intTypePromotion=1
zunia.vn Tuyển sinh 2024 dành cho Gen-Z zunia.vn zunia.vn
ADSENSE
 » 
 » 

Tác động của các yếu tố cấp bộ môn đến hiệu quả nghiên cứu khoa học của giảng viên: Nghiên cứu thực nghiệm tại Việt Nam

Chia sẻ: Vương Tâm Lăng | Ngày: | Loại File: PDF | Số trang:21

Thêm vào BST
Báo xấu
40
lượt xem 2
download
 
  Download Vui lòng tải xuống để xem tài liệu đầy đủ

Mục tiêu của nghiên cứu này là kiểm định sự tác động trực tiếp của hành vi lãnh đạo của trưởng bộ môn và đồng nghiệp trong bộ môn lên hiệu quả nghiên cứu của giảng viên, đồng thời kiểm định tác động điều tiết của giá trị thành tựu lên các mối quan hệ này. Mời các bạn cùng tham khảo!

Chủ đề:

Bình luận(0) Đăng nhập để gửi bình luận!

Lưu

Nội dung Text: Tác động của các yếu tố cấp bộ môn đến hiệu quả nghiên cứu khoa học của giảng viên: Nghiên cứu thực nghiệm tại Việt Nam

  1. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 DEPARTMENTAL DETERMINANTS OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH PERFORMANCE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY IN VIETNAM TÁC ĐỘNG CỦA CÁC YẾU TỐ CẤP BỘ MÔN ĐẾN HIỆU QUẢ NGHIÊN CỨU KHOA HỌC CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN: NGHIÊN CỨU THỰC NGHIỆM TẠI VIỆT NAM MA, Nguyen Lan Ngoc ; Le Thi Thu Mai National Economics University ngocnl@neu.edu.vn Abstract Research performance of lecturers in higher education institutions has become an impor- tant topic but many variables are still largely unexplored in current literature. The main objective of this study is to examine the impact of four leadership behaviours of department heads and co- workers on the lecturers’ research performance and the moderating effects of achievement value. A survey was conducted with a sample of 408 Vietnamese lecturers at economics and business management focused universities in the two largest cities in Vietnam. Our findings contribute to the literature of job performance in higher education from an organizational behaviour perspec- tive by explaining the mid-level impacts of departmental factors affecting research performance. We also discuss potential implications and make recommendations for future research. Keywords: research performance, head of departments, faculty, lecturers, co-workers. Tóm tắt Hiệu quả nghiên cứu khoa học của giảng viên các trường đại học là một chủ đề quan trọng nhưng vẫn còn nhiều yếu tố tác động chưa được nghiên cứu. Mục tiêu của nghiên cứu này là kiểm định sự tác động trực tiếp của hành vi lãnh đạo của trưởng bộ môn và đồng nghiệp trong bộ môn lên hiệu quả nghiên cứu của giảng viên, đồng thời kiểm định tác động điều tiết của giá trị thành tựu lên các mối quan hệ này. Nghiên cứu áp dụng phương pháp điều tra khảo sát 408 giảng viên Việt Nam tại các trường đại học khối kinh tế và kinh doanh. Kết quả nghiên cứu đóng góp vào lý thuyết về hiệu quả làm việc trong các trường đại học từ khía cạnh hành vi tổ chức bằng các giải thích tác động cấp trung từ các yếu tố cấp bộ môn lên hiệu quả nghiên cứu. Đồng thời, nghiên cứu cũng đưa ra những đề xuất và khuyến nghị với các nhà quản lý nhằm nâng cao hiệu quả nghiên cứu khoa học của giảng viên. Từ khoá: hiệu quả nghiên cứu, trưởng bộ môn, giảng viên, đồng nghiệp. 1. Introduction Scientific research conducted in universities plays a crucial role in facilitating the pro- duction and dissemination of knowledge thus serving the growing needs of society and the 1561
  2. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 development of human beings (Lertputtarak, 2008; Weinberg et al., 2014). Research performance of lecturers is an important aspect of improving the competitiveness and growth of lecturers, universities, and countries (Alhija & Majdob, 2017; Fawzi & Al-Hattami, 2017). Specifically, for academics, research is the foundation to improve their teaching quality, nec- essary academic skills, and self-efficacy that accounted for professional development and ca- reer promotion (Katz & Coleman, 2001). For universities, research performance is an important indicator of international university rankings (Aydin, 2017). Within the context of highly socialized higher education, universities have to strive for higher competitive compe- tencies and reputation. Enhancing research performance in terms of both quantity and quality has become a strategic objective of the universities worldwide. Thus, an imperative need is to identify the factors affecting the research productivity of lecturers. There have been numerous studies assessing research performance reported in the lit- erature which dates from as early as the 1940s (e.g. Braun et al., 1990; Pelz & Andrews, 1966; Ramesh Babu & Singh, 1998; Wilson, 1942). Researchers have divided the factors af- fecting the research performance of academic staff into several clusters or models. For ex- ample, prior literature divides the determinants of research performance into three clusters of individual, institutional, and leadership characteristics (Jung, 2012). However, existing empirical studies offer conflicting results. Brocato (2002) found that the characteristics of individual academic staff were found to be highly associated with research productivity. In contrast, according to Hedjazi and Behravan (2011), institutional related factors had more impact on research productivity than individual variables. Indeed, the current understanding of research performance remains largely uncharted territory and follow-up studies are needed for more diverse and interactive examination between individual and institutional variables affecting research performance (Edgar & Geare, 2013). Specifically, within the institutional level, research activities of academics could be ap- proached from different perspectives of the university, school/faculty, or department. Among these unit levels, the department is the most immediate professional and social environment that has a direct and regular influence on the lecturer’s research performance. Although prior studies have found some departmental attributes (Dundar & Lewis, 1998; Wood, 1990), how department-level factors influencing research performance remain an area largely unexplored (Edgar & Geare, 2013). Important contextual attributes like middle-level leaders’ behaviors and peer effects should be included in the analysis to understand why research productivity varies among faculty members. In regard to research settings, almost all of the related prior studies have focused on western nations to understand the determinants of research productivity. Thus, there is a need for further comparative analyses for generalizability worldwide (Smeby & Try, 2005). For instance, the significance of cultural heritage makes the knowledge production styles of Asian academics characterize different (Jung, 2012). In Vietnam, with a unique cultural background, only a limited number of studies have considered research performance and its antecedents. Filling this gap could be of great value to understand the drivers that can improve research performance in Vietnamese higher education institutions. 1562
  3. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 We address this gap by studying the characteristics of academic departments related to leadership behaviors and co-workers’ effects that can promote a lecturers’ research perform- ance. This paper begins with a literature review of research performance and determinants related to heads of departments (HoD) and academic co-workers. Next, based on suggestions of Path-goal leadership theory and Schwartz’s (1992) human values, we develop a theoretical model of four leadership behaviors, co-worker support, co-worker pressure on research per- formance, and the moderating effect of achievement value. The research methodology with data collection and the measurements are described. The results of the hypotheses testing are presented and discussed. Finally, we conclude with a discussion, managerial implications, and recommendations for further research. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Research Performance Research performance has become an essential component of measuring university success because it is considered a key indicator for measuring academic performance and identifying university rankings (Okiki, 2013). However, in the literature on higher education, the roles in teaching and researching faculty members have received unequal attention. There are gaps in understanding the factors related to research performance (Edgar & Geare, 2013). The research performance concept encompasses two primary elements of research and performance. Being an essential academic work, research is a primitive examination and exploration conducted to advance knowledge and insights into phenomena and relations in scientific fields (Doh et al., 2018; Hedjazi & Behravan, 2011). Performance associated with research activities is understood as the quality of research outputs making gained knowledge available and transferable to others (Bazeley, 2010). Many determinants of research per- formance of faculty members have been recognized including individual and institutional characteristics. The individual factors such as personal traits, gender, age, and experience (Creswell, 1985), graduate training, networks of communication, and workplace freedom are found to be correlated with lecturers’ research performance (Dundar & Lewis, 1998). Prior studies have also emphasized institutional factors such as the institutional prestige (Lin & Bozeman, 2006; Long et al., 2009), changing conditions for promotion (Englebrecht et al., 1994; Read et al., 1998), and disciplines’ specific characteristics (Levin & Stephan, 1991). Other predictors of faculty research productivity recognized are being a private/public university, percentage of full professors, and faculty members with a high publishing rate (Dundar & Lewis, 1998). Specifically, within the institutional level, research activities of academics could be ap- proached from different perspectives of the university, school/faculty, or department. In the organizational structure of a university, departments often play decisive roles in education quality, scientific research, and academic professional development. Among the unit levels, the department is the most intermediate professional and social environment of the lecturers that may have a direct and regular influence on their research performance. Therefore, at the department level, the factors from leaders’ and colleagues’ behavior, rewards, and competi- 1563
  4. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 tion, may facilitate or inhibit the research performance of lecturers. Prior studies show that some departmental attributes include teaching and administration load, time allocated to re- search (Wood, 1990), availability of ‘star faculty’, and student assistants have an impact on the research performance of individual academics (Dundar & Lewis, 1998). However, how department-level factors influence research performance remains areas largely unexplored (Edgar & Geare, 2013). Furthermore, in terms of research settings, the existing literature related to factors af- fecting research performance has focused mostly on Western nations (especially the U.S). Yet, the knowledge production styles of Asian researchers are different because of the cultural heritage (Jung, 2012). Given the unique cultural background of Vietnam, the studies that have been carried out in the Western environment would be inappropriate to apply to Vietnamese high educational practices. Subsequently, only a limited number of studies have considered the research performance in the Vietnamese context, hence filling this gap could be of great value to improve research performance in Vietnamese universities. 2.2. Impacts of Departmental factors on Research performance 2.2.1. Factors related to Head of Department The terms head of department (HoD) or department chair refers to a faculty member who is voted or appointed to serve in the academic department leadership role. The alternative terms are the department chair, department head, and faculty leader. The role of the HoD is critical for higher education institutions and is considered as an academic manager in an ac- ademic business setting. Especially, in a research perspective, the HoDs recruit capable schol- ars, encourage department-based research initiatives, serve as the faculty advocate to administrators and faculty committees, allocate resources, and adjust workloads to provide released time for scholarly work (Creswell, 1990). Therefore, HoDs are in a position to fa- cilitate and promote the research of faculty, thus the factors of HoDs influence deserve further exploration (Bryman, 2007). In education, leadership plays a critical role in enhancing positive job outcomes of ac- ademic staff which is a major challenge for higher education administrators today. However, as educational institutions have features differentiating from those of business organizations, they need distinctive leadership skills (Awan et al., 2008). Hence, higher education re- searchers need to identify factors that lead to increased job performance within academic set- tings rather than relying on the results of studies conducted in business and industry. Many existing works cover the HoDs’ entire responsibilities, but much of the literature has focused on their role in acting as in leadership role (Knight & Trowler, 2001; Lucas, 2000). However, lacking are studies on the influence of leadership behaviors of HoDs on the research per- formance of lecturers in universities. In this study, we examine the impact of various leader- ship behaviors of HoDs on the research performance of lecturers. 2.2.2. Factors related to Departmental Co-workers Apart from the leader, employees interact with coworkers who are a vital part of the 1564
  5. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 social environment at work (Schneider, 1987). This interaction which brings larger and more frequent emotional and behavioral resources could have positive or negative effects on the job performance of employees. Despite the existence of a wide range of primary investiga- tions that examine coworker variables, studies are fragmented (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). The prior research on co-worker effects has been conducted in specific settings such as among low-wage workers at a grocery store (Moretti & Mas, 2006), among soft-fruit pickers (Bandiera et al., 2007), and among workers performing a simple task in a laboratory setting (Falk & Ichino, 2006). Missing from the literature are studies on the relationship between co-worker effects and research performance of lecturers in universities. 3. Hypothesis development 3.1. Leadership behaviors on Research performance Path-goal leadership theory provides us a lens to explain the leadership behaviors – subordinate performance relationship (Northouse, 2018). In this study, we examine the effects of leadership behaviors conceptualized from the path-goal leadership framework on the re- search performance of lecturers in universities in Vietnam. The Path-goal leadership theory of House (1971) identified leadership behaviors that depend on situations and their impacts on the behaviors and attitudes of subordinates. This theory presumed that a leader has functions of reassuring individual employee’s rewards for achieving targets by formulating pathways, clearing barricades, and improving the chances for job satisfaction through considerate and supporting actions for employees. However, the results of studies applying the Path-goal leadership theory has been mixed with both sup- porting and non-supporting findings (House, 1996). With such critiques, further examination of the theory has been suggested to be carried out (Alharbi & Abdullah, 2018). Path-goal leadership highlights four leadership styles. Firstly, with directive leadership behavior, employees are told clearly what is expected of them, how to do the tasks, and got established performance standards, rules, and regulations from the leaders (Northouse, 2018). Secondly, with participative leadership behaviors, subordinates are asked for ideas and opin- ions and are involved in the decision-making process (Northouse, 2018). When faced with unstructured and non-routine tasks, the members hope to receive clear guidance rather than sympathy from their leaders, they are satisfied with the directive and participative leadership behaviors (Awan et al., 2008). Thirdly, leaders with supportive leadership behavior are friendly, approachable, considerate, and care about subordinates’ well-being and demands that minimizes the working environmental issues. (Northouse, 2018). According to (Lussier & Achua, 2010), in cases of routine and simple tasks, supportive leadership behavior is ef- fective because the leader provides subordinates with rewards, encouragement, and respect. Lastly, achievement-oriented leaders set clear and challenging goals for subordinates and seek continuous improvement. Further leaders show a high degree of confidence in subordi- nates (Northouse, 2018). Research activities are unstructured and nonroutine tasks of idea generation, research design development, complicated data analysis, and unpredictable results (Kim & Choi, 1565
  6. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 2017). According to Brew (2001, 276) research is a series of ‘separate tasks, events, things, activities, problems, techniques, experiments, issues, ideas, or questions’ that faculty need to combine in a wide variety of domino-like patterns spreading in a multitude of directions as a means to solve a problem or answer a question. Although research activity requires the enthusiastic involvement, persistence, and intrinsic interest of researchers, high-level performance depends largely on the leadership and mentorship of experienced researchers (Bazeley, 2010). As experienced scholars, HoDs mentor their faculty members in research skills, share expertise about publications and the publication process, review works in progress, and comment on written works (Creswell & Brown, 1992). Therefore, directive and participative rather than supportive leadership behaviors of HoDs would be effective in facilitating the research activities of lecturers. Besides, HoDs also prod and inspire faculty members to urge them toward increased research by the ways like reminding faculty members of the university or departmental expectations on research productivity, generating their awareness and concern about research performance (Creswell & Brown, 1992). Hence, achievement-oriented leadership behaviors of HoDs are argued to help increase research per- formance of lecturers. We hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1: Directive leadership is positively associated with research performance. Hypothesis 2: Supportive leadership is negatively associated with research performance. Hypothesis 3: Participative leadership is positively associated with research performance. Hypothesis 4: Achievement-oriented leadership is positively associated with research performance. 3.2. Co-worker support and Co-worker pressure on Research Performance As defined by Neumann & Finaly-Neumann (1990), social support refers to resources that are given by important people related to emotional, instrumental, informational, and ap- praisal support. In particular, with information exchange, employees can share opinions and generate innovative ideas (Gong et al., 2013). Besides, emotional and informational support from co-workers were found to bring positive effects on individual creative performance (Madjar, 2008). With social support, positive need fulfilling elements are added to an indi- vidual’s life that can directly promote research productivity (Neumann & Finaly-Neumann, 1990). In other words, with academic co-workers’ support, lecturers can be encouraged to maintain their efforts in research and belief in ultimate success and following rewards. Hence, we argued that support from co-workers would help lecturers attain higher levels of research performance. Hypothesis 5: Perceived Social Support from coworkers is positively associated with research performance. Coworker pressure in this study is referred from the terms peer effect or peer pressure in the workplace. In general, as stated by Brown et al. (1986), peer pressure appears when an individual feels pressured, urged, or dared by others to do something or indeed he or she car- ries out certain things because of being pressured, urged, or dared. In work settings, colleagues 1566
  7. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 may compare their productivity with each other through socialization activities. Employees with lower productivity may feel guilty or shameful and they may then act on these feelings by increasing their efforts (Cornelissen et al., 2017). From signals about the productivity of others, workers can infer their level of competence. In the case of low signal, feelings of competence increase can raise productivity and vice versa (Bellemare et al., 2010). Hence, we argued that a high level of perceived coworker pressure would lead to a decrease in the research performance of lecturers. Hypothesis 6: High levels of Coworker pressure has a significant negative effect on Research performance. 3.3. Moderating effects of Achievement values In the path-goal leadership model, subordinate-related characteristics play as the mod- erating roles of the relationship between leadership behaviors and subordinate outcomes. One of the subordinates’ characteristics that guide and activate employee behaviors is personal values (Illies & Reiter-Palmon, 2008). Schwart (1992, 4) characterizes personal values as the ‘concepts or beliefs that pertain to desirable end-states or behaviors and transcend specific situations in guiding selection or evaluation of behavior and events and are ordered by relative importance’. Of all the value domains, achievement value which includes ambition, compe- tence, accomplishment, and success seems to hold the most promise for predicting perform- ance (Parks & Guay, 2012). Thus, value for achievement is likely to moderate the relations between HoDs’ leadership behaviors and the research performance of lecturers. Particularly, because the primary tasks of university lecturers are teaching and research requires individual effort and creation rather than following a structured agenda, directive leadership behaviors of the HoD would be the most effective when it can illuminate the ef- fort-achievement path for the lecturers (Bess & Goldman, 2001). Besides, in the situation where subordinates have a low need for achievement, they are more satisfied with supportive leaders (Awan et al., 2008). Thirdly, with subordinates having a high need for achievement, participation in decision making tend to yield motivation and give employees a sense of ac- complishment, resulting in greater effort and higher satisfaction that in turn increases job performance (Awan et al., 2008). Finally, because staff who wish to achieve and advance need to be encouraged to grow, high achievement-oriented leadership has a positive effect on subordinates’ job expectancies and job satisfaction, which may increase job performance. Hypothesis 7: The positive relationship between Directive leadership and research performance is stronger for lecturers with higher achievement value. Hypothesis 8: The negative relationship between Supportive leadership and research performance is stronger for lecturers with higher achievement value. Hypothesis 9: The positive relationship between Participative leadership and research performance is stronger for lecturers with higher achievement value. Hypothesis 10: The positive relationship between achievement-oriented leadership and research performance is stronger for lecturers with higher achievement value. 1567
  8. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 As a concern for career improvement, achievement can be expressed through the will- ingness to work hard, learning intent, extra-role taking, and devotion to work goals (Judge & Bretz, 1992). If an individual holds the value of achievement as a dominant value, he/she may be more likely to interpret the stimuli presented by a job as an opportunity for achieve- ment-related behavior that will enhance job performance (Staw et al., 1986). Thus, in case of perceiving pressure or support from coworkers, the lecturers who have high achievement value would make an effort to take advantage of information and resources embedded in the coworker support to improve research performance. In contrast, the lecturers who do not highly value the achievement are likely to do research just to meet the minimum of institu- tional requirements. Hypothesis 11: The positive relationship between coworker support and research performance is stronger for lecturers with higher achievement value. Hypothesis 12: The negative relationship between coworker pressure and research performance is weaker for lecturers with higher achievement value. ——- Figure 1 near here ——- 4. Methodology 4.1. Data collection The survey population includes more than 60 thousand lecturers in 172 public univer- sities in Vietnam as reported by the Ministry of Education and Training. Through websites of faculties and schools of Vietnamese public universities in the economics and business management field, emails of 1201 lecturers were approached. The questionnaire was sent to 1201 lecturers of public universities in Hanoi and Hochiminh city. It was assured that the data would be kept confidential and used only for research purposes. In total, 408 usable questionnaires were returned with a response rate of 34%. The survey was undertaken in June 2020. The demographic information of 408 respondents is shown in Table 1. ——- Table 1 near here ——- 4.2. Measures The survey questionnaire was developed included instruments for independent, mod- erating, and dependent variables. Most of the measures for variables used in this study were drawn from the literature and used or adapted for the Vietnamese context. All of the items in the scales are found in Appendix A. In line with De Saá Pérez et al. (2017) and Kim & Choi (2017), research performance was measured by total number of research articles the respondents published on peer-re- viewed journals in the last two years of 2018 and 2019. Leadership behavior instruments used in this study are adapted from Indvik (1988) based on the work of House and Dessler (1974). Four leader behaviors were measured through a set of fourteen questions; four each measuring directive and supportive leadership behavior; and three each measuring participa- 1568
  9. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 tive and achievement-oriented leader behavior. Items were used to measure the perception of participants about their leader’s behavior. Participants indicated their responses on a five- point Likert-type scale 1 (never) to 5 (always). Coworker support scales were adopted from Neumann & Finaly-Neumann (1990) with three Likert-type items. The five-point scale ranges from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Coworker pressure was measured employing a five-item scale adapted from Santor et al. (2000). For achievement values, items were extracted from the values’ measurement (Schwartz, 2003). The items were based on a five-point scale which measured the high and low dimension of achievement value. To ensure the face validity of the above measurement scales, the proce- dure of standard translation and back translation was conducted. The final survey question- naires were sent to the respondents. 5. Results We first performed reliability analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to assess the measures, then regression analysis was conducted to test the first six hypotheses. Next, with Chow tests (Chow, 1960), it was indicated that the results were appropriate to reveal the moderating effects. The hypotheses were then examined according to the results of the analysis. 5.1. Measure reliability and validity To assess the measures, exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis were em- ployed. The results are shown in Table 2. Specifically, items for the DL, PL, SL, AL, CS, CP, AV were subjected to EFA with principal component analysis and varimax rotation. During this process, we eliminated two items with low factor loadings. In total, seven factors were drawn with a total extracted variance of 71.74%. All of these factors had acceptable Cronbach alphas (i.e., > 0.7; see Table 2). ——- Table 2 near here ——- 5.2. Direct effects We applied hierarchical regression by SPSS 25 to examine the direct effects of six in- dependent variables toward research performance. The results are displayed in Table 3. The analyses indicated that the variables of DL, AL, PL, and CS had significantly positive impacts on research performance and the variables of SL and CP had significantly negative impacts on research performance. These results all supported H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, and H6. Further- more, with the VIF values of all factors that were less than 10, it is implied that there was no multicollinearity phenomenon between six independent variables. ——- Table 3 near here —— 5.3. Moderating effects The Chow test was conducted to examine the differences in the regression models across the two sub-groups (high and low) to determine the existence of moderating effects of achievement value in the relationship between the independent variables and research per- 1569
  10. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 formance. The Chow test compares the extent to which the sum of squared errors for the pooled sample differs from the sum of squared errors of the two subgroup samples. If the er- rors for the two subgroups are small in reference to the errors for the pooled sample, the two subgroup regression models are considered to be overall significantly different from one an- other and, therefore, the moderator effect is verified. The procedures are stated below. First, we calculated the simple regression model of six independent variables and one dependent variable and then obtained the residual sum of squares. The second step was to split the sample into low and high subgroups by moderator achievement value. Then we ran regressions for the two subgroups pooled together. Finally, F values were calculated by comparing the residual sum of squares for the two sub-groups and were used to examine the hypotheses of the moderating effect. The Chow test results are shown in Table 4. The hypotheses that achievement value moderates the six independent vari- ables and research performance relationships are supported at the .05 level, as the observed F value of 2.22 exceeds the critical value of 1.35 (i.e. there is a significant difference between the regression coefficients). Hence, H7, H8, H9, H10, H11, and H12 were accepted. ——- Table 4 near here ——- 6. Discussion and Recommendations 6.1. Discussion The advancement and diffusion of knowledge through scientific research has long been recognized as one of the major goals and social responsibilities of universities (Neumann & Finaly-Neumann, 1990). Despite its important role, a study on research activities of lecturers in general and research performance, in particular, remains largely uncharted territory (Edgar & Geare, 2013). Furthermore, according to Neumann & Finaly-Neumann (1990), the orga- nizational behavior perspective is one of the weakest areas in studying research productivity in universities. Hence, our study developed an organizational behavior perspective related to leadership behaviors and the social influence of co-workers to gain a better understanding of factors influencing research performance. Various factors influencing the research performance of faculty members have been identified at individual and institutional levels (Jung, 2012). At the mid-level (i.e. departmen- tal level) which plays a decisive role in education quality, scientific research, and academic professional development, the factors from leaders, colleagues, rewards, competition, and so on may facilitate or inhibit the research performance of the lecturers. However, what factors and how they influence the research performance of lecturers remains areas largely unex- plored (Edgar & Geare, 2013). In particular, although leadership styles are believed to be crucial factors that can influence employee performance (Prasetio et al., 2015), studies on educational leadership have not matured and produced little both theoretical and applied re- search (Bess & Goldman, 2001). Besides leadership styles, co-workers’ support is an impor- tant factor that affects the workplace environment; however, investigations of co-worker influence remain not only unanswered but, in some cases, unasked (Cornelissen et al., 2017). 1570
  11. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 In terms of research contexts as to the determinants of research performance, the prior research was carried out mostly in Western nations (especially the U.S). However, those stud- ies would be inappropriate to apply to Vietnamese high educational practices. Since only a limited number of studies have considered the research performance in Vietnam, filling this gap contributes to improving research performance in Vietnamese universities. In this study, by looking at the roles of HoDs through the lens of path-goal leadership theory, we identified the four variables relating to leadership behaviors that significantly influence the research performance of lecturers. Moreover, the effects of co-workers’ behav- iors on research performance were specified in co-worker support and co-worker pressure also influence lecturers’ research performance. Besides the direct effects, based on Schwartz’s (1992) human values framework, value for achievement was identified to be the key moderating variable in our research model. Our data with Vietnamese lecturers in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh city helped to confirm our hypotheses. Similar to previous research, our results support the path-goal theory with both direct and moderating relationships. Firstly, we found that directive, participative, and achievement- oriented leadership behaviors have a significantly positive relationship with research performance and supportive leadership behaviors of HoDs have a significantly negative relationship with the research performance of lecturers. The results are consistent with the prior findings (Alanazi et al., 2013; Sougui et al., 2016; Wanjala, 2014). Secondly, our results are consistent with theoretical arguments that co-workers are important and affect behavioral outcomes directly (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Duffy et al., 2002). Specifically, we found that co-worker support positively associates with research performance and co-worker pres- sure negatively associates with the research performance of lecturers. It could be explained that support from colleagues can provide positive need-fulfilling elements and motivation enhancement that encourage lecturers to invest persistently time and efforts on their research. With co-worker pressure, our results are in line with those of Bellemare et al. (2010) and Guryan et al. (2009) in that for complex tasks, a high level of peer pressure can negatively impact performance. This finding corresponds to self-motivation theories in that too much pressure from peers will cause an employee’s feelings of competence to decrease and impact his/her self-motivation and productivity. However, this opposes the findings of Falk and Ichino (2006) and Moretti and Mas (2006), who found that peer pressure has a positive and significant impact on productivity. This difference could be explained by different research contexts. Thirdly, in line with the suggestion of the path-goal theory that the effects of the leader on subordinate outcomes are moderated by subordinate trait variables (Bess & Goldman, 2001), we identified the subordinates’ value for achievement as a moderator of the relation- ship between leadership behaviors and research performance. We found that when the lecturers have a higher value for achievement, in case of getting directive, participative, and achievement-oriented leadership behaviors from HoDs, and support from coworkers, their research performance would be higher than those with lower achievement value. If the 1571
  12. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 lecturers have high achievement value, receiving supportive leadership behaviors from HoDs would make their research performance lower than those with a low achievement value, but perceiving high pressure from co-workers, their research performance would be higher than those with low achievement value. 6.2. Managerial implications Our results can help recommend strategies for higher education institutions and their units in management. Firstly, universities should invest in specific training HoDs in admin- istration, human resource development, and research management because even though being associated with crucial roles in promoting education quality and scientific research, few HoDs have been prepared for the position. Secondly, HoDs should choose among the three contin- gent leader behaviors to be congruent with their faculty members’ preferences. With the non- routine, unstructured, and creative nature of research activities, supportive leadership behaviors may reduce the stressful and negative environmental situations but do not promote the research productivity of lecturers. The HoDs should consider using directive behaviors quite often when the lecturers are in the early stages of their research path and use achieve- ment-oriented behaviors when their subordinates have more experienced in research. When taking part in the same research projects, HoDs should frequently involve and elicit their fac- ulty members’ ideas and suggestions. Furthermore, being aware of the achievement value level of the faculty members and knowing preferable leadership behaviors, HoDs can maxi- mize their efforts of developing high performing researchers in their departments. Thirdly, besides individual characteristics that affect their research performance, lecturers are exposed to both positive and negative stimuli from their HoDs and co-workers. Receiving guidelines, direction, involvement in decision making, or even challenges from HoDs, support, or pres- sure from co-workers, lecturers themselves should make use of this support, strive, and persist in their research activities and projects. 6.3. Limitation and recommendations future research Our study is not without limitations. The first limitation relates to the measurement of research performance. According to Bazeley (2010) and Colman et al. (1995), among the three types of approaches have been used to measure research performance in higher educa- tion, the comprehensive approach that combines both quality and quantity dimensions of re- search publication. Furthermore, in real practices of Vietnamese universities, different types of research outputs are weighted differently. Our study measures research performance by calculating the number of research publications in the recent two years. Future research could examine our hypotheses with research performance measured by both qualitative and quan- titative approaches. Secondly, our sample is lecturers in universities specialized in economics and business administration in Hanoi and Hochiminh city. Future research could examine the proposed relationships with lecturers in universities of the other areas. Thirdly, while path- goal theory suggests the moderating effects of situational variables including both environ- mental and subordinate trait characteristics, our study has just focused on one of the subordinate personal values. It could be suggested that future researchers should test the mod- 1572
  13. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 eration of environmental factors (e.g. institutional autonomy and department size) and other subordinates’ characteristics. To conclude, this study provides an initial step towards investigating the departmental factors affecting the research performance of lecturers in universities. This has been largely unexplored in prior literature. We found that with research activities and the members in ac- ademic departments, the leadership behaviors of HoDs that provide directions and guidance, facilitate involvement and contributions, and show challenges and high expectations can im- prove the research performance of their department subordinates. Besides the factors from department leaders, effects from co-workers could both facilitate and inhibit the research pro- ductivity of lecturers in forms of co-worker support and pressure, respectively. Furthermore, the individual traits of lecturers identified as valuable for achievement have been found to moderate the relationship between examined departmental factors and research performance. Our research contributes to the literature on job performance in higher education from an or- ganizational behavior perspective. REFERENCES Alanazi, T. R., Alharthey, B. K., & Rasli, A. (2013). Overview of path-goal leadership theory. Sains Humanika, 64(2). Alharbi, K., & Abdullah, A. (2018). The Evaluation of Previous Studies on the Path- Goal Theory: Time for Reconsideration and Further Advancement (pp. 20–32). Alhija, F. M., & Majdob, A. (2017). Predictors of teacher educators’ research produc- tivity. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 42(11), 34. Awan, R., Zaidi, N. R., & Bigger, S. (2008). Relationships between higher education leaders and subordinates in Pakistan: a path-goal approach. Bulletin of Education and Re- search, 30(2), 29–44. AYDIN, O. T. (2017). Research performance of higher education institutions: A review on the measurements and affecting factors of research performance. Journal of Higher Edu- cation and Science, 7(2), 312–320. Bandiera, O., Barankay, I., & Rasul, I. (2007). Incentives for managers and inequality among workers: Evidence from a firm-level experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 729–773. Bazeley, P. (2010). Conceptualising research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35(8), 889–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903348404 Bellemare, C., Lepage, P., & Shearer, B. (2010). Peer pressure, incentives, and gender: An experimental analysis of motivation in the workplace. Labour Economics, 17(1), 276–283. Bess, J. L., & Goldman, P. (2001). Leadership ambiguity in universities and K–12 schools and the limits of contemporary leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 419–450. 1573
  14. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Bowden, J. A., Green, P., Barnacle, R., Cherry, N., & Usher, R. (2005). Academics’ ways of understanding success in research activities. Doing Developmental Phenomenogra- phy, 128. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1990). Publication productivity: from frequency distributions to scientometric indicators. Journal of Information Science, 16(1), 37–44. Brew, A. (2001). Conceptions of research: A phenomenographic study. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 271–285. Brocato, J. J. (2002). The research productivity of family medicine department faculty: A national study. Brown, B. B., Clasen, D. R., & Eicher, S. A. (1986). Perceptions of peer pressure, peer conformity dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents. Developmental Psy- chology, 22(4), 521. Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693–710. Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual syn- thesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and perform- ance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082. Chow, G. C. (1960). Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regres- sions. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 591–605. Colman, A. M., Dhillon, D., & Coulthard, B. (1995). A bibliometric evaluation of the research performance of British university politics departments: Publications in leading jour- nals. Scientometrics, 32(1), 49–66. Cornelissen, T., Dustmann, C., & Schönberg, U. (2017). Peer effects in the workplace. American Economic Review, 107(2), 425–456. Creswell, J. W. (1985). Faculty Research Performance: Lessons from the Sciences and the Social Sciences. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1985. ERIC. Creswell, J. W. (1990). The academic chairperson’s handbook. U of Nebraska Press. Creswell, J. W., & Brown, M. L. (1992). How chairpersons enhance faculty research: A grounded theory study. The Review of Higher Education, 16(1), 41–62. De Saá Pérez, P., Díaz Díaz, N. L., Aguiar Díaz, I., & Ballesteros Rodríguez, J. L. (2017). How diversity contributes to academic research teams performance. R&d Man- agement, 47(2), 165–179. Doh, S., Jang, D., Kang, G.-M., & Han, D.-S. (2018). Research Funding and Perform- ance of Academic Researchers in South Korea. Review of Policy Research, 35(1), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12261 Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. 1574
  15. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 607–631. Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2013). Factors influencing university research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 774–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.601811 Englebrecht, T. D., Iyer, G. S., & Patterson, D. M. (1994). An empirical investigation of the publication productivity of promoted accounting faculty. Accounting Horizons, 8(1), 45. Falk, A., & Ichino, A. (2006). Clean evidence on peer effects. Journal of Labor Eco- nomics, 24(1), 39–57. Fawzi, H., & Al-Hattami, A. (2017). Faculty production of research papers: Challenges and recommendations. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 7(2), 221–228. Gong, Y., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, D.-R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827–851. Guryan, J., Kroft, K., & Notowidigdo, M. J. (2009). Peer effects in the workplace: Ev- idence from random groupings in professional golf tournaments. American Economic Jour- nal: Applied Economics, 1(4), 34–68. Hedjazi, Y., & Behravan, J. (2011). Study of factors influencing research productivity of agriculture faculty members in Iran. Higher Education, 62, 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9410-6 House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 321–339. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352. House, R. J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a priori tests. Contingency Approaches to Leadership, 29, 55. Illies, J. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2008). Responding destructively in leadership situa- tions: The role of personal values and problem construction. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 251–272. Indvik, J. (1988). A more complete testing of path-goal theory. Academy of Manage- ment, Anaheim, CA, 1. Jauch, L. R., & Glueck, W. F. (1975). Evaluation of University Professors’ Research Performance. Management Science, 22(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.22.1.66 Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.261 1575
  16. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Jung, J. (2012). Faculty Research Productivity in Hong Kong across Academic Disci- pline. Higher Education Studies, 2(4), 1–13. Katz, E., & Coleman, M. (2001). The growing importance of research at academic colleges of education in Israel. Education+ Training. Kim, K., & Choi, S. B. (2017). Influences of creative personality and working envi- ronment on the research productivity of business school faculty. Creativity Research Journal, 29(1), 10–20. Knight, P., & Trowler, P. (2001). Departmental leadership in higher education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Lertputtarak, S. (2008). An investigation of factors related to research productivity in a public university in Thailand: A case study. Victoria University. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evi- dence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 114–132. Lin, M.-W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers’ Industry Experience and Productivity in University–Industry Research Centers: A “Scientific and Technical Human Capital” Ex- planation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-6111-2 Long, R., Crawford, A., White, M., & Davis, K. (2009). Determinants of faculty re- search productivity in information systems: An empirical analysis of the impact of academic origin and academic affiliation. Scientometrics, 78(2), 231–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1990-7 Lucas, A. F. (2000). Leading Academic Change: Essential Roles for Department Chairs. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. ERIC. Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2010). Leadership,(2010): Theory. Application, and Skill Development. Madjar, N. (2008). Emotional and informational support from different sources and employee creativity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(1), 83–100. Mairesse, J., & Turner, L. (2005). Measurement and Explanation of the Intensity of Co-publication in Scientific Research: An Analysis at the Laboratory Level. New Frontiers in the Economics of Innovation and New Technology: Essays in Honour of Paul A. David. Moretti, E., & Mas, A. (2006). Peers at work. Neumann, Y., & Finaly-Neumann, E. (1990). The support-stress paradigm and faculty research publication. The Journal of Higher Education, 61(5), 565–580. Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications. Okiki, O. C. (2013). Research Productivity of Teaching Faculty Members in Nigerian Federal Universities: An Investigative Study. 1576
  17. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2012). Can personal values predict performance? Evidence in an academic setting. Applied Psychology, 61(1), 149–173. Pellino, G. R., Blackburn, R. T., & Boberg, A. L. (1984). The dimensions of academic scholarship: Faculty and administrator views. Research in Higher Education, 20(1), 103–115. Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations: Productive climates for research and development. Prasetio, A. P., Siregar, S., & Luturlean, B. S. (2015). The effect of the leadership to- wards employee performance in the human resources department at the PLN west java and banten distribution office. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4(1), 149. Ramesh Babu, A., & Singh, Y. (1998). Determinants of research productivity. Sciento- metrics, 43(3), 309–329. Read, W. J., Rama, D. V, & Raghunandan, K. (1998). Are publication requirements for accounting faculty promotions still increasing? Issues in Accounting Education, 13(2), 327. Santor, D. A., Messervey, D., & Kusumakar, V. (2000). Measuring peer pressure, pop- ularity, and conformity in adolescent boys and girls: Predicting school performance, sexual attitudes, and substance abuse. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(2), 163–182. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–453. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–65. Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. Questionnaire Package of the European Social Survey, 259(290), 261. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878. Smeby, J.-C., & Try, S. (2005). Departmental contexts and faculty research activity in Norway. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 593–619. Sougui, A. O., Bon, A. T., Mahamat, M. A., & Hassan, H. M. H. (2016). The Impact of Leadership on Employee Motivation in Malaysian Telecommunication Sector. Galore Inter- national Journal of Applied Sciences and Humanities, 1(1). Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job at- titudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 56–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392766 Wanjala, M. (2014). The influence of leadership style on employees’ job performance in the hospitality industry: case study of safari park hotel. United States International Uni- versity-Africa. 1577
  18. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Weinberg, B. A., Owen-Smith, J., Rosen, R. F., Schwarz, L., Allen, B. M., Weiss, R. E., & Lane, J. (2014). Science funding and short-term economic activity. Science, 344(6179), 41–43. Wilson, L. (1942). The academic man: A study in the sociology of a profession. Trans- action Publishers. Wood, F. (1990). Factors influencing research performance of university academic staff. Higher Education, 19(1), 81–100. 1578
  19. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Appendix A. Measurement scales Factors Items Directive DL1. I let subordinates know what is expected of them. leadership DL2. I inform subordinates about what needs to be done and how it needs to be done. behavior (DL) DL3. I ask subordinates to follow standard rules and regulations. DL4. I explain the level of performance that is expected of subordinates. Participative PL1. I consult with subordinates when facing a problem. leadership PL2. I listen receptively to subordinates’ ideas and suggestions. behavior (PL) PL3. I ask for suggestions from subordinates concerning how to carry out assignments. Supportive SL1. I maintain a friendly working relationship with subordinates. leadership be- SL2. I do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group. havior (SL) SL3. I help subordinates overcome problems that stop them from carrying out their tasks. SL4. I behave in a manner that is thoughtful of subordinates’ personal needs. Achievement- AL1. I let subordinates know that I expect them to perform at their highest level. oriented lead- AL2. I set goals for subordinates’ performance that are quite challenging. ership behavior (AL) AL3. I encourage continual improvement in subordinates’ performance. Coworker CS1. My colleagues help me solve work-related problems. support (CS) CS2. My colleagues provide me with constructive feedback on my research. CS3. My colleagues support me whenever I experience a heavy workload. Coworker CP1. My coworkers could push me into doing research. pressure (CP) CP2. I give into coworker easily. CP3. If my coworkers asked me to do research, it would be hard to say no. CP4. If my coworkers are conducting research, it would be hard for me to resist doing re- search. CP5. I’ve felt pressured to research because most of my coworkers have done it. Achievement AV1. It’s very important for him to show his abilities. He wants people to admire what he values (AV) does. AV2. Being very successful is important to him. He likes to impress other people. AV3. He thinks it is important to be ambitious. He wants to show how capable he is. AV4. Getting ahead in life is important to him. He strives to do better than others. Table 1. Demographic statistics Age % Gender % Education % Department % < 30 years 12.7 Male 26.5 Bachelor 0.2 < 10 people 24.0 30 – 40 58.3 Female 73.5 Master 71.1 11 – 20 peo- 42.4 41 – 50 27.0 PhD 28.7 21 – 30 peo- 20.6 > 50 years 2.0 31 – 40 peo- 5.1 > 50 people 7.8 1579
  20. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020 ICYREB 2020 Table 2. Results of factor analysis and reliability analysis. Construct Cronbach’s α Item Mean SD Factor loading Directive leadership behavior (DL) 0.783 DL1 3.233 0.96 0.802 DL2 3.047 1.07 0.811 DL3 3.895 1.03 0.643 DL4 3.010 1.03 0.819 Participative leadership behavior (PL) 0.866 PL1 3.239 1.04 0.841 PL2 3.554 0.90 0.883 PL3 3.242 0.90 0.887 Supportive leadership behavior (SL) 0.832 SL1 4.074 0.78 0.830 SL2 3.973 0.88 0.827 SL3 3.113 1.09 0.798 SL4 3.478 0.97 0.866 Achievement-oriented leadership behav- 0.701 AL1 3.304 1.06 0.883 AL2 3.034 1.06 0.763 AL3 3.525 0.95 0.781 Coworker support (CS) 0.877 CS1 3.463 0.85 0.874 CS2 3.422 0.86 0.904 CS3 3.353 0.96 0.843 Coworker pressure (CP) 0.842 CP1 3.096 0.92 0.733 CP2 2.917 0.88 0.809 CP3 3.091 0.90 0.736 CP4 3.076 0.86 0.796 CP5 3.103 0.90 0.736 Achievement values (AV) 0.892 AV1 3.765 1.24 0.883 AV2 3.748 1.23 0.896 AV3 3.990 1.24 0.837 AV4 3.988 1.30 0.835 Table 3. Regression result with Research performance as the dependent variable Unstandardized Standard- Collinearity Statistics Model t Sig. B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 1.089 1.829 .595 .552 DL 1.488 .283 .298 5.251 .000 .836 1.197 SL -1.222 .288 -.230 -4.239 .000 .915 1.093 AL .706 .278 .144 2.544 .012 .844 1.185 PL .561 .259 .119 2.164 .031 .886 1.128 CS .658 .298 .123 2.212 .028 .872 1.146 CP -1.241 .326 -.203 -3.808 .000 .954 1.049 1580
ADSENSE

CÓ THỂ BẠN MUỐN DOWNLOAD

THÔNG TIN
TRỢ GIÚP
HỖ TRỢ KHÁCH HÀNG
Theo dõi chúng tôi

Chịu trách nhiệm nội dung:

Nguyễn Công Hà - Giám đốc Công ty TNHH TÀI LIỆU TRỰC TUYẾN VI NA

LIÊN HỆ

Địa chỉ: P402, 54A Nơ Trang Long, Phường 14, Q.Bình Thạnh, TP.HCM

Hotline: 093 303 0098

Email: support@tailieu.vn

Giấy phép Mạng Xã Hội số: 670/GP-BTTTT cấp ngày 30/11/2015 Copyright © 2022-2032 TaiLieu.VN. All rights reserved.

 

Đồng bộ tài khoản
2=>2