means that a year increase in age would more likely decrease

participation in research conferences .923 times, holding other

variables constant. Lertputtarak (2008) stated that age of lecturers was

found to be important because lecturers who are older and nearly at

retiring age, seldom do research.

The estimated model is:

AcadProd5 = .058 + .160WorkS + .152EducA1 + .184EducA2 +

.923Age + e
where:

AcadProd – academic productivity

WorkS – work status

EducA – educational attainment

Age – age of the respondent

e – error term
 82

Model Summary

Presented in Table 20 is the summary table of research

productivity showing the outcome variables and the predictors of the

research productivity model. The table also reveals that in general, the

predictors of academic research productivity of the faculty researchers

are sex, work status, educational attainment, academic rank, age, years

in teaching, number of children, external pressures, value of research,

institutional requirements, individual attributes, social influences, and

extrinsic motivation. Out of the seven models discussed in this study, it

was found out that marital status and institutional reputation are not

significant predictors of academic research productivity of state

universities and higher education institutions in Davao City.

Table 20. Model Summary

Outcome Predictor Variables
Variables
Patent Work status, age, years in teaching, number of
children, value of research, individual attributes,
extrinsic motivation
Citations Educational attainment, academic rank, external
pressures, extrinsic motivation
Journal Articles Educational attainment, academic rank, individual
attributes
Authored Books Educational attainment, academic rank,
institutional requirements, individual attributes
Published Sex, work status, educational attainment, external
Research pressures, value of research, social influences
Unpublished Work status, educational attainment, academic
Research rank, institutional requirements
 83

Research Sex, work status, educational attainment,

Projects academic rank, age, value of research, social
influences
Research Work status, educational attainment, age
Conferences

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the summary of the study, the conclusion

derived based on the findings of the study. Recommendations were also

offered for the beneficiaries of the study.

Summary

The aimed of the study is to construct a model for academic

research productivity of state universities and higher education

institutions in Davao City. The alternative hypotheses stated that there

are items that are factorable, and that demographic factors and the

identified dimensions best predict academic research productivity of

state universities and higher education institutions in Davao City.

Descriptive and causal research design were utilized in the study to 200

academic researchers of state universities and private colleges as

respondents. Frequency counts and percentages, mean, standard

deviation, exploratory factor analysis, and negative binomial regression

were the statistical tools used in the study.

 84

The findings of the study are as follows:

The sample’s demographic profile indicates that there are more

female research professionals who have marital obligations since most

of them are legally married, with so few average number of children such

as having one child only. The distribution of the sample’s work status

suggests that majority of the research professionals are

regular/permanent faculty members. The academic rank suggests that

almost half of them are on the level of Instructor followed by Assistant

Professor which means that they are still on the lower level position as

faculty members. The major composition of the sample size are master’s

degree holders, with an average age of the middle-aged adults (37.41

years old), and an average teaching experience of about 12.17 years

which can be called as seasoned teachers.

The analysis has sorted 75 academic research productivity

questions into seven somewhat overlapping groups of items, after

meeting all the assumptions of EFA. The groupings were arranged into

dimensions which were labelled as external pressures, value of

research, institutional requirements, institutional reputation,

individual attributes, social influences, and extrinsic motivation. The

researcher decided to take seven components due to its better result in

terms of its recorded eigenvalues. All factors loadings had positive

values since the questions were written in positive angle only.

 85

Among other factors, external pressures had the most number of

items with a total of 17 items, followed by the value of research with had

14 items. Institutional requirements and institutional reputation got

nine items each. Both individual attributes and social influences

generated also seven items each, while extrinsic motivation got the

lowest number of items which had 4 items only. Eight items were

excluded since only items with factor loadings higher than absolute

value of .30 were included in the analysis.

On the average, the extent of dimensions of research productivity

can be considered as very high which means that majority of the

respondents had strong agreement on the items describing the given

dimension. Institutional requirements got the highest average or very

high extent, while social influences yielded the lowest average, but still

with high extent.

In terms of the extent of the research outputs of the respondents,

it came out that attending research conferences got the highest

frequency among research outputs, followed by production of

unpublished research, while publishing authored books had the lowest

frequency. On the other hand, in terms of the number of researchers

who produced research output, production of unpublished research had

the highest frequency, followed by research projects while securing

patents seemed to be the hardest thing to do for the researchers, since

 86

it got the lowest frequency. In terms of the average research output per

researcher, the academic researchers came out to be more productive

in attending research conferences, followed by producing citations,

while securing patents was still the lowest.

Moreover, research productivity models suggest that, acquisition

of patents is influenced by work status, age, years in teaching, number

of children, and perceptions on individual attributes, extrinsic

motivation and the value of research. The faculty members would have

citations depending on educational attainment, external pressures,

academic rank, and perception about extrinsic motivation. The

publication on journal articles of the faculty members is affected by

educational attainment, academic rank, and perception about

individual attributes. The factors which affect the publication of the

faculty members on authored books are educational attainment,

academic rank, and perceptions on institutional requirements and

individual attributes.

Faculty members have research publications depending on sex,

work status, educational attainment, and perceptions about external

pressures and social influences. The conduct of unpublished researches

by faculty depends on work status, educational attainment, academic

rank, and perception about institutional requirements. Engagement on

research projects is affected by sex, work status, educational

 87

attainment, academic rank, age, and perception on the value of research

and social influences. Finally, work status, educational attainment, and

age predict the participation of the faculty on research conferences.

In summary, the predictors of academic research productivity of

the faculty researchers are sex, work status, educational attainment,

academic rank, age, years in teaching, number of children, external

pressures, value of research, institutional requirements, individual

attributes, social influences, and extrinsic motivation. Marital status

and institutional reputation are not significant predictors of academic

research productivity.

Conclusion

The determinants of academic research productivity in the

academe are certainly multifactorial. The result shows that the male

faculty researchers outperformed their female counterparts in research-

related productivity, this might be due to some family obligations of

most female researchers at home, which hinders them to spend time in

doing research, and, most female researchers devoted more time to

teaching than research. Though, it was the case, the marital status of

the researchers still does not affect his performance in research.

Work status of the faculty also speaks in terms of their

performance in research. Regular faculty researchers tend to produce

 88

less patents could be attributed to their overarching administrative

responsibilities, workload allocation, or changing research interest. The

data also reveals that the academic rank of the faculty researchers is

also a predictor of his/her research performance. The result suggests

that senior faculty exhibits higher levels of research productivity than

their less senior faculty, this could be partly due to the requirement of

the position since those in the higher ranks are also tenured faculty

members. On the other hand, professional advancement of the

researchers matters in terms of his performance in research, this is

because, doing research is also part of their academic requirements in

the graduate school.

Moreover, as the faculty is getting older, his research productivity

diminishes through time, this maybe because even if they will not

anymore engage in research, they are still stable and receive a higher

pay as part of bureaucratic system in the academe. In patent

productivity model, it shows that the number of children is directly

related to research productivity. This means that researchers are more

encouraged to secure patents as their number of children grows since

patents usually have economic benefits which he/she needs to support

the growing demands of the children.

In the dimensions of academic research productivity, the

academic faculty researchers believed that the value of research, social

 89

influences, and extrinsic motivation have positive influence to their

research productivity. As long as these factors continue to motivate

them, their research productivity will likely improve. Nonetheless,

external pressures have negative effect towards research productivity,

this factor has adverse effect towards their research performance.

Institutional requirements and individual attributes have dual effect to

research productivity depending on the type of research outputs

produced such as institutional requirements encourage researchers for

more production of authored books but discourages unpublished

researches, since authored books usually have impact on the promotion

scheme unlike the case of unpublished researches. For individual

attributes, it has positive effect on journal articles and authored books

while adverse effect on patents, since the former are internal

requirements to being a faculty researcher, while the latter is just an

optional benefit of becoming a researcher and could never be a

requirement as a faculty researcher. Lastly, institutional reputation

could not predict the research productivity of a faculty researchers.

Recommendation

Based on the findings of the study, the following are the

recommendations:
 90

1. The school administrators may introduce long-term motivation

strategy or policies that would support family-work balance

and performance assessment system to encourage faculty

researchers particularly women to engage in research works

and projects and enjoy equal opportunities with male faculty

researchers. Moreover, they may also strengthen access to

research scholarships, funding, adequate incentives and

rewards, promotion and recognition of faculty researchers

while allocating significant resources for faculty training and

support to encourage them to improve their research

productivity, and once established, requires regular review and

monitoring.

2. For teachers, they may continue to nurture their burning

passion and overflowing interest in research to produce more

research outputs and take part in the scientific discussion to

earn integrity and build reputation in the research community.

3. For the government, they may strengthen their support and

participation in the research and development programs of the

schools by providing supplemental funds for the conduct of

robust researches with involvement and collaboration of

faculty researchers of the academe.

 91

4. For the future researchers, they may consider conducting a

study integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches

focusing on the quality of research output and including other

important variables for a more in-depth analysis.

References

Abramo, G., Angelo, C. D.,& Caprasecca, A. (2008, January 30). Gender

differences in research productivity: A bibliometric analysis for the

Italian academic system. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from

http://genet.csic.es/sites/default/files/documentos/biblioteca/

ABRAMO,%20ANDREA,%20CAPRASECCA_Gender%20difference

s.pdf

Altbach, P.G. (2015). What counts for academic productivity in research

universities. Retrieved February 14, 2016,

fromfile:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/5837-11655-1-SM.pdf

Athey, S., & Plotnicki, J. (2000, March). An evaluation of academic

productivity in academic IT. Communications of the Association for

Information Systems, Volume 3, Article 7. Retrieved February 14,

2016, from

http://www.pitt.edu/~ckemerer/Athey%20and%20Plotnicki%20

2000.pdf
 92

Attis, D., & Bevevino, D. (2012). Supporting faculty productivity after

tenure: Custom research brief. University Leadership Council.

Retrieved March 19, 2018 from http://cte.tcu.edu/wp-

content/uploads/Supporting-Faculty-Productivity-After-

Tenure_EAB.pdf

Bai, L. (2010). Enhancing research productivity of TEFL academics in

China. Retrieved February 14, 2016,

fromhttp://eprints.qut.edu.au/41732/1/Li_Bai_Thesis.pdf

Banerjee, A. (2013, May). Academic research productivity: What may be

“reining” in the Indian B-School. Retrieved February 14, 2016,

fromhttp://www.iimahd.ernet.in/assets/snippets/workingpaper

pdf/20091850442013-06-06.pdf

Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. L.,& Stapler, J.

(2005, March). A theoretical, practical and predictive model of

faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine

Vol. 80 No. 3. Retrieved February 8, 2016, from

http://www2.massgeneral.org/facultydevelopment/cfd/pdf/pre

dictors%20of%20research%20productivity.pdf

Callaghan, C. (2015). Intrinsic antecedents of academic research

productivity of a large South African university. Southern African

Business Review Volume 19 Number 1.Retrieved February 14,

 93

2016,

fromhttp://www.unisa.ac.za/contents/faculties/service_dept/d

ocs/Sabview_19_1_chap8.pdf

Chen, Y., Nixon, M.R., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2010, February).

Research productivity of accounting faculty: An exploratory study.

American Journal of Business Education Volume 3, Number 2.

Retrieved February 14, 2016, from

http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/assets/snippets/workingpaperpdf/

20091850442013-06-06.pdf

Danchisko, K. & Thomas, A. (2015, December). Assessing faculty

productivity at public research institutions. Retrieved January 31,

2016, from

http://www.uky.edu/ie/sites/www.uky.edu.ie/files/uploads/E

AB_RM_Assessing-Faculty-Research-Productivity-at-Public-

Research-Institutions..pdf

Dubois, P., Rochet, J. &Schlenker, J. (2010, October). Productivity and

mobility in academic research: Evidence from mathematics.

Retrieved February 14, 2016, from

http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/by/dubois/drs20

13-03.pdf
 94

Fabel, O., Hein, M., & Hofmeister, R. (2008). Research productivity in

Business Economics: An Investigation of Austrian, German and

Swiss Universities. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from

https://www.econ.uni-bonn.de/germaneconreview.pdf

Goodall, A.H., McDowell, J.M., Singell, L.D. (2014, January). Leadership

and the research productivity of university departments. IZA DP No.

7903. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from

http://ftp.iza.org/dp7903.pdf

Hadjinicola, G.C. & Soteriou, A.C. (2005). Factors affecting research

productivity of production and operations management Groups:

An empirical study. Retrieved March 21, 2018 form

http://www.kurims.kyoto-

u.ac.jp/EMIS/journals/HOA/ADS/Volume2006/96542.pdf

Hu, Q. (2002). An Analysis of academic research productivity of

Information Systems faculty. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from

http://www.irma-international.org/viewtitle/4591/

Hunter, L.A & Leahey, E. (2010). Parenting and research productivity:

New evidence and methods. Social Studies of Science 2010

40:433. DOI: 10.1177/0306312709358472. Retrieved March 21,

2018 from
 95

https://sociology.arizona.edu/sites/sociology.arizona.edu/files/

files-user/Leahey_SSS2010.pdf

Jung, J. (2012, November 5). Faculty research productivity in Hongkong

across academic discipline. Higher Education Studies Vol. 2 No. 4.

Retrieved February 14, 2016, from

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/hes/article/viewFile

/22562/14567

Karukstis, K. K. (n.d.). Sustaining research productivity throughout the

academic career: Recommendations for an integrated and

comprehensive approach. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from

http://cms-content.bates.edu/prebuilt/chem-vitalfaculty.pdf

Kelchtermanns, S., & Veugelers, R. (2005, August). Top research

productivity and its persistence. Retrieved February 14, 2016,

fromhttp://cemi.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/cemi/files/shared/

workshops/ExTra-workshop-1/veugelers-v15-27-september-

2005.pdf

Kendagor, S.T., Kosgei, R.D., & Chelangat S. (n.d.). Factors affecting

research productivity in public universities of Kenya: The case of

Moi University, Eldoret. Journal of Egineering Trends in Economics

and Management Sciences (JETEMS) 3(5):475-484 (ISSN: 2141-

7016). Retrieved February 14, 2016,

 96

fromhttp://jetems.scholarlinkresearch.com/articles/Factors%2

0Affecting%20Research.pdf

Labuschagne, H.A. (n.d.). Evaluation of academic research productivity:

Necessity for some methods and indicators of productivity.

Retrieved February 14, 2016,

fromfile:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/896-2309-1-SM.pdf

Lertputtarak, S. (2008). An investigation of factors related to research

productivity in a public university in Thailand: A case study.

Retrieved February 17, 2016, from

http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1459/1/Lertputtarak.pdf

Levin, S.G., & Stephan, P.E. (2003, February 3). Research productivity

over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American

Economic Review, Volume 81, Issue 1. Retrieved February 14,

2016, from http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/88-

737/optimal_control/papers/levin.pdf

Malonzo, E.M., & Prantilla, E.B. (2007). Count Model Estimates of

Health Care Demand In Davao City. 10th National Convention on

Statistics (NSC). Retrieved May 17, 2018 from

http://nap.psa.gov.ph/ncs/10thNCS/papers/contributed%20p

apers/cps-01/cps01-02.pdf
 97

Matthews, D. (2016). Research quality declines with scientist’s age,

study finds. Retrieved March 19, 2018 from

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/research-quality-

declines-with-scientists-age-study-finds#survey-answer

Mishra, V., & Smyth, R. (2012). Academic inbreeding and research

productivity in Australian law schools. Retrieved February 14,

2016, from

https://business.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/33

9676/academic_inbreeding_and_research_productivity_in_austr

alian_law_schools.pdf

Musiige, G., & Maasen, P. (n.d.). Faculty perceptions of the factors that

influence research productivity at Makerere University. Retrieved

February 14, 2016, from

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Knowledge%20Production_C

H6.pdf

Ogbugo, C.O. (2009). An analysis of female research productivity in

Nigerian universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and

Management Vol 31 Issue 1. Retrieved March 19, 2018 from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/136008008025

58841
 98

Okiki, O.C. (n.d.). Research productivity of teaching faculty members in

Nigerian Federal Universities: An investigative study. Retrieved

February 14, 2016, from http://www.white-

clouds.com/iclc/cliej/cl36okiki.pdf

Porter, S.R., & Toutkoushian, R.K. (2005, June 3). Institutional research

productivity and the connection to average student quality and

overall reputation. Retrieved February 14, 2016,

fromhttp://stephenporter.org/papers/eer.pdf

Rauber, M., Ursprung, H.W. (2005, September 5). Life cycle and cohort

productivity in academic research productivity: Evidence for

Germany and management consequences. Retrieved February 14,

2016, fromftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-

docs/veranstaltungen/Papers/Rauber_Ursprung.pdf

Regadio, C.Q. Jr. & Tullano, T.S. Jr. (2015). The role of the government

in enhancing research productivity of SUCs and Private HEIs in the

Philippines. Research Presented at the DLSU Research Congress

2015. Retrieved October 28, 2017 from

http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/conferences/dlsu_research_congress/

2015/proceedings/LLI/001LLI_Regadio_CQ.pdf
 99

Rudison, Clair Jr.(2015). Research design. Retrieved May 16, 2018 from

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/research-design-clair-rudison-

dba-candidate-

Sabharwal, Meghna (2013). Comparing research productivity across

disciplines and career stages. Retrieved November 11, 2017 from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13876988.2013.

785149?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Salazar-Clemeňa, R.S. &Almonte-Acosta, S.A. (2007). Developing

research culture in Philippine higher education institutions:

Perspectives of university faculty. Retrieved February 18, 2016,

from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001578/157869e.pdf

Sax, L.J., Hagedorn, L.S., Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi III, F.A. (2002).

Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and

family-related factors. Research in Higher Education Vol 43,

Issue4, pp423-446. Retrieved March 19, 2018 from

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015575616285

Tafreshi, G.H., Imani, M.N., & Ghashlag, P.M. (2013). Designing a model

for research productivity evaluation of faculty of District 2 of Islamic

Azad University of Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal 21 (12):

1708-1720. Retrieved February 14, 2016,

 100

fromhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.

388.7083&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Tower, G., Plummer, J., & Ridgewell, B. (2007). A multidisciplinary study

of gender-based research productivity in the world’s best journals.

Journal of Diversity Management, Volume 2, Number 4. Retrieved

February 14, 2016,

fromhttp://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/JDM/article

/viewFile/5020/5111

Zainab, A.N. (1999, December). Personal, academic and departmental

correlates of research productivity: A review of literature.

Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, Vol. 4, no.2.

Retrieved February 14, 2016,

fromhttp://majlis.fsktm.um.edu.my/document.aspx?FileName=

150.pdf

Zhang, X. (2014, October). Factors that motivate academic staff to

conduct research and influence research productivity in Chinese

Project 211 universities. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from

http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/0814ee30-

680b-401e-b059-3905b0b686cc/1/full_text.pdf

Zikmund, W.G., Babin, J., Carr, J. & Griffin, M. (2012) “Business

Research Methods with Qualtrics Printed Access Card” Cengage

 101

Learning. Retrieved May 16, 2018 from https://research-

methodology.net/causal-research/

Zwilling, Michael L. (2013). Negative Binomial Regression: The

Mathematical Journal Volume 15. Retrieved May 17, 2018 from

http://www.mathematica-journal.com/2013/06/negative-

binomial-regression/

View publication stats