Productivity in academia. An assessment of causal linkages between output and outcome indicators
| Date | 07 April 2015 |
| Published date | 07 April 2015 |
| Pages | 184-195 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-01-2014-0002 |
| Author | Robert Wamala,Vincent A. Ssembatya |
| Subject Matter | Education,Curriculum, instruction & assessment,Educational evaluation/assessment |
Productivity in academia
An assessment of causal linkages between
output and outcome indicators
Robert Wamala and Vincent A. Ssembatya
Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate causal linkages between output and outcome
indicators of productivity in academia.
Design/methodology/approach – The duration of teaching service and the number of graduate
students supervised to completion were adopted as output indicators of productivity. Equivalent outcome
indicators were the number of (co)authored books (including book chapters and monographs) and journal
articles, respectively. In the investigations, a structural equation modeling approach was adopted.
Findings – The number of students supervised to completion directly impact the number of
(co)authored articles (p⬍0.05). The duration of teaching service indirectly inuences (co)authored
articles by directly impacting the number of students supervised to completion (p⬍0.05).
Research limitations/implications – The causal linkages between the indicators of productivity
are an indication of the level of research activity of academia. However, the study does not provide an
exhaustive assessment of all indicators of productivity in academia.
Originality/value – Unlike literature on the subject area that is focused on factors inuencing
productivity in academia, this study demonstrates casual relationships between the indicators of productivity.
Keywords Academic staff, Performance indicators, Productivity
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Productivity in academia is consensually regarded as an indicator of research activity
conducted by individuals, institutions, countries and regions as a whole. However, the
contentious issue is whether to assess productivity with regard to (i) quantity or quality,
(ii) outputs or outcomes or (iii) a combination of (i) and (ii). In other words, would
productivity of academic staff be assessed with regard to the number of students they
have supervised to completion or the number of (co)authored articles published?
Similarly, would it be appropriate to attach more importance to the duration of teaching
service compared to the number of (co)authored articles, books, book chapters and
monographs? Further, it is questionable whether productivity in one dimension could be
used as a basis for explaining productivity in another. In providing an explanation to the
contentious issues, it is important to establish an understanding of the various roles of
academic staff. Winfred (2013) presents three major roles of academia:
(1) duties of instruction – preparing, advising, exam correcting, providing remedial
help and related aspects;
(2) scholarly obligations through research and contribution in peer-reviewed
journals and books; and
(3) community service.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
QAE
23,2
184
Received 14 January 2014
Revised 8 May 2014
Accepted 15 June 2014
QualityAssurance in Education
Vol.23 No. 2, 2015
pp.184-195
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/QAE-01-2014-0002
To continue reading
Request your trial