The Effect of Research Efficacy and Perceived Financial

Condition on Research Productivity among Faculty

Members

Fitrawaty, Gaffar Hafiz Sagala, and Indra Maipita

Faculty of Economics, Universitas Negeri Medan, Indonesia,

Abstract. This study aims to examine 1) the effect of research efficacy and

financial conditions on research grants; 2) the impact of research efficacy and

perceived financial conditions on scientific publications; 3) the impact of

research efficacy and perceived financial conditions on book publications. This

research was conducted at the Faculty of Economics, Universitas Negeri Medan.

The study population was active lecturers at the Faculty of Economics Unimed,

and samples were taken by random sampling technique. The unit of analysis in

this research is the individual. From 105 active lecturers at the Faculty of

Economics Unimed, researchers received 46 responses to be analyzed. The data

of this study were collected using a questionnaire with survey methods. The

results revealed that the research efficacy and perceived financial conditions only

affect the research grant. While in article publication, only research efficacy has

an influence on it and for book publications, both research efficacy and perceived

financial conditions, do not have a significant effect. These findings indicate that

although on the same agenda, namely research, research grants, article

publications, and books have different task characteristics. This study provides

recommendations related to the evaluation of incentive schemes and financial

guarantees associated with the three research tasks according to the

characteristics and weight of the task.

Keywords: Management ꞏ Human Resource ꞏ Higher Education ꞏ Research

Productivity

1 Introduction

Research is an integral part of the academic task of a lecturer. The implementation of

research is the responsibility of the lecturer in his profession as a scientist. In Indonesia,

according to the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education issues

Minister Regulation no. 20 of 2017 and Credit Score Assessment Operational

Guidelines of 2019, for Promotion to the next level of lecturer academic position,

research is the tricky part because of its strategic value in terms of promotion and

conditions to get professional allowances. Thus the strategic position of lecturers as

researchers has become more competitive lately (See: Eagan Jr. & Garvey, 2017;

Fairweather, 2017; Potter, Higgins, & Gabbidon, 2011). Interestingly, the challenge

becomes a polemic in academic circles (Eagan Jr. & Garvey, 2017). Moreover, the

research productivity variables themselves are quite varied such as research grants,

Fitrawaty, ., Sagala, G. and Maipita, I.

The Effect of Research Efﬁcacy and Perceived Financial Condition on Research Productivity among Faculty Members.

DOI: 10.5220/0010598500002900

In Proceedings of the 20th Malaysia Indonesia International Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA 2019), pages 797-808

ISBN: 978-989-758-582-1; ISSN: 2655-9064

797

publication of scientific articles, and publication of research results books, which are

these variables have their own values and challenges.

Research grants are a research agenda that is complemented by sufficiently

interesting funding. Therefore the competitiveness of the research agenda is quite hard,

although the outcomes collected from these grants are increasingly competitive (See:

Dundar & Lewis, 1998; Edwards & Roy, 2017). On the other hand, scientific

publications and books at a certain level have a high level of difficulty and are often

avoided by faculty members. Whereas, article and book publications are timeless works

that can emphasize the academic value of an academic. Besides, publication in reputable

journals or publishers is a condition for academic promotion at a certain level nowadays.

So that, in turn, faculty members can no longer avoid those research agenda. In this

phenomenon, there is a tug-of-war of utility in the preferences of lecturers related to the

priority of the research agenda, both in the productivity of grants or articles and books

publication. Referring to the Utility Maximizing Theory, an academic will leave certain

activities if he feels there are other activities that give him higher utilities (Kwiek, 2016;

Svein, 1990).

Recent study aims to examine 1) the effect of research efficacy and financial

conditions on research grants; 2) the impact of research efficacy and perceived financial

conditions on scientific publications; 3) the impact of research efficacy and perceived

financial conditions on book publications. Research efficacy and perceived financial

conditions were chosen as independent variables and were the main focus of this study

because research is indeed very closely related to economic motives and scientific

motives or academic passion. Edwards & Roy (2017) indicate that economic motives

are even feared would lead lecturers to non-ethical actions. But on the other hand,

economic motives can also trap lecturers in unproductive situations so that they are not

only stagnant in their careers, but these situations also make faculty less dynamic.

However, this study no longer measures economic motives, but the perceived

economics condition of lecturer that might affect its action in conducting research,

scientific publications, or writing books.

Furthermore, the efficacy of the study is used to review how far the lecturer can

develop, carry out, and report research as a variable that synergizes with economic

conditions in influencing research productivity (Hemmings & Kay, 2009). Self-efficacy

is more than just competence, it is the belief that an individual has to perform certain

tasks so that he can achieve the objectives of the task (Bandura, 1986). Thus, lecturers

with research efficacy ideally have excellent expertise in carrying out research grants,

scientific publications, and writing books (See: Hemmings & Kay, 2009).

2 Theoretical Framework

Research Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a crucial construct of Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)

(Bandura, 1986). SCT argue that the environment is shaped by human ideas and actions,

while the cognitive role is to motivate these ideas and actions Bandura (1986).

Referring to self-regulation (Bandura, 1990), a person cannot control his motivation

MIICEMA 2019 - Malaysia Indonesia International Conference on Economics Management and Accounting

798

and actions well if he does not pay enough attention to the performance to be done, how

to do it, and how it impacts after the performance is implemented. Self-confidence in

the efficacy forms the goal-setting sub-function of self-regulation (Bandura, 1990). In

other words, people with high efficacy tend to set higher goals for themselves and are

increasingly committed to these goals (Bandura, 1990, 1991) (Bandura, 1991a;

Bandura, 1991b; Locke & Latham, 1990; Wood & Bandura; 1989). Hemmings dan Kay

(2009) explain that self-efficacy refers to a person's ability to organize and implement

actions to achieve a certain level of performance. Self-efficacy determines human

perception about the cause of a failure (Bandura, 1991, 1993). Individuals with high

self-efficacy tend to assume failure comes from lack of effort, while individuals with

low self-efficacy will consider failure due to lack of capability (Bandura, 1993). The

concept can also be associated with the argument of Major & Dolly (2003) which states

that academic staff in Higher Education must be able to view themselves as teaching

staff and researchers who can complete their various responsibilities. Then, the work

responsibilities of a faculty member are no longer oriented towards capabilities but

rather efforts that should be expended. It means that the implications of the belief in

self-efficacy are the ones that produce high-performance actions..

Belief in self-efficacy produces a variety of effects such as: how people feel, think,

motivate themselves, and behave through four main processes, namely: cognitive

processes, motivation, effective, and selection (Bandura, 1993). Thus, it is understood

that a person makes a causal contribution to his function through the mechanism of

personal agency (Bandura, 1993). Among agency mechanisms, there is nothing more

central or pervasive than people's beliefs about their ability to control the level of

functions and events that affect their lives (Bandura, 1993). In conducting research, for

example, a person will undoubtedly control his actions to focus on information related

to the research activity itself. Individuals with high belief will construct themselves

with activities that build their capabilities in researching. Various agency processes

produce basic abilities that affect the function of lecturers as researchers. For example,

sub-constructs 1) reviewing article and 2) broad view of research (Hemmings & Kay,

2009), as a basic ability, of course, is obtained based on the mastery of knowledge and

experience of the implementation of knowledge in research, both aspects of theoretical

study, research methodology, and data analysis. Furthermore, the ability to review

articles and the breadth of views in research will contribute causally to the capability

function, which is to conduct or develop research and report and supervise research.

Thus lecturers with high research efficacy should also have high research productivity

in the form of research grants, article publications, and books.

Perceived Financial Condition

Brewer et al. (1999) , in their research, found that financial assistance is a crucial

element for training the productivity of faculty member research. In the discussion,

Brewer et al. (1999) suggested that financial aid can provide financial security so that

a faculty member can focus on his research assignments and put aside other tasks

outside of academic activities. In this situation, it can be understood that financial

security is a key instrument for anyone to be able to focus on a particular job.

Furthermore, Bernales (2006) in Quimbo & Sulabo (2014) offers aspects that must

be considered to improve the productivity of faculty member research, namely time,

belief, faculty involvement, positive working climate, organizational communication,

The Effect of Research Efﬁcacy and Perceived Financial Condition on Research Productivity among Faculty Members

799

decentralized research policy, research funding, and clear institutional policy regarding

research benefits and incentives. These aspects show that faculty members need time,

a conducive work environment, clarity, and a guarantee of regulations regarding the

benefits of functional research to stakeholders and researchers as well as financial

benefits (Quimbo & Sulabo, 2014).

On the other side, Conklin & Desselle (2006) reviewed the exogenous constructs in

influencing research productivity with the terminology of quality of work-life built with

hours spending in research activities, research and teaching self-efficacy, and stress-

related to fulfilling academic roles. In this view, it appears that work conduciveness and

self-efficacy are the main instruments in the study of Conklin & Desselle (2006). But

the construct only forms intrinsic motivation from faculty members. While in the body

of an individual must need to be motivated extrinsically and must be accommodated in

efforts to manage human resources. In this case Schroen, Thielen, Turrentine, Kron, &

Slingluff, (2007) are of the view that although research is the existence of scientists of

high academic value, financial incentives, and other rewards are deemed necessary to

align with these academic activities. So that all research activities must indeed have a

guaranteed incentive scheme in all academic missions (Schroen et al., 2007)

In the discussion above, we can understand that financial security is an essential

aspect for individuals to be able to work well even though research is basically an

integral part of faculty members that must be carried out continuously to improve their

capabilities in teaching and serving the community. However, financial guarantees are

directly related to the comparability of workloads and rewards and the guaranteed

quality of life of faculty members in carrying out their lives with their families. In this

study, we use the construct of perceived financial condition as a proxy for financial

guarantees that are perceived in an individual's mind. We measure perceived financial

condition with faculty member perceptions of the adequacy of their income for their

monthly living cost and the appropriateness of their income with the workload,

including teaching, research, and community service. Thus we can capture the

phenomenon from the basic perceptions held by lecturers and researchers to

recommend strategic policies by shaping these fundamental aspects.

3 Method

This research was conducted at the Faculty of Economics, Universitas Negeri Medan.

The study population was active lecturers at the Faculty of Economics Unimed, and

samples were taken by random sampling techniques (see: Sekaran & Bougie, 2016).

The unit of analysis in this research is the individual. From 105 active lecturers at the

Faculty of Economics Unimed, researchers received 46 responses to be analyzed. Data

for all research variables in this study were collected using a questionnaire with survey

methods. Survey is a measurement process used to collect information in a well-

structured interview, with or without the interviewer (Cooper, Schindler, & Sun, 2006).

The survey in this study was carried out with the help of electronic forms. Collecting

data is done by sending questionnaires via private messages to each respondent.

Completing the questionnaire is voluntary to maintain the independence of the response

given by the sample. The research instrument was adapted from Hemmings dan Kay

MIICEMA 2019 - Malaysia Indonesia International Conference on Economics Management and Accounting

800

(2009). The instrument was designed with a Likert scale (5-scale) like most survey

studies. Likewise, before the data collected is further analyzed, the validity and

reliability of the research instruments are tested first (Cooper et al., 2006; Sekaran &

Bougie, 2016)

4 Result

The demography of the sample in this study shows that male is the majority with

69,57% and female 30,43% of all respondent. Its condition indeed represents the actual

condition of the population. In the age category, this study separates the sample into

below 45 years old and above 45 years old because 45 years old is the median number

of samples. Researchers found respondent was separate equally among those two

conditions. Furthermore, in an academic position, the respondent only exists in three

categories of an academic position, that is Assistant Professor, Lecturer, and Associate

Professor. The assistant professor consists of 10 respondents or 21,74%, while the

lecturer consists of 22 respondents or 47,83%, and the Associate Professor consists of

14 respondents or 30,43%. Finally, in marital status, respondent was separated into four

conditions, that is Single which includes five respondents (10,87%), Married which

consists of 21 respondents (45,65%), Married with children which consists of 18

respondents (39,13%), and divorce which includes of 2 respondents (4,35%).

Table 1. Demography of Sample.

Demography n %

Gender

Female 14 30,43

Male 32 69,57

46 100

Age

Below 45 26 56,52

Above 45 20 43,48

46 100

Academic Position

Assistant Professo

10 21,74

Lecture 22 47,83

Associate Professo

14 30,43

46 100

Marital Status

Sin

le 5 10,87

Married 21 45,65

Married with Childern 18 39,13

Divorce 2 4,35

46 100

Furthermore, researchers identified in a brief the condition of respondents using

descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics show the number of mean and standard

deviation. With the plain analysis, we found there is a slight difference between the

number of publications on gender and age factors according to mean and standard

deviation. But interestingly, the number of standard deviation shows a substantial

The Effect of Research Efﬁcacy and Perceived Financial Condition on Research Productivity among Faculty Members

801

weight. It indicates the respondent has a gap in productivity. Furthermore, on the

academic position, researchers found the significant differences in the number of article

publication productivity between Lecturer, Assistant Professor, and Associate

Professor, while in another factors we have not found a valuable difference according

to the mean number. The last factor, marital status, also shows the productivity between

categories is quite similar.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.

Factors N Mean Std. Dev.

Gende

Research Grant

Female 14 2,071 1,491

Male 32 3,093 2,751

Article Publication

Female 14 6,142 7,969

Male 32 5,968 8,902

Book

Female 14 0,642 0,633

Male 32 0,625 1,313

Research Grant

<45 26 2,769 1,903

>45 20 2,8 3,105

Article Publication

<45 26 6,192 9,397

>45 20 5,8 7,515

Book

<45 26 0,461 0,646

>45 20 0,85 1,565

Acdemic Position

Research Grant

Lecturer 28 2,80 1,39

Assistant Professo

52 2,36 2,22

Associate Professo

48 3,43 3,32

Article Publication

Lecturer 110 11 14,14

Assistant Professo

59 2,68 2,12

Associate Professo

108 7,71 8.11

Book

Lecturer 3 0,3 0,48

Assistant Professo

12 0,54 0,67

Associate Professo

14 1 1,84

Marital Status

Research Grant

Sin

le 14 2,80 0,83

Merried 58 2,76 2,58

Merried with Childern 44 2,44 2,38

Divorce 12 6,00 4,24

Article Publication

Sin

le 19 3,8 3,19

Merried 131 6,24 10,26

Merried with Childern 111 6,17 7,56

Divorce 16 6 11,33

Book

Sin

le 2 0,4 0,55

Merried 7 0,33 0,48

Merried with Childern 19 1,05 1,66

Divorce 1 0,5 0,71

This study uses multiple regression in testing phenomena and achieving research

objectives. Regression analysis was performed three times to review the difference in

influence between the three dependent variables with the same independent variable.

Three times of testing is done because of the limitations of the regression analysis tool

MIICEMA 2019 - Malaysia Indonesia International Conference on Economics Management and Accounting

802

that only allows done with one dependent variable (see: Field, 2009). Meanwhile,

testing with Structural Equational Modeling (SEM) is not possible because of the

limited number of samples that do not meet the criteria to be tested with SEM. Thus

this study conducted three tests and observations made by reviewing the regression

coefficient and its significance. So that researchers can observe variations in the

phenomena between these variables. The independent variable in this study consisted

of research efficacy and perceived financial condition while the independent variable

consists of productivity research grants, article publications, and books.

Table 3. ANOVA Result.

Model

Sum of

Squares

Mean

Square

F Sig.

Dependent Variable: Research Gran

ression 46,732 2 23,366 4,424 .018**

Residual 227,095 43 5,281

Total 273,826 45

Dependent Variable: Article Publication

ression 201,890 2 100,945 1,409 .255

Residual 3081,088 43 71,653

Total 3282,978 45

Dependent Variable: Book Publication

ression 3,213 2 1,607 1,245 .298

Residual 55,504 43 1,291

Total 58,717 45

Table 4. Coefficients.

Model

Unstd Coef.

Std. Coef.

t Sig.

Std.

Error

Beta

Dependent Variable: Research Gran

(Constant) -3,968 2,334 -1,700 0,096*

Research Efficac

0,059 0,032 0,263 1,845 0,071*

Financial Condition 0,449 0,242 0,265 1,861 0,069*

Dependent Variable: Article Publication

(Constant) -5,619 8,597 -0,654 0,517

Research Efficac

0,197 0,118 0,253 1,671 0,102*

Financial Condition -0,191 0,890 -0,032 -0,214 0,831

Dependent Variable: Book Publication

(Constant) -0,538 1,154 -0,466 0,643

Research Efficac

0,025 0,016 0,237 1,560 0,126

Financial Condition -0,069 0,119 -0,088 -0,579 0,565

The result of F-test on the regression model shows that of the three models tested only

the first model with the dependent variable Research Grant has a high significance rate

of 0.018 (<0.05), while the other two models do not have high significance even at the

The Effect of Research Efﬁcacy and Perceived Financial Condition on Research Productivity among Faculty Members

803

α level = 10%. This finding is quite interesting because it shows that the Research Grant

has a unique attraction for faculty members at the Faculty of Economics Unimed

compared to Article Publication and Book.

Furthermore, the results of the regression test show that perceived financial

condition and research efficacy has a positive and significant effect on the Reseach

Grant with at α = 10%. The impact of the research efficacy on the research grant has a

number of t = 1.845 and p-value = 0.071, while the effect of perceived financial

condition on the research grant has a value of t = 1.861 and p-value = 0.069. It indicates

that the perceived financial condition and research efficacy can trigger faculty members

in conducting research in the form of grants.

Furthermore, researchers found that research efficacy has significant impact on

article publication with p-value<0.1 (α = 10%), but perceived financial condition has

no impact on article publication with p-value = 0.831. These findings indicate that the

productivity of article publications has different characteristics from the productivity of

research grants. With the similar sample, the perceived financial condition have no

impact on the productivity of article publication. Interestingly, in the third model, with

the dependent variable productivity of book publications, no positive and significant

effect of research efficacy and perceived financial condition was found on book

productivity. In the third model, it is also indicated that the book is a product that is

more unique than the other two variables, namely the research grant and the publication

of articles because the two independent variables that are offered in no way can be an

explanation of the productivity of book publications.

Overall, the research grant does have a financial appeal that article and book

publications do not have. Therefore, economic motives certainly become sufficient

drivers for faculty members to be involved in a research grant. Meanwhile, research

certainly has scientific principles that must be carried out. In submitting a research

proposal, implementing, and reporting research, a faculty member certainly requires

expertise in arranging a study according to the rule of thumb. Therefore, a faculty

member must have research efficacy to be able to win a grant, implement it, and report

it. If not, he will not be able to win the grant, or if he earns, he will be constrained by

the implementation and reporting.

Under certain conditions, scientific articles and books are part of the outcome of a

research grant even though it does not apply to the whole award. But likewise, it turns

out that scientific publications and book publications have different characteristics and

cannot be explained with the same dependent variables as a research grant. In the

publication of articles, research efficacy is needed in the faculty members. But referring

to Becker, Kernan, Clark, & Klein (2015) that there is a commitment to carrying out

tasks such as writing scientific articles. The position of commitment also needs to be

explained, whether as a commitment to the institution, or commitment to the profession.

On the other hand, Brew (2001) also explains that the activity of writing articles is

conceptually varying in lecturer preferences. This relates to the utility of these activities

for the lecturer. Interestingly, in Indonesia, before the issuance of Permenristikdikti No.

20 of 2017, the publication of scientific articles did not have rigid criteria and

conditions. So the reference for faculty members is the credit score of a publication

regardless of its social index or journal reputation. Such an e

nvironment places the

lecturer in a comfort zone and is not pressured by particular demands so that the

publication of articles has less desirable value. It might answer the research findings in

the second model. However Permenristikdikti no 20 2017 regulates publication criteria

MIICEMA 2019 - Malaysia Indonesia International Conference on Economics Management and Accounting

804

for certain academic position levels as a form of reward and punishment for faculty

members related to the provision of professional allowances. With this regulation, the

value of article publications should be better and trigger lecturers to increase their

productivity, although, at this time, lecturers are still adapting to these regulations so

that positive associations between perceived financial conditions and scientific article

productivity as well as book publications are not yet visible.

5 Discussion

Previous research has discussed the association of tenure and promotion policy with

research productivity (Hasselback, Reinstein, & Schwan, 2000) and tested the lecturer

performance evaluation format that links research performance as a condition for

obtaining tenure and promotion (see: Cattaneo, Meoli, & Signori, 2014; Leisyte, 2006).

Tenure and promotion itself contain two main values, namely career path, and financial

benefits for faculty members. That concept also seems to apply in the Ministry of

Research, Technology, and Higher Education issues Minister Regulation no. 20 of 2017

and Credit Score Assessment Operational Guidelines of 2019 for Promotion of Lecturer

Academic Position. In respond to these policies and arrange further policies at the

institutional and faculty level, this study seeks to analyze variations in the efficacy of

research and perceptions of the financial condition of lecturers in their effects on

publication productivity. The capture of the phenomenon in the model will indicate the

lecturer's response to the Minister Regulation and Credit Score Assessment Operational

Guidelines above and provide a basis for decision making and policy for the faculty to

encourage lecturer research productivity.

The results revealed that the research efficacy and perceived financial conditions

only affect the research grant. While in article publication, only research efficacy has

an effect on it while not for perceived financial conditions. And for book publications,

both of research efficacy and perceived financial conditions, did not have a significant

effect. These findings indicate that although on the same agenda, namely research,

research grants, article publications, and books have different task characteristics. In

conducting the research grant, besides the research assignment, there are financial

benefits inherent in it in the form of funding, while the publication of articles and books

does not always have economic benefits. Although in a years later publication of

articles and books is required to become mandatory outcomes from a research grant.

But from the results of this study, we can understand that the three research products

have different natures. So that the treatment of the three should be different too.

Research efficacy itself is seen as a vital instrument in the productivity of research

because the construct is in the individual, which then moves the individual to be able

to conduct research according to scientific principles. In this study, this is evident from

the effects on the research grant and article publication. These findings are certainly in

line with the findings of Conklin & Desselle, (2006) and Hemmings & Kay, (2009).

Faculty members are not allowed to have any research efficacy because that is the basis

for someone to be able to move themselves to develop proposals, implement them, and

report according to academic rules and regulations. An initial impulse is needed to be

born in an individual in the form of belief because research is not a simple thing but a

The Effect of Research Efﬁcacy and Perceived Financial Condition on Research Productivity among Faculty Members

805

complicated and lengthy aspect so that it requires more than just knowledge, but also

commitment, determination, patience, and consistency throughout the study.

Moreover, the publication of articles must go through a process of submission,

double-blind review, revision, both from the aspect of introduction, literature review,

methodology, statistical tools, discussion, readability, etc. so that an article is worthy

of publication in a particular journal. The process is unpredictable in time so that it can

take six months to two years for one article. Thus, it can also be understood that the

publication of articles has a different nature from research grants that may be completed

according to the contract date with a certainty of time and financial benefits.

However, to encourage the productivity of the publication of articles and books, the

institution needs to review the incentive schemes and financial guarantees that already

exist with the level of effort that must be spent by a faculty member in producing an

article and book publication. This view is in response to the insignificant influence of

financial conditions on the productivity of scientific articles and books. On the one

hand, we can see that this influence is not significant because the productivity of articles

and books is not determined by financial perception. But if we return to the Utility

Maximizing Theory, which reveals that an academic will leave certain activities if he

feels other activities give him higher utility (Kwiek, 2016; Svein, 1990). This means

that if a faculty member feels that a research agenda is too heavy and is not

commensurate with its financial benefits, he will move on to other agendas that may be

outside the academic agenda and in certain situations he no longer feels that he has

financial problems, but his academic agenda has not been concentrated anymore on

actual research productivity becomes the core of his task. Thus, the institution must

consider the strategy of distributing incentives or other financial guarantees to be able

to control the faculty members' performance focus equally not only on the research

grant but also the publication of articles and books.

From organizational perspectives, financial security given to faculty members will

not actually be in worthless, but it will be an investment channeled to strengthen

intellectual capital so that in turn faculty members will have superior and productive

academic qualifications both in the implementation of research grants, publications

articles, and books (see: Brewer et al., 1999). The productivity must be regarded as a

return of investment (ROI). In this case, ROI indeed cannot be quantified with certainty

because the value of intellectual capital and publication is indeed not easy to quantify

monetarily. However, from the standpoint of investment for productivity, it is feasible

to consider strategic decision making in tertiary institutions.

6 Conclusion

This study revealed that the research efficacy and perceived financial conditions only

affect the research grant. While in article publication, only research efficacy influences

it, and for book publications, both research efficacy and perceived financial conditions,

do not have a significant effect. These findings encourage the institution to develop a

more appropriate policy to motivate faculty member regarding research productivity,

in particular article and book publication. The form of policy needs to be concerning

the value of publication referring to the worthy of benefit and the weight of effort. It's

being important because research grants, article publications, and books have different

MIICEMA 2019 - Malaysia Indonesia International Conference on Economics Management and Accounting

806

task characteristics, effort, value, time spending, and form of financial benefit. The

higher education needs to analyze the appropriate scheme of research tasks also its

benefits and incentives then develop a suitable policy.

Further research can develop the draft of policy or evaluation form for measuring

research performance among faculty members using research and development or

experimental method. It will bring much of academic insight in this field of study.

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1990). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive

mechanisms. In Perspective of Motivation: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 38, 69–102.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning. 28(2),

117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802

Becker, T. E., Kernan, M. C., Clark, K. D., & Klein, H. J. (2015). Dual Commitments to

Organizations and Professions : Different Motivational Pathways to Productivity. XX(X), 1–

24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315602532

Bernales, R. A. (2006). Locally-funded higher education institutions’ research culture: a

proposed model”.

Brew, A. (2001). Studies in Higher Education Conceptions of Research : A phenomenographic

study. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307

5070120076255

Brewer, G. A., Douglas, J. W., Facer, R. L., Toole, L. J. O., Brewer, A., & Facer, L. (1999).

Determinants of Graduate Research Productivity in Doctoral Programs of Public

Administration. Public Administration Review, 59(5), 373–382.

Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., & Signori, A. (2014). legitimacy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-

9379-2

Conklin, M., & Desselle, S. (2006). Factors associated with research productivity among

pharmacy academicians. In Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges of

Pharmacy (Vol. 5).

Cooper, D. R., Schindler, P. S., & Sun, J. (2006). Business Research Method. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of Research Productivity In Higher Education.

39(6).

Eagan Jr., M. K., & Garvey, J. C. (2017). Stressing Out : Connecting Race , Gender , and Stress

with Faculty Productivity. The Journal of Higher Education ISSN:, 1546(June), 923–954.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2015.11777389

Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining

Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. 34(1), 51–61.

https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223

Fairweather, J. S. (2017). The Mythologies of Faculty Productivity. 1546(April).

Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd Editio). Sage Publications.

Hasselback, J. R., Reinstein, A., & Schwan, E. S. (2000). Benchmarks for evaluating the research

productivity of accounting faculty. 18.

Hemmings, B., & Kay, R. (2009). Lecturer self efficacy : Its related dimensions and the influence

of gender and qualifications. 19(3), 243–254.

The Effect of Research Efﬁcacy and Perceived Financial Condition on Research Productivity among Faculty Members

807

Kwiek, M. (2016). The European research elite : a cross-national study of highly productive

academics in 11 countries. Higher Education, 71(3), 401–419. https://doi.org/1

0.1007/s10734-015-9910-x

Leisyte, L. (2006). New Public Management in Lithuania ’ s Higher Education. 377–396.

https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300122

Major, C., & Dolly, J. (2003). The importance of graduate program experiences to faculty self-

efficacy for academic tasks. The Journal of Faculty Development, 19(2), 89-100.

Potter, H., Higgins, G. E., & Gabbidon, S. L. (2011). The Influence of Gender , Race / Ethnicity

, and Faculty Perceptions on Scholarly Productivity in Criminology / Criminal Justice The

Influence of Gender , Race / Ethnicity , and Faculty Perceptions on Scholarly Productivity in

Criminology/ Criminal Justice. (January 2015), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051

1253.2010.517653

Quimbo, M. A. T., & Sulabo, E. C. (2014). Research productivity and its policy implications in

higher education institutions Maria. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1955–1971. https://

doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.818639

Schroen, A. T., Thielen, M. J., Turrentine, F. E., Kron, I. L., & Slingluff, C. L. (2007).

CARDIOTHORACIC SURGICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING Research incentive

program for clinical surgical faculty associated with increases in research productivity. The

Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 144(5), 1003–1009. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.07.033

Sekaran, U. S., & Bougie, R. J. (2016). Research Methods For Business : A Skill Building

Approach (7th Editio). New York, United States: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Svein, K. (1990). Age and scientific productivity . Differences between fields of learning. Higher

Education, 55, 37–55.

MIICEMA 2019 - Malaysia Indonesia International Conference on Economics Management and Accounting

808