Chapter 6: Presentation and discussion of findings
6.2. Perceived roles of disciplinary differences on research performance
Although the general organisational culture of a university has critical roles on the behaviours of faculties, prominent writers (e.g., Birnbaum, 1988; Clark, 1980; Kuh & Whitt, 1988) argue that faculty members learn how to act ultimately from the culture of their specific studies (disciplines). This discussion emphasises on perceptions of faculty members towards the role of their disciplinary training in their research performance. It, mainly, relies on two divergent views from the literature (2.4.2): disciplinary sub-cultures as critical influencers of faculty members’ actions; and the general institutional context as a mediator of the influence of subcultures and the behaviours of faculty members.
By citing the Web of Science report (2017) on trends in East African higher education between 2006 and 2016, Yallew reports that “research outputs in health and environmental and agricultural sciences are the top disciplines Ethiopian researchers engage in during the past ten years.” He furthermore writes that “close to 70 % of research in the country is concentrated on medical sciences, engineering, agriculture, and the natural sciences” (2020, pp. 18-19). This report, inter alia, shows the role of disciplinary differences in research productivity. In the same vein, the respondents of this study contended that although personal characteristics (e.g., ability, knowledge, motivation and communication) are imperative, disciplinary differences also have
50
crucial roles in the research engagement and performance of faculty members. “It is our disciplinary training that guides us on how to address research problems”, said a History professor and researcher on higher education in Ethiopia. He, furthermore, stated:
Without overlooking the decisiveness of OC, I would say that it is our academic training that gives us the agendas for our studies. Because of our education, we focus on issues that we know. For example, my training in higher education pushes me to study higher education in Ethiopia. It implies that our academic background influences our research endeavour (personal communication, July 13, 2020).
According to another respondent, a professor of Foreign Languages, our academic backgrounds and experiences have crucial roles in our research views and performance. “Different fields of studies nurture us with different worldviews, philosophical underpinnings and ways of accessing knowledge”, he said. The respondent underlined that our academic training indeed guides our research engagement and productivity (personal communication, July 16, 2020).
Concurrently, a Math lecturer argued that due to the consensus among the scientific community on the philosophies that underpin the disciplines, faculties in the ‘exact’ sciences might be more productive than their counterparts in the ‘soft-sciences’ (personal communication, July 16, 2020; see also Biglan, 1973b). In line with this, another participant commented:
The methodological orientations of faculty members influence the research direction and performance. For example, since researchers in the social sciences and humanities often use qualitative methods, studies need enormous efforts and amount of time to integrate the divergent views (assistant professor of Journalism and Communication and head of quality assurance office, CSSL, personal communication, July 14, 2020).
Therefore, as “the time and effort we need for interpretive and quantitative studies vary, the competitiveness to publish in the social sciences and natural sciences also vary” (lecturer of Sociology, personal communication, July 14, 2020). In light of these views, one can surmise that faculty members (of MU) perceived that disciplinary differences have substantial roles in their research engagement and performance.
The respondents’ views can be well supported by Biglan’s argument. He says,
Compared to scholars in soft or nonparadigmatic areas, those in hard or paradigmatic areas publish fewer monographs and more journal articles. In paradigmatic areas, it is not necessary to provide detailed descriptions of the content and method that underlie a piece of research; these are understood by anyone familiar with the paradigm. In this case, journal articles, with their restrictions on length, provide an appropriate means of communication. In the soft areas, where paradigms are not characteristic, the scholar must describe and justify the assumptions on which his work is based, delimit his method or approach to the problem, and establish criteria for evaluating his own response to the problem. Such an undertaking requires a monograph-length work (1973b, p. 221).
In his classification of disciplines based on their nature of knowledge and culture, Becher (1994) similarly characterises humanities and pure social sciences with low publication rate, among other reasons, due to their focus on interpretation and relativism.
Moreover, the respondents reflected their perceptions towards the role of disciplinary differences vis-à-vis research performance based on internal and external funding opportunities.
It is perceived that due to the nature of the research practice (between natural and social sciences) and the perceived importance of disciplines, the research incentives and funding opportunities vary along the lines of disciplinary differences. A respondent argued that, at MU, one might not, for example, compare the annual research budgets for CSSL and CHS. Since the leaders rationalise that studies in the health sciences are resources-intensive, CHS takes the
51
lion’s share of the research budget than CSSL. Hence, according to the respondent, notwithstanding the justification, a high incentive difference influences the research performances of faculties. Moreover,
In the exact sciences, forasmuch as faculties follow the scientific methods, the research outcomes will be applicable anywhere. Hence, chances are higher for them to have external funds. Funders focus on the benefits they can earn from the research outcomes wherever they are done. In social sciences, however, cultural differences matter, and research activities are contextual. It implies that there are only a few external funding opportunities (lecturer, Sociology, personal communication, July 14, 2020).
Therefore, the arguments affirm that disciplinary differences have pivotal roles in the research productivity of faculty members.
However, the respondents also indicated that disciplinary differences alone might not have a dominant role in their research performance. According to them, the role of disciplinary cultures in research performance would be catalysed by other factors like the general OC (of the university), the country’s higher education system and their personal capabilities. In addition to epistemological factors, as Becher and Trowler (2001) argue, the cultural configuration of HEIs (i.e. OC) influences academics’ cultures and their behaviour. Similarly, parallel to the role of disciplinary differences, the respondents also noted that the general organisational context matters in research engagement. A respondent from History and Heritage Management remarked that the role of OC or working environment in research productivity is as decisive as academic training. He, furthermore, claimed that “change in the research performance of the university or faculty members requires a change in OC” (personal communication, July 13, 2020). This comment echoes the importance attributed to institutional context as a mediator of the influence of subcultures on the behaviour of faculty members (Kuh & Whitt, 1988; Bess &
Dee, 2008). As was claimed by some of the respondents, some writers argue that subunits in an organisation (e.g., a university) do have common elements peculiar to the entire organisation (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). Meaning, subcultures as primary socialisation platforms can influence faculties on the process and ideologies of research focus. However, the general OC is pivotal to turn the knowledge into action. In short, it shapes the goals of its constituent sub-units and the behaviour of professionals within them.
In addition to the roles of the general OC and subcultures, a couple of study participants commented that the national higher education system might also have stakes on the research performance of faculties. The respondents averred that due to low-quality education, the vast majority of university graduates are not well-versed with the basics of research skills and knowledge (assistant professor, Nutrition and Dietetics, personal communication, July 16, 2020; dean CNCS, personal communication, July 14, 2020). Most importantly, because of a weak socialisation culture in MU in particular and in many other Ethiopian public universities, these graduates do not have sufficient opportunities to improve their research capabilities even as university teachers. It is in this same vein that Sawyerr (2004) also argues that the deterioration of education quality in many African countries brought a chilling effect on research capacity building.
Finally, it was also argued that the research performance of faculty members depends on their inner spark and commitment to research. A respondent from the department of Geography and Environmental Studies said that “individuals can dare disciplinary challenges if they need to do researches” (personal communication, July 15, 2020). Because research emanates from critical thinking, individuals’ commitment and research interest are decisive (associate professor, Global Health and Development, personal communication, July 17, 2020). According to
52
another respondent, the research productivity differences among faculty members within the same department show the decisiveness of individuals’ commitment (dean, CSSL, personal communication, July 15, 2020). Nevertheless, it is hard to defy that our commitment to research substantially depends on our academic training and working environment. It, in turn, affirms that educational background and the general OC are decisive in research performance.