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

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
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  ... nformity 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 SaáPérez, 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
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
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
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
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
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Appendix A. Measurement scales
Table 1. Demographic statistics
1579
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Factors Items
Directive
leadership
behavior (DL)
DL1. I let subordinates know what is expected of them. 
DL2. I inform subordinates about what needs to be done and how it needs to be done. 
DL3. I ask subordinates to follow standard rules and regulations. 
DL4. I explain the level of performance that is expected of subordinates. 
Participative
leadership 
behavior (PL)
PL1. I consult with subordinates when facing a problem. 
PL2. I listen receptively to subordinates’ ideas and suggestions. 
PL3. I ask for suggestions from subordinates concerning how to carry out assignments. 
Supportive
leadership be-
havior (SL)
SL1. I maintain a friendly working relationship with subordinates. 
SL2. I do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group. 
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-
oriented lead-
ership
behavior (AL)
AL1. I let subordinates know that I expect them to perform at their highest level.
AL2. I set goals for subordinates’ performance that are quite challenging. 
AL3. I encourage continual improvement in subordinates’ performance. 
Coworker
support (CS)
CS1. My colleagues help me solve work-related problems.
CS2. My colleagues provide me with constructive feedback on my research.
CS3. My colleagues support me whenever I experience a heavy workload.
Coworker
pressure (CP)
CP1. My coworkers could push me into doing research.
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
values (AV)
AV1. It’s very important for him to show his abilities. He wants people to admire what he
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.
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
Table 2. Results of factor analysis and reliability analysis.
Table 3. Regression result with Research performance as the dependent variable
1580
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
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
Model
Unstandardized Standard-
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
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
Table 4. Chow test for Achievement value as a moderator.
**p<.05
Figure 1. Research model
1581
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ECONOMICS & BUSINESS 2020
ICYREB 2020
Residual sum of squares for Total 2807.621
Low Achievement value 1427.494
High Achievement value 1273.281
Chow test (F) 2.22**
R(0.05, 102. 138 1.35