Faculty Motivation to do Research : Across Disciplines in Research-Extensive Universities

This study investigated personal, contextual, and motivational factors that influence faculty research productivity across disciplines. Participants were 781 faculty members in four different academic divisions of 28 U.S. research-extensive universities, in 17 states across the continental U.S. Data were collected as self-reported via online questionnaires, and were analyzed with path analysis using LISREL 8.72 to test a model of factors contributing to faculty members’ research productivity. The model fit the data well, supporting the theorized contributions to faculty productivity. Three variables accounted for the largest Journal of the Professoriate (5)1 36 amounts of unique variance in research productivity: research valuing and research effort (positively) and teaching load (negatively). This analysis further confirmed the fit of the general model for faculty motivation from our previous research, on a larger and more diverse sample. Qualitative data were coded to identify themes related to the research hypotheses. Implications for faculty work, institutional administration, and future research are discussed. As educational expenditures rise, including the costs of research, and institutions of higher education compete for high-quality faculty and for external funding, issues surrounding faculty productivity have been undergoing extensive debate. One part of this debate is over the relative values of teaching and research, first as faculty tasks and as elements of the institutional mission, and second in their relationship to one another in terms of individual and institutional productivity and value to society (Fairweather, 2002; Hattie & Marsh, 1996). Another part of this debate is over the consideration of accumulative advantage; that is, of research as valued activity attracting both faculty and funding that, in turn, reciprocally promote more productivity, both for the institution and for individual faculty members (Goodwin & Sauer, 1995; Hu & Gill, 2000). There exists a robust research literature on faculty productivity, largely featuring external, organizational characteristics as predictors (Goodwin & Sauer, 1995), but few theory-driven studies focus on faculty motivation for research. Some exceptions exist in the international literature such as in Taiwan (Tien, 2000) and Australia (Bailey, 1999). However, cultural and policy differences challenge generalizability across national boundaries (Teodorescu, 2000). Those theory-driven studies done in the U.S. have generally concentrated in a small subset of academic disciplines, notably business (Chen, Gupta & Hoshower, 2006; Levitan & Ray, 1992; Schultz, Meade & Khurana, 1989). In order to control for a maximum number of variables, many studies have focused narrowly, such as on a single institution, college or department (Wood, 1990; Buchheit, Collins & Collins, 2001), but this type of design offers little generalizability. A few previous studies of factors influencing research productivity have integrated effects of personal and institutional characteristics (Levitan & Ray, 1992). Other productivity research has taken a life cycle development approach to investigating motivation (Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981; Goodwin & Sauer, 1995; Hu & Gill, 2000). Faculty Motivation to do Research/Hardré et al. 37 A number of institutional and contextual factors theoretically and empirically present implications for faculty motivation with regard to research. The organizational and local factors (e.g., institutional goals and mission, supervisor and departmental support) can be better examined by focusing data collection on a specific stratum of institution, the research-extensive university. Our previous study addressed faculty motivation for research in departments of psychology and educational psychology only (Hardré, Miller, Beesley, Pace, Maxwell, & Xie, 2007). The present study investigated research-related motivational characteristics of faculty members in four different academic divisions in Carnegie I, research-extensive, doctoral-granting universities across the continental U.S., to see if the same predictive relationships generalize across a broader set of faculty and local contexts, in institutions with similar global organizational characteristics.