HomeResearch Journal College of Engineering JBLFMU-Molovol. 3 no. 1 (2010)

Selected Predictors of Research Capability in Terms Of Research Management and Research Process in State Higher Education Institutions in Region IV

Mario A. Fetalver Jr.



This study was conducted to determine research capability in state higher education institutions in Region IV in relation to significant variable-components such as research capability as influenced by selected human resource predictors. The study made used of the descriptive-normative to describe the prevailing research culture as influenced by selected independent variables. It also made used of correlational method to determine the relationship between research capability as predicted by selected independent variables in five (5) respondent schools. Two groups of respondents were involved in the study. This group of informants involved 289 respondents including 67 administrators and 222 faculty members involved in instruction and research. Complete enumeration was used in the choice of administrator respondents, and the stratified proportional random sampling was used to get the final sample of the faculty respondents. The mean, standard deviation, frequency counts, percentages and rank were used to describe the predictors and the research capability as to research management and research process, while stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (Argyrous, 2000 and Huntsberger, et al., 1980). To test the differences between respondents’ attitudes on research, research orientation, leadership skills in research, and the problems they met in research, the t-test was used. In all statistical tests, a 5% level of significance was used.

Results of findings on selected predictors revealed that predominant respondents are males, married, and belong to age of 35-41 for the faculty and 42-48 for administrators; that predominant faculty respondents are instructors, and the administrators are holding the positions as Deans, and Chairman/Department Head/Coordinators of research; that most of them only earned units in Masterate; and the factors that tend to strengthen the description on research culture are research experiences, leadership skills in research, and attitudes and personal interest in research. However, there is the need to improve the research rewards, incentives, and recognition (RIR) for the efforts in research. Descriptive findings on research capability show the manifestations of positive research management and competence of administrators and faculty in processing research. Regression relationship analysis showed that research capability as to research management is dependent on variable Position, status of position, research trainings, and research experiences (F=18.6767, p<.05); and research process is influenced by attitudes and personal interest in research, educational attainment, and leadership skills in research, research facilities, length of service, and research training (F=15.1174, p< .05). 

Research Problems.  Respondents reacted that the most serious issues and concerns that they actually have is the “inadequacy of time among administrators and faculty to process research.” This implies that they have more time in teaching than conducting research. This is confirmed by the present finding that “deloading” of subjects is the “least” incentive provided by the institution to those who have research efforts. Another problem that besets the conduct of research is the “insufficiency of funds” (AWM=3.07). With this, the institution should find means to augment the conduct of research and to maintain it, as funds are indispensable to the management of research. This can be done by responding to the “need for a national research organization to coordinate research efforts in education” (AWM=3.02). This implies effective linkaging and networking. These will make the administrators and faculty aware of the opportunities for collaboration of research funding and efforts in education. They also revealed that the “support of the government in terms of research is inadequate” (AWM=2.99).