English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Who are More Successful Researchers? An Analysis of University Teachers’ Research Productivity Vol. IV, No. I (Winter 2019) 355 research productive as compared to their collegues who are serving in the same workplace but are not that much motivated and involved in research activities. Review of Literature This is a great paradigm shift from simply a university for teaching to a university involved into research (Butt & Shamas, 2013). Research is increasingly getting a major function of higher education institutes. Research productivity regulates individual faculty member’s repute within university, university’s external repute, funding for university from HEC and quality ranking of the university (Vilhjálmsson, 2016). It is difficult to get a single definition of research productivity. Therefore, different criteria are used to classify the wide-ranging array of research productivities (Abramo, D’Angelo, & Costa, 2010). As said by Print and Hattie (1997), research productivity is the combination of research outputs and related contents which academicians perform in universities during a certain time period (Lertputtarak, 2008). It is calculated for individual institution and individual author on the basis of how many times its research is cited in future studies (Changsrisang, 2008). According to Sridhar, Dias and Sequeira (2010), RP can be defined in terms of number of scholarly books and publications in peer-reviewed academic journals. Creswell (1986) explains that RP comprises publication of research articles in professionally recognized journals and in proceedings of conference, authoring a book or a book chapter, supervising post-graduate students’ these and other class projects, winning research grants, performing editorial or reviewer duties, attaining licenses and patents, monograph writing, conducting new experiments in action research, creating some artistic works, involving in commentaries and public debates. A number of researchers agree with him (Ahmed, 2017; Lalrindika & Shukla, 2019; Vilhjálmsson, 2016) Research productivity not only plays a vital role in the development of higher education institutes as mentioned earlier but it is also equally important for academic evolution of teachers and students. Research productivity, an important route to academic promotion, is considerably important for augmenting an institution’s standing and financial status (Blackburn, Bieber, Lawrence & Trautvetter, 1991). Creamer (1998) specified that research productivity is a key to institutional prestige. In higher education institutions, faculty members’ research productivity is not only a condition for academic promotion, but also rears a university’s rank and heightens a university’s reputation. As a result of university’s higher recognition and prestige, the number of students increases and the university receives a higher income for its own further advancement (Lertputtarak, 2008). Research productivity is directly associated with faculty members’ academic development. When they are involved in conducting research, their own knowledge increases, they become more effective teachers and they are better able to think and communicate. Teacher as a researcher gains more promotional opportunities and elevated academic reputation (Lertputtarak, 2008). Teachers’ promotion, tenure, reward system, fringe benefits and salary raises depend on their research productivity (Im & Hartman 1997; Kotrlik, Bartlett, Higgins, & Williams, 2002; Read, Rae & Raghunandan 1998). Teachers’ research activities affect their students as well. The teachers-cum-researcher teaches students better and help them become future researchers also. Researchers are appreciated more by the students as compared to those teachers who are not involved in research activities (Lertputtarak, 2008). Research productivity is not an isolated concept. Rather it is affected by many factors. There are a number of motives behind working or not working for publication. As stated by Mantikayan and Abdulgani (2018), these can be individual and institutional factors. Highly productive researchers are motivated to do research work to get financial benefits, research grant, rewards, promotion, tenures and incentives (Khan, Shah, & Khan, 2018; Ulla et al., 2017) . Individual factors, also named as personal & professional potentials, which contribute to research productivity are affiliation, self-efficacy, personality, intelligence (Bamigboye, 2015; Mantikayan & Abdulgani, 2018), motivation (Williams, 2013), attitude towards conducting research (Krokfors, et al., 2011; Robinson & Gould, 2000), lack of time (Alghanim, & Alhamali, 2011; Angaiz, 2015; Hoffmann & Koufogiannakis, 2014; Webber, 2011), gender (Bailey, 1992; Batool, Hussain, & Ahmed, 2018; Eloy, et al., 2013; Mantikayan & Abdulgani, 2018; Nygaard, 2015), age (Bland & Berquist , 1997; Gorman & Scruggs, 1984) Mantikayan & Abdulgani, 2018; Pfeffer & Langton, 1993; Vasil, 1992), marital status (Batool, Hussain, & Ahmed, 2018; Webber, 2011), experience (Blackburn et al., 1991; Zhou, 2015) and rank (Alhija & Majdob, 2017; Jung, 2012; Kotrlik et al., 2002; Salazar-Clemeña, & Almonte-Acosta 2007; Zhou, 2015). Shamaiela Mehboob Farooqi, Shumaila Shahzad and Syeda Samina Tahira 356 Global Social Sciences Review (GSSR) Lack of research competence, confidence, and academic writing skills are also commonly cited factors of research productivity (Alhija & Majdob, 2017; Kendagor, Kosgei, Tuitoek & Chelangat, 2012; Maharaj & Ramnundlall, 2016; Ulla et al., 2017). The institutional factors include mentoring and advising, staff support, rewards, resources and sufficient work time (Fawzi & Al-Hattami, 2017; Lalrindika & Shukla, 2019; Maharaj & Ramnundlall, 2016; Mantikayan & Abdulgani, 2018; Navidad, 2019; Okendo, 2018; Okiki, 2015; Patchawong, Wangpa, & Ounjit, 2012), facilitating work culture (Kendagor, et al, 2012), institutional support for research, library resources (Hoffmann & Koufogiannakis, 2014) teaching load and extra administrative responsibilities (Alghanim, & Alhamali, 2011; Batool, Hussain, & Ahmed, 2018; Fawzi & Al-Hattami, 2017; Jung, 2012; Maharaj & Ramnundlall, 2016; Webber, 2011); faculty preferences (Kaya & Weber, 2003; Shin & Cummings, 2010), colleague collaboration (Fawzi & Al-Hattami, 2017), appreciation and reinforcement from department chair (Batool, Hussain, & Ahmed, 2018; Okendo, 2018) and faculty or discipline (Feyera, Atelaw, Hassen, & Fufa, 2017; Vilhjálmsson, 2016). There is a great pile of research all over the world which addresses the issue of resrach productivity among university teachers. Still the research on factors affecting research productivity is inconclusive. In Pakistan, HEC has put enormous efforts to upgrade teachers’ reaserch profile. Still some of the faulty members are losers in ths field and the others are winners.What makes them different from each other is important to be considered. Therefore, key objective of the study is to assess the research productivity of university teachers and to analyze the effect of demographic variables (gender, faculty, designation, age and experience) on their research productivity to ultimately explore the profile of successful researchers.

Who are More Successful Researchers? An Analysis of University Teachers Research Productivity