Research productivity levels of Chinese TEFL academics

Since China’s Economic Reform and its Open Door Policy, China has entered a new era of education (Adamson, 2002; Hu, 2005a). English has gained status as a language for international relations (Graddol, 1997) and international trade (Qu, 2007). Hence, in 2001, China’s Ministry of Education (MOE) required universities to offer 5-10% of their course units in English, particularly in the fields of information technology, biotechnology, finance and law (Jen, 2001; MOE, 2001). However, “the upgrading of national English proficiency, then, is predicted largely on the professional competence of the teaching force” (Hu, 2005b, p. 655). For TEFL academics, one component of this competence is the capacity to conduct research (Day, 1991; Shu, 2002). Indeed, research productivity has become essential for university success, and academics’ employment and promotional prospects. This study aims to investigate 182 Chinese TEFL academics’ research outputs across three Chinese higher education institutions through the research question: What are the research productivity levels of Chinese TEFL academics? A survey instrument was devised to gather TEFL academics’ calculations of research productivity and, in particular, the quality and quantity of research outputs over a five-year period (2004-2008). Descriptive statistics through SPSS were used to analyse data across research output fields (e.g., journal articles, conference papers). Academic status varied (n=182; teaching assistants 23.6%, lecturers 47.3%, associate professors 22.5%, and professors 6.6%) as did years of teaching (1-5 years 27.4%, 6-10 years 24.7%, 11-15 18.1%, 16-20 years 13.7%, > 21 years 15.9%). Results (n=182, male=27%, females=73%) indicated 18% had not produced any research in the five-year period. Indeed, more than 70% had produced no research in all categories except non-core journal articles and provincial projects. An overwhelming majority of TEFL academics had zero productivity in 10 of the 12 categories. Nevertheless, there were highly-productive TEFL academics, who had produced five or more pieces of research across the 12 categories. In addition, there was not much difference between sole and co-authored research outputs, except non-core journal articles where sole authored work was 20% higher than co-authored work. China’s desire for international competitiveness in education will require measures that facilitate higher levels of research productivity. These measures must include professional development, support and mentoring programs, and employment of personnel who can guide these processes. Research performance is an outcome, hence there is a need to understand Chinese TEFL academics’ perceptions about research, and experiences that may hinder and facilitate higher research productivity.

Examining research productivity of Chinese TEFL academics across departments and institutes

This study aims to benchmark Chinese TEFL academics’ research productivities, as a way to identify and, subsequently, address research productivity issues. This study investigated 182 Chinese TEFL academics’ research outputs and perceptions about research across three Chinese higher education institutions using a literature-based survey. ANOVA, t-tests and descriptive statistics were used to analyse data from and between the three institutions. Findings indicated that more than 70% of the TEFL academics had produced no research in 10 of the 12 research output fields during 2004-2008. The English Language and Literature Department in the national university outperformed all other departments at the three institutes for most of the research output categories. While a majority of the participants seemed to hold positive perceptions about research, t-tests and ANOVA indicated that their research perceptions were significantly different across institutes and departments. Developing TEFL research capacity requires tertiary institutions to provide research-learning opportunities.

Enhancing research productivity of TEFL academics in China

As research has become an important indicator of TEFL academics’ overall performance in Chinese higher education institutions, it is critical that TEFL academics are able to meet the expectation of conducting research. This mixedmethod study investigated research productivity of Chinese TEFL academics and associated influences, with the ultimate objective of constructing a framework to help build their research capacity in the future. Using an initial survey, the study provided a snapshot of research productivity of 182 TEFL academics from three Chinese higher education institutions, and individual and institutional characteristics that influenced their research productivity. Using interviews and documents as the data sources, the subsequent qualitative case study of two purposively-sampled Chinese TEFL departments provided insights into Chinese TEFL academics’ perceptions about research, and individual, institutional and departmental efforts in meeting the research expectation. The findings from this study revealed that the 182 Chinese TEFL academics’ research productivity during 2004-2008 was relatively low as a whole as was the quality of their research. This study identified four influences that impacted on Chinese TEFL academics’ research productivity: TEFL disciplinary influences, institutional and departmental research environments, individual characteristics desirable for research, and TEFL academics’ perceptions about research. Drawing upon the above findings from this study, a Framework towards Enhancing Chinese TEFL Academics’ Research Productivity (FECTARP) was constructed. The FECTARP synthesised the findings from the study, and presented a framework for Chinese institutions and TEFL departments to enhance their TEFL academics’ research capacity.

Enhancing Research Productivity of TEFL Academic in China : A Mixed Method Study

As research has become an important indicator of TEFL academics’ overall performance in Chinese higher education institutions, it is critical that TEFL academics are able to meet the expectation of conducting research. This mixed-method study (an initial survey followed by a qualitative collective case study)investigated research productivity of Chinese TEFL academics and associated influences, with the ultimate objective of constructing a framework to help build their research capacity in the future. The findings from this study revealed that the 182 Chinese TEFL academics’ research productivity during 2004-2008 was relatively low. Four influences were identified that impacted on thier research productivity: TEFL disciplinary influences, institutional and departmental research environments, individual characteristics desirable for research, and TEFL academics’ perceptions about research. Drawing upon the above findings, a Framework towards Enhancing Chinese TEFL Academics’ Research Productivity (FECTARP) was constructed. The FECTAR presented a framework for Chinese institutions and TEFL departments to enhance their TEFL academics' research capacity.

What is the impact of research funding on research productivity?

A research protocol for our prospective study of research funding. How much research funding improves research productivity is a question that has relevance for all funding agencies and governments around the world. Previous studies have used observational data that compares productivity between winners of different amounts of funding, but researchers who win lots of funding are usually very different from those who win little or no funding. This difference creates potentially serious confounding which biases any estimate of the effect of funding based on observational data that simply compares research output for those who did and did not win funding. This means we do not currently know the return on investment for our research dollars, of which billions are invested around the world every year. By using a study design that incorporates randomisation this will be the world’s first unbiased study of the impact of researcher funding.

Scholarly research productivity is not related to higher three-year licensure pass rates for physical therapy academic programs.

BACKGROUND: In the domain of academia, the scholarship of research may include, but not limited to, peer-reviewed publications, presentations, or grant submissions. Programmatic research productivity is one of many measures of academic program reputation and ranking. Another measure or tool for quantifying learning success among physical therapists education programs in the USA is 100 % three year pass rates of graduates on the standardized National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE). In this study, we endeavored to determine if there was an association between research productivity through artifacts and 100 % three year pass rates on the NPTE. METHODS: This observational study involved using pre-approved database exploration representing all accredited programs in the USA who graduated physical therapists during 2009, 2010 and 2011. Descriptive variables captured included raw research productivity artifacts such as peer reviewed publications and books, number of professional presentations, number of scholarly submissions, total grant dollars, and numbers of grants submitted. Descriptive statistics and comparisons (using chi square and t-tests) among program characteristics and research artifacts were calculated. Univariate logistic regression analyses, with appropriate control variables were used to determine associations between research artifacts and 100 % pass rates. RESULTS: Number of scholarly artifacts submitted, faculty with grants, and grant proposals submitted were significantly higher in programs with 100 % three year pass rates. However, after controlling for program characteristics such as grade point average, diversity percentage of cohort, public/private institution, and number of faculty, there were no significant associations between scholarly artifacts and 100 % three year pass rates. CONCLUSIONS: Factors outside of research artifacts are likely better predictors for passing the NPTE.

The research productivity of the AIB Farmer Award finalists

Purpose – This paper aims to analyze the research productivity and impact of the finalists of the AIB best dissertation award, now titled the Buckley and Casson Award, but from 1987 to 2012 the Farmer Award. Specifically, this paper examines whether there is a relationship between winning the best dissertation award and subsequent publication productivity and impact. Relationships between academic institution and institutional geographic location and finalists are also examined. Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines 25 years of citation counts and the number of publications in Google Scholar of Farmer Award winners and finalists of the AIB best dissertation award from inception in 1987 to 2009, with cited publications as a measure of productivity and citations as a measure of impact. Top performers in productivity and impact are identified, and the averages of winners and non-winners are analyzed in aggregate, over time and per year. Data on finalists' institution and geographic location of institution are analyzed to describe the importance of location and institution to the award. Findings – It is found that the overall average citations of the winners of the award is less than that of the non-winners, and that in the large majority of years the non-winners have an average citation count higher than that of the winners. However, taking averages in five year increments shows more mixed results, with non-winners performing better in two periods and winners performing better in two periods, with the remaining period being split as to research productivity and impact. Originality/value – Aggarwal et al. in this journal summarized a variety of data on Farmer Award finalists from the 1990s to gain insights on institutions represented by finalists, the publication record of finalists, and content of dissertations, among other characteristics. This paper updates some of the insights from that paper by examining data on award winners from 1987 to 2013, and adds further insight by examining for the first time cited publications and citation counts winners and non-winners for the same period excluding the last two years.

International marketing journals : a preliminary regional and institutional examination of research productivity

Contributions to marketing knowledge are becoming more global (Stremersch and Verhoef, 2005). This paper explores the issue of regional contribution to the international marketing area, which could be expected to be more global than other areas. Publications within four leading international marketing journals were reviewed over a five-year period (1999-2003). Findings suggested that approximately 50 percent of the works were authored by academics outside North America.

Research productivity and academics’ conceptions of research

This paper asks the question: do people with different levels of research productivity and identification as a researcher think of research differently? It discusses a study that differentiated levels of research productivity among English and Australian academics working in research-intensive environments in three broad discipline areas: science, engineering and technology; social science and humanities; and medicine and health sciences. The paper explores the different conceptions of research held by these academics in terms of their levels of research productivity, their levels of research training, whether they considered themselves an active researcher and a member of a research team, and their disciplinary differences.

Understanding Chinese TEFL academics’ capacity for research

This study aims to benchmark Chinese TEFL academics’ research productivities to identify and address research productivity issues. Using a literature-based survey, this study examined 182 Chinese TEFL academics’ research outputs, perceptions about research, and personal dispositions for research and workplace context for research across three Chinese higher education institutions. Results indicated that a majority of the TEFL academics produced no research in most research categories over the period 2004-2008. While they were positive about the benefits of research, they did not rate their personal dispositions for research and workplace context for research highly. The findings have implications for enhancing academics’ research capacity in Chinese institutions, TEFL departments, and other similar contexts.

Enhancing Chinese TEFL academics' research performance : necessity and urgency

China’s increasing participation in world affairs and the growing popularity of English as a lingua franca have made significant impact on Chinese society, culture and education. As such, considerable research topics in relation to English require TEFL researchers’ attentions. Additionally, higher education reform in China has created higher demand on academics by stressing research as an important element in academics’ assessment. Recurrent rhetoric in the field of TEFL also calls on practitioners to theorise their practice. All these practical needs and theoretical arguments point to the necessity and significance of TEFL academics’ engagement in research. To find out whether Chinese TEFL academics’ research meet the new demand on them, a survey of TEFL academics at three Chinese higher institutions was conducted. One hundred eighty two of them provided valid responses which were analysed using SPSS. It was found that TEFL academics’ research productivity in each category of research products was quite low. Large percentages of them did not produce any item in the investigated categories of research. They were least productive in conference papers and research products at the national level. However for these least productive categories, there were highly-productive TEFL academics. The categories of research where the TEFL academics were found relatively productive were non-core journal articles and provincial projects. The findings suggest that it is necessary and urgent for Chinese TEFL academics to enhance their research productivity to be able to meet the demand that new era has rendered.

A commentary on the global position of South African accounting research

The South African designation of Chartered Accountant is comparable to similar designations in most developed countries. However, the research outputs of Accountancy academics in South Africa seem to lag far behind those of their counterparts abroad. This article discusses the results of several inquiries into the status of South African Accounting research in a global context, and identifies several reasons and possible remedies for low research output.