Content uploaded by Teka Feyera
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Teka Feyera on May 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Teka Feyera
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Teka Feyera on Aug 08, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol. 12(9), pp. 559-568, 10 May, 2017
DOI: 10.5897/ERR2017.3221
Article Number: 516435F64210
ISSN 1990-3839
Copyright © 2017
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
Educational Research and Reviews
Full Length Research Paper
Publication productivity of academics in Jigjiga
University, Ethiopia
Teka Feyera1*, Habtamu Atelaw2, Najib Abdi Hassen3 and Gemechu Fufa4
1Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, College of Veterinary Medicine, Jigjiga University, Ethiopia.
2Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, College of Social Science and Humanities,
Jigjiga University, Ethiopia.
3Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, College of Dryland Agriculture,
Jigjiga University, Ethiopia.
4Department of Sociology, College of Social Science and Humanities, Jigjiga University, Ethiopia.
Received 20 March, 2017; Accepted 18 April, 2017
This descriptive cross-sectional survey examined faculty publication productivity at Jigjiga University,
Ethiopia. It, specifically, aimed at exploring the factors and barriers that may influence publication
productivity among academic staffs while also comparing variations across academic disciplines. The
survey employed self-administered questionnaire distributed to 120 faculties randomly selected from
nine academic disciplines during February to April 2016. This observation indicated that only 38.3% of
the academic faculty members have published a research work since joining Jigjiga University.
Publication of journal articles was the predominant type of publication outlet (58.7%) followed by
conference proceedings (13%). The analysis result indicated that there was statistically significant
(p<0.05) variation in publication productivity in relation to years in academic profession, highest degree
earned and academic rank of the respondents. Similarly, faculty members who had track records on
research grant winning, theses supervision as well as attending academic conferences and research
related trainings were more likely to publish (p<0.05) as against those who did not have such
experiences. However, there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in publication
productivity in relation to sex, age, teaching load and involvement in administrative activities. In
addition, significant variation (p<0.05) existed on publication productivity across academic disciplines.
Faculties in the natural and life science fields generally appeared to publish more than those in the
social sciences. Respondents cited several factors that can be implicated in the low prevalence of
publication productivity at Jigjiga University. The most cited barriers in order of higher frequency
include lack of recognition such as promotion, absence of institutional research journal, poor access to
information sources such as internet connectivity, insufficient research facilities, lack of financial
incentives, lack of institutional/department support on publication, high publication charges inquired by
journals, and poor research and publication atmosphere which were agreed upon by about 75% of the
respondents. Most of these obstacles were organizational in nature, and thus focus to improve
research productivity should consider tackling these factors at institutional level. Therefore, results of
this survey imply that understanding these inhibitory factors and designing appropriate intervention
strategy may help Jigjiga University towards improving the research and publication productivity of its
academic faculty members.
Key words: Publication, productivity, research, faculty, academics, Jigjiga University.
560 Educ. Res. Rev.
INTRODUCTION
Research plays a critical role in promoting the prosperity
of a nation, and the well-being of its citizens in this
knowledge-based era (Abbott and Doucouliagos, 2004).
Scholars indicated that scientific research is an
imperative component of success in the academic
disciplines (Mezrich and Nagy, 2007), and that the
assessment of the research productivity in academic
institutions is an important measure of the extent of their
contributions to developing new knowledge (Tess et al.,
2009).
Academic institutions primarily measure research
productivity based on published work, externally funded
grants, and the number of citations the published work
received (Middaugh, 2001; Porter and Umbach, 2001).
According to Creswell (2014), the most frequently used
measure of the quantity or amount of research
productivity is a numerical publication count over a
certain time period. The published works could be journal
articles (refereed and non-refereed), books (including
edited books, textbooks), book chapters, monographs,
conference papers, and research proposals written to
receive external and internal grants (Middaugh, 2001).
The most common research productivity measures look
at publications that are submitted, accepted (in press), or
published (Arriola-Quiroz et al., 2010; Zhuo, 2008).
Through publication, scholars keep abreast of their
field, verify information, obtain critical response to their
work and redirect research interest (OMeara and
Braskamp, 2005). Faculty publishing productivity is often
used as an index of departmental and institutional
prestige, and is strongly associated with individual (Sax
et al., 2002; Warlick and Vaughan, 2007), organizational
(Sypsa and Hatzakis, 2009) and environmental factors
(Haines et al., 2010).
Understanding factors associated with research
productivity is important for leaders of academic
institutions. The identification of factors promoting or
impeding research productivity has been the focus of
studies in different disciplines (Toutkoushian et al., 2002).
Most of these factors have been classified into two broad
groups; individual and institutional factors. Individual
factors included aspects such as researcher’s age,
gender, salary, academic rank, number of years in the
profession, teaching load and the faculty members’
confidence in writing refereed works. Institutional factors
included the institution size, funds allocated to research,
presence of research groups, departmental support,
subscriptions of journals, and the availability of
information technology (Wager, 2009). Although, only few
studies consider disciplinary differences in their analytical
models of research performance, it is also known that
faculty in different disciplines differ in their research
productivity (Muis et al., 2006).
In developing countries like Ethiopia, little is known
about research productivity in academic institutions and
the available literature was conducted in developed
countries. It is believed that faculty publication output is
very low in majority of Ethiopian higher institutions,
particularly in the new generation universities. For
example, according to the results of a 10-year goggle
search by a scholar, more than 80% of the academic
publications in Ethiopia were from the four well-
established universities (Library of Congress Overseas
Office, 2010).
There is, thus, a need to initiate a systematic study that
identifies the extent of publication productivity and
determine factors, and barriers that may influence
research publication among academic staffs. Such
studies will help decision makers in universities take
appropriate interventions that promote research
production and remove some of the obstacles that may
impede faculty publishing.
This study, therefore, explored the faculty publishing
productivity, disciplinary differences in faculty research
productivity, and inhibitory factors to publication among
academic staffs at Jigjiga University (JJU), Ethiopia.
METHODOLOGY
Study design and population
The study employed a non-experimental cross-sectional design,
and adopted the descriptive survey method. The population of this
study consisted of the 2015 to 2016 on-campus teaching faculties
in all colleges at Jigjiga University. Jigjiga University is one of the
higher learning institutions in Ethiopia established in 2007.
Sampling technique and sample size determination
A multi-stage sampling procedure was adopted. First, colleges,
institutes and schools were selected. Secondly, departments were
randomly selected from each of the colleges/institutes/schools.
Third, a sampling frame of 50% of academics in each of the
departments was selected randomly, and invited for participation.
The newness of the academic unit, and its faculties was considered
at each stage of the sampling procedure. The sample size
adjustment was considered to compensate for attrition (namely,
inadequately filled or missing questionnaires).
Data collection instrument and protocol
The instrument used to collect data for this study was a
questionnaire. In order to determine the level of publication
*Corresponding author. E-mail: teka841@yahoo.com. Tel: +251-913-19-9649.
Authors agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
Feyera et al. 561
Table 1. Socio-demographic features and academic profile of participants (n=120).
Characteristics
Category level
Frequency
Percentage
Sex
Male
114
95
Female
6
5
Age
≤30
76
63.3
>30
44
36.7
Years in academic profession
≤5
40
33.3
>5
80
66.7
Highest degree earned
Masters
115
95.8
Doctorate
5
4.2
Academic rank
Lecturer
107
89.2
Assistant professor
13
10.8
Annual teaching load
≤6
12
10
(6, 12]
76
63.3
>12
32
26.7
Involved in administrative works
Yes
37
30.8
No
83
69.2
productivity of the respondents, publication outputs of faculty
members since joining JJU was considered. In this regard, full-time
faculty members who had served for at least two years in JJU and
holding master’s degree and higher were recruited as respondents.
The questionnaire was developed to capture information relevant to
the study, and consisted of three parts.
Part 1 sought information on the general socio-demographic
profile of respondents such as their gender, age, highest degree
earned, academic rank, and years of experience in the academic
profession. Part 2 consisted of questions regarding research, and
publication activities and experiences.
In particular, respondents were requested to identify whether
they had published any peer-reviewed article since joining JJU
(yes/no). Those who answered in the affirmative were asked to
identify the number of articles, the type of authorship and the
publication outlet. Similarly, respondents were asked to report
whether they had supervised postgraduate students’ research
(yes/no) and whether they had attended any training on research
methods and publication processes after their graduation (yes/no).
In order to determine the quality of the published work,
respondents were asked to identify whether such research had
been accepted or published by any of the indexed journals
recognized and listed by Google scholar (yes/no). The final part
requested respondents to identify possible and obstacles to
publishing research articles. In this section, respondents were given
a list of possible inhibiting factors, based on an extensive review of
the literature, and were instructed to mark as many barriers as
applied. Lastly, open-ended comments were inquired from
respondents to reflect their view of the research study in
anticipation of changes that may occur to facilitate the
implementation of the strategic research and publication objectives
at JJU.
In order to increase the content validity of the questionnaire, an
extensive literature review on faculty research productivity was
carried out and pilot-tested. On the basis of the outcome of the pilot
survey, the final questionnaire was reformulated. Respondents
were informed of the purpose of the study and consent was
obtained. Respondents were also assured of confidentiality, and it
was made clear to respondents that neither their names nor their
academic unit would be mentioned.
Statistical analysis
The data gathered from this study were analyzed using statistical
package for social sciences (SPSS-20), and presented in a
descriptive fashion. Chi-square test was used to test the difference
between categorical variables, and to identify factors that
significantly influence respondents’ research productivity. Statistical
significance was held at level of 0.05.
RESULTS
The respondents surveyed were predominantly males
(95%) holding master’s degree (95.8%), and were at
academic rank of lecturer (89.2%). Majority of the
participants were younger than 30 years (63.3%), and
have been in the academic profession for above 5 years
(66.7%) (Table 1).
The vast majority of respondents (61.7%) did not
publish any research article since joining Jigjiga
University (Table 2). Among the faculty members who
have published their researches, more than three fourth
(84.8%) claimed to have published in journals indexed,
562 Educ. Res. Rev.
Table 2. Publication productivity among faculty members at Jigjiga University.
Aspects
Category level
Frequency
Percentage
Had published an article since joining Jigjiga
University (n=120)
Yes
46
38.3
No
74
61.7
Number of articles (n=46)
1
21
45.7
2-5
13
28.3
>5
12
26.1
Type of authorship (n=46)
Sole author
7
15.2
Co-author
28
60.9
Bothe sole and co-author
11
23.9
Type of publication outlet (n=46)
Journals only
27
58.7
Conference proceedings only
6
13
Both journals and conferences
12
26.1
Books (book chapters)
1
2.2
Published in indexed journals (n=46)
Yes
39
84.8
No
7
15.2
and recognized by Google scholar. It was also noted that
most of the respondents (45.7%) published only one
article. Publication of journal articles was the predominant
type of publication outlet (58.7%) followed by conference
proceedings, and co-authorship (60.9%) outnumbered
sole-authorship (Table 2).
The publication productivity of Jigjiga University
academics in relation to selected demographic and
academic characteristics is presented in Table 3. The
analysis result revealed that there was variation in
publication productivity amongst the different categories
of respondents in relation to various characteristics
considered. The variation was statistically significant
(p<0.05) in relation to years in academic profession,
highest degree earned and academic rank of the
respondents. Senior academics, PhD holders and
assistant professors showed significant superiority on
research and publication productivity as compared to
juniors, masters’ degree holders and lecturers,
respectively. Similarly, faculty members who had track
records on research grant winning, theses supervision as
well as attending academic conferences and research
related trainings were more likely to publish (p<0.05) as
against those who did not have such experiences.
However, there was no statistically significant difference
(p>0.05) in publication productivity in relation to sex, age,
teaching load and involvement in administrative activities.
The respondents sampled were from different
academic disciplines. The analysis result indicated that
statistically significant difference existed in publication
productivity (2 = 25.28; P= 0.00) among different
disciplines. It was noted that more than 75% of the
respondents from veterinary medicine and dryland
agriculture streams had published at least one article
since joining Jigjiga University, whereas half of the
respondents form law and health sciences had published.
Surprisingly, none of the respondents from engineering
and technology streams had published any scholarly
article (Figure 1).
With regards to knowledge and perception of faculty
members towards publication, the vast majority of the
participants (91%) know the importance of publication
and more than half of the respondents perceived it
obligatory for an academic staff in a university. However,
there existed considerable difference towards these
issues between those who had published versus who did
not. On the other hand, only a quarter (25%) of the
respondents reported that publication is not a primary
measure of research productivity. Under all the
considered categories, higher number of participants who
have not published any article since joining Jigjiga
University appeared to have weak propensity towards
publication as against those who had published (Table 4).
Table 5 summarizes possible barriers and obstacles
hindering publication productivity as perceived by Jigjiga
University academics. The most cited barriers in order of
higher frequency include lack of recognition such as
promotion and publication incentives, absence of
institutional research journal, poor access to information
sources such as internet connectivity, insufficient
research equipment/facilities, lack of financial incentives,
lack of institutional/department support on publication,
high publication charges inquired by journals, and poor
research and publication atmosphere which were agreed
Feyera et al. 563
Table 3. Publication productivity of Jigjiga University academics in relation to selected demographic and academic characteristics.
Characteristics
Category level
Published since joining Jigjiga University
2
P-value
Yes (%)
No (%)
Sex
Male (n=114)
44 (38.6)
70 (61.4)
0.67
0.80
Female (n=6)
2 (33.3)
4 (66.7)
-
-
Age
< 30 (n=76)
28 (36.8)
48 (63.2)
0.20
0.66
>30 (n=44)
18 (40.9)
26 (59.1)
-
-
Years in academic
profession
≤5 (n=40)
10 (25)
30 (75)
4.51
0.034
>5(n=80)
36 (45)
44 (55)
-
-
Highest degree earned
Masters (n=115)
41 (35.7)
74 (64.3)
8.39
0.004
Doctorate (n=5)
5 (100)
0 (0)
-
-
Academic rank
Lecturer (n=107)
35 (32.7)
72 (67.3)
13.21
0.00
Assistant professor (n=13)
11 (84.6)
2 (15.4)
-
-
Involved in administrative
work
Yes (n= 37)
16 (43.2)
21 (56.8)
0.55
0.46
No (n=83)
30 (36.1)
53 (63.9)
-
-
Annual teaching load
≤6 (n=12)
7 (58.3)
5 (41.7)
2.71
0.07
(6, 12) (n=76)
29 (38.2)
47 (61.8)
-
-
>12 (n=32)
10 (31.3)
22 (68.7)
-
-
Participated in research
related training
Yes (n=43)
20 (46.5)
23 (53.5)
1.89
0.17
No (77=)
26 (33.8)
51 (66.2)
-
-
Participated in publication
related training
Yes (n=18)
10 (55.6)
8 (44.4)
2.66
0.578
No (n=102)
36 (35.3)
66 (64.7)
-
-
Attended academic
conferences
Yes (n=76)
38 (50)
38 (50)
11.94
0.001*
No (n=44)
8 (18.2)
36 (81.8)
-
-
Had supervised thesis
Yes (n=22)
14 (63.6)
8 (36.4)
7.29
0.006*
No (n=98)
32 (32.7)
66 (67.30
-
-
Received research grant
Yes (n=53)
30 (56.6)
23 (45.4)
11.94
0.00
No (n=67)
16 (23.9)
51 (76.1)
upon by about 75% of the respondents.
Obstacles such as stringent publication process to
publish on quality journals, technical difficulties in journal
selection, subscription and submission, and heavy
teaching load were reported by approximately half of the
respondents. The least cited barriers encompass lack of
interest on publication, inadequate experience in
research methodology, lack of awareness on publication,
and lack of self-interest in carrying out research (Table
5).
DISCUSSION
This descriptive observation indicated that only 38.3% of
the academic faculty members have published a
research work since joining Jigjiga University, and 84.8%
of these claimed to have published in indexed and
learned journals. This finding does not strongly confirm
the culture of publish or perish in academic institutions.
Most of the methods for measuring research productivity
involve measuring the number of scholarly articles
published. Through publication, scholars keep abreast of
their field, verify information, obtain critical response to
their work and redirect research interest (O Meara and
Braskamp, 2005; AAU, 2008).
The literature suggests that research is not done until it
is published, and publications enable academics to earn
recognition in academic circles locally and internationally.
In higher education, research publication often served as
a major role in attaining success in academics circles as
it is related to promotion, tenure, and other recognitions
564 Educ. Res. Rev.
Figure 1. Faculty publication productivity by discipline. BE= Business and Economics; DA= Dryland Agriculture; ET=
Engineering and Technology; LL= Language and Literature; MHS= Medicine and Health Sciences; NCS= Natural and
Computational Science; SSH= Social Science and Humanities; VM= Veterinary Medicine; P<0.001 (2 = 25.28; P=
0.00).
Table 4. Perception and attitude of Jigjiga University faculty towards publication (n= 120).
Aspects
Category level
Published since joining Jigjiga University
Yes
No
How perceiving publication
Obligatory (n=63)
30 (47.6)
33 (52.4)
Not obligatory (n=4)
2 (50)
2 (50)
Necessary but not obligatory (n=48)
13 (27.1)
35 (72.9)
Do not know (n=5)
1 (20)
4 (80)
Knows the importance of
Publication
Yes (n=111)
46 (41.4)
65 (58.6)
No (n=9)
0 (0)
9 (100)
Is publication a primary measure
of research productivity?
Yes (n= 90)
41 (45.6)
49 (54.5)
No (n=30)
5 (16.7)
25 (83.3)
(Bloedel, 2001; Kotrlik et al., 2002; Bassey et al., 2007).
The low prevalence of research and publication
productivity reported in this study could be attributed to
various factors. An examination of the literature reveals
that the factors influencing faculties’ research productivity
have been studied for decades. There are a number of
factors such as scholarship (Arora and Gambardella,
1996), age and life cycle (Levin and Stephan, 2011),
research activity performance of department (Smeby and
Try, 2005), scientific collaboration (Lee and Bozeman,
2005), quality of training or individual abilities and skills
(Wichian et al., 2009), and faculty motivation and
incentives (Monroe and Kumar, 2011b). These factors
are generally of two types: individual variables and
environmental variables. The individual and environmental
characteristics do not operate by themselves; they are
interwoven with each other (Hadjinicola and Soteriou,
2006).
In the process of obtaining and disseminating
knowledge, numerous personal characteristics and
demographic variables impact faculty research
productivity. The strength and confidence of the faculty
were confirmed as necessary factors in ensuring high
levels of research productivity (Bland et al., 2002). Self-
motivation, essential skills and experience are the
fundamental drivers that encourage lecturers to do
research. If there are no fundamental drivers, even if the
university provides other supportive factors, the
university’s efforts will be fruitless (Bay and Clerigo,
2013).
Feyera et al. 565
Table 5. Possible barriers and obstacles to publication productivity as perceived by Jigjiga University academics.
Inhibiting factor
Frequency (%)
Standard
deviation
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Not sure
Agree
Strongly agree
Lack of time in carrying out research
23 (19.2)
49 (40.8)
6 (5)
33 (27.5)
9 (7.5)
1.28
Lack of self-interest in carrying out research
36 (30)
44 (36.7)
6 (5)
28 (23.3)
6 (5)
1.27
Lack of financial incentives
8 (6.7)
18 (15
5 (4.2)
49 (40.8)
40 (33.3)
1.24
Inadequate experience in research methodology
22 (18.3)
57 (47.5)
5 (4.2)
33 (27.5)
3 (2.5)
1.15
Inadequate experience in statistical techniques
20 (16.7)
44 (36.7)
8 (6.7)
43 (35.8)
5 (4.2)
1.23
Poor research and publication atmosphere
11 (9.2)
17 (14.2)
12 (10)
44 (36.7)
36 (30)
1.29
Technical difficulties in manuscript writing
20 (16.7)
47 (39.7)
13 (10.8)
32 (26.7)
8 (6.7)
1.22
Technical difficulties in journal selection, subscription and submission
10 (8.3)
37 (30.8)
13 (10.8)
50 (41.7)
10 (8.3)
1.18
Lack of time to prepare manuscripts for publication
21 (17.5)
52 (43.3)
7 (5.8)
29 (24.2)
11 (9.2)
1.28
Stringent publication process to publish on quality journals
9 (7.5)
13 (10.8)
24 (20)
54 (45)
20 (16.7)
1.12
Lack of interest on publication
31 (25.8)
54 (45)
16 (13.3)
14 (11.7)
5 (4.2)
1.09
Lack of awareness on publication
27 (22.5)
50 (41.7)
11 (9.2)
26 (21.7)
6 (5)
1.20
High publication charges inquired by journals
7 (5.8)
13 (10.8)
19 (15.8)
57 (47.5)
24 (20)
1.09
Heavy teaching load and schedule
11 (9.2)
42 (35)
10 (8.3)
42 (35)
15 (12.5)
1.26
Investing much time to administrative works
20 (16.7)
42 (35)
4 (3.3)
45 (37.5)
9 (7.5)
1.29
Poor access to information sources such as internet connectivity
6 (5)
11 (9.2)
10 (8.3)
48 (40)
45 (37.5)
1.13
Lack of institutional/department support on publication
2 (1.7)
16 (13.3)
14 (11.7)
50 (41.7)
38 (31.7)
1.05
Insufficient research equipment/facilities
5 (4.2)
15 (12.5)
5 (4.2)
64 (53.3)
31 (25.8)
1.08
Lack of recognition such as promotion and publication incentives
0
10 (8.3)
6 (5)
39 (32.5)
65 (54.2)
0.91
Absence of institutional (JJU) research journal
7 (5.8)
7 (5.8)
12 (10)
46 (38.3)
48 (40)
1.23
In this observation, no difference in publication
productivity was noted between male and female
faculty members. It is worth noting that the
respondents surveyed in this study were
predominantly males (95%) and thus, with this
limitation it is difficult to contrast this finding with
different works reported from other countries or
universities. However, previous works indicated
that female faculty members are less likely to
publish than their male counterparts (Billard,
2013; Olatokunbo, 2013; Kyaligonza, 2015). It has
been suggested that the discrepancy in research
output between males and females could be
attributed, directly or indirectly, to the gender
patterns in disciplinary and institutional affiliation,
marital status, workload, and faculty rewards
(Lyengar et al., 2009). On the other hand, another
group of studies has found that there is no
difference in research performance between
males and females after controlling for other
variables (Lee and Bozeman, 2005; Porter and
Umbach, 2001).
Similarly, age was not found to be associated
with publication productivity. Age has been
studied in numerous works, with conflicting
results. Many studies about productivity have
indicated that the relationship between publication
and age is not linear, although the overall rate of
publication generally declines with age
(Teodorescu, 2000). Kotrlik et al. (2001) also
observed that the average productivity of
academic members drops with age but many
senior academics remains active and that there is
no significant evidence that age determines a
drop in productivity. However, it is important to
note that a person’s age at first publication affects
566 Educ. Res. Rev.
consequent research productivity and that if academic
lecturers submit research for their first publication at a
young age, then it is more likely that they will produce
more at future points in time (Levin and Stephan, 2011).
Years in academic profession, highest degree earned
and academic rank significantly affected research and
publication productivity of the academics in Jigjiga
University. In this regard, seniors, PhD holders and
assistant professors demonstrated significantly higher
productivity than juniors, master’s degree holders and
lecturers, respectively. This observation is inconsonance
with reports by numerous scholars who found that faculty
staff with higher academic ranks and experience
produces more research articles than those with lower
academic ranks (Roberts and Turnbull, 2003; Alghanim
and Alhamali, 2011). This implies that an institution vying
to increase research productivity of its academic staff
should ensure that the same staff has attained higher
education levels and research experience (Kyaligonza,
2015).
On the other hand, the analysis result indicated that the
vast majority of faculty members did not receive any
training related to research and publication. But, those
who received some sort of training on research skills and
methodology were more likely to publish research
articles. This implies that inexperienced faculty members
should be acquired with the necessary research tools and
methods that familiarize them with research design,
proficiency in methods of statistical analyses, and
techniques. The study finding in part agrees with previous
reports in this regard (Alghanim and Alhamali, 2011).
Szymanski et al. (2006) has demonstrated that research
training environments (RTE) are associated with
increased scholarly productivity, especially for early
career professionals. The researcher-practitioner RTE
model and the internship RTE model were found to be
the most effective in fostering research interests and
productivity in universities. Training is expected to
develop and strengthen the skills and knowledge of the
faculty members and to enable them to take up the
challenging research activities. Training builds self-
confidence in the minds of faculty (Subrahmanian, 2010).
Wichian et al. (2009) also found that research experience
and training in research gave better influence on
research output utilization that research communication
skills and networking and teamwork also affect research
productivity.
Interestingly, attending academic conferences was
associated positively with publishing research outputs.
Respondents who had participated in such platforms
were more likely to publish than those who had no such
an experience. This could be associated with the
motivation gained up on the networking on such
meetings. In this study, it was also noted that faculty
members who had supervised thesis and secured
research grants at least once in their career
demonstrated higher extent of producing scholarly
publication as against those who had no such
experience.
With regards to the possible barriers and obstacles
hindering publication productivity, respondents cited
several factors that can be implicated in the low
prevalence of publication productivity of academics at
Jigjiga University. Numerous other workers reported
similar factors to inhibit academics from publishing their
research findings (Sabzwar et al., 2009; De Witte and
Rogge, 2010; Alghanim and Alhamali, 2011).
Most of these obstacles reported were organizational in
nature, and could be tackled at the institutional level.
Previous studies ascribed some organizational contexts
to affect faculty research. For example, Smeby and Try
(2005) found that a cooperative climate has a positive
impact on faculty publication while an innovative climate
has a negative impact. In addition, organizational
supports such as library support, technology and
computing facilities for faculty activity are also predictors
of faculty research performance (Lee and Bozeman,
2005). Organizational characteristics such as institutional
mission and size are also modeled to control for the
variance accounted for by organizational factors (Corley
and Sabharwal 2007; Porter and Toutkoushian, 2006).
Thus, recognition such as promotion and publication
based incentives, training on research, allocating
appropriate funds, departmental support and creating a
research atmosphere were among measures that could
be taken to increase the research output both in quality
and quantity. Some other barriers are associated with
journals and are beyond the control of individuals and
institutions. These included obstacles such as stringent
publication process, high publication charges, and
technical difficulties in journal selection and subscription.
This descriptive study also evidenced that Jigjiga
University academics were very good at publishing
journal articles followed by conference proceedings. Book
or book chapters are rarely produced publication outlets.
This is in line with the well established trend in that
journal publication has traditionally been the conventional
way to disseminate research results and other significant
scientific contributions. Although other outlets for
dissemination, such as conference presentations, books
and book chapters have also existed, scientists generally
have looked to journal articles for reports of new findings
by their colleagues. Journal publication has also been the
most important way for scientists to secure credit for their
research contributions. Because journals, unlike some
other publication outlets, publish articles only after expert
reviewers conclude that the work is worthy of being
published, publication signifies that an article has
sufficient merit to survive the scrutiny of peer review (Bell
et al., 2007). This could also be ascribed to the fact that
most of the respondents were young and have limited
experience to publish books as this requires a deeper
knowledge and experience.
With regards to disciplinary perspective, faculty
members in the natural and life science fields generally
appeared to publish more than those in the social
sciences. Academics form veterinary science followed by
agriculture, health sciences as well as natural and
computational sciences appeared to excel as against
those from other academic disciplines. This observation
is not surprising as field-specific patterns and trends can
affect faculty’s research productivity. Although some
scholars (White et al., 2009) quite rightly argue that
differences in the nature of the products produced across
disciplines would make direct comparisons of productivity
difficult, the literature asserts that there is considerable
differences between the publication productivity of
physical/biological scientists and social
scientists/humanists (Stack, 2004; Shin and Cummings,
2010; Sabharwal, 2013). The higher rate of productivity
among natural and life science fields can be linked in part
to the time spent on research activities and the
availability of grants and industrial funding. The lower
number of articles produced by social scientists is in part
a reflection of the nature of the discipline (longer
publication time, lengthier articles, fewer grants, and the
difficulty of obtaining data (Shin and Cummings, 2010). It
was surprising to note that none of the respondents from
the engineering and technology stream had published
any scholarly article thus far. This may somehow agree
with Stack (2004) who reported that faculty in engineering
and math fields had a low level of research productivity
similar to the social scientists. Furthermore, some
workers indicated that faculty in different disciplines differ
in their collaborative work in academic research, their
commitments to teaching and research, and their
preferred publications (Muis et al., 2006, Olatokunbo,
2013). Nevertheless, few studies consider disciplinary
differences in their analytical models of research
performance.
Conclusion
The present study evidenced that there was relatively low
prevalence of publication productivity among academic
faculty members at Jigjiga University.
Despite the limitations on the number of respondents
recruited and self-reported data, this descriptive study
has provided valuable insight into factors and obstacles
that may hinder publication productivity and related
research endeavors among faculty members in Jigjiga
University. Among the socio-demographic variables
considered, academic qualification, rank, discipline, track
records on research grant winning, theses supervision as
well as attending academic conferences and research
related trainings appeared to significantly influence
publication productivity of faculty members.
Furthermore, most of the inhibitory factors cited by the
respondents have organizational contexts and can be
managed at institutional level. Some other barriers are
associated with journals and are beyond the control of
Feyera et al. 567
individuals and the institution. The results, therefore,
indicated that tackling both the socio-demographic and
institutional factors will likely increase publication output
at Jigjiga University.
Recognition such as promotion and publication based
incentives, training on research, allocating appropriate
funds, departmental support and creating a good
research atmosphere are among measures that could be
taken to improve the publication output both in quality
and quantity.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are indebted to Jigjiga University Directorate
of Research, Publication and Technology Transfer for
modest financial support.
REFERENCES
Abbott M, Doucouliagos H (2004). Research output of Australian
universities. Educ. Econ. J. 12(3):265-271.
Alghanim SA, Alhamali RM (2011). Research productivity among faculty
members at medical and health schools in Saudi Arabia: Prevalence,
obstacles, and associated factors. Saudi Med. J. 32 (12):297-1303.
Arora A, Gambardella A (1996). The Impact of NSF Support for Basic
Research in Economics. Working Paper, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Arriola-Quiroz I, Curioso WH, Cruz-Encarnacion M, Gayoso O (2010).
Characteristics and publication patterns of theses from a Peruvian
medical school. Health Info. Libr. J. 27:148-154.
Bassey U, Akuegwu B, Udida L, Udey FU (2007). Academic staff
research productivity: A study of universities in South-South Zone of
Nigeria. Educ. Res. Rev. 2(5):103-108.
Bay BE, Clerigo ME (2013). Factors Associated with Research
Productivity among Oral Healthcare Educators in an Asian University.
Int. Educ. Stud. 6(8):124-135.
Bell RK, Hill D, Lehming RF (2007). The Changing Research and
Publication Environment in American Research Universities. Working
Paper | SRS 07-204 |, National Science Foundation, USA.
Billard L (2013). A different path into print’, Academe, P 28.
Bland CJ, Seaquist E, Pacala JT, Center B, Finstad D (2002). One
school’s strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty.
Acad. Med. 77(2):368-376.
Bloedel JR (2001). Judging research productivity on an entrepreneurial
campus. Evaluation Research Productivity 105.
Chan SS, Burton J (1995). Faculty vitality in the comprehensive
university: Changing context and concerns. Res. Higher Educ. 36
(2):219-233.
Cole JR, Cole S (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Corley EA, Sabharwal M (2007). Foreign-born academic scientists and
engineers: Producing more and getting less than their U.S.-born
peers? Res. Higher Educ. 48(8):909-940.
Creswell J (2014). Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches Fourth Edition: Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
Inc.
De Witte K, Rogge N (2010). To publish or not to publish? On the
aggregation and drivers of research performance. Scientometrics
85:657-680.
568 Educ. Res. Rev.
Hadjinicola GC, Soteriou AC (2006). Factors Affecting the Research
Productivity of Operations Management Groups: An Empirical Study.
J. Appl. Mathe. Decision Sci. 10:1-16.
Haines M, Redman S, Jorm LR, Wozniak TM, Lujic S (2010). Putting
science to work for health care reform: how much research is
available to support improvements to our hospitals? Med. J. Aust.
192:646-650.
Kotrlik JW, Bartlett EJ, Higgins CC, Williams HA (2002). Factors
associated with research productivity of agricultural education faculty.
J. Agric. Educ. 43(3):1-10.
Kyaligonza R (2015). An Investigative Study of Research Productivity of
the Academic Staff in Public Universities in Uganda. Direct Res.
Social Sci.Edu. Stud. 2(4):60-68.
Lee S, BozemanB (2005). The impact of research collaboration on
scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science 35(5):673-702.
Levin S, Stephan P (2011). ‘Research productivity over the life cycle:
evidence for academic scientific’, Am. Econ. Rev. 81(1):114-132.
Library of Congress Overseas Office (2010). Ethiopia Journals Indexed,
Nairobi, Kenya.
Mezrich R, Nagy PG (2007). The academic RVU: a system for
measuring academic productivity. J Am Coll Radiol 4:471-478.
Middaugh MF (2001). Understanding faculty productivity: Standards and
benchmarks for colleges and universities. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Monroe SR, Kumar R (2011b). Motivations and Incentives for Academic
Research: A Basis for Improvement in Publication Productivity.
Metropolitan State College of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Muis KR, Bendixen LD, Haerle FC (2006). Domain-generality and
domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical
and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical
framework. Educational Psychology Review 18:3-54.
Olatokunbo CO (2013). Research Productivity of Teaching Faculty
members in Nigerian Federal Universities: An Investigative Study.
Chinese Librarianship: An Int. Electronic J. 36:99-118.
Porter SR, Toutkoushian RK (2006). Institutional research productivity
and the connection to average student quality and overall reputation.
Econ. Educ. Rev. 25:605-617.
Porter SR, Umbach PD (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using
multilevel modeling. Res. Higher Educ. 42(2):171-196.
Porter ST, Umbach PD (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using
multilevel modeling. Res. Higher Educ. 42(2):171-196.
Roberts KK, Turnbull BJ (2003). Scholarly productivity: are nurse
academics catching up? Aust J. Adv. Nurs. 20:8-14.
Sabharwal M (2013). Comparing Research Productivity Across
Disciplines and Career Stages. Journal of Comparative Policy
Analysis: Res. Practice 15(2):141-163.
Sabzwari S, Kauser S, Khuwaja AK. Experiences, attitudes and barriers
towards research amongst junior faculty of Pakistani medical
universities. BMC Med. Educ. 9:68.
Sax LJ, Hagedorn LS, Arredondo M, DiCrisi F (2002). Faculty research
productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related Factors.
Res. Higher Educ. 43:423-446.
Shin JC, Cummings (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing
across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on
research. Scientometrics 85(2):581-594.
Smeby J, Try S (2005). Departmental contexts and faculty research
activity in Norway. Research in Higher Education 46(6):593.619.
Stack S (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Res. Higher
Educ. 45:891-920.
Subrahmanian M (2010). Evaluating Training Programmes in India
Post. Researchers World-J. Arts Sci. Commerce 1:81-94.
Sypsa V, Hatzakis A (2009). Assessing the impact of biomedical
research in academic institutions of disparate sizes. BMC Med. Res.
Methodol. 29:33.
Szymanski D, Ozegovic J, Phillips J, Briggs-Phillips M (2006). Fostering
Scholarly Productivity Through Academic and Internship Research
Training Environments. Train. Educ. Professional Psychol. 1:135-
146.
Tess BH, Furuie SS, Castro RC, Barreto Mdo C, Nobre MR (2009).
Assessing the scientific research productivity of a Brazilian
healthcare institution: a case study at the Heart Institute of Sao
Paulo, Brazil. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 64:571-576.
Toutkoushian RK, Porter SR, Danielson C, Hollis PR (2003). Using
publication counts to measure institution’s research productivity. Res.
Higher Educ. 44:121-148.
Wager E (2009). Recognition, reward and responsibility: why the
authorship of scientific papers matters. Maturitas 62:109-112.
Warlick SE, Vaughan KT (2007). Factors influencing publication choice:
why faculty choose open access. Biomed Digit Libr 9:1.
White HD, Boell SK, Yu H, Davis M, Wilson CS, Cole FTH (2009).
Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book
publications in the humanities and social sciences. J. Am. Society
Infor. Sci. Technol. 60(6):1083-1096.
Wichian S, Wongwanich S, Bowarnkitiwong S (2009). Factors Affecting
Research Productivity of Faculty Members in Government
Universities: Lisrel and Neural Network Analyses. Kasetsart J.30:67-
78.
Zhuo MZ (2008). Factor: A new index for measuring academic research
output. Mol. Pain 9:53.
