1 s2.0 S2199853122007491 Main

Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity
Article
Research Productivity for Augmenting the Innovation Potential
of Higher Education Institutions: An Interpretive Structural
Modeling Approach and MICMAC Analysis
Lanndon Ocampo 1, * , Joerabell Lourdes Aro 1 , Samantha Shane Evangelista 1 , Fatima Maturan 1 ,
Kafferine Yamagishi 1,2 , Dave Mamhot 3 , Dina Fe Mamhot 4 , Dawn Iris Calibo-Senit 4 , Edgar Tibay 5 ,
Joseph Pepito 6 and Renissa Quiñones 5
1 Center for Applied Mathematics and Operations Research, Cebu Technological University,
Cebu City 6000, Philippines
2 Department of Tourism Management, Cebu Technological University, Cebu City 6000, Philippines
3 College of Business and Management, Siquijor State College, Larena 6226, Philippines
4 College of Technology, Siquijor State College, Larena 6226, Philippines
5 Production Extension and Resource Generation Office, Cebu Technological University,
Cebu City 6000, Philippines
6 Mechatronics Department, Cebu Technological University, Cebu City 6000, Philippines
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: Current literature merely identifies the driving factors of research productivity in higher
education institutions without directly examining their interrelationships that would offer some
fundamental insights into the nature of these factors. Thus, this work intends to identify those driving
factors and establish their structural relationships to determine those factors with crucial roles in
Citation: Ocampo, L.; Aro, J.L.; advancing research productivity. Due to the subjectivity of the identified driving factors and the
Evangelista, S.S.; Maturan, F.;
notion that the evaluation of their relationships reflects an expert judgment, an interpretive structural
Yamagishi, K.; Mamhot, D.; Mamhot,
modeling (ISM) approach and the Matrice d’impacts croisés multiplication appliquée á un classment
D.F.; Calibo-Senit, D.I.; Tibay, E.;
(MICMAC) analysis were adopted. Results show that institutional support, reward system, research
Pepito, J.; et al. Research Productivity
funding, mentoring, and electronic information resources are the most crucial factors influencing
for Augmenting the Innovation
Potential of Higher Education
research productivity. When addressed, these driving factors would motivate other driving factors,
Institutions: An Interpretive contributing to higher research productivity. In particular, these findings encourage higher education
Structural Modeling Approach and institutions to (1) efficiently allocate research funds and design mentoring programs, (2) offer efficient
MICMAC Analysis. J. Open Innov. research incentive schemes, (3) develop initiatives that would support promising research proposals
Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 148. beneficial to the institution, and (4) collaborate with external organizations to grant funding for
https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030148 research proposals. These results contribute significantly to the literature as it provides meaningful
Received: 11 July 2022
insights that aid decision-makers in higher education institutions in resource allocation decisions,
Accepted: 4 August 2022 policy-making, and the design of efficient initiatives for augmenting their innovation potential.
Published: 23 August 2022
Keywords: research productivity; higher education institutions; driving factors; interpretive structural
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
modeling; MICMAC analysis
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
1. Introduction
The nature in which research investments lead to socio-economic growth is often not
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. well defined. Nevertheless, compelling empirical evidence suggests that basic research,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. innovation, and discovery create commercially viable technologies, stimulating private
This article is an open access article sector-led economic and social development (e.g., [1]). Return on investment on publicly
distributed under the terms and funded research and development (R&D) is approximated at 20%, higher than the 6.8% on
conditions of the Creative Commons stock and 3.1% on bonds. In agricultural systems research, for instance, the proliferation of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
new crop varieties that promote increased productivity resulted from improved biotechnol-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
ogy research [2,3]. Furthermore, research funded by the National Breast Cancer Foundation
4.0/).
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030148 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 148 2 of 25
led to a 10% change in policy, 11% new product development, and 14% change in clinical
practice [4]. Policymakers and scientific communities witnessed the expansion of scientific
information, recognizing the importance of university research. Thus, emphasis on collab-
orations in various sectors (e.g., industry) to improve research productivity (RP) [5] has
become an important policy agenda. Consequently, since Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) are the catalyst of knowledge transfer and research, RP became a crucial indicator
of most university ranking systems, compelling HEI leaders to seek ways to motivate
lecturers to conduct research and publish their outputs [6]. Henry et al. [7] emphasized
that HEIs should regularly evaluate the RP of academics to assess potential career growth
and address future challenges.
Various studies attempted to identify the driving factors of RP (e.g., [8]). Several
works (e.g., [9,10]) have categorized these drivers into two main groups: (1) human and
(2) organizational. The human–organizational dichotomy is a widely recognized frame-
work for identifying driving factors of RP. Drivers under the “human” category include
research skills and competence [11], self-efficacy [12], global innovativeness [13], individual
factors [10], self-determination [14], mentoring [15], and dynamics of professional life [16],
among others. On the other hand, organizational factors include institutional support [17],
departmental culture [18], tenure and promotions [19], research-oriented culture [19], and
situational factors [20]. However, some pointed out that human and organizational drivers
do not entirely influence RP (e.g., [10]). Understanding the role of technology use on RP has
become increasingly important [21]. Thus, numerous attempts investigated the impact of
using technology on raising the productivity level of academics (e.g., [22]). In addition, the
impact of financial resources such as research funding [23,24] and reward systems [24,25]
also became a point of interest in exploring RP. Evidence suggests that both factors strongly
influence RP [26].
Although there have been many works in the literature investigating various driving
factors of RP, only a few studies use a framework that incorporates all possible factors that
may drive RP in an attempt to evaluate them critically [27]. Moreover, current literature
merely identifies the driving factors of RP without directly exploring their interrelation-
ships, which may provide an in-depth analysis of their intricacies and give rise to a better
understanding of their nature. The lack of understanding of the interrelationships among
the driving factors of RP may provide a constricted view of its fundamental structure. Fur-
thermore, such an understanding of the interrelationships is crucial in gaining meaningful
insights into the design of initiatives that would better comprehensively address RP. While
there is an accumulating set of empirical evidence that the identified driving factors in the
literature influence RP, it is essential to consider that these driving factors may impact other
driving factors due to their loosely defined boundaries.
Determining the relationships of factors that influence a particular concept to better
understand such a concept has been popular in various contexts. For instance, in the
education sector, analyses of the interrelationships of factors were reported for engineering
education [28,29], management education [30], technical education [31], and teamwork
training [32], among others. A similar approach can be observed in the knowledge man-
agement and innovation domain. Some examples include knowledge management inno-
vation in healthcare sustainability [33], automobile industries [34], green innovation per-
formance [35], and innovation capability [36]. The practical application of understanding
the relationships of driving factors under a common theme has been gaining prominence
in the supply chain (e.g., [37]), healthcare (e.g., [38]), information technology (e.g., [39]),
service sector (e.g., [40]), and among others. This list is not intended to be comprehensive.
In this work, a comprehensive list of driving factors was obtained through a literature
survey. Due to the subjectivity of these driving factors and the notion that the evaluation
of the interrelationships between them is based on the experts’ judgments, interpretive
structural modeling (ISM) was adopted to describe their contextual (e.g., causal) relation-
ships. ISM and its corresponding graphical representation, the Matrice d’impacts croisés
multiplication appliquée á un classment (MICMAC), is a popular tool for defining contex-
tual relationships among elements representing causes or driving factors of a particular

problem or issue [41]. In ISM, elements with direct or indirect relationships are organized
into a directed graph (e.g., [42]), where the elements are considered vertices and their
relationships as directed edges or arcs. Since the judgments of experts determine how the
different elements are related, ISM becomes interpretive, taking into account the subjec-
tivity of the decision-making process. Such adoption of the ISM-MICMAC approach has
been demonstrated in a myriad of overarching applications for more than a decade, with
recent reports in rural development [43], supply chains [37,44], project management [45–47],
management of technology [48,49], disaster resilience [50], medical tourism [51], public
safety [52], environmental studies [53], energy planning [54], e-commerce [55], among oth-
ers. Literature surveys reported by Gardas et al. [56] and Attri [57] expound on the breadth
and depth of its applications. To illustrate such an application of ISM-MICMAC analysis
in exploring the relationships of driving factors of RP, a case study in the Philippines is
presented in this work. In describing the direct relationships of the driving factors under
consideration, a purposive survey of domain experts, who have significant knowledge and
experience in managing R&D initiatives, was conducted. The main departure of this work
is to identify the relevant factors that drive RP and establish their significant relationships
in order to identify crucial driving factors as inputs in decision-making and policy design.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 identifies the driving factors
of RP and discusses their theoretical and empirical relationships derived from the current
literature. The background of the ISM and MICMAC analysis is detailed in Section 3, and
their application for modeling RP is presented in Section 4. Section 5 elaborates the results,
and some policy takeaways are highlighted in Section 6. It ends with a conclusion and
discussion of future works in Section 7.
2. Review of the Driving Factors of Research Productivity

This section presents the driving factors of RP in HEIs based on an extensive literature
review. In the Google Scholar database, the keywords “research productivity” AND “higher
educational institutions” OR “university” were used to generate the journal articles that
were considered for the literature survey. Then, the year of publication was introduced as a
filter. In this case, only journal articles published in 2010–2020 were obtained. Subsequently,
only those articles that discuss at least one driving factor of RP were considered qualified.
Content analysis was performed on the qualified journal articles to determine the driving
factors. The final list of driving factors is presented in Appendix A.
2.1. Research Skills and Competence

RP is affected by research skills and competence [58]. Studies by Nakanjako et al. [59]
supported this claim and emphasized the significant association of research competence to
RP. Research competence is the set of demonstrable skills and characteristics that enable the
research faculty to successfully carry out research works [60]. These skills involve a set of
proficiencies in analysis and mastery of sophisticated IT tools, working in interdisciplinary
environments, building research networks, developing language skills, forging corporate
culture, learning management skills, and strengthening awareness of research relevance as
well as assessing the impact of particular research initiatives on the environment [61,62].
2.2. Self-Efficacy
Contextually, self-efficacy is defined as having confidence in successfully demonstrat-
ing tasks related to conducting research [12]. Earlier studies (e.g., [63]) identified that
self-efficacy had no positive and significant impact on RP. They found that the relation-
ship between self-efficacy and RP is equivocal because cross-sectional analysis could not
accurately estimate the reciprocal relationship between them. Further investigation using
different analytical methods is necessary to reach a justifiable conclusion. Later studies
(e.g., [12]) responded to the need to better evaluate the relationship between self-efficacy
and RP and reached a different conclusion. Hemmings and Kay [64] explored two promi-
nent Australian universities, and their findings suggest that research self-efficacy is strongly
related to research results. On the other hand, Callaghan [65] investigated popular South
African universities and found that research self-efficacy significantly influences research
results. Garnasih et al. [12] examined the direct and indirect influences between research
self-efficacy and RP at private universities in Riau, Indonesia. They found a significant
impact of research self-efficacy on RP. Academics with high research self-efficacy consider
difficulties a test, and they are bound to handle these difficulties rather than avoid them.
The more self-efficacious in research an academic is, the more likely they would produce
research outputs. Furthermore, some studies (e.g., [64]) have assessed that three measures
of research self-efficacy could explain total variance in publication output: reporting and
supervising research, skills related to the conduct and management of research, and writing
significant works and reviewing articles or books [12,64].
2.3. Global Innovativeness

Some studies (e.g., [66,67]) show that personality characteristics (e.g., agreeableness,
neuroticism) influence performance and career advancement. These personality char-
acteristics were identified based on a lexical hypothesis in the 1980s and 1990s. Global
innovativeness, commonly referred to as openness, significantly influences RP because inno-
vation is usually deemed essential in the generation of valuable knowledge outputs [68–70].
However, Rubin and Callaghan [71] regarded global innovativeness as synonymous with
technological propensity and found little evidence suggesting a significant relationship
between global innovativeness and RP. This claim supported the longstanding view that
certain academic RP might inherently be unreceptive to the innovative-seeking behavior of
research academics.
2.4. Individual Factors

Several individual factors have been instrumental in stimulating the research behav-
ior of academics. Such factors are largely associated with the demographic attributes of
research academics [10]. The investigation of the influence of individual factors on RP
can be traced back to the early 1960s (see [72]). It was found that demographic variables
of academics affect the number of publication outputs. For instance, since females tend
to withdraw because they adhere to the feminine role or are differentially excluded from
participation, male research academics publish more than their female counterparts [73].
The different levels of research outputs for the male and female members of the faculties in
an organization are caused by competing pressures to adhere to or disregard gender role
norms, which together produce a pattern of multiple impacts on career and family decisions
and outcomes [74]. This finding is consistent with later studies (e.g., [75,76]), highlighting
that males are more research-productive than female academics. Hesli and Lee [75] pre-
sented comprehensive insights regarding such differences in research outputs concerning
gender. In the works of Sax et al. [77], the same factors affect faculty RP for both men and
women, while family-related characteristics, such as having dependent children, have little
to no impact on research outputs. Furthermore, obtaining tenure enables professors to de-
velop research programs and secure funding, both essential for future success in pursuing
academic careers [78]. Teaching time also affects RP, as a significant amount of time is nec-
essary to prepare for lectures, and it takes away time spent conducting research [75]. This
insight is supported by several works in the literature (e.g., [79,80]). However, although a
heavy teaching load may negatively affect RP (e.g., publishing academic papers), it has a
positive effect on advising or mentoring [75].
2.5. Self-Determination
A way to conceptualize the motivation of academics to pursue scholarly work is
through self-determination. Vansteenkiste et al. [81] stressed that self-determination is how
a social context can promote autonomous motivation and its adaptive qualities. Evaluating
research motivation has been constantly emphasized in the domain literature (see [82,83]).
Peng and Gao [14] investigated the impact of motivation on RP in terms of journal publica-
tions. Their study considered the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence motivation.
Intrinsic motivation denotes the “engagement in certain tasks or behaviors primarily for
their own sake, whereas extrinsic motivation pertains to actions taken for external incen-
tives or rewards” [14]. Curiosity-spawned activities such as exploration are examples of
intrinsically motivated behaviors as they do not depend on external pressure but rather
satisfy one’s satisfaction [84]. The seminal work of Deci and Ryan [85] categorized extrinsic
motivation into four distinct forms of regulation, namely, external, introjected, identified,
and integrated. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were consistently associated with higher
performance in academic and research-related activities [86].
2.6. Mentoring
Mentorship is a kind of personal relationship wherein the more experienced individual
would act as a guide, role model, and teacher to the less experienced individual, and who
would also provide necessary support in pursuing the desired profession [87,88]. Mentoring
programs are increasingly common in academia [89]. According to some studies [90–92],
mentor and mentee collaborations contribute to the improvement of the mentee’s publi-
cation productivity [89]. Sorknesss et al. [15] developed an approach for research career
mentoring based on the attributes identified by previous studies (e.g., [93,94]). These
attributes include developing disciplinary research skills, aligning mentor and mentee
expectations, motivating, facilitating coping efficacy, advancing equity and inclusion, and
promoting professional development [93].
2.7. Dynamics of Professional Life

In many countries, institutions allot a significant amount of resources for R&D training
designed to provide academics with the skills and competencies for increased productivity
in their academic work [16]. These include research workshops, masterclasses, seminars,
and short courses, particularly for early career and senior researchers. As a response to
such investments, academics would respond with desirable work outcomes [95]. However,
as Kozhakhmet et al. [16] found, training and development practices do not directly affect
RP but are mediated by self-efficacy. Many studies supported this claim. For instance,
Lambie [96] emphasized that training and development practices increase self-efficacy by
increasing academic confidence in research. The self-efficacy of academics leads to more
research collaboration [16], enables the academics to manage their research directions [97],
and facilitates a positive organizational climate [98,99].
2.8. Institutional Support

During economic and social transitions, such as transitioning to a more research pro-
ductive institution, institutional support measures the degree to which institutions have
incentive schemes, initiatives, and strategic plans to respond to insufficient institutional
infrastructure or ineffective implementation [100–102]. The significant impact of institu-
tional support on RP has been reiterated over the years (e.g., [17,24,103]. Furthermore,
among other factors, the influence of effective management support increases the research
performance of an institution [104]. The potential relationship between RP and institutional
support lies in the socialization of research academics into a research culture and in setting
RP as one of the parameters for measuring excellence and enhancing academic careers [105].
Nygaard [17] pointed out that institutional support (and characteristics) should align with
individual goals since RP will depend significantly on the subjective understanding of
research academics regarding abilities, expectations, and perceptions. Furthermore, policies
that will allow the faculty to spend adequate time conducting research-related activities
highly influence the research performance of an institution [106].
2.9. Departmental Culture

Departmental culture pertains to the institution’s internal collaboration or affilia-
tion [107]. Ponomariov and Boardman [108] studied how affiliation affects the productivity
of an individual researcher. They found that internal collaborations positively affect the
quantity and quality of research outputs. The continuous decline in the productivity
of single-authored publications has often been associated with improved research re-
sults [109,110]. In particular, as research collaboration of affiliation increases, the number
of publications [18] and citations also increases [111]. Ductor [18] pointed out that access
to ideas provided by affiliations begets opportunity but publishing high-quality research
articles requires significant individual ability and effort over time. It implies that particular
individual types play a significant role in making the affiliation’s impact on RP significant.
2.10. Tenure and Promotion

Scott et al. [19] argued that promotion and tenure processes are the two most promi-
nent, outcome-oriented aspects of faculty development. An individual achieving tenure
and promotion demonstrates his or her excellence in academic practice, including teaching,
scholarship, and service [112]. Tenure and promotion are among the most controversial
and hotly debated topics in academia [113]. Negative perceptions of tenure and promotion
are prevalent in HEIs. One common misconception is that once an academic is awarded
through tenure and promotion, they have minimal incentive to allocate more effort to
academic work [114]. However, some studies (e.g., [19,115]) assessed that the productivity
of the faculty tends to maintain or increase following the granting of tenure. Academics,
once promoted and granted tenure, would want to maintain employment mobility, and
professional responsibilities may compel them to remain productive scholars [19]. However,
a lack of support from the institutions (e.g., provision of research assistants and research
funding) discourages academic researchers from pursuing tenure and promotion through
research outputs [116].
2.11. Research-Oriented Culture

Cloete et al. [117] emphasized that to improve RP, the organization must not only
focus on the organizational structure but also on the research culture of the organization. A
research culture serves as a framework for the organization on its view regarding research
dissemination, discussion, production, and valuation [118]. Commencing a good research
culture requires clear goals and leadership. Research culture includes observed behavior
regularities (e.g., the language and rituals, norms observed by research groups, and focus of
research leadership) and institutional research policies and agendas [107]. Empowerment,
training in research skills, and travel funding incentives are more powerful incentives to
conduct, present and publish research outputs [19].
2.12. Situational Factors

Situational factors are considered underlying reasons that would bring success to
the organization. These include good working conditions, a positive group climate, and
frequent organizational communication. A study conducted by Salazar-Clemeña and
Almonte-Acosta [107] showed that positive group climate, working conditions, and corpo-
rate communication are some common characteristics that emerged in different kinds of
researchers. In their work, respondents see institutional policies such as lack of provision
for working conditions and environment as weaknesses in enhancing research. Similarly,
Rockenbach et al. [119] noted that institutions must successfully increase diversity programs
addressing campus climate and supporting racial diversity. Intended or unintended, HEIs
develop campus-specific climates that impact individual faculty outcomes and strategic
organizational outcomes [120]. According to Guillaume et al. [121], eliminating intergroup
bias and improving efficiency in workgroups working on innovation and complex tasks by
promoting knowledge elaboration is one way of achieving a good campus climate.
2.13. Electronic Information Resources

The emergence of new technological advancements caused the major shift of edu-
cational materials in traditional libraries or learning commons from printed content to
electronic information resources while maintaining the facility’s efficiency of information
management [122]. These tools and resources (e.g., Google classroom, electronic library,
Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Turnitin (Advance Publications, Oak-
land, California, United States)) have increasingly become invaluable assets in academic
institutions as effective media for research and teaching [123,124]. They also enhance aca-
demic institutions’ research activities [125,126] and allow convenient access to a wide range
of accurate and timely information on various research subjects [124]. A study conducted
by Barjack [127] proved the positive relationship between technology use and RP. Similarly,
it is found that the increase in RP [22] and research competency [128] was associated with
the effective utilization of the available technological resources.
2.14. Research Funding

Substantial evidence on the effect of research funding on RP can be traced back to the
early case study conducted by McAllister and Narin [129]. They found a strong relationship
between the funding and the number of published research papers. Research agendas
have been driven by funding sources, and technology partnerships are encouraged [130].
Research funding promotes academic engagement, particularly with industrial partners
(e.g., patent licensing, and consultancy) [130]. Győrffy et al. [131] observed a strong effect
of a 47% increase in publication output consequent to receiving a research grant. Research
funding also facilitates publication outputs and fosters dissemination through higher
citation metrics and altmetrics, which are predominantly considered measures of research
impact [132]. In the USA, the government continues to be the primary source of outside
funding for R&D in all sectors of the economy and higher education [133]. Thus, industry
funding for universities continues to remain low. In the context of the global pandemic,
Tantengco [134] emphasized that R&D expenditure correlates to RP. However, research
funds in some regions (e.g., the Philippines) are obtained through internal sources within
the university-set budget or external sources from local and international governments
and agencies [135]. Due to the considerable amount of funding invested in promoting
scientific development, there is a need to evaluate the performance of academics against
the amount of allocated funds and determine the efficiency of existing funding allocation
strategies [136].
2.15. Reward System

Traditionally, the reward system was widely used by the private sector as a compen-
sation strategy for workers [137,138]. It was expanded when the same monetary award
incentive was introduced for research publications in the 1980s [139,140]. Research insti-
tutions seek to increase self-directed RP by implementing a positively enforcing reward
system [136]. The monetary incentive has been successful in China’s international scientific
publication as it experienced an exponential increase over the past 20 years [139]. Different
countries approach the reward system differently. In some, the incentives only apply to
science and engineering, while others apply to a wide range of disciplines [138]. Most coun-
tries focus the incentives directly on individuals rather than institutions [139]. However,
adequate performance indicators need to be established before adopting a performance-
based incentive plan [136]. Assigning academic-relative value units to scholarly activity
can be a quantifiable metric to measure the RP [140,141].
2.16. Research Gaps and Contribution

The positive impact of the investment on research activities has been consistently
reported to be significant for the growth and productivity of the economy [142]. In fact,
various industries have allocated resources to the innovation and development of their
products and services [143,144]. However, the impact and relationship of the benefits of
R&D to an organization’s value and performance have not yet been widely explored [145].
An evaluation of the innovation performance of ASEAN countries with the most significant
emerging economies (i.e., Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) has
been recently conducted by Nimtrakoon [146]. The study confirmed that R&D initiatives
drive the company’s profitability and market performance. Especially in developing
countries, the advancement of knowledge due to RP is claimed to have a significant impact
on pressing societal and environmental issues [13]. Nevertheless, initiatives for innovation
should not only focus on the industry but also on academic institutions. Consequently, most
academic institutions have practiced existing support systems for research activities [147].
In fact, various governments have introduced assurance mechanisms and initiatives to
hold HEIs accountable for their RP [148]. Consequently, HEIs are the top-performing
organizations in significant research outputs [149].
Kwiek [150] characterized the top-performing researchers in HEIs and found a signifi-
cant difference between the RP of academics with high and low positions. Low-position
academics significantly dominate soft field research while high-position academics per-
form in more demanding field research. Subsequent findings of Kwiek [150] suggest that
top-performing researchers in HEIs are more productive with international colleagues and
collaborators. Evidently, several factors significantly affect the RP in HEIs. Thus, there is a
need to exhaustively determine the factors that drive RP in HEIs to structure an overarching
framework among these factors. Sufficiently, various works in the literature have already
established these factors (e.g., [14,150]). However, the interrelationships of these factors
with each other remain unexplored. Establishing a linear relationship of a complex system
may be insufficient to explain the underlying relationships that govern such a system. Thus,
it is crucial to determine the complex relationships among the driving factors to provide a
robust decision support tool for improving the research performance of HEIs. The main
contribution of this study is to establish the interrelationships of these driving factors of RP
and determine the significant relationships to formulate policy directions that would be
beneficial to research managers in their respective institutions.
3. Preliminaries
Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) is a graph theoretic tool that structures homoge-
neous concepts or elements into a directed graph, where vertices are represented by these
elements and directed edges or arcs are described by their contextual relationships [41].
The digraph then portrays the complexity of the domain problem defined by these concepts
or elements. In effect, ISM reveals the mental model of how one understands the problem.
However, while the direct relationships of the problem can be explicitly defined via its
pictorial representation (i.e., the digraph), its complexity remains poorly understood due
to the presence of indirect relationships. The strength of the ISM is to transform a poorly
understood problem by comprehensively addressing both the direct and indirect relation-
ships among its elements, and in turn, it develops a clearly-defined structure that can be
better understood by the domain stakeholders. Thus, ISM extracts unknown, non-trivial
information about the complexity of a given problem.
Harary et al. [151] provided the foundations of the ISM, and its philosophical basis was
presented by Warfield [41]. A more detailed approach to its conceptualization and analysis
was defined by the Researchers of the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, in
1974. For brevity, readers are advised to refer to Harary et al. [151] for the mathematical
basis of the ISM. The following steps describe the procedure carried out in this work:
Step 1. Identify the elements under consideration. Note that these elements, to some
extent, must be homogeneous with respect to the concept under investigation (e.g., research
productivity). This process may be carried out by, but is not limited to, reviewing the
domain literature, conducting a survey, implementing a focus group discussion, or a
combination of these methods.
Step 2. Considering that the structural model would be established by a small group
of domain experts eliciting judgments individually, a structural self-interaction matrix
(SSIM) is constructed for each expert. Otherwise, when the group decides on a consensus,
one SSIM is generated, representing the group decision. These experts are asked to decide
on the contextual relationship (i.e., represented by the relation R) between two elements.
Four notations are used to describe the relation between a pair of elements:
â V for the relation from i to j but not in both directions;
â A for the relation from j to i but not in both directions;
â X for the relation from i to j and from j to i (i.e., both directions);
â O for the no relation that exists between i to j.
Step 3. Convert the SSIM into a binary matrix representation using the following relation:
â V implies that i R j = 1 and jRi = 0;
â A implies that i R j = 0 and jRi = 1;
â X implies that i R j = 1 and jRi = 1;
â O implies that i R j = 0 and jRi = 0.
Step 4. Construct an initial reachability matrix (R) for each SSIM using Equation (1).
R = A+I (1)

1 if iR j = 1
where A = aij n×n
is an adjacency matrix where aij = ; and I is an
0 if iR j = 0
identity matrix with a size n × n.
Step 5. Aggregate the initial reachability matrices. In most cases, the aggregation is
carried out via the majority rule [152]. A majority rule selects alternatives with a majority
preference, that is, 50%
of the votes plus one [42,55]. Consider an aggregate reachability
Agg Agg
matrix R Agg = rij . Thus, rij = 1 if the majority of experts favor the existence
n×n
Agg
of the contextual relationship from element i to element j. Otherwise, rij = 0. The
aggregation of the expert’s views by a majority rule depicts the strength of the supporters
of a proposal as superior compared to its opponents. A stricter criterion may be set at
two-thirds of the experts declaring rij = 1 [152]. Note that this step is skipped if the expert
group generates a consensus.
Step 6. Generate the final reachability matrix R∗ = rij∗ by checking transitive
n×n
Agg Agg
∗ = 1, for elements
links or relationships, such that, if = 1 and
rij = 1, then rikr jk
i, j, and k. The commonly used approach in enumerating transitive links is Warshall’s
algorithm [153].
Step 7: Determine the reachability set Vir and antecedent set Vja (∀i, j) from the R∗ .
The reachability set Vir is defined as
n o
Vir = j : rij∗ = 1, j = 1, . . . , n (2)
On the other hand, n o

Vja = i : rij∗ = 1, i = 1, . . . , n (3)
The intersection Vi∩ set is defined as
Vi∩ = Vir ∩ Via (4)
driving driving
The driving power Vi of i is simply the cardinality of Vir , denoted by Vi = Vir .
dependence dependence
The dependence power Vi ,
on the other hand, is defined as = Via . Vi
Step 8. Perform level partitioning. Segregation of the elements into a hierarchical
structure of κ levels provides useful, practical insights into these elements. In this step,
Algorithm 1 provides the iterations of the partitioning rules.
Algorithm 1: Level partitioning.

1. Start
2. Step 1: For each i, evaluate Vir and Vi∩ .
3. Step 2: If Vir = Vi∩ , assign i to Level 1.
4. Step 3: For each j, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}\i, evaluate Vjr and Vj∩ .
5. Step 4: If Vjr = Vj∩ , assign j to Level 2.
6. Step 5: Repeat Step 3 and Step 4 for all remaining elements until all elements are assigned
to 1, . . . , κ levels.
7. End
Step 9. Draw the digraph in which the relationships of the reachability matrix and
transitive links are removed. The elements are considered vertices in the digraph, and the
contextual relationships represent the edges. If rij∗ = 1, then there is a directed edge from
element i to element j. The interpretive structural model is constructed by incorporating
the level partitions in Step 8.
Step 10. Analyze the driving power and the dependence power. As an extension of
the ISM, the MICMAC analysis evaluates the driving power and dependence power of the
driving dependence
elements. By constructing a Vi × Vi map, they are classified into four clusters:
â Elements with high driving power and weak dependence power are considered
independent elements.
â Elements with strong driving and strong dependence power are the linkage elements.
â Elements having strong dependence power and weak driving power are referred to
as dependent elements.
â Elements with weak driving and weak dependence power are autonomous elements.
4. The Application of ISM-MICMAC Analysis in Understanding the Relationships of

Driving Factors of Research Productivity
The following are the steps of adopting the ISM-MICMAC analysis in determining
the relevant relationships between the driving factors of RP and, consequently, identifying
priority factors.
Step 1: List the driving factors of research productivity.
The final list of RP driving factors is shown in Appendix A. These driving factors
were obtained through an extensive literature review, as described in Section 2. Moreover,
corresponding codes were assigned to driving factors for convenience of representation.
Step 2: Construct an individual SSIM for each expert.
Five experts were asked to elicit judgments on the contextual relationships among RP
driving factors. Expert 1 is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering and the current Vice-
President for Production, Extension, and Business Affairs of a state university. Expert 2 is
a Dean of the College of Business Management of a state college. Meanwhile, Expert 3 is
a Director of External Affairs of the same state college. Expert 4 is an Associate Professor
and a Director of a research center in a state university who has published over a hundred
peer-reviewed journal articles in management, engineering, and the public sector. Finally,
Expert 5 is a Chair of a Tourism Management Department of a state university and has
published over 20 journal articles in tourism and marketing. The mean age is 42 years
old, and the mean academic experience is 19 years. All hold a Ph.D. degree and hold
administrative functions in their organizations. Experts were briefed about the study
and the corresponding questionnaire, which was drafted in the context of the ISM. The
questionnaire was distributed to the experts, and questions regarding the questionnaire
were immediately addressed. A corresponding SSIM was constructed for each expert, with
entries representing V, A, X, and O, as discussed in Step 2 of Section 3. Table 1 shows a
sample SSIM of Expert 4.
Table 1. A sample structural self-interaction matrix.
Driving Factors RS RF EIR SF ROC TP DC IS DPL M SD IF GI SE

Research skills and competence O A A X A A X A A A A X V V
Self-efficacy A X A A A O A A A A X X O
Global innovativeness O O O A X O V A A A A A
Individual factors O O O V X O O O A A A
Self-determination O O O V V O V O V O
Mentoring A A O V V O V A A
Dynamics of professional life O O O V V O V O
Institutional support X X V V V V V
Departmental culture A A O A V A
Tenure and promotions X V O O V
Research-oriented culture A A A A
Situational factors O O O
Electronic information
O O
resources
Research funding X
Step 3: Set up the corresponding initial reachability matrices.

An initial reachability matrix was constructed for each SSIM using the representation
described in Step 3 of Section 3. Table 2 shows the corresponding initial reachability matrix
of the SSIM in Table 1.
Table 2. A sample initial reachability matrix.
Driving Factors RS&C SE GI IF SD M DPL IS DC TP ROC SF EIR RF RS

Research skills and
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
competence
Self-efficacy 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Global innovativeness 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Individual factors 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Self-determination 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Mentoring 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Dynamics of professional life 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Institutional support 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Departmental culture 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Tenure and promotions 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
Research-oriented culture 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Situational factors 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Electronic information
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
resources
Research funding 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
Reward system 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
Step 4. Construct an aggregate initial reachability matrix.

For this work, the aggregation of the initial reachability matrices assumes the following
process. First, a priority weight wk is assigned to the kth expert, which represents the
importance of the judgment of expert k in relation to his or her knowledge and experience in
Agg
the RP domain. wk follows the normalization ∑k wk = 1. Secondly, rij = 1 if ∑k wk rij ≥ α
Agg
where α represents an aggregation threshold. Otherwise, rij = 0. α is set to filter out
weak relationships between driving factors i to j. In this study, α = 0.75, elucidating a
supermajority rule. Table 3 presents the aggregate initial reachability matrix.
Table 3. The aggregate initial reachability matrix.

Research skills and 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
competence
Self-efficacy 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Global innovativeness 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Individual factors 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Self-determination 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Mentoring 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Dynamics of professional life 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Institutional support 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Departmental culture 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Research-oriented culture 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Situational factors 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Electronic information 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
resources
Research funding 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Reward system 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Step 5: Compute the final reachability matrix.

The final reachability matrix, shown in Table 4, was obtained using Step 6 (Section 3)
with the aid of Warshall’s algorithm.
Table 4. The final reachability matrix.

Research skills and 1 1 1* 1* 1* 0 1* 0 1* 0 1* 1* 0 0 0
competence
Self-efficacy 1* 1 1* 1* 1 0 1* 0 1* 0 1* 1* 0 0 0
Global innovativeness 1* 1* 1 1* 1* 0 1* 0 1* 0 1 1* 0 0 0
Individual factors 1* 1* 1 1 1* 0 1* 0 1* 0 1 1 0 0 0
Self-determination 1 1 1 1* 1 0 1 0 1* 0 1 1 0 0 0
Mentoring 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 1* 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Dynamics of professional life 1 1 1 1 1* 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Institutional support 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 1* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Departmental culture 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 0 1* 0 1 0 1 1* 0 0 0
Research-oriented culture 1 1* 1 1 1* 0 1* 0 1* 0 1 1* 0 0 0
Situational factors 1* 1* 1 1* 1* 0 1* 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Electronic information 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 0 1* 0 1* 0 1 1* 1 0 0
resources
Research funding 1 1 1* 1* 1* 0 1* 0 1* 0 1* 1* 0 1 0
Reward system 1* 1 1* 1* 1* 0 1* 0 1* 1 1 1* 0 1 1
* indicates transitivity.
Step 6: Construct level partitions.

Using Algorithm 1, each driving factor is assigned a level in the proposed hierarchical
structure. The assignments are described in Table 5. It shows that 10 driving factors are
positioned in Level 1, while only institutional support is assigned to Level IV.
Step 7: Draw the final interpretive structural map.
The final interpretive structural map is constructed using the level partitions in Step 6
and the initial reachability matrix in Table 3, as shown in Figure 1.
Step 8: Perform the MICMAC analysis.
Figure 2 shows the graphical representation of the driving factors of RP according to
the autonomous, dependent, linkage, and independent clusters (see Step 10, Section 3 for
the discussion). It reveals that nine driving factors belong to the linkage cluster; five are in
the independent cluster, while tenure and promotion is the only factor in the autonomous
cluster. The autonomous cluster contains no driving factor of RP.
Table 5. The partition leveling of research productivity driving factors.
Driving Factors Reachability Set Antecedent Set Intersection Set Level

RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, M,
Research skills and RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, DPL, RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, DPL,
DPL, IS, DC, ROC, SF, EIR, I
competence DC, ROC, SF DC, ROC, SF
RF, RS
RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, DPL, RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, DPL,
Self-efficacy DPL, IS, DC, ROC, SF, EIR, I
DC, ROC, SF DC, ROC, SF
RF, RS
Global innovativeness DPL, IS, DC, ROC, SF, EIR, I
RF, RS
Individual factors DPL, IS, DC, ROC, SF, EIR, I
RF, RS
Self-determination DPL, IS, DC, ROC, SF, EIR, I
RF, RS
Mentoring M, IS M II
DPL, DC, ROC, SF
Dynamics ofJ. Open Innov. Technol. Mark.
RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, DPL,
Complex. 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEWDPL, IS, DC, ROC, SF, EIR,
RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, 14
DPL,
of 26 I
professional life DC, ROC, SF DC, ROC, SF
RF, RS
Institutional support DPL, IS, RS&C,
DC, TP, SE,ROC,
GI, IF,SF,
SD, M, IS IS IV
Institutional support EIR,
DPL,RF, RS TP, ROC, SF,
IS, DC, IS IS IV
EIR, RF, RS RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, M,
Departmental culture DPL,RS&C,
IS, DC, SE,ROC, SF,
GI, IF, EIR,
SD, M, I
DC,
RS&C,ROC, SE, SF
GI, IF, SD, DPL, RS&C, DC, ROC,
SE, GI, SF
IF, SD,
Departmental culture RF,
DPL, IS, DC, RSROC, SF, EIR, I
DC, ROC, SF DPL, DC, ROC, SF
Tenure and promotions TP IS, TP,
RF,RSRS TP I
Tenure and promotions TP RS&C, SE,IS,GI,TP,
IF,RS
SD, M, TP I
Research-oriented culture DPL,RS&C,
IS, DC, SE, GI, IF,
ROC, SF,SD, M,
EIR, I
RS&C,
DC, ROC, SE, SF
GI, IF, SD, DPL, RS&C, DC,
SE, GI, IF, SD,
ROC, SF
Research-oriented culture DPL, IS, DC,
RF, RSROC, SF, EIR, I
DC, ROC, SF DPL, DC, ROC, SF
RS&C, SE, GI,RF,IF,
RSSD, M,
RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, DPL, RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, M,
RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, DPL,
Situational factors RS&C, SE, SF
DPL,
GI, IF, SD, DPL,
IS, DC, ROC, SF, EIR, RS&C, DC,
SE, GI, IF, SD,
I
Situational factors
DC, ROC, DPL, IS, DC, ROC, SF, EIR,
ROC, SF I
DC, ROC, SF
RF, RS DPL, DC, ROC, SF
Electronic information RS&C, SE, GI, IF, SD, DPL, RF, RS
IS, EIR EIR II
resources Electronic information re-DC,RS&C, ROC,SE, SF,GI,
EIRIF, SD, DPL,
IS, EIR EIR II
sources RS&C, SE, GI, DC,IF, ROC,
SD, SF,
DPL,EIR
Research funding IS, RF, RS RF II
Research funding DC,RS&C,
ROC,SE, SF,GI,
RFIF, SD, DPL, IS, RF, RS RF II
RS&C, SE, GI, DC, IF,ROC, SF, RF
SD, DPL,
Reward system RS&C, SE, GI, IF,RS
SD, DPL, IS, RS RS III
Reward system DC, TP, ROC, SF, RF, IS, RS RS III
DC, TP, ROC, SF, RF, RS
Figure 1. The interpretive structural model of the contextual relationships of research productivity
1. Thefactors.
Figure driving interpretive structural model of the contextual relationships of research productivity
driving factors.
Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 26
RS&C SE
GI
IF
14 SD Linkage
Dependent
DPL
DC
ROC
12
SF
10
Dependence Power
Autonomous Driving/Independent
6
TP RF
2 M RS
EIR
IS
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Driving Power
Figure 2. The MICMAC 2. The MICMAC analysis.
analysis.
Figure
5. Results and Discussion

5. Results and Discussion The ISM and MICMAC analysis were implemented with the steps provided in
The ISM and MICMAC
Section analysis
4. First, were from
five SSIMs implemented with the
the expert group weresteps provided
constructed, in Sec- to
corresponding
tion 4. First, five SSIMs from the expert group were constructed, corresponding to Stepmatrices.
Step 2. Following Step 3, the SSIMs were transformed into initial reachability 2.
Afterward, these individual initial reachability matrices were aggregated via a defined
Following Step 3, the SSIMs were transformed into initial reachability matrices. After-
aggregation procedure that appropriately captures the knowledge and experience of the
ward, these individual initial
experts on RPreachability matrices were
in academic institutions. Step 4aggregated
generates thevia a defined
aggregate initialaggre-
reachability
gation procedure that appropriately
matrix. captures the
The final reachability knowledge
matrix, and experience
which encompasses of therelationships
the indirect experts of
the driving factors,
on RP in academic institutions. Stepwas obtained tothe
4 generates contain transitive
aggregate relationships
initial reachability(i.e., represented
matrix. by
elements with “1*” in Table 4) following the implementation of Step 5. The hierarchical
The final reachability matrix, which encompasses the indirect relationships of the driving
ordering of the driving factors, which makes the construction of the digraph more interpre-
factors, was obtained towas
tive, contain transitive
obtained using Steprelationships (i.e., in
6 and is presented represented by elements
Table 5. Subsequently, with was
the digraph
“1*” in Table 4) following the implementation of Step 5. The hierarchical ordering
drawn from the final reachability matrix, as suggested in Step 7. The digraph, which of the also
driving factors, whichrepresents
makesthethe interpretive structural
construction model,
of the is shown
digraph in Figure
more 1. The MICMAC
interpretive, was ob- analysis
tained using Step 6 and is presented in Table 5. Subsequently, the digraph was drawnassign
is carried out using Step 8, where the driving and dependence powers are used to
the challenges into four clusters, as presented in Figure 2.
from the final reachability matrix, as suggested in Step 7. The digraph, which also repre-
Figure 1 depicts the digraph showing the relationships among the 15 identified driving
sents the interpretive structural
factors model,
of RP. Driving is shown
factors in Figure
are arranged in four 1. TheinMICMAC
levels a hierarchical analysis
structure.isThose
carried out using Step 8, where the driving and dependence powers are used to assign
at the lower level of the hierarchy drive the factors at the upper levels. As the in
illustrated
challenges into fourFigure 1, driving
clusters, factors such
as presented inasFigure
research2. skills and competence, self-efficacy, global inno-
vativeness, research-oriented culture, individual factors, situational factors, departmental
Figure 1 depicts the digraph showing the relationships among the 15 identified driv-
ing factors of RP. Driving factors are arranged in four levels in a hierarchical structure.
Those at the lower level of the hierarchy drive the factors at the upper levels. As illustrated
in Figure 1, driving factors such as research skills and competence, self-efficacy, global
innovativeness, research-oriented culture, individual factors, situational factors, depart-
culture, tenure and promotion, self-determination, and dynamics of professional life are
found at Level I. Driving factors belonging to Level II include mentoring, electronic infor-
mation resources, and research funding, while reward system is the only factor belonging
to Level III. Institutional support, which can be categorized as an organizational resource,
is the most elementary driver of RP and is located at Level IV. The ISM-MICMAC analysis
also suggests that no dependent driving factor emerges, implying that although some
factors may have tendencies to be dependent on other factors, they have more driving
power than dependence power.
Autonomous driving factors both have low driving power and dependence power,
resulting in their relative disconnection from the system. Results indicate that the tenure
and promotion factor is considered autonomous. Based on Figure 1, it is only affected
by two other driving factors, namely institutional support and research funding, and it
does not impact other driving factors. This finding implies that while efficient tenure and
promotion schemes promote RP, without institutional support and research funding that
would support the provisions of the tenure and promotion guidelines of an organization, its
potential may be insufficient to hold significant ground. Cunningham-Williams et al. [114]
argued that the relatively higher requirements of tenure and promotion schemes (e.g., re-
search areas) have a perverse effect on the motivation of academics to pursue more research
goals. This relationship may be aggravated by the presence of no financial funding and
supportive policies that would foster an environment for academics to achieve tenure and
promotion requirements. Thus, decision-makers and research managers must focus their
initiatives on advancing institutional support and research funding when the development
of tenure and promotion provisions aims to maximize research outputs.
The results also reveal nine (9) factors that belong to the linkage cluster: research skills
and competence, self-efficacy, global innovativeness, individual factors, self-determination,
dynamics of professional life, departmental culture, research-oriented culture, and situa-
tional factors. All driving factors in the linkage cluster have a strong driving power of 9
and a strong dependence power of 14, as presented in Figure 2. These driving factors are
unstable, and any decision taken in response to them will affect others and feedback on
themselves. The first six driving factors (i.e., research skills and competence, self-efficacy,
global innovativeness, individual factors, self-determination, and the dynamics of pro-
fessional life) influence the individual’s inherent ability to achieve significant academic
career progress. On the other hand, the other three factors (i.e., departmental culture,
research-oriented culture, and situational factors) pertain to the institution’s means of
support to increase research performance. These factors providing a robust environment of
research quality were considered the most influential predictors of RP [154,155]. However,
as our findings suggest, they are significantly impacted by other driving factors, and so the
initiatives designed to address them may not be efficient.
The driving factors such as mentoring, institutional support, electronic information
resources, research funding, and reward system are identified as having independent
characteristics (see Figure 3). These factors have high driving power but low dependence
power. Thus, these are substantial driving factors and may be treated as crucial of all
driving factors, considering that they are the most important causative agents affecting
RP in an institution. For emphasis, Figure 3 shows these main driving factors of RP.
Mentoring, with a driving power of 10 and a dependence power of 2, directly involves six
driving factors (i.e., research skills and competence, self-efficacy, global innovativeness,
departmental culture, research-oriented culture, and situational factors). On the other
hand, the electronic information resources, having a driving power of 10 and a dependence
power of 2, directly affects two driving factors (i.e., research skills and competence and
research-oriented culture). The findings in this study are consistent with others in the
literature, particularly highlighting that mentoring directly improves the soft and technical
skills of academics [92] and enhances their self-efficacy [91]. Furthermore, the utilization of
electronic information resources also improved the competency of the researchers [127].
and direct enforcement of a reward system (e.g., monetary incentive) to an individual fac-
ulty significantly impacts scientific and publication performance, as apparent in the work
of Quan et al. [139]. Given the interconnected and relevant relationships of the driving
factors of RP under the independent cluster to other driving factors, stakeholders and de-
cision-makers should focus on providing and improving research funding schemes, re-
ward systems, and institutional support for the faculty members in their respective insti-
tutions, as its driving Thus,factors haveofaelectronic
the provision significant influence
information overand
resources other factors
mentoring in the system.
opportunities is
crucial in improving RP in academic institutions.
Mentoring
Institutional
Reward
Main support
driving
factors of
research
productivity
Electronic
Research
information
funding
resources
Figure 3. The main driving factors of research productivity.

Figure 3. The main driving factors of research productivity.
Meanwhile, institutional support, with a driving power of 15 and a dependence power
of 1, has a direct effect on 11 driving factors (i.e., research skills and competence, self-efficacy,
6. Policy Insightsglobal innovativeness, mentoring, departmental culture, tenure, and promotion, research-
The findingsoriented
of theculture, situational factors,
ISM-MICMAC analysiselectronic
offerinformation
invaluable resources, research
insights for funding,
decision-
and reward system). Similar to the findings of White et al. [103], high institutional support
makers of HEIs. In thisresearch
impacts section, the main
performance driving
through factors
its positive (see Figure
influence 3) are
on a faculty’s emphasized
cultural setting,
since they are considered the keyanddriving
work characteristics, personal factors affecting institutions
factors. Furthermore, the productivity of research
with an effective man-
agement approach generate faster growth in RP [104]. Policies
academics in institutions. Investments in these driving factors would yield an efficient that support research-related
activities enforced in the institution have a contributing factor [106], especially on the time
allocation of organizational resources.
utilized for productive Oneendeavors
research of the main factorscan
an academic of spend.
RP is institutional
Research funding, sup-
port, which is the on
institution’s
the other hand,initiative to provide
has a driving power ofsupport in producing
10 and a dependence powerresearch outputs.
of 3. It directly
affects two driving factors (i.e., research skills and competence
Vision and mission statements must pronounce such direction of achieving increased and self-efficacy). As evi-RP,
dent from the results of Hooi and Wang [129], the provision of research funds leads to a
along with strategic
higheraction
level ofplans to attain
RP. Adequate funds them. A collaborative
for cutting-edge planning
tools and resources neededapproach
for specificthat
integrates the interests
research of academics
outputs can supportis pivotal
the academicsin ensuring
working intheir involvement
institutions with the
unable to provide
such resources. Lastly, the reward system, having a driving power of 12 and dependence
power of 2, directly affects four driving factors (i.e., self-efficacy, tenure and promotion,
research-oriented culture, and research funding). Positive and direct enforcement of a
reward system (e.g., monetary incentive) to an individual faculty significantly impacts
scientific and publication performance, as apparent in the work of Quan et al. [139]. Given
the interconnected and relevant relationships of the driving factors of RP under the inde-
pendent cluster to other driving factors, stakeholders and decision-makers should focus
on providing and improving research funding schemes, reward systems, and institutional
support for the faculty members in their respective institutions, as its driving factors have
a significant influence over other factors in the system.
6. Policy Insights
The findings of the ISM-MICMAC analysis offer invaluable insights for decision-
makers of HEIs. In this section, the main driving factors (see Figure 3) are emphasized since
they are considered the key driving factors affecting the productivity of research academics
in institutions. Investments in these driving factors would yield an efficient allocation of
organizational resources. One of the main factors of RP is institutional support, which is
the institution’s initiative to provide support in producing research outputs. Vision and
mission statements must pronounce such direction of achieving increased RP, along with
strategic action plans to attain them. A collaborative planning approach that integrates the
interests of academics is pivotal in ensuring their involvement with the strategic directions
set forth by the institution, including knowledge creation, research publication outputs,
and intellectual property assets, among others. Along with these strategic directions is the
necessary support that the institution promises to the academics. If addressed, institutional
support may enhance most driving factors, which would be beneficial to the efforts of
HEIs in advancing their RP. For instance, since institutional support drives self-efficacy,
research academics may be more determined and confident in completing research-related
tasks. Thus, decision-makers must design appropriate measures that ensure institutional
support in all aspects of research academics. Institutional support may be demonstrated
in various forms. Here, we identify three forms: (1) financial, (2) infrastructural, and
(3) human capital. Providing research funds to carry out research works is straightforward
for obvious reasons. A sizable portion of the institution’s overall budget may be allocated
to producing research outputs regarding funding the operational expenses of research
projects and research dissemination costs. Infrastructural support may include putting up
more research centers, laboratories, and co-working spaces and promoting more academic
flexibility (e.g., allowing more time for research), faster lanes, and streamlined transactions.
The provision of this kind of institutional support would encourage and allow academics
to pursue cutting-edge research works. Finally, investments in human capital as one form
of institutional support may be further explored as it promotes self-efficacy, research skills
and competence, and global innovativeness, as the findings of this work suggest. These
investments should support training and workshops in research career advancements,
research and graduate fellowships, and organizing research conferences.
Another main driver of RP that decision-makers need to focus on is the reward systems.
In general, organizations use reward systems to manage the performance of an individual
or a group, which could build job satisfaction, productive behavior, and positive retention.
It is considered necessary for an institution to gain leverage in a competitive environment
and is linked with goal setting, character development, competency measures, and team
performance. Hence, institutions need to adopt an attractive performance-based incentive
plan with periodic monitoring, assessment, and evaluation to address changing needs
over time. Some HEIs in the Philippines, for instance, take the initiative in providing an
incentive scheme in a form of monetary reward and assigning impact factors to journals
as a basis for awarding academics who are publishing academic papers. HEIs may also
organize periodic recognition ceremonies and testimonials for productive researchers. A
proactive reward system nurtures a healthy research environment in HEIs as it helps
achieve positive motivation among academics. Research funding pertains to the monetary
provision of an institution or external organization to conduct research activities. It is one of
the main driving factors policymakers need to focus on. The completion of a research output
relies heavily on the availability of necessary resources. Hence, it is crucial for decision-
makers to (1) develop programs that will set internal fund allocation for excellent research
proposals that would benefit the institution and (2) partner with external organizations that
would grant funding for the research proposals crafted by their respective academics. To
monitor the provision of funding, decision-makers can consider evaluating the academic’s
performance against the amount of funding allocated.
On the other hand, mentoring is another main driver of RP that decision-makers need
to highlight in their institutional measures. Mentoring is promoted when an experienced
researcher takes the initiative to guide and teach those with less experience. The big brother,
small brother (BB/SB) approach could serve as a benchmark, wherein the big brother serves
as the role model to develop a proper research mindset for “small brother” researchers in ac-
tively engaging themselves in the mentoring process. This approach also serves as an agent
of change in generating a pool of human resources trained to efficiently implement research
projects and consequently increases RP. Another example is the adoption of a commitment
policy in the development process to expand the opportunities for all promising researchers
in the institution for substantial involvement in research initiatives. It is considered essen-
tial in gaining expanded networks and collaborations for more interdisciplinary research
projects. In the empirical case reported by Elkbuli et al. [156] among burn surgeons, those
who have been mentored are more likely to publish and receive grants. It finds that a
well-established mentoring support system from the university builds a strong research
foundation and profound professional relationships in the research ecosystem. Thus, an
institution needs to build a mentoring support system that assists ongoing initiatives,
including training for mentors in building better professional relationships and promoting
productive conversations. Finally, electronic information resources are a crucial driver of RP.
The provision of these resources (e.g., online databases, infrastructures, and the Internet)
allows academics to access a wide range of resources efficiently and accurately on various
subjects. Such access is deemed essential in promoting impactful and cutting-edge research
works necessary for the institutions to gain a competitive advantage while minimizing
communication costs. Electronic information resources are necessary for institutions to gain
an advantage in a competitive climate. Subscription to academic and research databases
that would allow access to research articles is deemed an essential lifeline in promoting
impactful and cutting-edge research works. With mobile access, institutions minimize
some relevant costs. In the efforts of increasing institutional support, reward systems,
research funding, mentoring, and EIR, the corresponding dependent factors are effectively
addressed, thereby increasing the RP of the institution.
7. Conclusions and Future Work

Research productivity plays an important role in knowledge transfer and innovation.
Due to its significant impact on socio-economic development, the current literature has
examined how certain factors influence RP. A comprehensive list of the factors that drive RP
has been established up until the present. However, the possible relationships between the
identified driving factors have not been explored in the literature domain. While empirical
evidence reported that these factors influence RP, it is essential to consider that these driving
factors may impact other driving factors due to their loosely defined boundaries, which
is crucial in developing insights for policy-making in HEIs to maximize research outputs.
Such a gap serves as the main departure of this work.
In this work, a comprehensive list of 15 relevant driving factors was obtained through
a literature review. Due to the subjectivity of the identified driving factors and the notion
that the evaluation of the interrelationships reflects an expert judgment, ISM and MICMAC
analyses were adopted to determine the possible relationships between them. ISM portrays
a clear overview of the complex relationships of the driving factors of RP in a manner
that establishes a hierarchical structure that determines those significant factors. With the
ISM-MICMAC analysis, results reveal that most driving factors are categorized as linkage
variables that decision-makers must oversee in their policy-making agenda. As these
driving factors both have high dependence and driving powers, compromising one driver
in this category changes the overall structure of the RP network of driving factors. Fur-
thermore, five driving factors (i.e., institutional support, reward system, research funding,
mentoring, and electronic information resources) identified as independent variables are
determined highly important since addressing these driving factors would address other
driving factors. On the other hand, only the tenure and promotion factor has autonomous
characteristics, while no dependent variable has been identified.
The results of this work contribute significantly to the literature as it provides mean-
ingful insights that would help better understand the overall structure of RP. These results
would aid decision-makers, especially in HEIs, in resource allocation, human resource
pooling, and the design of appropriate initiatives. Based on the findings, HEIs should
(1) provide research funds and mentoring programs, (2) offer efficient monetary award
incentive schemes, (3) develop programs that would set internal fund allocation for highly
potential research proposals beneficial to the institution, and (4) collaborate with external
organizations to grant funding for research proposals.
However, this work has its limitations. The limited number of experts may be the
groundwork for future studies. Since the decision-makers are all from the Philippines,
their judgments may not well reflect other institutions with different cultures, resources,
bureaucracies, and educational systems. Moreover, due to the subjectivity of the response
being explored, an empirical analysis of the interrelationships between the driving factors
of RP has not been investigated. For future works, statistical modeling (i.e., factor analysis,
structural equation modeling) can be adopted to validate the subjective relationships
between the driving factors as discussed in this work. Finally, a closely similar analysis that
would adopt the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) in examining
the causal relationships of these driving factors is an important future agenda to further
reinforce the insights of this work.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.O. and K.Y.; data curation, L.O., J.L.A., S.S.E. and F.M.;
formal analysis, L.O., J.L.A., S.S.E., F.M., D.M., D.F.M., D.I.C.-S. and R.Q.; funding acquisition, E.T.
and R.Q.; investigation, L.O., J.L.A., S.S.E. and F.M.; methodology, L.O., J.L.A., S.S.E. and F.M.; project
administration, L.O. and E.T.; resources, L.O.; software, L.O., J.L.A., S.S.E. and F.M.; supervision, L.O.
and E.T.; validation, L.O., J.L.A., S.S.E., F.M., K.Y., D.M., D.I.C.-S. and J.P.; visualization, J.L.A., S.S.E.,
F.M. and D.F.M.; writing—original draft, L.O., J.L.A., S.S.E., F.M., K.Y., D.M., D.F.M., D.I.C.-S., E.T., J.P.
and R.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is partially funded by the Office of the Vice-President for Production Extension
and Resource Generation of Cebu Technological University.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. The final list of driving factors of research productivity.
Code Driving Factors Brief Description References

Research skills and Refers to the set of skills associated with research training and experience
RS&C Prado [11]
competence of the faculty to achieve desirable research outputs.
Refers to the belief system of the individual faculty member on their ability
SE Self-efficacy Garnasih et al. [12]
to carry out a research project.
Global Refers to the degree to which a person is open to new ideas and Rubin and
GI
innovativeness independently makes innovative decisions. Callaghan [13]
Refers to how the attributes of an individual become factors in the
IF Individual factors Ghabban et al. [10]
perception of their involvement and interest in conducting research works.
Refers to the internally produced autonomous encouragement, motivation,
SD Self-determination Peng and Gao [14]
and adaptive attributes crucial to research initiatives.
Refers to the initiative wherein the experienced faculty member will act as
M Mentoring Sorkness et al. [15]
a guide, role model, and teacher for those with less research experience.
Table A1. Cont.
Code Driving Factors Brief Description References

Refers to the academic’s superiority in his or her graduate training
Dynamics of Kozhakhmet
DPL program, the impact of sponsorship, and the stratification of the academic
professional life et al. [16]
profession.
Institutional Refers to the institution’s provision of training and support in enhancing
IS Nygaard [17]
support research productivity.
Refers to developing and maintaining a distinct culture of the department
Departmental
DC unit and its frequent communication to enhance research culture among Ductor [18]
culture
faculty members.
Tenure and Refers to how research productivity is integrated and institutionalized
TP Scott et al. [19]
promotions within the tenure and promotions guidelines of the university.
Refers to the broad set of customs and traditions of an organization
Research-oriented
ROC wherein administrators and faculty members are trained to become Scott et al. [19]
culture
outstanding researchers during post-graduate training.
Refers to the working condition, positive group climate, and Dapiton and
SF Situational factors
organizational communication among faculties of the university. Canlas [20]
Electronic
Refers to electronic resources or databases, which allow faculty members to Bhagwatwar
EIR information
access a wide range of accurate and timely information on various subjects. et al. [22]
resources
Refers to funds allocated to support research projects, recruit research staff, Iqbal and
RF Research funding
and other similar initiatives. Mahmood [157]
Refers to the set of mechanisms that promote encouragement toward Chang and
RS Reward system
research and academic productivity. Mills [136]
References
1. Cloete, N.; Bunting, I.; Maassen, P. Research universities in Africa: An empirical overview of eight flagship universities. Knowl.
Prod. Contradict. Funct. Afr. High. Educ. 2015, 1, 18–31.
2. Zhao, L.; Lu, L.; Wang, A.; Zhang, H.; Huang, M.; Wu, H.; Xing, B.; Wang, Z.; Ji, R. Nano-biotechnology in agriculture: Use of
nanomaterials to promote plant growth and stress tolerance. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 1935–1947. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Ye, L.; Zhao, X.; Bao, E.; Li, J.; Zou, Z.; Cao, K. Bio-organic fertilizer with reduced rates of chemical fertilization improves soil
fertility and enhances tomato yield and quality. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 177. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Donovan, C.; Butler, L.; Butt, A.J.; Jones, T.H.; Hanney, S.R. Evaluation of the impact of national breast cancer foundation-funded
research. Med. J. Aust. 2014, 200, 214–218. [CrossRef]
5. Lee, Y.H. Determinants of research productivity in Korean Universities: The role of research funding. J. Technol. Transf. 2021, 46,
1462–1486. [CrossRef]
6. Nguyen, N.D.; Nguyen, T.D.; Dao, K.T. Effects of institutional policies and characteristics on research productivity at Vietnam
science and technology universities. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06024. [CrossRef]
7. Henry, C.; Ghani, N.A.M.; Hamid, U.M.A.; Bakar, A.N. Factors contributing towards research productivity in higher education.
Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 2020, 9, 203–211. [CrossRef]
8. Ryazanova, O.; Jaskiene, J. Managing individual research productivity in academic organizations: A review of the evidence and a
path forward. Res. Policy 2022, 51, 104448. [CrossRef]
9. Talukdar, D. Research productivity patterns in the organizational behavior and human resource management literature. Int. J.
Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 26, 467–484. [CrossRef]
10. Ghabban, F.; Selamat, A.; Ibrahim, R.; Krejcar, O.; Maresova, P.; Herrera-Viedma, E. The influence of personal and organizational
factors on researchers’ attitudes towards sustainable research productivity in Saudi universities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4804.
[CrossRef]
11. Prado, N.I. Predictors of research productivity among administrators, faculty, and students. Liceo J. High. Educ. Res. 2019, 15,
1–16. [CrossRef]
12. Garnasih, R.; Primiana, I.; Effendi, N. Strengthening research self-efficacy and research productivity through research culture
implementation. J. Manag. Mark. Rev. 2017, 2, 19–26. [CrossRef]
13. Rubin, A.; Callaghan, C.W. Entrepreneurial orientation, technological propensity and academic research productivity. Heliyon
2019, 5, e02328. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Peng, J.E.; Gao, X. Understanding TEFL academics’ research motivation and its relations with research productivity. Sage Open
2019, 9, 2158244019866295. [CrossRef]
15. Sorkness, C.A.; Pfund, C.; Ofili, E.O.; Okuyemi, K.S.; Vishwanatha, J.K.; Zavala, M.E.; Womack, V. A new approach to mentoring
for research careers: The national research mentoring network. BMC Proc. 2017, 11, 171–182. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Kozhakhmet, S.; Moldashev, K.; Yenikeyeva, A.; Nurgabdeshov, A. How training and development practices contribute to
research productivity: A moderated mediation model. Stud. High. Educ. 2022, 47, 437–449. [CrossRef]
17. Nygaard, L.P. Publishing and perishing: An academic literacies framework for investigating research productivity. Stud. High.
Educ. 2017, 42, 519–532. [CrossRef]
18. Ductor, L. Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2015, 77, 385–407. [CrossRef]
19. Scott, D.M.; Kelsch, M.P.; Friesner, D.L. Impact of achieved tenure and promotion on faculty research productivity at a school of
pharmacy. Innov. Pharm. 2019, 10. [CrossRef]
20. Dapiton, E.P.; Canlas, R.B. Value creation of big data utilization: The next frontier for productive scholarship among Filipino
academics. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 9, 423–431.
21. Vu, K.; Hanafizadeh, P.; Bohlin, E. ICT as a driver of economic growth: A survey of the literature and directions for future research.
Telecommun. Policy 2020, 44, 101922. [CrossRef]
22. Bhagwatwar, A.; Hara, N.; Ynalvez, M.A. Out of Asia: Understanding the nexus between technology usage and research
productivity in Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 963–970. [CrossRef]
23. Kwon, K.S.; Kim, S.H.; Park, T.S.; Kim, E.K.; Jang, D. The impact of graduate students on research productivity in Korea. JOItmC
2015, 1, 21. [CrossRef]
24. Quimbo, M.A.T.; Sulabo, E.C. Research productivity and its policy implications in higher education institutions. Stud. High. Educ.
2014, 39, 1955–1971. [CrossRef]
25. Kumar, S. Ethical concerns in the rise of co-authorship and its role as a proxy of research collaborations. Publications 2018, 6, 37.
[CrossRef]
26. Vlăsceanu, L.; Hâncean, M.G. Policy incentives and research productivity in the Romanian higher education. An institutional
approach. In The European Higher Education Area; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 185–203.
27. Heng, K.; Hamid, M.; Khan, A. Factors influencing academics’ research engagement and productivity: A developing countries
perspective. Issues Educ. Res. 2020, 30, 965–987.
28. Mehta, N.; Verma, P.; Seth, N. Total quality management implementation in engineering education in India: An interpretive
structural modelling approach. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2014, 25, 124–140. [CrossRef]
29. Pal Pandi, A.; Rajendra Sethupathi, P.V.; Jeyathilagar, D. The IEQMS model for augmenting quality in engineering institutions–an
interpretive structural modelling approach. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2016, 27, 292–308. [CrossRef]
30. Mahajan, R.; Agrawal, R.; Sharma, V.; Nangia, V. Analysis of challenges for management education in India using total interpretive
structural modelling. Qual. Assur. Educ. 2016, 24, 95–122. [CrossRef]
31. Debnath, R.M.; Shankar, R. Improving service quality in technical education: Use of interpretive structural modelling. Qual.
Assur. Educ. 2012, 20, 387–407. [CrossRef]
32. Fathi, M.; Ghobakhloo, M.; Syberfeldt, A. An interpretive structural modeling of teamwork training in higher education. Educ.
Sci. 2019, 9, 16. [CrossRef]
33. Karamat, J.; Shurong, T.; Ahmad, N.; Afridi, S.; Khan, S.; Mahmood, K. Promoting healthcare sustainability in developing
countries: Analysis of knowledge management drivers in public and private hospitals of Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 2019, 16, 508. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Patil, N.Y.; Warkhedkar, R.M. Knowledge management implementation in Indian automobile ancillary industries: An interpretive
structural model for productivity. J. Model. Manag. 2016, 11, 802–810. [CrossRef]
35. Yang, Z.; Lin, Y. The effects of supply chain collaboration on green innovation performance: An interpretive structural modeling
analysis. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 23, 1–10. [CrossRef]
36. Kiron, K.R.; Kannan, K. Innovation capability for sustainable development of SMEs: An interpretive structural modelling
methodology for analysing the interactions among factors. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2018, 15, 514–535. [CrossRef]
37. Piya, S.; Shamsuzzoha, A.; Khadem, M. An approach for analysing supply chain complexity drivers through interpretive
structural modelling. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2020, 23, 311–336. [CrossRef]
38. Rane, S.B.; Kirkire, M.S. Interpretive structural modelling of risk sources in medical device development process. Int. J. Syst.
Assur. Eng. Manag. 2017, 8, 451–464. [CrossRef]
39. Dwivedi, Y.K.; Janssen, M.; Slade, E.L.; Rana, N.P.; Weerakkody, V.; Millard, J.; Hidders, J.; Snijders, D. Driving innovation
through big open linked data (BOLD): Exploring antecedents using interpretive structural modelling. Inf. Syst. Front. 2017, 19,
197–212. [CrossRef]
40. Abinaya, R.; Suresh, M. Analyzing the drivers for lean practices of commercial banking using interpretive structural modelling.
In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research (ICCIC), Tamil
Nadu, India, 15 December 2016; pp. 1–4.
41. Warfield, J.N. Binary matrices in system modelling. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1973, 5, 441–449. [CrossRef]
42. Basar III, R.J.T.; Borden, H.R.; Busano III, M.L.; Gonzales, X.K.; Guerrero, V.G.; Tan, T.A.; Sia, L.; Yamagishi, K.D.; Ocampo, L.
Using the interpretative structural modeling approach for understanding the relationships of drivers of online shopping: Evidence
from a developing economy. Int. J. Sociotechnol. Knowl. Dev. 2021, 13, 90–104. [CrossRef]
43. Tuni, A.; Rentizelas, A.; Chipula, G. Barriers to commercialise produce for smallholder farmers in Malawi: An interpretive
structural modelling approach. J. Rural. Stud. 2022, 93, 1–17. [CrossRef]
44. Mathivathanan, D.; Mathiyazhagan, K.; Rana, N.P.; Khorana, S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Barriers to the adoption of blockchain technology
in business supply chains: A total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 59, 3338–3359.
[CrossRef]
45. Hughes, D.L.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Elucidation of IS project success factors: An interpretive structural modelling approach.
Ann. Oper. Res. 2020, 285, 35–66. [CrossRef]
46. Shrivas, A.; Singla, H.K. Analysis of interaction among the factors affecting delay in construction projects using interpretive
structural modelling approach. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2022, 22, 1455–1463. [CrossRef]
47. Foli, S. Total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) and MICMAC approach in analyzing knowledge risks in ICT-supported
collaborative project. VINE J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst. 2022, 52, 394–410.
48. Quiñones, R.S.; Caladcad, J.A.A.; Quiñones, H.G.; Castro, C.J.; Caballes, S.A.A.; Abellana, D.P.M.; Jabilles, E.M.Y.; Himang, C.M.;
Ocampo, L.A. Priority challenges of university technology transfer with interpretative structural modeling and MICMAC analysis.
Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2020, 17, 2050038. [CrossRef]
49. Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Hughes, D.L. Analysis of challenges for blockchain adoption within the Indian public sector: An
interpretive structural modelling approach. Inf. Technol. People 2022, 35, 548–576. [CrossRef]
50. Kanji, R.; Agrawal, R. Exploring the use of corporate social responsibility in building disaster resilience through sustainable
development in India: An interpretive structural modelling approach. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2020, 6, 100089. [CrossRef]
51. Aiwerioghene, E.M.; Singh, M.; Ajmera, P. Modelling the factors affecting Nigerian medical tourism sector using an interpretive
structural modelling approach. Int. J. Healthc. Manag. 2021, 14, 563–575. [CrossRef]
52. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. Interpretive structural modelling of inter-agency collaboration risk in public safety networks. Qual.
Quant. 2022, 56, 1193–1221. [CrossRef]
53. Srivastava, R.R.; Singh, P.K. Selection of factors affecting integrated municipal wastewater treatment and reuse network: An
interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 1–25. [CrossRef]
54. Sahu, G.P.; Singh, P.; Dwivedi, P. Adoption of solar energy in India: A study through interpretive structural modelling. World J.
Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 18, 457–473. [CrossRef]
55. Guerrero, V.G.G.; Basar, R.J.T.; Borden, H.R.N.; Busano, M.L.G.; Gonzales, X.K.A.; Yamagishi, K.D.; Ocampo, L.A. Modeling the
barriers of online shopping in the Philippines using the ISM-MICMAC approach. Int. J. Bus. Syst. Res. 2022, 1, 1. [CrossRef]
56. Gardas, B.B.; Raut, R.D.; Narkhede, B.E. A state-of-the-art survey of interpretive structural modelling methodologies and
applications. Int. J. Bus. Excell. 2017, 11, 505–560. [CrossRef]
57. Attri, R. Interpretive structural modelling: A comprehensive literature review on applications. Int. J. Six Sigma Compet. Advant.
2017, 10, 258–331. [CrossRef]
58. Wichian, S.N.; Wongwanich, S.; Bowarnkitiwong, S. Factors affecting research productivity of faculty members in government
universities: Lisrel and Neural Network Analyses. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2009, 30, 67–78.
59. Nakanjako, D.; Akena, D.; Kaye, D.K.; Tumwine, J.; Okello, E.; Nakimuli, A.; Kambugu, A.; McCullough, H.; Mayanja-Kizza, H.;
Kamya, M.R.; et al. A need to accelerate health research productivity in an African University: The case of Makerere University
College of Health Sciences. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2017, 15, 1–10. [CrossRef]
60. Al-Thani, N.J.; Saad, A.; Siby, N.; Bhadra, J.; Ahmad, Z. The role of multidisciplinary chemistry informal research programs in
building research competencies and attitudes. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99, 1957–1970. [CrossRef]
61. Gilmore, J.; Feldon, D. Measuring graduate students’ teaching and research skills through self-report: Descriptive findings and
validity evidence. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO, USA,
30 April 2010.
62. Ulrich, W.; Dash, D.P. Research skills for the future: Summary and critique of a comparative study in eight countries. J. Res. Pract.
2013, 9, V1.
63. Kahn, J.H.; Scott, N.A. Predictors of research productivity and science-related career goals among counseling psychology doctoral
students. Couns. Psychol. 1997, 25, 38–67. [CrossRef]
64. Hemmings, B.; Kay, R. Research self-efficacy, publication output, and early career development. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2010, 24,
65. Callaghan, C.W. Designation differences and academic career progression. Acta Commer. 2015, 15, 1–12. [CrossRef]
66. Cubel, M.; Nuevo-Chiquero, A.; Sanchez-Pages, S.; Vidal-Fernandez, M. Do personality traits affect productivity? Evidence from
the laboratory. Econ. J. 2016, 126, 654–681. [CrossRef]
67. Ali, I. Personality traits, individual innovativeness and satisfaction with life. J. Innov. Knowl. 2019, 4, 38–46. [CrossRef]
68. Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation Results: Going beyond the Hype and Getting Down to Business; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019.
69. Heinonen, T. Management of innovation in academia: A case study in Tampere. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2015, 10, 198–210.
[CrossRef]
70. West, J.; Bogers, M. Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.
2014, 31, 814–831. [CrossRef]
71. Rubin, A.; Callaghan, C.W. Propensity to adopt new technologies and research productivity in a developing country context. Int.
J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2020, 22, 546–568. [CrossRef]
72. Bates, A.P.; Babchuk, N. The primary group: A reappraisal. Sociol. Q. 1961, 2, 181–191. [CrossRef]
73. Jung, J. Faculty research productivity in Hong Kong across academic discipline. High. Educ. Stud. 2012, 2, 1–5. [CrossRef]
74. Rothausen-Vange, T.J.; Marler, J.H.; Wright, P.M. Research productivity, gender, family, and tenure in organization science careers.
Sex Roles 2005, 53, 727–738. [CrossRef]
75. Hesli, V.L.; Lee, J.M. Faculty research productivity: Why do some of our colleagues publish more than others? PS Political Sci.
Politics 2011, 44, 393–408. [CrossRef]
76. Kwiek, M. High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems: Who are the top performers?
Scientometrics 2018, 115, 415–462. [CrossRef]
77. Sax, L.J.; Hagedorn, L.S.; Arredondo, M.; DiCrisi, F.A. Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-
related factors. Res. High. Educ. 2002, 43, 423–446. [CrossRef]
78. Long, J.S.; Allison, P.D.; McGinnis, R. Rank advancement in academic careers: Sex differences and the effects of productivity. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 1993, 58, 703–722. [CrossRef]
79. Maske, K.L.; Durden, G.C.; Gaynor, P.E. Determinants of scholarly productivity among male and female economists. Econ. Inq.
2003, 41, 555–564. [CrossRef]
80. Taylor, S.W.; Fender, B.F.; Burke, K.G. Unraveling the academic productivity of economists: The opportunity costs of teaching and
service. South. Econ. J. 2006, 72, 846–859.
81. Vansteenkiste, M.; Lens, W.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the
quality of academic motivation. Educ. Psychol. 2006, 41, 19–31. [CrossRef]
82. Bai, L. Language teachers’ beliefs about research: A comparative study of English teachers from two tertiary education institutions
in China. System 2018, 72, 114–123. [CrossRef]
83. Tao, J.; Zhao, K.; Chen, X. The motivation and professional self of teachers teaching languages other than English in a Chinese
university. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 2019, 40, 633–646. [CrossRef]
84. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory,
practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 61, 101860. [CrossRef]
85. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq.
2000, 11, 227–268. [CrossRef]
86. Taylor, G.; Jungert, T.; Mageau, G.A.; Schattke, K.; Dedic, H.; Rosenfield, S.; Koestner, R. A self-determination theory approach
to predicting school achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 39, 342–358.
[CrossRef]
87. Nocco, M.A.; McGill, B.M.; MacKenzie, C.M.; Tonietto, R.K.; Dudney, J.; Bletz, M.C.; Young, T.; Kuebbing, S.E. Mentorship, equity,
and research productivity: Lessons from a pandemic. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 255, 108966. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
88. Clark, R.A.; Harden, S.L.; Johnson, W.B. Mentor relationships in clinical psychology doctoral training: Results of a national survey.
Teach. Psychol. 2000, 27, 262–268. [CrossRef]
89. Muschallik, J.; Pull, K. Mentoring in higher education: Does it enhance mentees’ research productivity? Educ. Econ. 2016, 24,
90. Bukvova, H. Studying research collaboration: A literature review. Sprouts Work. Pap. Inf. Syst. 2010, 10, 1–17. Available online:
http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-3 (accessed on 13 April 2021).
91. Cho, C.S.; Ramanan, R.A.; Feldman, M.D. Defining the ideal qualities of mentorship: A qualitative analysis of the characteristics
of outstanding mentors. Am. J. Med. 2011, 124, 453–458. [CrossRef]
92. Rekha, K.N.; Ganesh, M.P. Do mentors learn by mentoring others? Int. J. Mentor. Coach. Educ. 2012, 1, 205–217. [CrossRef]
93. Pfund, C.; Byars-Winston, A.; Branchaw, J.; Hurtado, S.; Eagan, K. Defining attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring
relationships. AIDS Behav. 2016, 20, 238–248. [CrossRef]
94. McGee, R. Biomedical workforce diversity: The context for mentoring to develop talents and foster success within the ‘pipeline’.
AIDS Behav. 2016, 20, 231–237. [CrossRef]
95. Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 874–900. [CrossRef]
96. 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, 50, 243–258. [CrossRef]
97. Lee, C.H.; Bruvold, N.T. Creating value for employees: Investment in employee development. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2003,
14, 981–1000. [CrossRef]
98. Fainshmidt, S.; Frazier, M.L. What facilitates dynamic capabilities? The role of organizational climate for trust. Long Range Plan.
2017, 50, 550–566. [CrossRef]
99. Kuvaas, B.; Dysvik, A. Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation and work performance. Hum. Resour.
Manag. J. 2009, 19, 217–236. [CrossRef]
100. Sheng, Y.; Mullen, J.D.; Zhao, S. A Turning Point in Agricultural Productivity: Consideration of the Causes. ABARES Research
Report. 2011. Available online: http://data.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_abares99010542/RR11_4AgricProductivity_
HighResREPORT.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2021).
101. Stephan, U.; Uhlaner, L.M.; Stride, C. Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional
support, and institutional configurations. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2015, 46, 308–331. [CrossRef]
102. Shu, C.; De Clercq, D.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, C. Government institutional support, entrepreneurial orientation, strategic renewal, and
firm performance in transitional China. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2019, 25, 433–456. [CrossRef]
103. White, C.S.; James, K.; Burke, L.A.; Allen, R.S. What makes a ‘research star’? Factors influencing the research productivity of
business faculty. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2012, 61, 584–602. [CrossRef]
104. Prendergast, H.M.; Heinert, S.W.; Erickson, T.B.; Thompson, T.M.; Hoek, T.L.V. Evaluation of an enhanced peer mentoring
program on scholarly productivity and promotion in academic emergency medicine: A five-year review. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2019,
111, 600–605. [CrossRef]
105. Abouchedid, K.; Abdelnour, G. Faculty research productivity in six Arab countries. Int. Rev. Educ. 2015, 61, 673–690. [CrossRef]
106. Smeltzer, S.C.; Cantrell, M.A.; Sharts-Hopko, N.C.; Heverly, M.A.; Jenkinson, A.; Nthenge, S. Assessment of the impact of teaching
demands on research productivity among doctoral nursing program faculty. J. Prof. Nurs. 2016, 32, 180–192. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
107. Salazar-Clemeña, R.M.; Almonte-Acosta, S.A. Developing research culture in Philippine higher education institutions: Perspec-
tives of university faculty. In Proceedings of the Competition, Cooperation, and Change in the Academic Profession: Shaping
Higher Education’s Contribution to Knowledge and Research, Hangzhou, China, 18–19 September 2007.
108. Ponomariov, B.L.; Boardman, P.C. Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions:
University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 613–624. [CrossRef]
109. Uddin, S.; Hossain, L.; Abbasi, A.; Rasmussen, K. Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network. Scientometrics 2012, 90,
110. Gonzalez-Brambila, C.N.; Veloso, F.M.; Krackhardt, D. The impact of network embeddedness on research output. Res. Policy 2013,
42, 1555–1567. [CrossRef]
111. Bidault, F.; Hildebrand, T. The distribution of partnership returns: Evidence from co-authorships in economics journals. Res.
Policy 2014, 43, 1002–1013. [CrossRef]
112. Smesny, A.L.; Williams, J.S.; Brazeau, G.A.; Weber, R.J.; Matthews, H.W.; Das, S.K. Barriers to scholarship in dentistry, medicine,
nursing, and pharmacy practice faculty. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2007, 71, 91. [CrossRef]
113. Manjounes, C.K. How Tenure in Higher Education Relates to Faculty Productivity and Retention. Order No. 10139115. Ph.D.
Thesis, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2016. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/
how-tenure-higher-education-relates-faculty/docview/1805168306/se-2 (accessed on 26 April 2021).
114. Cunningham-Williams, R.M.; Wideman, E.S.; Fields, L.; Jones, B.D. Research productivity of social work PhD candidates entering
the academic job market: An analysis of pre-and postadmission productivity indicators. J. Soc. Work. Educ. 2018, 54, 776–791.
[CrossRef]
115. Chen, Y.; Gupta, A.; Hoshower, L. Factors that motivate business faculty to conduct research: An expectancy theory analysis.
J. Educ. Bus. 2006, 81, 179–189. [CrossRef]
116. McGill, M.M.; Settle, A. Identifying effects of institutional resources and support on computing faculty research productivity,
tenure, and promotion. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 2012, 7, 167–198. [CrossRef]
117. Cloete, N.; Bailey, T.; Pillay, P.; Bunting, I.; Maassen, P. Universities and economic development in Africa. Cape Town Cent. High.
Educ. Transform. 2011, 8, 137–158.
118. Hanover Research. Building a Culture of Research: Recommended Practices. Hanover Research. Available online: https:
//www.hanoverresearch.com/media/Building-a-Culture-of-Research-Recommended-Practices.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2021).
119. Rockenbach, A.N.; Riggers-Piehl, T.A.; Garvey, J.C.; Lo, M.A.; Mayhew, M.J. The influence of campus climate and interfaith
engagement on self-authored worldview commitment and pluralism orientation across sexual and gender identities. Res. High.
Educ. 2016, 57, 497–517. [CrossRef]
120. Parke, M.R.; Seo, M.G. The role of affect climate in organizational effectiveness. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2017, 42, 334–360. [CrossRef]
121. Guillaume, Y.R.; Dawson, J.F.; Otaye-Ebede, L.; Woods, S.A.; West, M.A. Harnessing demographic differences in organizations:
What moderates the effects of workplace diversity? J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 276–303. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
122. Aramide, K.A.; Bello, T. Accessing electronic databases for curriculum delivery in schools: Implications for school library media
specialists. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Nigerian School Library Association, held at the Multipurpose
Hall, University of Ibadan. Ibadan, Nigeria, 26–31 July 2009.
123. Alajmi, M.A. The acceptance and use of electronic information resources among faculty of selected Gulf Cooperation Council
States universities. Inf. Dev. 2019, 35, 447–466. [CrossRef]
124. Azonobi, I.N.; Uwaifo, S.O.; Tella, A. Determinants of postgraduates’ use of electronic information resources in Federal Universi-
ties in Southern Nigeria. Int. Inf. Libr. Rev. 2020, 52, 202–215. [CrossRef]
125. Iroaganachi, M.A. Library Science and Administration: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA,
2018; pp. 1648–1673.
126. Dadzie, P.S. Electronic resources: Access and usage at Ashesi University College. Campus-Wide Inf. Syst. 2005, 22, 290–297.
[CrossRef]
127. Madhusudhan, M. Use of electronic resources by research scholars of Kurukshetra University. Electron. Libr. 2010, 28, 492–506.
[CrossRef]
128. McAllister, P.R.; Narin, F. Characterization of the research papers of US medical schools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1983, 34, 123–131.
[CrossRef]
129. Hooi, R.; Wang, J. Research funding and academic engagement: A Singapore case. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2020, 18, 162–174.
[CrossRef]
130. Győrffy, B.; Herman, P.; Szabó, I. Research funding: Past performance is a stronger predictor of future scientific output than
reviewer scores. J. Informetr. 2020, 14, 101050. [CrossRef]
131. Heyard, R.; Hottenrott, H. The value of research funding for knowledge creation and dissemination: A study of SNSF Research
Grants. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2021, 8, 217. [CrossRef]
132. Pourdeyhimi, B. University research funding: Why does industry funding continue to be a small portion of university research,
and how can we change the paradigm? Ind. High. Educ. 2021, 35, 150–158. [CrossRef]
133. Tantengco, O.A.G. Investigating the evolution of COVID-19 research trends and collaborations in Southeast Asia: A bibliometric
analysis. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2021, 15, 102325. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
134. Calma, A. Funding for research and research training and its effects on research activity: The case of the Philippines. Asia-Pac.
Educ. Res. 2010, 19, 213–228. [CrossRef]
135. Ebadi, A.; Schiffauerova, A. How to become an important player in scientific collaboration networks? J. Informetr. 2015, 9, 809–825.
[CrossRef]
136. Chang, C.D.; Mills, J.C. Effects of a reward system on resident research productivity. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2013, 139,
1285–1290. [CrossRef]
137. Aguinis, H.; Joo, H.; Gottfredson, R.K. What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money. Bus.
Horiz. 2013, 56, 241–249. [CrossRef]
138. Franzoni, C.; Scellato, G.; Stephan, P. Changing incentives to publish. Science 2011, 333, 702–703. [CrossRef]
139. Quan, W.; Chen, B.; Shu, F. Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016).
Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 69, 486–502. [CrossRef]
140. Mezrich, R.; Nagy, P.G. The academic RVU: A system for measuring academic productivity. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2007, 4, 471–478.
[CrossRef]
141. Embi, P.J.; Tsevat, J. Commentary: The relative research unit: An approach to measuring and encouraging clinician participation
in research activities. Acad. Med. 2012, 87, 11–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
142. Becker, B. Public R&D policies and private R&D investment: A survey of the empirical evidence. J. Econ. Surv. 2015, 29, 917–942.
143. Bartelsman, E.J.; Falk, M.; Hagsten, E.; Polder, M. Productivity, technological innovations and broadband connectivity: Firm-level
evidence for ten European countries. Eurasian Bus. Rev. 2019, 9, 25–48. [CrossRef]
144. Borowski, P.F. Innovation strategy on the example of companies using bamboo. J. Innov. Entrep. 2021, 10, 3. [CrossRef]
145. Guthrie, J.; Ricceri, F.; Dumay, J. Reflections and projections: A decade of intellectual capital accounting research. Br. Account. Rev.
2012, 44, 68–82. [CrossRef]
146. Nimtrakoon, S. The relationship between intellectual capital, firm’s market value and financial performance: Empirical evidence
from the ASEAN. J. Intellect. Cap. 2015, 16, 587–618. [CrossRef]
147. Bibi, P.; Ahmad, A.; Majid, A.H.A. The impact of training and development and supervisor support on employees retention in
academic institutions: The moderating role of work environment. Gadjah Mada Int. J. Bus. 2018, 20, 113–131. [CrossRef]
148. Wills, D.; Ridley, G.; Mitev, H. Research productivity of accounting academics in changing and challenging times. J. Account.
Organ. Chang. 2013, 9, 4–25. [CrossRef]
149. Robbins, C. Invention, Knowledge Transfer and Innovation|NSF—National Science Foundation. Available online: https:
//ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20224 (accessed on 1 April 2022).
150. Kwiek, M. The European research elite: A cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. High. Educ. 2016,
71, 379–397. [CrossRef]
151. Harary, F.; Norman, R.Z.; Cartwright, D. Structural Models: An Introduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs; Wiley: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 1965.
152. Sushil. How to check correctness of total interpretive structural models? Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 270, 473–487. [CrossRef]
153. Warshall, S. A theorem on boolean matrices. J. ACM 1962, 9, 11–12. [CrossRef]
154. Bland, C.J.; Ruffin, M.T. Characteristics of a productive research environment: Literature review. Acad. Med. 1992, 67, 385–397.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
155. McInnis, C.; Ramsden, P.; Maconachie, D. A Handbook for Executive Leadership of Research Development; University of the Sunshine
Coast: Queensland, Australia, 2014.
156. Elkbuli, A.; Narvel, R.I.; Zajd, S.; Hai, S.; McKenney, M.; Boneva, D. Factors affecting research productivity of burn surgeons:
Results from a survey of American burn association members. J. Burn. Care Res. 2020, 41, 293–298. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
157. Iqbal, M.Z.; Mahmood, A. Factors related to low research productivity at higher education level. Asian Soc. Sci. 2011, 7, 188.
[CrossRef]

1 s2.0 S2199853122007491 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2199853122007491 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2199853122007491 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Open Innovation:

Technology, Market, and Complexity

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030148 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc

tual relationships among elements representing causes or driving factors of a particular

2. Review of the Driving Factors of Research Productivity

2.1. Research Skills and Competence

2.3. Global Innovativeness

2.4. Individual Factors

2.7. Dynamics of Professional Life

2.8. Institutional Support

2.9. Departmental Culture

2.10. Tenure and Promotion

2.11. Research-Oriented Culture

2.12. Situational Factors

2.13. Electronic Information Resources

2.14. Research Funding

2.15. Reward System

2.16. Research Gaps and Contribution

On the other hand, n o

The intersection Vi∩ set is defined as

Vi∩ = Vir ∩ Via (4)

Algorithm 1: Level partitioning.

4. The Application of ISM-MICMAC Analysis in Understanding the Relationships of

Table 1. A sample structural self-interaction matrix.

Driving Factors RS RF EIR SF ROC TP DC IS DPL M SD IF GI SE

Step 3: Set up the corresponding initial reachability matrices.

Table 2. A sample initial reachability matrix.

Driving Factors RS&C SE GI IF SD M DPL IS DC TP ROC SF EIR RF RS

Step 4. Construct an aggregate initial reachability matrix.

Table 3. The aggregate initial reachability matrix.

Driving Factors RS&C SE GI IF SD M DPL IS DC TP ROC SF EIR RF RS

Step 5: Compute the final reachability matrix.

Table 4. The final reachability matrix.

Driving Factors RS&C SE GI IF SD M DPL IS DC TP ROC SF EIR RF RS

Step 6: Construct level partitions.

Table 5. The partition leveling of research productivity driving factors.

Driving Factors Reachability Set Antecedent Set Intersection Set Level

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 148 14 of 25

5. Results and Discussion

Figure 3. The main driving factors of research productivity.

7. Conclusions and Future Work

Table A1. The final list of driving factors of research productivity.

Code Driving Factors Brief Description References

Table A1. Cont.

Code Driving Factors Brief Description References

You might also like