This study examined the attitude towards research, research competence, and publication productivity among faculty members at a state university. A cross-sectional explanatory survey was conducted among 80 permanent faculty members across six campuses during the second semester of the 2023-2024 academic year. Data were collected on faculty attitudes toward research, self-reported research skills, and publishing activity. The findings reveal a positive correlation between stronger research skills, a favorable attitude toward research, and higher research productivity. The findings indicate that individuals who possess stronger research skills tend to produce more research output. This suggests that proficiency in designing studies, analyzing data, and interpreting results contributes significantly to research productivity. A solid foundation in research methodologies likely enables researchers to work more efficiently, generate higher-quality work, and contribute more frequently to their fields. Additionally, the study shows that having a favorable attitude toward research is linked to higher productivity. Researchers who value research, remain curious, and approach challenges with a positive mindset are more likely to engage consistently in research activities. This attitude may boost motivation, perseverance, and openness to collaboration—factors that collectively enhance output and impact in academic or professional research settings. The study highlights the need to enhance faculty development programs, particularly for early-career researchers, to support their professional growth. Additionally, it recommends recruiting faculty from high-impact fields such as health sciences and creating more leadership opportunities in research.
Research serves as a vital driving force for progress across various fields, making it an essential activity for faculty members in higher education. Higher education faculty members are mandated to engage in research activities. This is particularly evident in private higher education institutions, where the Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education (MORPHE) explicitly outlines the role of research in advancing knowledge, improving human life, and responding to societal needs. It is stated that private higher education institutions should engage in research to expand knowledge boundaries and apply acquired technologies to better society. This directive highlights the importance of research as a cornerstone for institutional development and societal improvement.
In the case of public higher education, faculty members are also required to perform research as one of their core responsibilities. For state universities and colleges, faculty engagement in research, alongside teaching, extension, and production, is mandated as part of the institution’s mission. This is clearly articulated in the university codes that govern these institutions. Bohol Island State University, for example, includes research as one of its four core functions, reinforcing the idea that research is just as critical as teaching and extension in shaping the academic environment. Faculty research is not only an institutional requirement but also an important factor in the accreditation process, as it is one of the areas evaluated by accrediting bodies like Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP).
Faculty research activities are also increasingly recognized as key elements of faculty performance. The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) have introduced guidelines, such as the DBM-CHED Joint Circular No. 3 (Series of 2022), which place significant value on research activities when reclassifying faculty positions. These guidelines emphasize that faculty members who are actively engaged in research are more likely to receive career advancement opportunities, such as promotions or additional funding. By recognizing research as a priority, these policies aim to incentivize faculty engagement in research, which, in turn, contributes to institutional development and academic excellence.
Given the increasing expectations for faculty members to perform research, this study focuses on understanding the attitudes of faculty members towards research, their research competence, and their productivity in terms of research publications. Research productivity is considered the ultimate goal of any research endeavor, as it reflects the faculty member’s ability to contribute to the body of knowledge. Faculty members' attitudes towards research are an important consideration because they influence how engaged they are in the research process and their willingness to allocate time and effort toward publishing research. Moreover, faculty competence in research is critical to ensuring high-quality output and the ability to navigate complex research methodologies effectively.
Research institutions are expected to be competitive in their research outputs, and faculty members play a central role in meeting this expectation. In addition to teaching, extension, and production, research is an essential function that enhances the institution’s reputation and helps maintain its standing among peer institutions. Faculty members are expected to possess the skills necessary to engage in high-level research, which includes an understanding of research methodologies, data analysis, and the ability to effectively communicate findings. These skills are crucial not only for the production of quality research but also for fostering an academic culture that values inquiry, critical thinking, and the pursuit of new knowledge.
In examining faculty attitudes toward research, it is important to consider various factors that shape these attitudes. Faculty members’ perceptions of research, such as whether they view it as an essential aspect of their academic role or a burdensome task, can significantly influence their engagement with research activities. Several studies, including those by Katz (2019) and Harris and Jones (2020), highlight the importance of a supportive academic environment in shaping faculty attitudes. When faculty members feel supported by their institutions through professional development programs and research resources, they are more likely to adopt a positive attitude toward research and invest time and effort into producing high-quality work.
Research competence, defined as the ability to conduct rigorous, methodologically sound studies, is another critical factor influencing faculty research productivity. Faculty members who possess strong research competencies are more likely to produce valuable contributions to their fields, which are recognized through publications in academic journals. Several studies, such as those by Johnson and Lee (2020) and Roberts and Green (2022), emphasize the significance of faculty development programs in enhancing research skills and promoting a culture of excellence in research. These programs, when properly implemented, can help faculty members improve their methodological knowledge, increase their research output, and navigate the challenges that often accompany research endeavors.
Moreover, research publication productivity is often used as a key indicator of faculty performance and research engagement. A high level of research output not only benefits the faculty member’s career but also contributes to the academic reputation of the institution. Recent studies, such as those by Smith et al. (2023) and Jones (2022), suggest that faculty members who are actively involved in publishing research tend to receive more institutional support and funding, which further enhances their research capabilities. However, barriers such as limited mentorship, insufficient research resources, and lack of time often hinder faculty from achieving high levels of publication productivity. Addressing these barriers is critical for promoting faculty engagement in research activities.
Furthermore, faculty members’ research output can significantly influence their career trajectory. Publications are often linked to professional advancement, with higher publication rates correlated with greater career opportunities, such as tenure, promotions, and funding opportunities. The research of Thompson and Martin (2023) highlights the impact of low publication rates on faculty members’ professional development, indicating that insufficient research productivity can limit career growth and institutional recognition. Therefore, fostering an environment that supports faculty members in publishing their research is essential for both their personal career advancement and the overall development of the institution.
In addition to addressing barriers to publication, it is also crucial to consider the role of mentorship in faculty research development. Mentorship can play a pivotal role in improving faculty members’ research competence and helping them navigate the complex process of academic publishing. Studies such as those by McCaffrey et al. (2018) and Thompson and Baker (2022) underscore the value of mentorship in enhancing faculty research engagement. By providing guidance on research design, publication strategies, and navigating peer review processes, mentors can help junior faculty members improve their research output and achieve professional success.
The insights from the literature suggest that fostering a supportive research environment, offering professional development opportunities, and addressing barriers to publication can significantly improve faculty attitudes toward research, enhance their research competence, and increase their research productivity. As higher education institutions continue to place greater emphasis on research, it is essential to recognize the role of faculty in driving this academic mission. By investing in faculty development programs, mentorship, and research resources, institutions can empower their faculty members to become more engaged in research and contribute to the advancement of knowledge across disciplines.
The main purpose of the study is to determine the faculty members’ attitudes toward research, research competence level and research publication productivity. The faculty members of a state university for the second semester of the Academic Year 2022-2023 will serve as respondents of the study. Findings of the study would serve as basis for training plan in enhancing the research competence and more productivity of faculty members.
Several studies have been conducted to measure research competence and attitudes of students both in high school and college level but only limited studies transpired for faculty members as respondents. As a faculty researchers, it is good thing to note also the faculty members’ attitude toward research, research competence and would there have an impact to their research productivity.
Objectives of the Study
The primary objective of this study was to explore the attitudes of faculty members toward research, evaluate their research competence, and assess their publication productivity. The study focused on permanent faculty members from a state university. It addressed key questions related to the demographic profile of the respondents, including their field of specialization, academic rank, research involvement, and the length of their teaching experience related to research. Additionally, the study examined their attitudes toward research, including factors such as its usefulness for their profession, any anxiety they may feel about research, their overall attitude toward research, its relevance to their lives, and the perceived difficulty of engaging in research.
The cross-sectional descriptive quantitative design was used in the study. It is cross-sectional because the data was gathered to the same group of respondents with different variables measured at the same time. Survey questionnaires was utilized to measure relationships of the variables or constructs under study.
The locale of the study is a state university in the Province of Bohol that offers curricular programs responsive to the needs of the Boholano community. It has six campuses strategically located in the different parts in Bohol. These campuses include: Balilihan, Bilar, Calape, Candijay, Clarin, Tagbilaran (Main Campus). In the context of the study, the locale is chosen since state universities are mandated by CHED to be engaged and expected to develop research culture through the research productivity of its faculty members.
The participants of the study were the permanent faculty members of a state university in Bohol for the Second Semester of the Academic Year 2022-2023. There were 80 faculty members who responded the research study who were randomly chosen as participant. These faculty members are mandated to perform research as part of their core functions together with instruction, extension and production. This study makes use of validated questionnaires adopted from credible sources.
Part 1 deals with the demographic profile of the faculty members in terms of field of specialization, academic rank, research involvement and length of teaching experience in research. For the Attitudes toward Research, a seven-point Likert scale was used in order to rate the respondents' attitudes toward research. The instrument was divided into multi-dimensional factors with 32 items which include the following aspects: usefulness for profession, anxiety, positive attitude, relevance to life and research difficulty. This was adapted from the study of Papanastasiou, E. (2005) with the title, Factor Structure of "Attitudes toward Research" Scale. The responses of the 32 items on the ATR scale indicated a high reliability for the test, (r=0.948). The coefficient alpha reliabilities for the responses to items were relatively high.
For the Perceived Research Competence, a five-point Likert response scale was used with 36 items adopted from the study of Bottcher and Thiel (2018) with the title, Evaluating Research-Oriented Teaching: a New Instrument to Assess University Students’ Research Competences. It has high reliability of 0.862 based on internal consistency.
For the Research Publication Productivity, this study patterned after the study of Galos, T. & Reston, E. (2022) in their study with the title "Level of Development and Research Publication Productivity among State University and Colleges Faculty: A Predictive Model", but made some modifications as to the corresponding points: (international-5, national-3 and local-1).
The questionnaires for both faculty members’ attitudes toward research and their perceived research competence were validated if these hold true for teachers. Pretesting and validation were done before the questionnaire administration.
The results and discussion section presents the study's key findings and interprets their significance in relation to the research objectives and existing literature. It highlights patterns, trends, and relationships within the data, addressing implications, limitations, and connections to prior studies to provide meaningful insights and conclusions.
Table 1. Academic Rank (N=80)
Academic Rank |
Frequency |
Percent |
Rank |
Assistant Professor 1 |
7 |
8.8 |
2.0 |
Assistant Professor 2 |
1 |
1.3 |
11.0 |
Assistant Professor 3 |
2 |
2.5 |
8.5 |
Assistant Professor 4 |
4 |
5.0 |
5.5 |
Associate Professor 1 |
3 |
3.8 |
7.0 |
Associate Professor 2 |
5 |
6.3 |
4.0 |
Associate Professor 3 |
1 |
1.3 |
11.0 |
Associate Professor 4 |
4 |
5.0 |
5.5 |
Associate Professor 5 |
6 |
7.5 |
3.0 |
Instructor 1 |
44 |
55.0 |
1.0 |
Instructor 2 |
1 |
1.3 |
11.0 |
Instructor 3 |
2 |
2.5 |
8.5 |
Total |
80 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Table 1 displays the academic ranks of faculty respondents from Bohol Island State University. The majority of respondents hold the position of Instructor I, comprising 44 individuals (55% of the total). This is followed by 7 faculty members (8.8%) in the rank of Assistant Professor I. The ranks with the fewest respondents are Assistant Professor II, Associate Professor III, and Instructor II, each represented by just one individual (1.3% each).
The data indicates that Bohol Island State University has a faculty composition predominantly made up of lower-ranking positions, suggesting a critical need for more advanced ranks. Katz (2019) highlights that the distribution of faculty ranks significantly impacts both institutional performance and student outcomes, emphasizing the necessity of a diverse academic hierarchy. Furthermore, Harris and Jones (2020) address the professional development needs of lower-ranked faculty, advocating for targeted strategies to aid their career advancement. Structured faculty development programs, as noted by Roberts and Green (2022), are essential for assisting faculty in progressing to higher ranks, ultimately enriching the academic environment and fostering improved outcomes.
Table 2. Field of Specialization (N=80)
Field |
Frequency |
Percent |
Rank |
Business/Management/Accounting |
2 |
2.5 |
7.5 |
Education/Educational Management |
27 |
33.8 |
1.0 |
English/Filipino Language and Literature |
10 |
12.5 |
3.5 |
Fisheries/Agriculture |
5 |
6.3 |
5.5 |
Health |
1 |
1.3 |
9.0 |
Hospitality |
2 |
2.5 |
7.5 |
Math and Sciences |
18 |
22.5 |
2.0 |
Social Sciences/ Psychology |
5 |
6.3 |
5.5 |
Technology, AI, Computing and Engineering |
10 |
12.5 |
3.5 |
Total |
80 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Table 2 highlights the distribution of faculty specializations. A significant majority, 33.8% (27 faculty members), specialize in education or educational management, suggesting this is a prominent area of expertise within the faculty. Conversely, the health sector is represented by only one faculty member, reflecting minimal involvement in this field. This disparity suggests that the faculty's strengths and focus lie primarily in educational disciplines rather than health-related areas.
Several studies highlight this disparity. McCaffrey et al. (2018) analyzed faculty demographics across various academic institutions and found that education and educational management consistently attract more faculty compared to fields like health sciences, which struggle with recruitment and retention. Similarly, Gordon and Miskin (2019) examined how faculty specialization influences curriculum design and program offerings, revealing that educational management often takes precedence over health sectors.
Additionally, Smith and Jones (2020) pointed out the underrepresentation of health professionals in academia, noting that many practitioners in health programs do not pursue academic careers, which leads to a limited faculty pool in these disciplines. This trend ultimately impacts the quality and breadth of education in health-related fields. Addressing these challenges is essential for improving faculty diversity and ensuring robust academic programs.
Table 3. Research Involvement (N=80)
Research Involvement |
Frequency |
Percent |
Rank |
None |
21 |
26.3 |
2.0 |
Participation to Trainings and Seminars |
4 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
Presenter |
4 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
Research Chair |
1 |
1.3 |
8.0 |
Research Committee |
8 |
10.0 |
3.0 |
Research proposal |
4 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
Research Publication |
2 |
2.5 |
7.0 |
Researcher |
36 |
45.0 |
1.0 |
Total |
80 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Table 3 presents the research involvement of faculty respondents. The role of "researcher" is the most common, with 80 respondents (45%), while the least common role is "research chairperson," with only 1 respondent (1.3%). This indicates that a significant portion of the faculty is actively engaged in research activities, whereas very few take on leadership roles in research initiatives.
Working in higher education encompasses engaging in research studies for both students and faculty, though leadership roles are often limited to a select few. Bennett and O'Brien (2015) delve into the crucial role of leadership positions, such as research chairpersons, highlighting how their presence—or absence—can significantly shape team dynamics and research outcomes. Finkelstein and Neumann (2016) further explore the impact of faculty development programs on enhancing research roles and productivity, addressing the reasons behind the scarcity of faculty in leadership roles.
Hartman (2018) examines factors influencing faculty engagement in research, emphasizing the importance of institutional support, personal motivation, and collaboration opportunities. This engagement not only fosters professional development but also bolsters institutional reputation, ultimately leading to enhanced job satisfaction and improved academic outcomes. Understanding these dynamics is essential for cultivating a thriving research environment in higher education.
Table 4. Length of Teaching Experience (N=80)
Length of Teaching Experience |
Frequency |
Percent |
Rank |
1-10 |
48 |
60.0 |
1.0 |
11-20 |
10 |
12.5 |
3.0 |
21-30 |
3 |
3.8 |
4.0 |
31 or more |
1 |
1.3 |
5.0 |
None |
18 |
22.5 |
2.0 |
Total |
80 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Table 4 shows that the majority of faculty respondents have between 1 to 10 years of teaching experience, with 48 individuals representing 60% of the total. In contrast, only one respondent (1.3%) has 31 or more years of experience. This indicates a relatively young teaching staff, suggesting that many faculty members may be early in their academic careers in doing research.
This finding is further supported by López-Agudo et al. (2020), who delve into the impact of years of experience on faculty research output. Their study suggests that early-career faculty face distinct challenges in balancing teaching responsibilities with research commitments, ultimately hindering productivity. Similarly, Perkins and Neumayer (2014) analyze how faculty demographics, including experience levels, shape research collaboration and mobility. They argue that younger faculty, often in transitional career phases, may possess limited networks and resources, negatively affecting their collaborative research opportunities. Together, these studies underscore the ultimate need for robust institutional support and targeted mentorship programs, enabling early-career faculty to effectively navigate these challenges and enhance their research capabilities.
Table 5. Attitude towards Research (N=80)
Items |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Description |
Research Usefulness |
|
|
|
a. Research is useful for my career. |
6.55 |
0.79 |
Very Positive Attitude |
b. Research is connected to my field of study. |
6.31 |
0.91 |
Very Positive Attitude |
c. Research should be indispensable in my professional |
6.11 |
1.10 |
Positive Attitude |
d. Research should be taught to all students. |
6.58 |
0.82 |
Very Positive Attitude |
e. Research is useful to every professional. |
6.48 |
0.87 |
Very Positive Attitude |
f. Research is very valuable. |
6.51 |
0.81 |
Very Positive Attitude |
g. I will employ research approaches in my profession. |
6.33 |
0.84 |
Very Positive Attitude |
h. The skills I have acquired in research will be helpful to me in the future. |
6.48 |
0.80 |
Very Positive Attitude |
i. Knowledge from research is as useful as writing. |
6.35 |
0.83 |
Very Positive Attitude |
Composite Mean |
6.41 |
0.73 |
Very Positive Attitude |
Research Anxiety |
|
|
|
a. Research makes me nervous.* |
4.23 |
1.69 |
Either Positive or Negative |
b. Research is stressful.* |
4.84 |
1.75 |
Moderately Negative Attitude |
c. Research makes me anxious.* |
4.40 |
1.73 |
Either Positive or Negative |
d. Research scares me.* |
3.50 |
1.75 |
Moderately Positive Attitude |
e. Research is a complex subject.* |
4.63 |
1.62 |
Moderately Negative Attitude |
f. Research is complicated.* |
4.58 |
1.73 |
Moderately Negative Attitude |
g. Research is difficult.* |
4.48 |
1.67 |
Moderately Negative Attitude |
h. I feel insecure concerning the analysis of research data.* |
4.43 |
1.78 |
Either Positive or Negative |
Composite Mean |
4.38 |
1.45 |
Either Positive or Negative |
Positive Attitudes |
|
|
|
a. I love research. |
5.26 |
1.43 |
Moderately Positive Attitude |
b. I enjoy research. |
5.18 |
1.40 |
Moderately Positive Attitude |
c. I like research. |
5.21 |
1.46 |
Moderately Positive Attitude |
d. I am interested in research. |
5.51 |
1.32 |
Positive Attitude |
e. Research acquired knowledge is as useful as arithmetic. |
5.74 |
1.10 |
Positive Attitude |
f. Research is interesting. |
5.69 |
1.29 |
Positive Attitude |
g. Most students benefit from research. |
5.96 |
1.05 |
Positive Attitude |
h. I am inclined to study the details of research. |
5.54 |
1.32 |
Positive Attitude |
Composite Mean |
5.51 |
1.13 |
Positive Attitude |
Relevance |
|
|
|
a. I use research in my daily life. |
5.03 |
1.35 |
Moderately Positive Attitude |
b. Research-oriented thinking plays an important role in everyday life. |
5.73 |
1.10 |
Positive Attitude |
c. Research thinking does not apply to my personal life. |
3.08 |
1.68 |
Moderately Negative Attitude |
d. Research is irrelevant to my life.* |
2.45 |
1.62 |
Positive Attitude |
Composite Mean |
4.37 |
0.56 |
Either Positive or Negative |
Research Difficulty |
|
|
|
a. I have trouble with arithmetic. |
3.74 |
1.60 |
Either Positive or Negative |
b. I find it difficult to understand the concepts of research. |
3.55 |
1.53 |
Moderately Negative Attitude |
c. I make many mistakes in research. |
4.15 |
1.65 |
Either Positive or Negative |
Composite Mean |
3.81 |
1.29 |
Either Positive or Negative |
Overall Attitude |
4.82 |
0.74 |
Moderately Positive Attitude |
The findings reveal a nuanced and multifaceted perspective on research among respondents, with attitudes varying across different categories. Below is a discussion of the key themes that emerged:
Perceived Usefulness of Research
Respondents demonstrated a strong belief in the value of research, particularly in educational contexts. The high mean scores in this category reflect a consensus that research is a critical skill for students and an important component of professional training. This aligns with Lee et al. (2020), who emphasized the need to integrate research into curricula to enhance student outcomes. However, the slightly lower score for the role of research in professional training suggests that while respondents value its application in their careers, they prioritize its educational benefits even more. This highlights the dual role of research as both an academic and professional tool, with its educational impact being particularly emphasized.
Research Anxiety
The category of research anxiety revealed mixed feelings among respondents. While there was a moderate acknowledgment of the stress associated with research, there was also a clear indication that respondents do not feel overwhelmed or intimidated by it. This suggests that while research is recognized as a challenging endeavor, it is not seen as insurmountable. These findings are consistent with Beaton et al. (2018), who noted that faculty often experience research-related stress but still appreciate its benefits. The moderate levels of anxiety reported here point to the need for supportive measures to help individuals manage research-related stress without diminishing their engagement with it.
Positive Attitudes Toward Research
Overall, respondents exhibited a positive attitude toward the value of research, particularly in terms of its benefits for students. The high scores in this category reflect a strong belief that research enhances critical thinking, problem-solving, and other essential skills. However, the slightly lower scores for personal enjoyment of research suggest that while respondents recognize its importance, they may not always find the process personally fulfilling. This duality is supported by Smith (2019), who found that faculty often appreciate the broader benefits of research even if they do not always enjoy the process themselves. This highlights the distinction between valuing research for its outcomes and finding personal satisfaction in conducting it.
Relevance of Research
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed on the relevance of research to everyday life and professional practice. The high scores in this category indicate a strong belief in the applicability of research skills beyond academic settings, reinforcing the idea that research-oriented thinking is a valuable tool for decision-making and lifelong learning. This is consistent with Jones and Miller (2021), who argued that faculty view research as essential for navigating complex professional and personal challenges. The low scores for statements suggesting the irrelevance of research further underscore its perceived importance across various contexts.
Perceived Difficulty of Research
The category of perceived difficulty revealed a moderate level of challenge associated with research. Respondents acknowledged making mistakes and facing complexities in their research endeavors, but they did not find these difficulties overwhelming. This suggests that while research is recognized as a demanding activity, it is also seen as manageable with the right skills and support. Thompson (2017) highlighted similar findings, emphasizing the need for ongoing professional development to help faculty navigate the complexities of research methodologies. The moderate scores in this category reflect a balanced view of research as both challenging and achievable.
Overall Attitude Toward Research
Taken together, the findings indicate a moderately positive overall attitude toward research among respondents, with an average score of 4.82 across all categories. This reflects a recognition of both the challenges and the benefits associated with research. Respondents value its role in education and professional development, acknowledge its relevance to everyday life, and appreciate its benefits for students. At the same time, they recognize the stress and difficulties that come with conducting research, though these challenges are not seen as insurmountable. These insights align with broader literature, such as Johnson et al. (2022), which highlights the dual nature of faculty attitudes toward research—balancing its acknowledged benefits against the stress and complexity it entails.
Table 6. Research Competence Level (n=80)
Items |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Description |
Skill Competence |
|
|
|
a. I know how to conduct a targeted search of the state of research on a specific topic. |
3.65 |
0.75 |
Highly Competent |
b. I know where to target a search of the state of research on a specific topic. |
3.64 |
0.77 |
Highly Competent |
c. l am able to systematically review the state of research regarding a specific topic. |
3.60 |
0.81 |
Highly Competent |
a. Based on the state of research, I am able to identify gaps/unaddressed questions for further research. |
3.66 |
0.75 |
Highly Competent |
b. I can evaluate the methodological quality of research findings well. |
3.55 |
0.76 |
Highly Competent |
Composite |
3.62 |
0.68 |
Highly Competent |
Methodological |
|
|
|
a. I find it difficult to formulate specific research questions/hypotheses.* |
2.96 |
0.92 |
Competent |
b. I am able to decide which data/sources/materials I need to address my research question. |
3.66 |
0.86 |
Highly Competent |
c. I am able to plan a research study. |
3.75 |
0.80 |
Highly Competent |
d. I find it difficult to start/initiate each step of the research process. |
3.26 |
1.00 |
Competent |
a. I find it easy to decide which methods I need to use to address a specific research question. |
3.31 |
0.85 |
Competent |
b. l am good at judging which method is inappropriate to answer a specific research question. |
3.20 |
0.91 |
Competent |
c. I can apply different research methods appropriate to my research question. |
3.26 |
0.84 |
Competent |
d. I can confidently analyze quantitative data |
3.21 |
1.08 |
Competent |
e. l am able to adequately interpret my research findings. |
3.50 |
0.94 |
Highly Competent |
Composite |
3.30 |
0.64 |
Competent |
Reflecting Competence |
|
|
|
a. I am able to adequately relate my research findings to key theories in the subject area. |
3.63 |
0.70 |
Highly Competent |
b. I am able to critically reflect on methodological limitations of my own research findings. |
3.61 |
0.70 |
Highly Competent |
c. I am able to reflect on the implications of my own research findings in my discipline. |
3.63 |
0.74 |
Highly Competent |
d. I am able to discuss my research findings with regard to their potential applications. |
3.71 |
0.73 |
Highly Competent |
a. l am able to critically reflect on the social and ethical implications of my research. |
3.68 |
0.73 |
Highly Competent |
b. l am able to take a stand on social and ethical issues of research in my discipline. |
3.65 |
0.81 |
Highly Competent |
a. I am able to critically reflect on the social and ethical implications of my research. |
3.73 |
0.78 |
Highly Competent |
b. l am able to take a stand on social and ethical issues of research in my discipline. |
3.71 |
0.75 |
Highly Competent |
Composite |
3.67 |
0.66 |
Highly Competent |
Communication |
|
|
|
a. I can write up research findings in accordance with the current conventions in my discipline. |
3.65 |
0.83 |
Highly Competent |
b. l am able to write a publication in accordance with the standards of my discipline. |
3.36 |
1.02 |
Competent |
c. I find it difficult to write a report that meets the standards of academic writing* |
3.03 |
0.97 |
Competent |
a. l am able to prepare research findings for a presentation at a research colloquium. |
3.55 |
0.94 |
Highly Competent |
b. I am able to present my research at a scientific meeting in accordance with current standards in my discipline. |
3.55 |
0.93 |
Highly Competent |
Composite |
3.42 |
0.67 |
Highly Competent |
Content Knowledge |
|
|
|
a. I have a good overview of the main (current) research findings in my discipline. |
3.54 |
0.86 |
Highly Competent |
b. I am informed about the main (current) theories in my discipline. |
3.53 |
0.89 |
Highly Competent |
c. l am informed about the history of theory/paradigm shifts in my discipline. |
3.46 |
0.79 |
Highly Competent |
a. I have a sound knowledge of the main research methods in my discipline. |
3.48 |
0.80 |
Highly Competent |
b. I would describe my methodological knowledge as sophisticated and comprehensive. |
3.38 |
0.77 |
Competent |
c. l am very familiar with different research methods in my subject area. |
3.36 |
0.89 |
Competent |
a. I am informed about the most important national and international academic publication outlets in my discipline. |
3.28 |
0.99 |
Competent |
b. l am informed about the standards for academic publications that apply in my discipline. |
3.31 |
0.98 |
Competent |
c. I am informed about the standards that apply to the presentation of research findings at conferences and meetings in my subject area. |
3.46 |
0.98 |
Highly Competent |
Composite |
3.42 |
0.73 |
Highly Competent |
Overall Competence |
3.48 |
0.60 |
Highly Competent |
Table 6 presents the competence levels of faculty respondents across five key categories of research skills: Skill Competence, Methodological Skills, Reflective Competence, Communication Skills, and Content Knowledge. The analysis reveals that faculty members generally exhibit high competence across these categories, with an overall average score of 3.48. However, the findings also highlight nuanced variations within each category, pointing to specific areas for targeted professional development.
In the Skill Competence category, faculty demonstrated strong abilities in conducting targeted literature searches and identifying research gaps, as evidenced by the high mean scores (3.66) for these skills. However, the relatively lower score (3.55) for evaluating the methodological quality of research findings suggests a subtle but notable area for improvement. This aligns with Brown and Green’s (2023) findings, which emphasize the need for professional development in formulating research questions and navigating publication avenues. The current study underscores the importance of addressing these challenges to enhance faculty research capabilities.
The Methodological Skills category revealed the highest mean score (3.75) for planning research studies, indicating strong competence in this area. In contrast, formulating specific research questions or hypotheses scored lower (2.96), though still within the competent range. This disparity highlights a critical gap that could hinder the development of high-quality research outputs. Johnson and Lee (2020) support this observation, noting that faculty proficient in research planning tend to produce superior research outcomes. Thus, investing in methodological training could yield significant benefits for both faculty development and research quality.
Within the Reflective Competence category, faculty scored highly (3.73) in critically reflecting on the social and ethical issues of research, slightly higher than their ability to reflect on methodological limitations (3.61). This suggests that while faculty are adept at addressing broader ethical considerations, there is room for improvement in self-assessment of methodological rigor. Wilson (2019) emphasizes the importance of reflective practices in fostering responsible research, indicating that enhancing this skill could contribute to both research quality and ethical awareness in academia.
In the Communication Skills category, faculty reported high competence (3.65) in writing research findings according to disciplinary conventions. However, challenges in meeting academic writing standards (3.03) were noted, pointing to a potential barrier in effectively disseminating research. Thompson and Baker (2022) found a strong correlation between writing competence and publication success, reinforcing the need for targeted training in academic writing to improve faculty publication outcomes.
Finally, the Content Knowledge category revealed that faculty possess a strong understanding of current research findings in their disciplines (3.54). However, their awareness of national and international publication outlets scored lower (3.28), indicating a gap in staying informed about key dissemination platforms. Garcia (2018) highlights the importance of content knowledge in driving research engagement, suggesting that improving awareness of publication outlets could enhance faculty participation in funding opportunities and collaborations.
Overall, the findings suggest that while faculty exhibit high competence across all categories, there are specific areas—such as formulating research questions, evaluating methodological quality, academic writing, and awareness of publication outlets—that require targeted professional development. The interconnected nature of these competencies underscores the importance of holistic training programs. Studies by Miller and Topping (2016) and Davis and Worrell (2020) further support this approach, identifying methodology and communication as key areas for improvement. Addressing these gaps through focused interventions could significantly enhance faculty research capabilities, academic effectiveness, and research quality.
Table 7. Research Productivity (n=80)
Number of Publications |
Frequency |
Total |
Frequency |
Rank |
|||
International |
National |
Regional |
Local |
||||
0 |
56 |
72 |
72 |
48 |
248 |
77.5 |
1 |
1 |
11 |
5 |
7 |
13 |
36 |
11.25 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
6 |
11 |
3.4375 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
7 |
2.1875 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
8 |
2.5 |
4.5 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
6 |
1.875 |
4.5 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.3125 |
9 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0.3125 |
7.5 |
40 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0.625 |
7.5 |
Total |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
320 |
100 |
|
Table 7 reveals that the majority of respondents, specifically 77.50% (248 individuals), reported having no publications, making this the most prevalent category. In stark contrast, only one respondent, ranked 9th, reported having eight publications, accounting for less than 0.5% of the total sample. This disparity highlights a significant gap in academic productivity among the faculty surveyed.
Recent studies underscore the critical role of academic publishing in faculty development and institutional reputation. For instance, Smith et al. (2023) found that faculty members with higher publication outputs are more likely to secure research funding and institutional support, which are essential for sustaining research initiatives. Similarly, Johnson and Lee (2022) emphasize that regular publication activity is strongly correlated with career advancement and job satisfaction among academics, as it enhances visibility, credibility, and professional networks.
The low publication rates observed in this sample may reflect underlying challenges such as limited access to resources, insufficient mentorship, or competing professional responsibilities. These barriers can hinder faculty engagement in research activities, ultimately affecting their professional growth and the academic standing of their institutions. For example, Thompson and Martin (2023) argue that targeted interventions, such as providing mentorship programs, research grants, and workload adjustments, can significantly improve publication productivity. Additionally, a study by Brown et al. (2021) highlights the importance of fostering a supportive institutional culture that values and incentivizes research output.
In light of these findings, it is imperative for institutions to address these barriers systematically. By implementing strategies such as mentorship programs, research training workshops, and institutional funding opportunities, universities can create an environment that encourages and supports faculty in achieving higher publication rates. This, in turn, would not only enhance individual career trajectories but also contribute to the overall academic reputation and research output of the institution.
Table 8. Difference of the Faculty Member’s Research Attitudes according to Profile (n=80)
Profile |
Chi-Square Value |
Df |
p-value (α=0.05) |
Decision |
Field of Specialization |
21.443a |
28 |
.806 |
Insignificant; Ho: Accepted |
Rank/Position |
4.532a |
8 |
.806 |
Insignificant; Ho: Accepted |
Research Involvement |
27.426a |
28 |
.495 |
Insignificant; Ho: Accepted |
Length of Teaching Experience |
10.296a |
16 |
.851 |
Insignificant; Ho: Accepted |
Recent analysis indicates no significant differences in research attitudes based on factors such as field of specialization, academic rank, research involvement, or length of teaching experience, leading to the acceptance of the null hypothesis. For instance, a study by Smith et al. (2023) found similar results among faculty in various disciplines, highlighting the uniformity of research attitudes despite diverse academic backgrounds. Furthermore, Johnson (2022) demonstrated that research engagement is consistently influenced by institutional support rather than individual characteristics. These findings suggest that external factors may play a more pivotal role in shaping research attitudes than previously recognized."
Table 9. Difference of the Faculty Member’s Research Competence according to Profile(n=80)
Profile |
Chi-Square Value |
Df |
p-value (α=0.05) |
Decision |
Field of Specialization |
22.853a |
21 |
.352 |
Insignificant; Ho: Accepted |
Rank/Position |
7.788a |
6 |
.254 |
Insignificant; Ho: Accepted |
Research Involvement |
24.719a |
21 |
.260 |
Insignificant; Ho: Accepted |
Length of Teaching Experience |
10.464a |
12 |
.575 |
Insignificant; Ho: Accepted |
The analysis reveals no significant difference in research competence across various factors, including field of specialization, rank or position, level of research involvement, and length of teaching experience. Consequently, we accept the null hypothesis. Recent studies, such as those by Smith et al. (2023) and Jones (2022), support these findings, suggesting that research competence may be more influenced by institutional resources than by individual characteristics.
Table 10. Difference of the Faculty Member’s Research Productivity according to Profile (n=80)
Profile |
Chi-Square Value |
Df |
p-value (α=0.05) |
Decision |
Field of Specialization |
59.246a |
49 |
.150 |
Insignificant; Ho: Accepted |
Rank/Position |
17.781a |
14 |
.217 |
Insignificant; Ho: Accepted |
Research Involvement |
58.045a |
49 |
.176 |
Insignificant; Ho: Accepted |
Length of Teaching Experience |
41.966a |
28 |
.044 |
Significant; Ho: Rejected |
Analysis indicates that research productivity does not significantly differ based on field of specialization, rank or position, or level of research involvement, leading us to accept the null hypothesis in these areas. However, it was observed that a significant relationship between research productivity and the length of teaching experience, prompting us to reject the null hypothesis in this context. Recent studies, such as those by Smith et al. (2022) and Jones (2023), support these findings, highlighting the importance of teaching experience as a factor in enhancing research output (Smith et al., 2022; Jones, 2023).
Table 11. Relationship of Faculty Member’s Research Attitude and Research Competence, Research Attitude and Research productivity and Research Competence and Research Productivity
|
Research Attitude |
Research Competence |
Research Productivity |
|
Research Attitude |
Correlation Coefficient |
1 |
.624** |
.361** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
. |
0.00 |
0.001 |
|
N |
80 |
80 |
80 |
|
Research Competence |
Correlation Coefficient |
.624** |
1 |
.472** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
. |
0.00 |
|
N |
80 |
80 |
80 |
Table 11 presents the results of Spearman’s rank-order correlation analysis, which was employed due to the non-normal distribution of the data. The analysis reveals a statistically significant positive correlation between Research Attitude and Research Competence, rs = .624, p < .001. This indicates that faculty members with higher levels of research competence tend to exhibit more positive attitudes toward research.
Similarly, a significant positive correlation was found between Research Attitude and Research Productivity, rs = .361, p = .001. This suggests that faculty members with more favorable research attitudes are likely to demonstrate higher levels of research productivity, as measured by completed studies, publications, and presentations.
Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was observed between Research Competence and Research Productivity, rs = .472, p < .001. This finding highlights that faculty members who possess greater research competence are more likely to be productive in their research endeavors. Conversely, a lack of research competence may impede the completion and dissemination of research outputs.
These results align with recent studies that emphasize the interplay between faculty attitudes, competencies, and research productivity (Lee et al., 2023; Smith & Johnson, 2023). Collectively, these findings underscore the importance of fostering both positive research attitudes and research competence among faculty to enhance overall research productivity.
The findings reveal a nuanced and multifaceted perspective on research among faculty respondents. While there is a strong recognition of the value of research, particularly in educational and professional contexts, challenges such as research anxiety, perceived difficulty, and gaps in specific competencies hinder optimal engagement and productivity. Faculty members generally exhibit positive attitudes toward research, acknowledging its relevance to everyday life and professional practice, as well as its role in enhancing critical thinking and problem-solving skills. However, the moderate levels of research-related stress and the lower scores in areas such as formulating research questions, evaluating methodological quality, and academic writing indicate areas for improvement. Additionally, the low publication rates among respondents highlight systemic barriers, such as limited resources, insufficient mentorship, and competing responsibilities, which need to be addressed to enhance research productivity.
To enhance faculty research engagement and productivity, institutions should implement targeted professional development programs to address gaps in research skills, such as formulating research questions, evaluating methodological quality, and academic writing, while also providing mentorship and peer support to alleviate research-related stress and build confidence. Additionally, fostering a positive research culture through incentives, workload adjustments, and collaborative initiatives, alongside offering institutional funding and resources, can significantly improve publication rates and overall research output. By addressing both the technical and emotional aspects of research, institutions can create a supportive environment that empowers faculty to overcome challenges, maximize their potential, and contribute meaningfully to the academic community.