Content uploaded by Akhandanand Shukla
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Akhandanand Shukla on Mar 05, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pre-print:
Cite as (APA 6
th
Ed.):
Lalrindika, R. & Shukla, Akhandanand. (2019). Research Output of Faculty
Members of Mizoram University: Cross-Sectional Evaluation. In Jain, P. K. et al.
(Eds.), 6th International Conference of Asian Libraries (ICoASL-2019) on “Libraries
and Librarianship in Digital Plus Era” (pp. 297-306). New Delhi: Ane Books Pvt
Ltd.
Research Output of Faculty Members of Mizoram University: Cross-
Sectional Evaluation
R. Lalrindika
M. Phil. Scholar
Deptt. of Library & Information Science
Mizoram University, Aizawl – 796 004
Email: rindikaralte34@gmail.com
Akhandanand Shukla
Assistant Professor
Deptt. of Library & Information Science
Mizoram University, Aizawl – 796 004
Email: akhandanandshukla@gmail.com
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7157-5600
Abstract
The paper deals with the cross-sectional evaluation of research output of faculty members during the
last five academic years. Faculties belong to two schools of studies have been taken as population.
The study mainly focuses to identify the progress of research output in terms of journal papers,
conference papers, reviews, abstracts, books, book chapters, research projects, Ph.D./ M.Phil
production and barriers in the research activities. The inferences are drawn based on the data to
identify the progress of research output by faculty members and role of academic institutions to
increase the capability to produce more research output for the development of an individual as well
as institutional growth.
Keywords: Research Output, Research Performance, Authorship Patterns, Research Projects,
Faculty Performance, Education & Humanities, Social Sciences.
1. Introduction
The “research plays a vital role in promoting the prosperity of a nation and the well-being of its
citizens in this knowledge-based era (Abbott and Doucouliagos, 2004). Universities are considered
modern entrepreneurial engines and generators of knowledge through research, thereby, promoting
national and global development (Okiki, 2013)” (Starovoytova, 2017). Research alone can bring
revolutionary changes in society and on the whole to the nation. Research brings out tremendous
changes in the field of knowledge. Research output and research productivity are considered as a
synonym. William (2003) notes that research productivity could be defined in terms of research
product and research effort to the extent to which a researcher produces. Research is defined as a
careful study of a subject, especially to discover new facts or information (Research Endowment
Policy, Moi University, Kenya, 2008). Research output has been defined as the “relationship
between the outputs generated by a system and the inputs provided to create those outputs. It may
also include the term “efficiency” and more importantly “effectiveness”, which measures the total
output or results of performance (Turnage, 1990). According to Print and Hattie (1997), research
productivity is the totality of research performed by academicians in universities and related contents
within a given time period” (Lertputtarak, 2008). “On a broader perspective productivity can include
research publication in professional journals and in conference proceedings, writing a book or
chapter, gathering and analyzing original evidence, working with post-graduate students on
dissertation and class projects, obtaining research grants, carrying out editorial duties, obtaining
patents and licenses, writing monographs, developing experimental designs, producing works of an
artistic or creative nature, engaging in public debates and commentaries” (Creswell, 1986).
2. Review of Literature
Feyera et al. (2017) examined the publication productivity of 120 faculty members of Jigjiga
University, Ethiopia. Study evidenced low publication productivity among faculty members of
Jigjiga University, faculties belong to Natural Sciences and Life Sciences were more productive than
Social Sciences. Fawzi and Al-Hattami (2017) investigated the research productivity of faculty
members of Bahrain Teacher's College (BTC) and identified their problems and difficulties faced
during publishing a scientific research. The study concluded that faculty members have the
competence for publishing the research but needs more time to focus on research. Mantikayan and
Abdulgani (2018) identify factor affecting faculty research productivity. The results show that
faculty research productivity is influenced by individual factors ( self-efficacy, affiliation,
motivation, etc.) institutional factors (staff support, advising and mentoring, resources, rewards,
sufficient work time etc.), leadership factors (highly regarded able scholar, research-oriented, work
for departments with a similar priority placed on research), ascriptive factors (gender, age of a
faculty member at a given point in time, intelligence, personality of the individual). Okonedo et al.
(2015) examined the correlation analysis of demographic factors, self-concept and research
productivity of librarians in public universities in South-West, Nigeria and found that librarians’
level of self-concept is high with higher research productivity, significant relationship between self-
concept and research productivity, and job tenure was found significant with research productivity
among the demographic factors. Webber (2013) analyzed the data of National Survey of
Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF: 2004) which covers approximately 30000 faculties from 1000 U.S.
institutions. He examined the research productivity of Science and Engineering by the foreign-born
faculty and compared with the U.S. born faculty. The study found that foreign-born-faculties
employment is growing in U.S. Post Secondary institutions and also found that ‘foreign-born
scientists' were more productive than U.S. peers. Okiki (2013) analyzed research productivity of
teaching faculty members in Nigerian Federal universities and find out high research productivity in
journal publications, technical reports, conference papers, working papers as well as occasional
papers and their research productivity was lower in the publishing of textbooks, book chapters,
monographs, patents, and certified inventions. The study observed financial constraint and slow
Internet connectivity as major inhibitors to their research. Jung (2012) examined the research
productivity of faculty in Hong Kong academics and explored the individual and institutional factors
that contributed to the productivity and compared the determinants across academic disciplines.
Study reveals that male Professors tend to publish more books or articles than female Professors,
number of publications of doctoral degree holders is higher than that of non-holders, research
productivity of Professors who have high post-doctoral experience was higher than those who do not
have, senior academicians likes to be more productive than junior academicians, academicians in
hard disciplines publish more journal articles than those in soft disciplines. There is a number of
studies related to faculty members' performances were conducted by Abbott & Doucouliagos (2004),
Sevukan et al. (2007), Kumbar et al. (2008), Wichian et al. (2009), Jeyshankar et al. (2011), Nandi
and Bandyopadhyay (2011).
3. Scope
The scope of the study is limited to faculty members of the School of Social Sciences; and the
School of Education and Humanities of Mizoram University, Aizawl. There are 67 faculty members
working under both the Schools of Studies. The study covers the research output produced during
five years of time period i.e. 2012-2017.
4. Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the present study are to:
a) Find out the trend & growth of research output of faculty members.
b) Find out the forms of research output of the faculty members.
c) Find out the constraints to faculty members on their research activities.
5. Research Methodology
The present study is designed to investigate the research output of faculty members of the School of
Social Sciences; and the School of Education and Humanities. The total population for the study is
67 faculty members belong to departments under both the Schools. The survey method (through the
questionnaire) of research is being found appropriate to undertake the study. The structured
questionnaire distributed to every faculty members of the School covered under study. The data
obtained through the filled-in questionnaire is tabulated and analyzed using a suitable statistical tool
(MS-Excel).
6. Data Analysis and Interpretation
a) Academic Position*Publications
Table 1: Academic Position*Publications
Academic
Position
Publications Range Total
(%)
0 1-10 11-20 21-30 > 30
Assistant
Professor -- 8
(38.1%)
11
(52.4%) 2 (9.5%)
-- 21
(56.75%)
Associate
Professor -- 2
(50%) -- 2
(50%) -- 4
(10.81%)
Professor
2
(16.7%) -- 4
(33.3%)
2
(16.7%)
4
(33.3%)
12
(32.43%)
Total 2 (5.4%)
10
(27.1%)
15
(40.5%)
6
(16.2%)
4
(10.8%)
37
(100%)
(Source: Primary Data)
Table 1 displays the cross-tabulation of academic position and number of publications. There are
56.75% faculties belongs Assistant Professor followed by 32.43% Professor and 10.81% Associate
Professor. During the study period, there are 5.4% faculties do not have any research publication
while 27.1% faculties have the range of 1-10 publications, 40.5% faculties have the range of 11-20
publications, 16.2% faculties have the range of 21-30 publications, and 10.8% faculties have the
range of >30 publications. Among the category of Assistant Professors, the majority (52.4%) of
faculties published 11-20 publications during the period while 38.1% published 1-10 publications.
The least number of faculties (9.5%) have 21-30 publications during the period while no Assistant
Professor has more than 30 publications as well as without publications during the period. Under the
category of Associate Professors, 50% have 1-10 publications while rests of the 50% have 21-30
publications during the period. There are no Associate Professors who have more than 30
publications as well as without publications during the period. In the category of Professors, 33.3%
Professors have more than 30 publications, 16.7% Professors have 21-30 publications, and 33.3%
Professors have 11-20 publications while 16.7% Professors do not have any publications during the
period. On the observation of Table 1, it has been found that Professors are contributing more even
they are less in number than Assistant Professors. This indicates that Academic Position of the
faculty affects the number of publication.
b) Trends of Research Publication
Table 2: Academic Position*Preferred Medium of Publication
Preferred Medium of
Publication
Assistant
Professor (%)
Associate
Professor (%) Professor (%)
Textbooks 1 (4.76%) 0 3 (25%)
Book chapters 12 (57.14%) 2 (50%) 10 (83.33%)
Co-Authored Textbook 2 (9.52%) 0 1 (8.33%)
Journal Articles 14 (66.67%) 3 (75%) 10 (83.33%)
Technical Reports 0 0 0
Conference Paper 8 (38.09%) 0 5 (41.66%)
Others 4 (19.04%) 0 1 (8.33%)
Assistant Professor (N) = 21, Associate Professor (N) = 4, Professor (N) = 12
(Source: Primary Data)
Table 2 shows the preferred medium of research publication by different categories of faculty
members. From the observation of Table2, it has been found that majority (66.67%) of Assistant
Professors prefer to publish their research as Journal Articles followed by Book Chapters (57.14%),
Conference Papers (38.09%). Few faculties prefer to publish as Text Book and Co-authored Books
while 19% have some other form of publications. Under the category of Associate Professors, 75%
prefer to publish as Journal Article while 50% prefer as Book Chapters. In the Professors category,
the majority (83.33%) of Professors prefer Journal Article and Book Chapters equally followed by
Conference Papers (41.66%) and Text Books (25%). Interestingly faculty members from all the
categories have not preferred Technical Report as a preferred medium of publication. On the
observation of Table 2, it has been concluded that Journal Articles are the preferred medium of
publication for all the faculties followed by Book Chapters and Conference Paper.
c) No. of Publications Published in different Publication Media
Table 3: Publications in different Publication Media
Publication Media 2012-
2013
2013-
2014
2014-
2015
2015-
2016
2016-
2017
Total (%)
Journal Articles 36 33 46 55 40 210 (44.30%)
Abstracts 1 3 3 1 1 9 (1.90%)
Reviews 7 3 5 3 1 19 (4.01%)
Editorials 3 5 5 3 3 19 (4.01%)
Chapters in Book 22 19 21 17 34 113 (23.84%)
Conference Proceeding 7 12 13 21 8 61 (12.87%)
News Items 2 3 3 2 3 13 (2.74%)
Patents 0 0 0 0 1 1 (0.21%)
(Source: Primary Data)
Table 3 displays the publication media where faculties research output published during the study
period. From the analysis of Table 3, it has been found that the highest publications belong to Journal
Articles (44.3%) out of 474 publications during the period followed by Book Chapters (23.84%),
Conference Proceedings (12.87%), Others (6.12%), Reviews (4.01%), Editorials (4.01%), News
Items (2.74%), Abstracts (1.9%), and Patents (0.21%). From Table 3, it is observed that Journal
Articles, Book Chapters, and Conference Papers are the most preferred media of publication as
identified in Table 2 categorically.
d) Ph. D. & M. Phil. Dissertations Submitted/ Produced
Table 4: Ph. D. & M. Phil. Dissertations Submitted/ Produced
SN Time
Duration
No. of M. Phil. No. of Ph. D.
Submitted Awarded Submitted Awarded
1 2012-13 8 16 4 6
2 2013-14 5 16 3 4
3 2014-15 9 20 6 9
4 2015-16 10 19 11 11
5 2016-17 20 31 12 14
Total 52 102 36 44
(Source: Primary Data)
Table 4 shows the total number of Ph. D. & M. Phil. submitted and awarded during the study period
(i.e. July 2012 - June 2017). From Table 4, it has been found that M. Phil. and Ph. D. awarded
dissertations are more than submitted and increasing growth has been observed in both the cases.
Table 4 also displays the collective degree awarded status as well as submitted status during the
specific period of study from both the Schools under study.
e) Minor/ Major Research Projects
Table 5: Minor/ Major Research Projects
SN Time
Duration
Minor Projects Major Projects
Ongoing Completed Ongoing Completed
1 2012-13 3 5 0 4
2 2013-14 1 0 1 4
3 2014-15 1 3 1 0
4 2015-16 3 0 1 3
5 2016-17 3 2 8 3
Total 11 10 11 14
(Source: Primary Data)
Others 2 1 5 18 3 29 (6.12%)
Total 80 79 101 120 94 474
Table 5 shows the status of minor and major research projects conducted by the faculty members
during the study period. Table 5 indicates that ongoing minor projects are higher than completed
during the study period and on an average 2 minor projects completed every year during five years of
study period. In case of major projects, numbers of ongoing projects are less than completed
projects. The table also indicates that faculty members from both the School tend to get a number of
major research projects than minor research projects.
f) Inhibitors to Academics during Research Activities
Table 6: Inhibitors to Research Activities
Statements SD D NS A SA NR
Difficulty in locating
the appropriate
information resource
in the library
6
(16.22%)
10
(27.03%)
4
(10.81%)
11
(29.73%)
2
(5.40%)
4
(10.81%)
Isolate location of the
central library from
your workplace
8
(21.62%)
12
(32.43%)
3
(8.11%)
8
(21.62%)
2
(5.40%)
4
(10.81%)
Lack of physical
infrastructure in your
department
3
(8.11%)
16
(43.24%)
8
(21.62%)
4
(10.81%)
2
(5.40%)
4
(10.81%)
Internet connectivity
problem
2
(5.40%)
10
(27.03%)
4
(10.81%)
12
(32.43%)
5
(13.51%)
4
(10.81%)
Lack of financial
support from the
university
2
(5.40%)
10
(27.03%)
7
(18.92%)
11
(29.73%)
3
(8.11%)
4
(10.81%)
Lack of research
projects/ funding
from sponsoring
agency
1
(2.70%)
10
(27.03%)
4
(10.81%)
16
(43.24%)
2
(5.40%)
4
(10.81%)
Lack of your
personal interest in
research activities
14
(37.84%)
14
(37.84%)
3 (8.11%) 1 (2.70%) 1
(2.70%)
4
(10.81%)
Family
responsibilities
decrease your
research interest
10
(27.03%)
12
(32.43%)
4
(10.81%)
7
(18.92%)
Nil 4
(10.81%)
Legends: SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Disagree, NS=Not Sure, A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agree,
NR=No Reply
(Source: Primary Data)
Table 6 shows the factors affecting research activities of faculty members. From the analysis of
Table 6, it has been found that majority of faculties (43.24%) do not feel any difficulty in finding the
information resource in the library while 35.13% faculties faced the difficulty. There are 54.05%
faculties do not feel that library location is isolated from their workplace while 27.02% found
difficulty in this regard. There are 51.35% faculties does not feel that they have a lack of
infrastructure at the workplace while 16.21% faculties found infrastructure lacuna at the department
which affects the research activities. In terms of Internet connectivity problem, 32.43% faculties do
not feel it as a problem while 45.94% faculties feel it as a problem which affects their research
activities. Lack of financial support from the university is the problem in research activities and
supported by 37.83% faculties while 32.43% faculties opposed it. Faculty's research activities are
lower due to lack of research projects and supported by 48.64% faculties while 29.72% faculties are
not with the same opinion. There are more than 75% faculties who opposed that lack of personal
interest in research activities is the main cause of low research performance while 5.4% faculties
found that they have a lack of research interest. There are 59.45% faculties who opposed that family
responsibilities are not affecting their research activities while 18.92% faculties are in support that
family responsibilities are one of the factors affecting research activities.
7. Findings and Conclusion
Analysis of the study indicates that Assistant Professors are more in number than Professors while
Associate Professors are the least in terms of numbers. Majority of publications belongs to Assistant
Professors while Professors are just behind due to less in number. Majority of Professors have more
than 30 publications range during the study period. Categorically, Assistant Professors prefer to
publish their research in Journal followed by Book Chapters and Conference Papers while Associate
Professors prefer Journal and Book Chapters only. Professors prefer Journal and Book Chapters
equally followed by Conference Papers and Text Books. Nobody is interested to publish Technical
Report. In terms of publication media, Journals are most used media for publications followed by
Book Chapters and Conference Proceedings. Ph. D. & M. Phil. degrees have been awarded to more
number of students than submitted during the period of study. In terms of minor/ major research
projects, ongoing minor projects are higher than completed while numbers of ongoing major projects
are less than completed major projects during the period. Internet connectivity problem, lack of
financial support from the university, and lack of research projects/ funding from sponsoring agency
are the major factors affecting research activities of faculty members.
The study analyses the cross-sectional research output of faculty members and found that academic
position of the faculty has a direct relation with the number of research published during the period.
Faculty's research output is high in the publishing of journal articles, book chapters, and conference
proceeding while on the other hand research output is lower in the publishing of abstracts, news
items, reviews, editorials, and patents. Similarly, journal articles, book chapters, and conference
papers are the preferred media of publications and most of the research output appeared in the same
medium. The financial constraint and slow Internet connectivity are the major inhibitors to their
research activities which need to be undertaken by the university authority.
References
[1] Abbott, M. & Doucouliagos, H. (2004). Research output of Australian universities.
Education Economics, 12(3), 251-265.
[2] Creswell, J. W. (1986). Measuring Faculty Research Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
[3] Fawzi, H., and Al-Hattami, Abdulghani. (2017). Faculty Production of Research Papers:
Challenges and Recommendations. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,
7(2), 221-228.
[4] Feyera, T., Atelaw, H., Hassen, N. A., and Fufa, G. (2017). Publication Productivity of
Academics in Jigjiga University, Ethiopia. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(9), 559–
568.
[5] Jeyshankar, R., Babu, B. Ramesh, Rajendran, P. (2011). Research output of CSIR-Central
Electro Chemical Research Institute (CECRI): A study. Annals of Library and Information
Studies, 58(4), 301-306.
[6] Jung, J. (2012). Faculty Research Productivity in Hong Kong across Academic Discipline.
Higher Education Studies, 2(4), 1-13.
[7] Kumbar, M., Gupta, B. M., and Dhawan, S. M. (2008). Growth and Impact of Research
Output of University of Mysore, 1996-2006: A Case Study. Annals of Library and
Information Studies, 55(3), 185-195.
[8] Lertputtarak, S. (2008). An Investigation of Factors Related to Research Productivity in a
Public University in Thailand: A Case Study [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Melbourne: Victoria
University.
[9] Mantikayan, J. M., and Abdulgani, Montadzah A. (2018). Factors Affecting Faculty
Research Productivity: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature. JPAIR
Multidisciplinary Research, 31, 1-21.
[10] Nandi, A., and Bandyopadhyay, A. K. (2011). Research productivity of the Mathematics
Department, the University of Burdwan during 1960-2000: A bibliometric study. IASLIC
Bulletin, 56(1), 23-40.
[11] Okiki, Olatokunbo Christopher. (2013). Research productivity of teaching faculty member
in Nigerian Federal Universities: An investigative study. Chinese Librarianship: an
international Electronic Journal, 36. Retrieved from http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl36okiki.pdf
[12] Okonedo, S., Popoola, S. O., Emmanuel, S. O., and Bamigboye, O. B. (2015).
Correlational Analysis of Demographic Factors, Self-Concept and Research Productivity of
Librarians in Public Universities in South-West, Nigeria. International Journal of Library
Science, 4(3), 43–52.
[13] Print, M., and Hattie, J. (1997). Measuring Quality in Universities: An Approach to
Weighting Research Activity. Higher Education, 33, 453-469.
[14] Research Endowment Policy. (2008). Moi University, Kenya. Retrieved 24
th
October
2018, from http://ir.mu.ac.ke:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/1507
[15] Sevukan, R., Nagarajan, M., and Sharma, J. (2007). Research output of faculties of plant
sciences in central universities of India: A bibliometric study. Annals of Library and
Information Studies, 54(3), 129-139.
[16] Starovoytova, D. (2017). Research-Productivity at Engineering-School: Number of
Publications per Faculty-Member. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(28), 14-38.
[17] Turnage, J. J. (1990). The challenge of new workplace technology for psychology.
American Psychologist, 45(2), 171-178.
[18] Webber, K. L. (2013). Research productivity of Science and Engineering faculty at US
Universities: The contribution of foreign vs. US-born status. The Journal of the
Professoriate, 7(1), 51-83.
[19] Wichian, S. N., Wongwanich, S., and Bowarnkitiwong, S. (2009). Factors Affecting
Research Productivity of Faculty Members in Government Universities: Lisrel and Neural
Network Analyses. Kasetsart J. (Soc. Sci), 30, 67-78.
[20] Williams, H. A. (2003). A Mediated Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Factors Related
to Research Productivity of Human Resource Education and Workforce Development
Postsecondary Faculty [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University.
Author(s) Biography
R. Lalrindika: R. Lalrindika is M. Phil. scholar at Department of Library & Information Science
since 2017. He is working in the area of faculty’s research output. His area of research interest is
scientometrics and bibliometrics.
Dr. Akhandanand Shukla: Dr. Akhandanand Shukla is working as Senior Assistant Professor at the
Department of Library & Information Science since 2010. He has more than 50 research papers in
his credit in the form of journal papers, conference papers, book chapters, authored books, and edited
books. His areas of research interest are Webometrics, Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, and Digital
Library etc.
