PREDICTORS OF THE RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY: ARE TRAININGS FOR SCIENTISTS EFFECTIVE?
Abstract
Purpose – To study predictors of research productivity, including mediator and moderator variables.
Methodology – A model that consists of such variables as research self-efficacy research training and the knowledge sharing climate in an organization was developed and tested. Data was collected using questionnaires.
Originality/value – The paper contributes to an understanding of mediator and moderator factors in the relationship between human resource development practices and research productivity. The research is also of practical importance to administrators in the field of science.
Findings – The results of the study show that scientific training positively affects the productivity of scientists, but they are not enough to obtain a high positive effect. University administrations need to focus on improving the climate, where scientists freely share their knowledge.
About the Authors
K. Moldashev
Narxoz University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
PhD, Researcher
Almaty
S. Kozhahmet
Narxoz University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
PhD, Research Professor
Almaty
A. Yenikeeva
Nazarbayev University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Doctoral student
Astana
A. Nurgabdeshov
Narxoz University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
PhD, Research Professor
Almaty
References
1. Billot J. The changing research context: implications for leadership // J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 2010. Vol. 33, № 1. P. 37–46.
2. Hemmings B., Kay R. The relationship between research self-efficacy, research disposition and publication output // Educ Psychol Rev. 2016. Vol. 36, № 2. P. 347–361.
3. Молдашев К., Тлеуов А., Радько Н. Экономика публикационного режима и проблемы интегра ции Казахстанских ученых в глобальное научное сообщество // Cent. Asian Econ. Rev. 2018. Vol. 4, № 122. P. 128–138.
4. Karatayev M. Kazakhstan’s Science in the World: Looking at trends in scholarly publishing [Electronic resource] // Creative Research Methods Lab. 2016. URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzN90tqAsbRNUNVR0dhcXJrUlU/view.
5. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access // Nature. 2012. Vol. 489, № 7415. P. 179–179.
6. Van den H.B., Ridder J.A. Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing // J. Knowl. Manag. 2004. Vol. 8, № 6. P. 117–130.
7. Cohen E., Cohen S.A., King V.T. The global permutations of the Western publication regime // Curr Issues Tour. 2016. P. 1–17.
8. Macdonald S., Kam J. Ring a Ring o? Roses: Quality Journals and Gamesmanship in Management Studies // J Manag. Stud. 2007. Vol. 44, № 4. P. 640–655.
9. Lucas L. Research Game in Academic Life. 2006.
10. Kwok L.S. The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism // J. Med. Ethics. 2005. Vol. 31, № 9. P. 554–556.
11. Kovacs J. Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citationbased evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article // J. Med. Ethics. 2013. Vol. 39, № 8. P. 509–512.
12. Beerkens M. Facts and fads in academic research management: The effect of management practices on research productivity in Australia // Res. Policy. 2013. Vol. 42, № 9. P. 1679–1693.
13. Holton E.F., Swanson R.A. Foundations of Human Resource Development. Bernett Koehler Publishers, 2009. 586 p.
14. Cropanzano R., Mitchell M.S. Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review // J. Manag. 2005. Vol. 31, № 6. P. 874–900.
15. Phillips J.C., Russell R.K. Research Self-Efficacy, the Research Training Environment, and Research Productivity among Graduate Students in Counseling Psychology // Couns. Psychol. 1994. Vol. 22, № 4. P. 628–641.
16. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency // Am. Psychol. 1982. Vol. 37, № 2. P. 122–147.
17. Lambie G.W., Vaccaro N. Doctoral Counselor Education Students’ Levels of Research Self-Efficacy, Perceptions of the Research Training Environment, and Interest in Research // Couns. Educ. Superv. 2011. Vol. 50, № 4. P. 243–258.
18. Wang S., Noe R.A. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research // Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2010. Vol. 20, № 2. P. 115–131.
19. Connelly C.E. et al. Knowledge hiding in organizations // J. Organ. Behav. 2012. Vol. 33, № 1. P. 64–88.
20. Meyer J.P., Allen N.J., Smith C.A. Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization // J. Appl. Psychol. 1993. Vol. 78, № 4. P. 538–551.
21. Holden L. et al. Validation of the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool: measuring RCC at individual, team and organisation levels // Aust. J. Prim. Health. 2012. Vol. 18, № 1. P. 62–67.
22. Connelly C.E., Kevin K.E. Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures // Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2003. Vol. 24, № 5. P. 294–301.
Review
For citations:
Moldashev K., Kozhahmet S., Yenikeeva A., Nurgabdeshov A. PREDICTORS OF THE RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY: ARE TRAININGS FOR SCIENTISTS EFFECTIVE? Central Asian Economic Review. 2019;(3):122-132. (In Russ.)
Views:
358
Email this article 