What makes a “research star”? Factors influencing the research productivity of business faculty

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to identify factors influencing extremely high or low research productivity for business faculty members. Design/methodology/approach - Using data originating from a random sample of 236 faculty members across a wide range of accredited business schools and a web-based survey, main effects are hypothesized and explored. The authors examine only extreme data points of high (and low) research productivity to focus on high-performing research “stars.” Findings - It is found that research “stars” hold higher academic rank, possess greater time management skills, individually place a high value on research, report higher time available to conduct research, enjoy higher institutional support in the form of graduate assistants and summer research support, have fewer course preparations, and work for departments with a similar priority placed on research. Research limitations/implications - The authors found that certain person- and situation-level factors differentiate high and low performing faculty members’ research output. Practical implications - The paper has implications for university administrators regarding recruiting, selecting, and managing faculty members’ research performance. Originality/value - Research productivity and intellectual contributions continue to dominate much of higher education as a primary measure of faculty members’ success. One area that remains under-explored in the business literature is what “makes a research star” and, to the contrary, what factors predict extremely low faculty research productivity? Shedding light on this research question provides practical benefits for universities by enabling administrators to better recruit, select, motivate, and develop productive faculty members.

[1]  Lisa A. Burke,et al.  An empirical investigation of faculty research productivity and implications for practice , 2005 .

[2]  L. R. Goldberg THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARKERS FOR THE BIG-FIVE FACTOR STRUCTURE , 1992 .

[3]  J. Creswell Faculty research performance, lessons from the sciences and social sciences , 1985 .

[4]  Michael R. Darby,et al.  Individual Action and the Demand for Institutions , 1997 .

[5]  Craig Sasse,et al.  Rethinking Faculty Role in a Knowledge Age , 2008 .

[6]  J. M. Digman PERSONALITY STRUCTURE: EMERGENCE OF THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL , 1990 .

[7]  Naz Kaya,et al.  Faculty Research Productivity: Gender and Discipline Differences , 2003 .

[8]  Tim Barnett,et al.  Research Productivity of Graduates in Management: Effects of Academic Origin and Academic Affiliation , 1998 .

[9]  R. McCrae,et al.  An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. , 1992, Journal of personality.

[10]  E. A. Locke Goal-setting theory and its applications to the world of business. , 2004 .

[11]  S. Kyvik,et al.  Teaching and research. The relationship between the supervision of graduate students and faculty research performance , 1994 .

[12]  Sally Dibb,et al.  New survey medium: Collecting marketing data with e-mail and the World Wide Web , 2001 .

[13]  Qing Hu,et al.  IS Faculty Research Productivity: Influential Factors and Implications , 2000, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[14]  P. Boyer,et al.  Grant Performance of Junior Faculty across Disciplines: Motivators and Barriers. , 2001 .

[15]  O. John The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. , 1990 .

[16]  Lawrence A. Pervin,et al.  Persons, Situations, Interactions: The History of a Controversy and a Discussion of Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[17]  Benjamin Schneider,et al.  The ASA framework: An update. , 1995 .

[18]  Andrea J. S. Stanaland,et al.  An Examination of the Relationship between Research Attitudes and Behaviors of Business School Faculty , 2009 .

[19]  P. Costa,et al.  Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. , 1989, Journal of personality.

[20]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Faculty Research Performance: Lessons from the Sciences and the Social Sciences. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1985. , 1985 .

[21]  C. David Shepherd,et al.  An Exploratory Investigation of the Periodic Performance Evaluation Processes for Marketing Faculty , 2009 .

[22]  Lisa A. Burke,et al.  Using online surveys for primary research data collection: lessons from the field , 2006 .

[23]  J. Nunnally,et al.  Psychometric Theory: NY. , 1978 .

[24]  Ian R. Gellatly,et al.  Conscientiousness and Task Performance: Test of Cognitive Process Model , 1996 .

[25]  Otis W. Gilley,et al.  Job Market Signaling: What Drives the Productivity of Finance Ph.D.s? , 2011 .

[26]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. , 1993 .

[27]  Alan S. Levitan,et al.  Personal and Institutional Characteristics Affecting Research Productivity of Academic Accountants , 1992 .

[28]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Personality and job performance: test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[29]  L. Bolman,et al.  Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Jossey-Bass Management Series, Social and Behavioral Science Series, and Higher and Adult Education Series. , 1991 .

[30]  Jonathan H. Westover,et al.  Enhancing long‐term worker productivity and performance , 2010 .

[31]  Lawrence R. Jauch,et al.  Organizational Loyalty, Professional Commitment, and Academic Research Productivity , 1978 .

[32]  Chee W. Chow,et al.  Factors contributing to success in research and publications: insights of influential accounting authors , 1998 .

[33]  Ronald W. Clement,et al.  Performance Appraisal in Higher Education: Comparing Departments of Management with other Business Units , 1989 .

[34]  P. Ramsden Describing and explaining research productivity , 1994 .

[35]  F. Fiedler,et al.  Changes in organizational leadership and the behavior of relationship- and task-motivated leaders. , 1976 .

[36]  D. Watson,et al.  The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: a critical examination. , 2004, Psychological bulletin.

[37]  Stefan Tangen,et al.  Demystifying productivity and performance , 2005 .

[38]  L. Zucker,et al.  Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  Yining Chen,et al.  Factors That Motivate Business Faculty to Conduct Research: An Expectancy Theory Analysis , 2006 .

[40]  Aki Jääskeläinen,et al.  Identifying future challenges for productivity research: evidence from Finland , 2010 .

[41]  M. Valle,et al.  The etiology of top‐tier publications in management: A status attainment perspective on academic career success , 2011 .

[42]  Daniel J. Koys Judging Academic Qualifications, Professional Qualifications, and Participation of Faculty Using AACSB Guidelines , 2008 .

[43]  L. Cronbach Response Sets and Test Validity , 1946 .

[44]  Robert C. Ford,et al.  Faculty Research Productivity and Intention to Change Positions , 2017 .

[45]  Darrell R. Lewis,et al.  Faculty Vitality and Institutional Productivity: Critical Perspectives for Higher Education , 1985 .

[46]  D. Glennon,et al.  Work profiles of research statisticians. , 1990, Psychological reports.

[47]  L. Cronbach Further Evidence on Response Sets and Test Design , 1950 .