IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i4p2254-d750919.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anatomy of Research Performance from a Bottom-Up Approach: Examination of Researchers’ Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Loredana Manasia

    (Department of Teacher Education and Social Sciences, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, 060042 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Diana Popa

    (Department of Teacher Education and Social Sciences, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, 060042 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Gratiela Ianos

    (Department of Teacher Education and Social Sciences, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, 060042 Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

Performance-based research policies and programmes have fundamentally altered both organisational and individual behaviours and expectations, putting immense pressure on researchers. The soundness of research, originality, valorisation potential, and societal and economic impacts are highly valued and expected characteristics of research. Yet, our understanding of the effects of various systemic and organisational factors on research performance is limited. In an exploratory, single-country case, this paper aimed to develop and examine different models of research performance as perceived by researchers themselves using a large cross-disciplinary sample of 553 researchers from 72 public research organisations in Romania. A pre-tested questionnaire was self-administered online, comprising seven scales: (1) recruitment and selection, (2) research recognition and value, (3) participation in research projects and teams, (4) work incentives, (5) job payment and salary, (6) career development opportunities, and (7) leadership effectiveness. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian estimators were used to test three structural models: (M1) mono-factor; (M2) intercorrelated dimensions, and (M3) the dimensions are indicators of a general construct. Additionally, a path analysis was carried out to study the relationships among the dimensions. We found that M2 and M3 fit the empirical data better. The results showed that career development programmes and opportunities gain centrality in achieving research performance by directly influencing participation and research projects and teams and mediating the effect of job payment. Revealingly, powerful work incentives within research organisations are international mobilities or appreciation awards. When informing evidence-based policies, the models we propose could serve the goal of improving research performance through talent development as the main proxy.

Suggested Citation

  • Loredana Manasia & Diana Popa & Gratiela Ianos, 2022. "Anatomy of Research Performance from a Bottom-Up Approach: Examination of Researchers’ Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-31, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2254-:d:750919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2254/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2254/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Monica Mihaela Maer-Matei & Cristina Mocanu & Ana-Maria Zamfir & Tiberiu Marian Georgescu, 2019. "Skill Needs for Early Career Researchers—A Text Mining Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Jana Gallus & Bruno S. Frey, 2016. "Awards: A strategic management perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1699-1714, August.
    3. Assaf, A. George & Tsionas, Mike & Oh, Haemoon, 2018. "The time has come: Toward Bayesian SEM estimation in tourism research," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 98-109.
    4. Debra A. Barbezat, 2006. "Gender Differences in Research Patterns Among PhD Economists," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 359-375, July.
    5. Adam R. Szromek & Radosław Wolniak, 2020. "Job Satisfaction and Problems among Academic Staff in Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-38, June.
    6. Claudiu Vasile Kifor & Daniel Teodorescu & Tudorel Andrei & Roxana Săvescu, 2021. "Research Production and International Visibility in Higher Education: The Evolution of Romanian Universities from 2011 to 2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, December.
    7. Carlsson, Bo & Jacobsson, Staffan & Holmen, Magnus & Rickne, Annika, 2002. "Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 233-245, February.
    8. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2000. "Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(5), pages 538-550, October.
    9. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    10. Kaare Aagaard & Jesper W. Schneider, 2016. "Research funding and national academic performance: Examination of a Danish success story," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(4), pages 518-531.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bornmann, Lutz & Adams, Jonathan & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2018. "The negative effects of citing with a national orientation in terms of recognition: National and international citations in natural-sciences papers from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 931-949.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Gralka, Sabine & Anegón, Félix de Moya & Wohlrabe, Klaus, 2023. "Efficiency of universities and research-focused institutions worldwide: The introduction of a new input indicator reflecting institutional staff numbers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    3. Frey, Bruno S., 2017. "Research on Well-Being: Determinants, Effects, and its Relevance for Management," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 71(4), pages 358-367.
    4. David Kryscynski & Russ Coff & Benjamin Campbell, 2021. "Charting a path between firm‐specific incentives and human capital‐based competitive advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 386-412, February.
    5. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    6. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    7. Michaela Strinzel & Josh Brown & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner & Sarah Rijcke & Michael Hill, 2021. "Ten ways to improve academic CVs for fairer research assessment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-4, December.
    8. Sten F Odenwald, 2020. "A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    9. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    10. Luo, Lianfa & Cheng, Zhiming & Ye, Qingqing & Cheng, Yanjun & Smyth, Russell & Yang, Zhiqing & Zhang, Le, 2023. "Nonmonetary Awards and Innovation: Evidence from Winning China's Top Brand Contest," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1345, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    11. Emil Inauen & Katja Rost & Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Back to the Future –A Monastic Perspective on Corporate Governance," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 21(1), pages 38-59.
    12. Pandza, Krsto & Ellwood, Paul, 2013. "Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1112-1125.
    13. Xin Liu & Lin Zhang & Abhinav Gupta & Xiaoming Zheng & Changqi Wu, 2022. "Upper echelons and intra‐organizational learning: How executive narcissism affects knowledge transfer among business units," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(11), pages 2351-2381, November.
    14. Alexander Kalgin & Olga Kalgina & Anna Lebedeva, 2019. "Publication Metrics as a Tool for Measuring Research Productivity and Their Relation to Motivation," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 44-86.
    15. Souzanchi Kashani, Ebrahim & Roshani, Saeed, 2019. "Evolution of innovation system literature: Intellectual bases and emerging trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 68-80.
    16. Gregorio González-Alcaide, 2021. "Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6837-6870, August.
    17. Islam, Md. Mofakkarul & Renwick, Alan W. & Lamprinopoulou-Kranis, Chrysa & Klerkx, Laurens, 2012. "Dynamics of Innovation in Livestock Genetics in Scotland: An Agricultural Innovation Systems Perspective," 131st Seminar, September 18-19, 2012, Prague, Czech Republic 135769, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    19. Manuel González-López & Ivano Dileo & Francesco Losurdo, 2014. "University-Industry Collaboration in the European Regional Context: the Cases of Galicia and Apulia Region," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 10(3), pages 57-88.
    20. Ebersberger, Bernd & Edler, Jakob & Lo, Vivien, 2006. "Improving policy understanding by means of secondary analyses of policy evaluation: a concept development," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 12, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2254-:d:750919. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.