University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Faculty research performance evaluation with the gap analysis framework

(USC Thesis Other)

Faculty research performance evaluation with the gap analysis framework

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Faculty Research Performance Evaluation With the Gap Analysis Framework
by
Bibol Alipbay

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2022

© Copyright by Bibol Alipbay 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Bibol Alipbay certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Kenneth Yates
Kimberly Hirabayashi
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Faculty research performance has become an essential factor in institutional profile because of
increased competition among universities. This dissertation aimed to evaluate Central University
(CU; pseudonym) faculty research performance using the gap analysis framework. CU faculty
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors were considered key factors in faculty
achieving their performance goal of publishing 540 research articles in high-impact-factor
journals by 2025. A mixed-method design was applied in this research. Data were collected from
CU faculty through surveys (N = 56) and interviews (N = 8). A document analysis of the CU
website, policy papers, and other regulations was also conducted. Data were analyzed using USC
Qualtrics data analysis software. Interview and document analysis data were coded and
conceptualized according to existing theories and conceptual framework. The findings suggested
that CU faculty needed to improve their knowledge in research paper writing, and CU should
work on promoting the faculty motivation in conducting research. Moreover, CU needed to
upgrade its policies and infrastructure to create more favorable conditions for the faculty to
conduct research. Finally, recommendations for addressing the above issues were given, and a
detailed implementation plan of the recommendations was presented.
Keywords: faculty, research, publishing, knowledge, motivation, organizational influence

v
Dedication
To my parents, who have always unwaveringly supported me and inspired me to go further.

vi
Acknowledgments
I am sincerely grateful to all those who have supported me through this dissertation journey.
My greatest thanks go to my committee members, who were more than generous with their
expertise and precious time. A special thanks goes to Dr. Patricia Tobey, my committee chair, for
her countless hours of reading, encouragement, and most of all, patience throughout the entire
process. Thank you, Dr. Kenneth Yates, for advising me hand-in-hand with Dr. Tobey to provide
the most precious help I needed. Thank you, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, for agreeing to serve on
my committee and providing me with valuable suggestions and recommendations for my work.
I want to acknowledge and thank our Institutional Review Board for allowing me to conduct
my research and providing any assistance requested. I am grateful to Sarah Luery, the IRB
administrator who made my IRB application process so smooth.
I also would like to say "thank you" to my advisor Jordan Brown-Silva, who assisted me
through all kinds of academic and non-academic issues. Without her, it would be impossible for
me to finish all my courses and defend my dissertation. I want to thank the Doctoral Support Center
and all the members there. Thank you for being there and helping me.
Finally, I am also grateful to the administration of CU for allowing me to conduct data
collection among CU faculty members. My former colleagues from Central University, who
provided their helping hands whenever I turned to them, played a huge role in me accomplishing
this dissertation. Thank you for your kind heart.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ........................................................................ 1
Organizational Goal ........................................................................................................ 2
Description of Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................. 3
Stakeholder Group for the Study .................................................................................... 4
Stakeholder Performance Goals ...................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Project and Research Question ............................................................... 6
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................. 6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ................................................ 7
Definitions of Terms ....................................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Dissertation ..................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 11
Origin of Higher Learning and Universities ................................................................. 11
Universities of Modern Learning .................................................................................. 12
Soviet Higher Education ............................................................................................... 14
Reform in Post-Soviet States’ Higher Education ......................................................... 15
Globalization and Competition of Higher Education ................................................... 16

viii
Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework ........................................................ 17
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .......................... 18
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 37
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 40
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 40
Research Question ........................................................................................................ 40
Overview of Design ...................................................................................................... 40
Research Setting ........................................................................................................... 42
The Researcher ............................................................................................................. 42
Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 44
Participants .................................................................................................................... 46
Data Collection Procedures .......................................................................................... 47
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 47
Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................. 49
Ethics ............................................................................................................................ 50
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 53
Participating Stakeholders ............................................................................................ 53
Interview Findings ........................................................................................................ 56
Determination of Assets and Needs .............................................................................. 64
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences .......................................................... 64
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences ........................................................... 73
Results and Findings for Organization Influences ........................................................ 82

ix
Summary of Survey and Interview Data and Document Analyses .............................. 95
Synthesis of the Research Findings .............................................................................. 96
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation ....................................................................... 102
Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 102
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 103
Recommendations for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences .......... 103
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ......................................................... 112
Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................................... 128
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 129
References ................................................................................................................................... 130
Appendix A: Survey ................................................................................................................... 141
Appendix B: Interview ................................................................................................................ 151
Appendix C: Document Analysis ............................................................................................... 153
Appendix D: Midterm Survey for Faculty Research Training Program ..................................... 154
Appendix E: Faculty Daily Research Activity Observation Checklist ....................................... 155
Appendix F: Delayed Survey for Faculty Research Training Program ...................................... 156
Appendix G: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 157

x
List of Tables
Table 1 Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goal ......... 5
Table 2 Knowledge Influences ..................................................................................................... 24
Table 3 Motivation Influences ...................................................................................................... 30
Table 4 Organizational Influences ................................................................................................ 36
Table 5 Data Sources .................................................................................................................... 41
Table 6 Survey Respondents’ Demographics (N = 56) ................................................................ 54
Table 7 Participants Interviewed for the Study (N = 8) ................................................................ 55
Table 8 Faculty Knowledge of Research Paper Components (N = 56) ........................................ 66
Table 9 Faculty Perceived Conceptual Knowledge (N = 56) ....................................................... 68
Table 10 Procedural Knowledge Influence 1 (N = 56) ................................................................. 70
Table 11 Procedural Knowledge Influence 2 (N = 56) ................................................................. 71
Table 12 Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 1 (N = 56) ........................................................... 73
Table 13 Value Influence (N = 56) ............................................................................................... 74
Table 14 Self-Efficacy Influence 1 (N = 56) ................................................................................ 76
Table 15 Self-Efficacy Influence 2 (N = 56) ................................................................................ 77
Table 16 Emotion Influence (N = 56) ........................................................................................... 79
Table 17 Attribution Influence (N = 56) ....................................................................................... 81
Table 18 Cultural Influences (N = 56) ......................................................................................... 84
Table 19 Institutional Barriers Faculty Face (N = 56) .................................................................. 86
Table 20 Policies and Procedures Influence (N = 56).................................................................. 89
Table 21 Resources Influences (N = 56) ....................................................................................... 95
Table 22 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ....................... 113

xi
Table 23 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................ 116
Table 25 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ....................................... 122
Table 26 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ..................................................... 123
Table 27 Checklists for Tracking Faculty Research Productivity .............................................. 125
Table A 1 Survey items............................................................................................................... 142
Table B 1 Interview items ........................................................................................................... 152
Table E1 Faculty Daily Research Activity Observation Checklist ............................................. 155

xii

List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 38
Figure C1 The Midterm Survey for Faculty Research Training ................................................. 154
Figure F1 Faculty Daily Research Activity Observation Checklist............................................ 156
1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
University ranking is a relatively recent phenomenon. Since the first domestic university
ranking was launched in the United States in 1983, a plethora of ranking systems have emerged
in other countries, and international rankings have formed since the beginning of the 21st century
(Amsler & Bolsmann, 2012; Huang, 2012; Lukman et al., 2010; Taylor & Braddock, 2007).
Most international ranking systems now use bibliometric databases and reputation surveys to
collect data for their ranking analysis (Cakir et al., 2015; Huang, 2012). However, critics have
raised issues regarding the intention of ranking universities (Amsler & Bolsmann, 2012), data
collection methods (Huang, 2012), data analysis methodology (Huang, 2012), and the negative
impact of the result on the universities (Dill & Soo, 2005). Nevertheless, Lukman et al. (2010)
concluded the following benefits of formulating international rankings: providing orientation for
potential students in choosing educational programs, assessing the higher education market
internationally, providing domestic market information for a university, and strengthening good
competition among students, faculty, and institution financers. Thus, many universities and
colleges strive to increase their positions in the domestic and international rankings of
universities.
Context and Background of the Problem
Central University (CU, pseudonym) is one of nearly a dozen state-owned universities in
Kazakhstan. As a national university, CU has over ten thousand graduate and undergraduate
students and several thousand faculty and staff. Despite its teaching institutional background,
Central university has emerged as a comprehensive university in its short history of
development. With the formation of a new mission statement, CU is aimed at becoming a
research university. CU has been striving to be a leading education and research hub in the
2

region by promoting its position in the QS World University Rankings
(www.topuniversities.com). During the second decade of the 21st century, the university’s
position in the QS World University Rankings has steadily decreased. In the 2012–013 school
year, the university was ranked slightly lower than 300th in QS World University Rankings.
However, in the 2017–2018 academic year, CU further dropped in the ranking. In the 2019–2020
academic year, the university held a lower than 400th position in the QS World University
Rankings. As academic peer review and citations per faculty indicators contribute to 60% of the
scores in the ranking methodology of the QS World University Rankings, the decline in position
may well indicate a decline in faculty performance, both in teaching and research. Among all
five indicators of the QS World University Rankings, which are academic reputation, citation per
faculty, employer reputation, faculty–student ratio, and international faculty ratio, CU has scored
the lowest points in citations per faculty, further substantiating the assumption that the faculty
research performance has hindered the promotion of the university ranking. Notwithstanding,
CU has set a goal for its faculty of publishing 540 research articles in high-impact-factor journals
by 2025. Whether the faculty at CU can achieve this goal is questionable because of several
factors, such as its short history as a university, teaching institution background, limited
resources, and management shortcomings.
Organizational Goal
The supervisory board of directors of the university approved CU’s 2025 development
strategy on May 12, 2021. There are five main fields in this development strategy: innovation,
academic quality, internationalization, digitalization, and transparency. Included in the second
strategic field is the university’s goal of increasing its position to the top 200 in the QS World
University Rankings by 2025. The promotion of the university's position in the QS World
3

University Rankings is projected to be realized through improving teaching quality, promoting
faculty research capacity, increasing the interconnectedness and cooperation with international
partners, increasing the number of international students and faculty, etc. Among all, Strategy
2025 has set a specific goal for the faculty to publish 540 research papers in high-impact-factor
journals. Thus, this dissertation will exclusively focus on faculty research and how faculty
knowledge and motivation related to their research activities as well as organizational influences
impact meeting their goal of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor journals.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The university serves a wide range of stakeholders from four organizational structures,
including governmental entities, the university student employers, academia, and the students.
This discussion of stakeholder groups follows their top-to-bottom hierarchical positions, from
governmental agencies to university students. There are three key governmental entities: the
Parliament of the Republic with state funding appropriation authority, The Ministry of Finance
of the Republic as the resource sponsor, and the Ministry of Education and Science of the
Republic with oversight responsibility for the university.
The employers of CU graduates are from a wide range of societal entities, including
different educational and research institutions of the Republic and entrepreneurs from different
sections of the economy. The employers of the university graduates are not directly involved in
the university policy and strategy adoption process but provide insights and sometimes demand
certain training priorities. They also provide paid and unpaid internship opportunities to
undergraduate and graduate students at the university.
Academic stakeholders include the administrative staff and faculty members from the
university. All the administrative staff and faculty members are contract employees of the
4

university. All the faculty members are responsible for maintaining academic standards
established by the university, delivering course content, conducting research in their respective
fields, and serving as thesis chairs and committee members.
The students represent the final stakeholder group. Their academic responsibilities
include the successful completion of coursework and submission of an approved diploma, thesis,
or dissertation focused on a current problem of practice within their specific discipline. For this
dissertation, the CU students are not considered a stakeholder group of the study.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
As mentioned, the organizational goal of CU is to ascend its position to the top 200 in the
QS World University Rankings. CU prioritizes faculty performance in meeting its institutional
goal, mainly by promoting faculty research performance. Thus, the faculty of CU is the main
stakeholder group in this study. No tenure-track system exists in the Kazakhstani higher
education setting. All the faculty members of CU are contract employees, similar to clinical
faculty in the U.S. higher education setting. The faculty members are ranked by academic
degrees, both the Soviet system of academic degrees (aspirant, candidate of sciences, and doctor
of sciences) and the newly introduced Western system of academic degrees (master’s, doctorate),
and by seniority (i.e., by the length of time they have served at CU). Overall, there are 3,350
faculty members at CU. The teaching and research performance of the faculty directly impacts
the organizational mission of the university, which is to become a research university in the
region, and the goal of the university identified in the strategy (i.e., to be positioned among the
top 200 universities by the QS World University Rankings).
5

Stakeholder Performance Goals
The mission of CU is to become a leading research university in the Eurasian region and
provide quality knowledge in response to its accountability before the state and society.
According to the 2021–2025 Strategic Plan of the university, one of the strategic goals of CU
was to be positioned among the top 200 universities by the QS World University Rankings by
2025. For the stakeholders of this study (i.e., the faculty), no clearly defined goals exist for each
member of the faculty, but rather, a general goal has been set. In the research section, the
university planned to increase the number of university researchers (faculty) publications from
340 to 540 in high-impact-factor journals. Since the university has not been earning enough
points in the indicator of citation per faculty (i.e., the research indicator) of the QS World
Rankings, this dissertation will exclusively focus on faculty performance as its stakeholder
performance goal.

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goal
Organizational mission
Become a research university in the region
Organizational performance goal
To be positioned among the top 200 universities by the QS World Universities ranking by
2025.
Faculty stakeholder goal
To increase the number of university researcher (faculty) publications in high impact-factor
journals from 340 to 540 by 2025

6

Purpose of the Project and Research Question
The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the factors that influence whether CU
faculty can meet their goal of publishing 540 research articles in high-impact-factor journals to
promote the university's position in the QS World University Rankings. The dissertation will
focus on faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in relation to achieving
the stakeholder goal. Although a complete evaluation of the university's performance would
require a holistic evaluation of all the stakeholders involved, this dissertation focuses solely on
CU faculty performance in research.
The research question is: How do knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
relate to achieving the faculty performance goal of publishing 540 research papers in high-
impact-factor research journals by 2025?
Importance of the Study
Harrison (2002) stated that faculty performance evaluation can serve as an externally
visible measure for funders and supervisors. McInnis (2002) asserted that the globalization of
higher education has intensified market competition among higher educational institutions.
Moreover, the participation of for-profit organizations in this competition has worsened the
situation for the traditional higher educational institutions. The changing public demand for
higher education also requires faculty to work effectively and efficiently (McInnis, 2002). To
win in such an intense market competition and be accountable before society, institutions need to
understand their strengths and weaknesses; thus, faculty performance evaluations and promotion
of university rankings are given priority among higher educational institutions. However, since
many different types of faculty performance evaluation systems are used, it is important to
examine these systems according to the institutions and their purposes. Ehie and Karathanos
7

(1994), citing Tong and Bures (1987), asserted that positive assessment systems must promote
faculty behavior oriented to accomplishing institutional goals and encouraging improvement; it
also should focus on achieving objectives and have criteria that are clearly defined and expressly
tied to a positive feedback mechanism.
As one of the few national universities of the Republic of Kazakhstan, CU is under state
oversight. The public resources and support given to CU are substantial. Thus, the public
expectation of CU is high. Its performance is directly under the spotlight. The evaluation of the
faculty performance can provide the university administration with certain insight into promoting
the university's performance and increasing its ranking. The mission of the university is to
become a leading research university in the region. The performance of the university is directly
tied to faculty performance in this respect. Thus, evaluation of the faculty performance in
research is of utmost importance in understanding the performance gap of the university, which
is one of the hindrances to promoting the university as a research university. As numerous other
local and regional universities and educational institutions compete for state funding for the same
programs that CU is providing, the falling performance of the university may threaten state
funding and consecutively decrease admission rates, leading to an overall decrease in the
university's reputation.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
In this dissertation, Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model served as the conceptual
foundation. The gap analytical framework encompasses a six-step model that identifies
performance gaps in the stakeholder group's knowledge and motivation and the organizational
influences that may prevent the achievement of the performance goal of the stakeholder. For a
dissertation of an evaluative character, this analytical framework aligned with the purpose of the
8

investigation and projected outcome. The main purpose of Clark and Estes’ (2008) model is to
identify gaps in faculty performance and develop corrective suggestions. Thus, it fully supports
the development of the following chapters of the dissertation.
A mixed-methods design, consisting of surveys, document analysis, and interviews, was
applied to identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences (KMO) gaps. The
study investigated CU faculty knowledge, motivation and the organizational influences related to
their goal near the end of the semester when faculty members were concluding their semester-
long work. The data collection began with a quantitative survey provided to all the faculty and
the document analysis and interviews with selected faculty members (N = 8) elicited a deeper
understanding of the KMO influences. Quantitative data was used to determine the predictive
capability of certain variables, whereas qualitative information was used to supplement and
triangulate the results investigated in the first phase (Ivankova et al., 2006).
Definitions of Terms
The following words and terms will be used throughout the dissertation, and citations and
definitions from related literature will be used to provide explanations of the words and terms.
The impact factor is an indicator of a certain research journal. The more the articles in the
research journal are cited by other research articles, especially by those in other high-impact-
factor journals, the higher the impact factor of the research journal (Garfield, 1999).
Knowledge, motivation and organizational influences (KMO) are the three factors that
impact organizational members in achieving the organizational goal, according to the KMO gap
analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 20080).
9

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are a performance indicator system in an academic
institution for quantitatively measuring different aspects of the organizations’ performance
(Dolence & Norris, 1994)
A research university refers to an institution whose mission gives priority to research. It
also possesses other characteristics, such as delivering the research findings as teaching content,
a wide range of fields, a high percentage of graduate students, and income generated from
research. The term is used to separate research universities from other institutions (Taylor, 2006).
A teaching university/institution is an educational institution that prioritizes teaching
culture and aims to transform both its learners and instructors through learning (O’Keefe et al.,
2015).
Organization of the Dissertation
This five-chapter dissertation first introduced the organizational practice problem
surrounding faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence related to their research
activity in the first chapter. The second chapter focuses on literature related to university
rankings and how faculty research performance impacts the university's position in rankings.
Further identified are faculty research performance and faculty knowledge and motivation for
research activity, and the organizational influence that hinders faculty from achieving their
research goal. The third chapter explains the methodological framework. It applies Clark and
Estes’ (2008) model, illustrating how knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence are
used to conduct a gap analysis of the stakeholder group’s research activity. The projected
procedures, strengths, and limitations of the dissertations are also included in this chapter. The
following chapter enumerates the results of the analysis drawn from the collected data of this
research. The final chapter discusses the findings of this dissertation and offers suggestions to
10

CU concerning policy adaptation, organizational culture modification, and other aspects of
university life for the betterment of faculty research performance.

11

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review presents the factors that may influence whether CU faculty can
meet the organizational goal of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor research
journals by 2025. It begins with a presentation of the historical background of the struggle of
higher educational institutions for international competitiveness. Next, I provide a review of
literature on faculty knowledge of publishing. After the literature review on faculty knowledge, I
review faculty motivation for research and publication. The final part of the literature review will
focus on organizational influences on faculty research performance. After the general literature
review, the gap analysis framework of Clark and Estes (2008), namely the KMO influences on
CU faculty research performance, will be discussed in detail.
Origin of Higher Learning and Universities
The history of modern universities starts from antiquity. Early higher learning centers
were grouped around famous thinkers of ancient Greek and Rome. At first, these great teachers
conducted their teachings at places like a market yard or a colonnade of a building. Later, with
the patronage of authorities and individuals, early higher learning centers began to prosper as
independent institutions like Aristotle’s Lyceum, Epicurus’ Kepos, and the Temple of Muses,
i.e., the Alexandrian Museum (Lucas, 2016).
With the establishment, growth, and decline of the Rom, higher learning in the Roman
empire also went through various forms and contents. The seven liberal arts have formed during
Roman rule. Christian learning and Hellenic learning coexisted for a long time (Lucas, 2016).
When the Medieval dark age had fallen, at last, the higher learning in the western world also
declined that there took place a shift of the higher learning to the Islamic cities of the East
(Masood, 2017).
12

The higher learning centers of Islamic cities flourished not just in what is modern Middle
east. With the rise of the Islamic powers, Islamic knowledge and learning also spread to Central
Asia and modern Kazakhstan. Indeed, many prominent medieval Islamic scholars like al-Farabi
and Avicenna, and many lesser-known ones in the western world, like Mahmud al-Kashgari,
were students of Medieval learning centers of Central Asia; or at least they started their pursuit
of knowledge in those Madrasas in Central Asian cities, and then furthered their studies in other
larger learning centers of Middle East (Starr, 2013). Starr (2013) also writes: “When a learned
Arab of the eleventh century compiled a list of all the ‘praiseworthy peoples of the age’ who
wrote in Arabic, a third of the total of 415 he enumerated were from Central Asia” (p. 16).
The first universities in the Western world opened their doors in the 11th Century.
However, these universities were still learning centers of seven arts of Antiquity and Medieval
(Axtell, 2016). The first modern universities, which abdicated religious orthodoxy and
concentrated solely on objective and rational learning and advancing knowledge were to appear
much later, somewhere at the end of the 17th Century and the beginning of the 18th Century, in
what is modern Germany (Scott, 2006).
Universities of Modern Learning
Although early modern universities were still the centers of pure learning as they
gradually emerged from medieval guilds, the universities of modern learning came into existence
after a transition initiated by the state. Josephson et al. (2014) assert that it was the German state
rulers who, out of practical concerns, started to interfere with the university recruitment process
and initiated the publication requirement for the lecturers. The rationale is simple. Public figures
who have productive and well-accepted publications can bring honor and reputation to the
universities. It would draw more students and alleviate the financial problems of universities.
13

Josephson et al. (2014) also clarify that in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, with the
comparatively easy availability of printed books and the creation of new knowledge, pure
reciting book contents by lecturers was not welcome anymore. Traditional lecturing faced
challenges, original ideas and knowledge began to come into university lecture halls. Gradually,
university professors had to research besides their teaching activities to cope with the new
demand of the time.
The ideal of combining research and teaching was already widespread before Humboldt.
However, it was Humboldt who put it into practice and gained national significance (Josephson
et al., 2014). Thus, the Humboldtian higher education model was widespread nowadays as the
ideal of higher education where research and teaching have equal importance. In the following
period, the rest of Europe and America began to adopt the Humboldtian model, and the era of
research university began (Josephson et al., 2014; Lucas, 2016)
In the early 19th century, American colleges like Harvard University, University of
Michigan tried to implement the German model of higher education. Nonetheless, all these
attempts ended without success because of various barriers (Rudolph, 1990). It was only after the
establishment of Johns Hopkins University in 1876, administered by German-educated president
Daniel Coit Gilman, who became so successful in implementing the Humboldtian ideals, and had
so much influence on American higher learning, that many other higher educational institutions
of the USA began to adopt the German model of higher education (Lucas, 2016; Rudolph, 1990).
Although scholars nowadays argue that modern universities have already deviated from the
initial German ideals because of capitalism and marketization (Wright, 2014), research and
teaching have remained the main functions of a modern university.
14

Soviet Higher Education
Kuraev (2016) asserts that Soviet higher education is an amalgamation of both the
Humboldtian higher educational model and Soviet-style communal thinking. Although the
Soviet higher education system took its origin from imperial Russia, it was only in the Soviet era
that higher education in this part of the world prospered in its way. Kuraev (2016) stated that
higher education was initially not even popular in tsarist Russia. Most scholars and researchers
were from Europe, especially from German states, and there were also not many of them. Thus,
the higher educational institutions in pre-Soviet era Russia were comparatively weak, more
diverse, and aligned with their counterparts in Europe. As for tsarist Central Asia and
Kazakhstan, although there had appeared regional school systems (Hofmeister, 2016), there were
not many good liberal higher educational institutions as in European Russia then. Many Central
Asian students traveled to inner Russian cities for higher education (Mostafa, 2009). Akhmet
Baitursynov, one of the prominent enlighteners of the early 20th Century Kazakhstan, studied in
Orenburg Russian-Kyrgyz Teacher's school in Southern Russia (Imakhanbet, 2012).
With the establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Russian
higher education saw a quick transition from a comparatively liberal education system to a state-
controlled, specialist-training, vocational type network of institutions (Kuraev, 2016). Soviet
higher education was regulated by central administration (Kuzminov et al., 2015). Thus, any
other type of education model was not allowed anymore. Kuraev concluded three basic
organizational principles of the Soviet higher education system: “(a) uniformity; (b) top-down
administration; (c) one-man management” (p.183). Such a highly centralized Soviet education
system saw a quick expansion and growth because of intense investment and management, of
which the purpose was to serve the communist ideology (Johnson, 2008). However, Johnson
15

(2008) argues that although Soviet higher education was controlled tightly by the state policy and
central bureaucratic management, it served some good purposes, such as providing massive
educational opportunities for underrepresented groups like peasants, working-class people, and
people of other union republics.
Central Asian states, including Kazakhstan, benefitted from the expansion of the Soviet
higher education system. Although the purpose of the USSR to advance higher education in
Central Asia was to develop and strengthen the communist ideology and Soviet rule in the
region, it promoted higher education in these largely Muslim populated areas (Mostafa, 2009).
By 1980, over sixty higher educational institutions were established in Kazakhstan (Mostafa,
2009).
Reform in Post-Soviet States’ Higher Education
After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, newly independent states began to seek their own
way of development in higher education. Although the legacy of Soviet education has remained,
some countries have become successful in reforming their rigid, highly centralized higher
educational systems to an extent to fit into a new market economy (Johnson, 2008; Oleksiyenko,
2014; Huisman et al, 2018). With the integration into the global market, post-Soviet countries
believed it was necessary to join the new initiative called the Bologna Process, a gradual process
of policy adoption and reform of higher education toward the European model (Huisman, 2019).
The Baltic states joined the Bologna process first when the initiative started in Europe in 1999.
Then others followed, including Russia in 2003, Ukraine in 2005. Kazakhstan joined the Process
in 2010 (Huisman, 2018).
According to a 2017 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report
on Kazakhstan education, although there are systemic problems, Kazakhstani higher education
16

has gained some achievements in joining the Bologna process and conducting corresponding
reforms. The report says that Kazakhstan has successfully transitioned to the bachelor’s,
master’s, and doctoral degree format of higher education, and Kazakhstani faculty and students
participate in mobility programs domestically and internationally (Higher Education in
Kazakhstan 2017, OECD).
The report also highlights the newly introduced university governing boards. It states, by
early 2019, 28 state universities had established governing boards that introduced a mechanism
for the selection of university presidents” (Higher Education in Kazakhstan 2017, OECD).
Besides, higher education is also about generating new knowledge. The OECD 2017 report notes
that the increased funding in national universities and newly created grants for research and
innovation are promising futures for Kazakhstani higher education.
Globalization and Competition of Higher Education
One of the reasons behind the reform of the post-Soviet higher education system is that
the old system of higher education is no longer capable of coping with the growing competition
in the international higher education market (Oleksiyenko, 2014). Nelson and Dawson (2017)
claim that competition in education is not an old phenomenon but can only be associated with
modern ideas. With globalization, competition in higher education has developed new forms and
contents. Musselin (2018), investigating the competition among research universities, claims that
governments and private sectors have worked hand-in-hand to form a new globalized
competition, that the former has worked out competitive schemes while the latter has come up
with bibliometrics to measure the academic capacities of universities. Marginson (2006) used the
economic term positional goods to describe how modern universities have become marketized
organizations “to provide access to social prestige and income-earning” (Marginson, 2006, p. 1).
17

As a result, research universities strive to increase their image as generators of positional goods.
Oleksiyenko (2014) argues that high-profile universities have gathered “globally recognizable
symbolic attributes” (p. 251) that attract talented students internationally.
Numerous research works have concentrated on the one-way flow of human capital from
developing nations to developed countries, i.e., the brain drain (Docquier et. al., 2007; Dodani et
al., 2005; Ngoma & Ismail, 2013). Post-Soviet countries have also come across such severe loss
of specialists immediately after the collapse of the USSR (Moody, 1996). Ganguli (2014)
postulates that the emigration of researchers may have led to the more emigration of potential
research students. To ameliorate the worsening situation, the post-Soviet countries have been
accelerating reforms to build research universities like the educational institutions in their
western counterparts (Huisman et al., 2018).
On such a historical background, the Central University has adopted 5-year development
strategies to strengthen its position both at domestic and international competition. The latest of
the 5-year strategic development plans was the Development Strategy of Central University for
2021-2025 (further referred to as Strategy-2025), adopted in the first half of the year 2021. An
essential aspect of the Strategy-2025 is to increase the research capacity of the faculty. The
Strategy-2025 indicates that by 2025, the faculty will publish 540 research papers in high-
impact-factor research journals, a 70% increase from the year 2018 (340 research papers were
published by 2018).
Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework
In this section of the literature review, I will present Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
framework in a sequence, highlighting knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
affect CU faculty’s ability to achieve the goal of publishing 540 research papers in international
18

research journals by 2025. Since the main and only stakeholder in this study is the faculty of CU,
the first section will focus on faculty knowledge and competencies in the literature that plays an
important role in faculty research activity and publication. A literature review on faculty
motivation in research and publication will come next. The final part addresses organizational
influence as an essential factor affecting faculty research and publication.
Four types of knowledge are essential for faculty to achieve their goal of publishing the
required number of research papers: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural
knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2002). Faculty motivation,
especially value, self-efficacy, emotions, and attribution in achieving their stakeholder goal, is
also essential (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Finally, the cultural context in which the
faculty functions and the resources the faculty relies on also impact the faculty's achievement of
their goal. These three sections highlight the main part of this literature review.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
To achieve performance goals, we must clarify the cause of the problems hindering the
stakeholders' performance. In this respect, Clark and Estes (2008) provided a research-based
framework for identifying the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences causing the
gaps between the actual performance level and the expected performance outcome. This section
will focus on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of CU faculty. First, I
will address the literature on what knowledge and skills are necessary for higher education
faculty in improving their publication productivity. Then, an extensive literature review will
focus on higher education faculty motivation in publication. The final section will concentrate on
the higher educational institutions’ cultural, policy, and infrastructural settings that might impact
the faculty research and publication productivity.
19

Knowledge Influences
Knowledge influence is identified as a lack of certain expertise that the stakeholders must
possess to achieve their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). This expertise might be
knowledge, skills, or information that the stakeholders must attain. Rueda (2011) asserted that if
upper management does not clarify what knowledge and skills their subordinates must know and
acquire, the followers will have unclear definitions of the nature of their performance. Thus, the
followers must possess a clear understanding of knowledge that is essential to achieve the
performance goal.
Factual Knowledge
The first knowledge influence is factual knowledge. Anderson et al. (2001) defined
factual knowledge as distinctive, separate pieces of information. It encompasses the
stakeholders’ understanding of terminology and knowledge of particular details and components.
In this study, faculty need to know the top international journals in their specific field included in
scientometric databases, such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Jstor, and Springer.
Although research in faculty factual knowledge in research and publication is scarce, some
scholars have addressed the importance of factual knowledge essential for publishing. Blackburn
et al. (1978) claimed that prolific scholars usually subscribe to more journals than less productive
scholars, implying that productive researchers usually have more extensive knowledge of
journals and other publications. Baldwin and Chandler (2002), citing House’s (1981) four
components of socially supportive acts, highlighted that informational support, especially advice
and direction, is essential for faculty in their research and publication, indicating that knowledge
of publication destination is important. Belcher (2000), reflecting on the coaching of graduates
and young researchers, emphasized the importance of assisting young scholars in finding the
20

correct journals and working with editors. Belcher’s (2009a) book on writing and publishing for
young scholars is considered some of the best literature in faculty research knowledge. Belcher
claimed that young scholars usually do not publish because they do not know the right journals.
Further, Belcher offered a comprehensive list of types of scholarly journals that a researcher
might consider in publishing their work.
Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual knowledge is comprised of systematic and complex knowledge forms and
emphasizes the relations between the discrete parts of that systemic knowledge (Anderson et al.,
2001). This research assumes that CU faculty know that their research activity directly impacts
the university’s research profile and institutional position in the university rankings. Murray et
al. (2012) concluded that faculty members who were supported by informal leadership in a
writing retreat could develop systemic thinking about academic writing and its position in its
particular discipline. Baldwin and Chandler (2002) claimed that faculty consider getting
published important for their work, and they also believe that their publications enhance their
institution's position in the academic realm. Concerning institutional cultures, Austin (1990)
claimed that research university faculty usually are more inclined to specialized research
activities, whereas teaching university faculty are less connected to research as they are more
specialized in teaching. We can assume that faculty who prioritize instruction tend to care less
about research and its importance in their career or impact on institutional standings.
Procedural Knowledge
According to Anderson et al. (2001), procedural knowledge is knowledge of how people
perform certain tasks. It encompasses knowledge of methods, procedures, skills, etc. In the scope
of this dissertation, CU faculty members are supposed to possess knowledge of procedures and
21

steps to publish in top international scholarly journals. Several research works (Betsey, 2007;
Dundar & Lewis, 1998; Green et al., 2002) noted that it was usually the small portion of faculty
who were responsible for the majority of publications. Baldwin and Chandler (2002) proposed
two types of leadership support (directive and relational) for faculty to increase publications.
They argued that directive leadership provides necessary knowledge and procedure in writing
and publishing, especially for those young scholars. During a cross-national study, Teodorescu
(2000) found that Australian and British scholars’ individual characteristics, such as academic
ranks and professional international relations, have a positive correlation with high publication
productivity. The author explained this by emphasizing that faculty with high academic ranks
usually have better working conditions, more invitations for publication, and greater confidence.
The wider networks and more invitations can be associated with the fact that these scholars
usually do not have problems with publication procedures.
Ostmoe (1986) analyzed nursing faculty publication productivity and found that 20
variables are essential in their productivity. For instance, the number of academic journals the
faculty received and the professional and other organizations the faculty are members of, implied
that faculty who have extensive reading habits and who have wider networks tend to have fewer
problems with publication procedures and have higher publication productivity. Some specific
issues with the publication procedure among the faculty for this dissertation are that many
scholars face English language barriers and predatory journals when they seek to publish their
research works, an issue also discussed by Yessirkepov et al. (2015). Thus, knowledge of
publication procedures is crucial when considering the abilities of CU faculty.
22

Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge about one’s learning and knowing (i.e., the
learner’s knowledge about their cognitive abilities; Anderson et al., 2001). This dissertation
assumed that CU faculty have self-knowledge about their research abilities and manage their
time when conducting research and other academic activities, such as teaching and service. In the
data analysis part, CU faculty’s knowledge about how they distribute their time and effort will be
discussed.
Many researchers (Austin, 1990; Green et al., 2002; Hardré et al., 2011; Ostmoe, 1986;
Swygert & Gozansky, 1985; Teodorescu, 2000) have dwelled upon the mutual impact between
teaching and research activities of university faculty. Austin (1990) argued that faculty at
teaching universities feel more incongruence and stress in doing research. In such institutions,
teaching activities are much more narrowly focused, and faculty do not have much connection
with researchers. Hardré et al. (2011), investigating research productivity in research-extensive
universities, found that even faculty members who have limited time invested their extra time in
doing research. Investigating publication productivity of tenure-track nurse faculty, Ostmoe
(1986) identified several factors such as time allocated for teaching against research and teaching
responsibilities that influence faculty research productivity. According to Ostmoe, clinical
instruction has a negative correlation with research productivity. This finding confirmed the
assumption that the more time a faculty member spends on teaching, the less time they spend on
research activities. Swygert and Gozansky (1985) analyzed publication data of nearly 2,000
senior law teaching faculty and found that almost half did not publish even if there were
opportunities. The authors assumed the reason these faculty did not publish was that they had
teaching loads and other responsibilities. Another explanation was that some of these senior
23

faculty members did consulting jobs and thus did not have time for conducting research.
Teodorescu (2000) also identified several factors that influence faculty research productivity.
Through a cross-national analysis, Teodorescu found that time spent on teaching did not impact
the publication productivity of faculty, which is contrary to what has been found by many other
researchers. Furthermore, Green et al. (2002) identified a strong positive correlation between
research productivity and teaching quality of the faculty of doctoral conferring institutions.
Although the findings related to the relation between teaching and research activities of faculty
are controversial, it is assumed that for CU faculty, time is a limited resource that they are
careful in allocating for both teaching and research.
Table 2 presents the knowledge dimensions of CU faculty in achieving their performance
goals of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor journals by 2025.

24

Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Faculty goal:
Faculty will increase the number of their publications in high-impact-factor journals from
340 to 540 by 2025.
Critical behavior:
Faculty will publish the required number of research papers in high-impact-factor
research journals.
Factual knowledge
(concepts/facts/terms)
Conceptual
knowledge
(processes/stages/
relationships)
Procedural
knowledge (how
to)/“verb”
Metacognitive
knowledge
Faculty know the
international top
journals in their field
included in
scientometric
databases, like Scopus,
Web of Science,
PubMed, JSTOR, and
Springer.
Faculty know that
their research
activity directly
impacts the
university's
research profile
and its position
in university
rankings.
Faculty know the
procedure/steps
of publishing in
international top
journals.

Faculty can manage
their time in doing
research, teaching,
and service.

Literature
Baldwin & Chandler
(2002); Belcher
(2009); Zainab (2000);
Blackburn at al.
(1978)
Baldwin &
Chandler
(2002)
Baldwin &
Chandler
(2002); Green &
Baskind (2007);
Zainab (2000)
Green et al. (2002);
Ostmoe (1986);
Green & Baskind
(2007); Lawrence
et al. (1989);
Austin (1990)

Motivational Influences
Alongside knowledge, motivation also plays an essential role in stakeholders achieving
their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) described
motivation as a person’s choice to accomplish performance and the desire, cognitive effort, and
25

persistence to achieve the expected results of one’s activities. Rueda (2001) enumerated several
motivational concepts, such as self-efficacy, attributions, values, and goals, that are essential in
examining stakeholders’ performance gaps. In this dissertation, four motivational concepts of
CU faculty will be under investigation: values, self-efficacy, emotions, and attributions. These
motivational influences will be analyzed to examine the performance gaps of CU faculty in
achieving their goals of publishing 540 research papers by 2025.
Faculty Values
According to Rueda (2011), the concept of value is about the stakeholder’s belief about
the importance of the task in which they are engaged. CU faculty are assumed to believe that
doing research is an essential part of their academic career. Ostmoe (1986) identified at least
three motivational variables that are related to publication quality and quantity: “beliefs about
what should be the relationship between publication and promotion and tenure, motivation to
publish to advance knowledge, and motivation to publish because of professional obligation” (p.
209). Ostmore’s findings showed that stakeholders’ value, especially how they position the
importance of publication in their career, has significant implications for publication
productivity. Blackburn et al. (1978) inferred from earlier research that faculty who had the
intrinsic motivation and true interest in the publication from an early age tend to be prolific
throughout their career. Blackburn et al. also found that high-quantity publishers usually
maintain high interest in publication throughout their academic careers. When other variables
were controlled, the authors found that the research interest became the strongest predictor of
both overall publication productivity and publication rate.
26

Faculty Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1997a) defined self-efficacy as one's inner belief in their ability to fulfill certain
tasks. According to Bandura, there are four sources of self-efficacy: successful past
achievements, vicarious experience, persuasion by others, and physiological and emotional
conditions. Self-efficacy theory tells us that people are only committed to things they believe
they can successfully accomplish.
Lawrence et al. (1989), as cited by Blackburn et al. (1994), identified self-ascribed
competence as an essential variable that impacts faculty productivity. Blackburn et al. (1994)
found that belief in competence, self-ascribed ambition, competitiveness, and perseverance can
predict faculty publication productivity. However, the authors warned that this finding was
limited to Caucasian male researchers. Baldwin and Chandler (2002) acknowledged that
academic writing and publication were slow, demanding, and emotionally complex endeavors.
Thus, they claimed that emotional support, such as reassuring, encouraging, and reflecting trust,
through a writing retreat for academics is crucial. This finding implies that assisting faculty
through social persuasion to build self-efficacy in academic writing and publishing has a positive
impact on their perseverance. Vrugt and Koenis (2002) found that German scholars perceived
self-efficacy and upward comparison with colleagues predict their publication productivity. It
suggests that vicarious experience in faculty can also enhance their motivation for research and
publication. Although Pasupathy and Siwatu (2014) also found a correlation between
researchers’ self-efficacy beliefs and research productivity, they noted that this correlation is not
strong. However, as Pasupathy and Siwatu's research is limited to a single U.S. university, their
conclusion might not negate the relationship between faculty self-efficacy and faculty research
productivity.
27

Faculty Emotions
Emotions are inner experiences and feelings that are often temporary. Many factors
trigger emotions (Schunk, 2019). Schunk, citing Pekrun (1997, 2016), claimed that some
emotions can enhance motivation. When a person has positive emotions, they usually develop
intrinsic motivation, whereas when they have negative emotions, they tend to decrease their
intrinsic motivation (Schunk, 2019). To achieve desired faculty publication productivity, the
faculty of CU must be positive about their academic writing and publication, especially when
they are planning to publish in international journals.
Baldwin and Chandler (2002) reiterated the difficulties of academic writing mentioned by
Boice (1994) and suggested several types of leadership support for academics. They identified
emotional support as the most important form of assistance that leadership can offer to
academicians. In terms of the content of emotional support, they wrote, “characteristic behaviors
include listening, reflecting respect and understanding, reassuring, reflecting concern,
encouraging, and reflecting trust” (Baldwin & Chandler, 2002, p. 10). Baldwin and Chandler
also emphasized that emotional support should accompany the faculty through the whole
publication process, starting from the very beginning of the commitment to writing to the
reaction to the readers' feedback to the published works. Austin (1990) noted that because of
institutional culture, such as teaching institutions against research institutions, different faculty
members have different feelings. A faculty member accustomed to research and hired by a
teaching institution might feel a conflict between the demand of the teaching load and their
desire for research, whereas a teaching faculty member who has landed a job in a research
institution might also not feel appreciated. Thus, emotionally demoralizing institutional demand
might jeopardize faculty productivity. Academic writing trainer Belcher (2009) mentioned one
28

interesting phenomenon from their writing training experience. Belcher found that most of her
trainees expressed negative feelings when they talked about academic writing; thus, addressing
emotions in academic writing should come first. To address this, Belcher suggested trainees need
to write out the anxiety they feel. Murray et al. (2012) also emphasized the importance of
addressing anxiety in academic writing for publication. The researchers' solution for research-
related anxiety is facilitative leadership in a writing retreat.
Attribution
Attribution theory postulates that a person attributes their success or achievement to
certain factors, either internal ones (e.g., effort, ability) or external conditions (e.g., ease of tanks,
luck; Weiner, 1985). Weiner (1985) identified three dimensions of attribution: locus, stability,
and controllability. Locus refers to whether the cause of the event is internal or external; stability
refers to whether the cause of the event is durable through time and process; controllability refers
to whether the person is in control of the cause of the event (Weiner, 1985).
Although attribution theory has been applied widely in learning and other spheres, faculty
productivity research has rarely utilized this theory. Only some researchers (e.g., Blackburn et
al., 1994; Lawrence et al., 1989) have included elements of attribution theory in their research.
Lawrence et al. (1989) proposed a model for predicting faculty publication. This model includes
self-knowledge, social knowledge, and other factors. Self-knowledge is a researcher’s insights,
goals, and predispositions, while social knowledge refers to a researcher’s interpretation of their
environment and other factors. According to Lawrence et al., these factors are good predictors of
faculty productivity across various institutions. Blackburn et al. (1994) claimed that faculty self-
knowledge assessment, encompassing several personal ascribed characteristics, including self-
ascribed competitiveness and perseverance, are essential predictors of faculty publication
29

productivity. So, it is researchers’ understanding of their knowledge, ability, and personal traits
like predisposition and perseverance that signal their research productivity. For the faculty of
CU, it is essential to identify whether they attribute their success in publishing their research
articles in high-impact-factor journals to their efforts or other external factors.
Table 3 presents four types of motivational factors that influence CU faculty in achieving
their goal of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor international research journals.

30

Table 3
Motivation Influences
Faculty goal:
Faculty will increase the number of their publications in high-impact-factor journals from 340
to 540 by 2025.
Critical behaviors:
Faculty will publish the required number of research papers in high-impact-factor research
journals.
Value Self-efficacy Emotions Attribution
(Goal orientation)
Faculty value
research as an
important part of
their academic
career.
Faculty are confident
about being able to
write and publish
papers in high-
impact-factor
journals.
Faculty feel positive
about their ability to
write research
papers and publish
them in high-
impact-factor
research journals.
Faculty believe that
the success or
failure of their
writing and
publishing research
papers in high-
impact-factor
journals are in their
control.
(situational/dispositi
onal)
Literature
Ostmoe (1986);
Blackburn et al.
(1978)
Lawrence et al.
(1989) cited by
Blackburn et al.
(1994); Baldwin &
Chandler (2002);
Neumann &
Neumann (1990)
Bandura (1977)
Schunk, 2019;
Baldwin &
Chandler (2002);
Austin (1990);
Belcher (2009)

Weiner (1985);
Lawrence et al.
(1989) cited by
Blackburn et al.
(1994); Neumann &
Neumann (1990)

31

Organizational Influences
According to the four-frame analysis of organization by Bolman and Deal (2017), an
organization is a complex unit of a group of people that has its own structure, culture, and belief
system. Academic organizations are complex in terms of the above-mentioned features because
of their involvement in knowledge creation, dissemination, and service to a diverse population of
students (Bolman & Gallos, 2010). Clark and Estes (2008) noted that organizational influence
includes tangible factors, such as work settings, and intangible factors, such as work processes
and workplace culture. The organizational factors include cultural models, cultural setting, CU
policies, and the resources for the faculty research. In chapter four, I am presenting the findings
in three sections: organizational culture, policies and procedures, and resources.
Cultural Model
From a typological analysis, organizational cultures are distinct according to their
organizational characteristics, especially when it comes to higher educational institutions
(Bolman & Gallos, 2010; Julius et al., 1999). Further, although Bolman and Deal (2017) have
presented a universal analytic framework for organizations, organizational cultures are not
always consistent in a cross-national analysis (Brodbeck et al., 2004). Brodbeck et al. (2004)
claimed that the societal culture is the main influencing factor for the organizational culture.
Austin (1990) claimed that institutional characteristics of a research university and
teaching university have different impacts on faculty performance. Austin emphasized that
differences in university types (research against teaching) can be a stress factor for faculty who
find themselves in incongruent institutional settings. For example, a faculty member who loves
teaching might feel huge stress in a research university, whereas a research faculty might not feel
appreciated in a teaching institution. However, one must note Teodorescu’s (2000) findings that,
32

except for academic systems of developed countries, other higher education systems usually do
not show a difference in faculty publications productivity between faculty of research
universities and teaching universities. Dundar and Lewis (1998) found a difference in research
productivity between public and private research universities. According to their research,
faculty at public research universities publish fewer research papers compared to their
counterparts in private research universities. Dundar and Lewis give several possible
explanations for this: differences in faculty work priorities, differences in hiring characteristics,
and incentive mechanism discrepancies.
In terms of cross-national analysis, post-Soviet states’ higher education systems have a
legacy of a centralized, bureaucratic past (Huisman et al., 2018; Johnson, 2008; Oleksiyenko,
2014), which was distinct from that of Western, liberal educational systems. Although
Kazakhstani higher education has seen extensive reforms in recent years, the OECD (2017)
report Higher Education in Kazakhstan highlighted various problems, including delayed
decentralization of higher education administration, inconsistent remuneration, and lack of
highly qualified faculty. For example, one issue in studying post-Soviet higher education systems
is the collegiality issue against hierarchy in governance.
Although a universally accepted definition of collegiality does not exist (Schmidt et al.,
2017), collegiality is accepted as a type of liberal governance model against the hierarchical
model (Panova, 2008). Panova (2008) concluded that Russian higher education system
governance is hierarchical and less collegial (i.e., faculty participation in institutional governance
is low) in Russian higher educational institutions compared to Western universities. Similarly,
Sarinzhipov (2013) noted that Kazakhstani faculty did not play any significant role in the
academic life of universities because of the highly centralized administration system. Thus, it is
33

vital to investigate how the cultural model impacts faculty in organizing collaboration in research
at CU.
Cultural Setting
Accountability in higher education institutions became prevalent in the 1980s in the
United States (Leveille, 2006), but accountability in post-Soviet higher education institutions
drew attention only after system-wide reforms were implemented, especially after
internationalization (Huisman et al., 2018). Teodorescu (2000) analyzed factors that impact the
research productivity of higher education faculty in various nations and found that institutional
factors, including the pressure institutions put on faculty to do research, do not have a universal
impact on faculty productivity in all 10 countries studied. Interestingly, Green and Baskind
(2007) also failed to find any statistical correlation between publication productivity and work
role scholarship expectation. However, Skarupski and Foucher (2018) suggested that a specially
designed writing accountability group for junior faculty members is a productive method for
improving faculty publication accountability. Neumann and Neumann (1990) claimed that
specific and demanding goals set by department chairs in social science fields help faculty have
better productivity.
In the Kazakhstani context, along with the system-wide reforms and internationalization,
the higher education system was expected to ensure a certain percentage of faculty members
publish in peer-reviewed journals abroad (Huisman et al., 2018). In this respect, Kuzhabekova
and Ruby (2018) and Kuzhabekova (2019) studied Kazakhstani higher education faculty’s
challenges in publishing research papers. They concluded that funding, time allocation, and
English language barriers are the most prominent barriers faculty face when they are pressured to
34

publish in high-impact-factor journals. Thus, these barriers might impact the research
accountability of Kazakhstani researchers.
Policies/Procedures
Universities, especially research universities, prioritize knowledge creation (Austin,
1990; Neumann & Neumann, 1990). Teodorescu (2000) found that institutional emphasis on
research was a significant factor in increasing research publication in the educational systems of
developed countries, such as the United States and Israel, but this factor was not prominent in
developing educational systems. Neumann and Neumann (1990) claimed that a support-stress
paradigm based on the social support of faculty can help increase faculty research production.
Schroen et al. (2012) also highlighted the importance of financial incentives for research and
publication. Schroen et al. claimed that after the incentive system was implemented, the majority
of the respondents showed positive attitudes towards research and publication. However, faculty
publication incentive systems do not always work. For example, Haugen and Sandnes (2016)
presented a Norwegian incentive system that had made faculty research performance worse.
Although the findings are controversial, I believe that an existing performance incentivizing
system that evaluates and motivates the faculty performance in various fields, including research,
may act as an important organizational factor that assists CU faculty in increasing their research
productivity.
Another factor that impacts faculty research performance is what goal is set and how they
are going to achieve it. Doran’s (1981) goal theory provides a unique method for goal setting.
When the university administration and faculty members set their goals, they should be specific,
measurable, assignable, realistic, and time-based, so that both university administrators and
faculty members can keep track of their achievements.
35

Resources
Gratch (1989) attempted to define research-supporting resources in a broad sense. Gratch
believed that the university's commitment, its plan depicting research ideals, policies, and
measures, the engagement of libraries in enacting that plan, and other external resources can all
be considered institutional support resources for promoting research performance. In addition to
these resource types, Swygert and Gozansky (1985) claimed that the size of senior faculty in a
given institution was the most important factor in determining the research productivity of that
institution. In a comprehensive literature review on three factors impacting research productivity,
namely institutional support, collaborative behaviors, and research communication behavior,
Zainab (2000) summarized that institutional support can be classified as financial support, library
support, and electronic support. Zainab defined electronic support as the use of computers and
Internet access and other related facilities surrounding them. The conclusion was that electronic
support was responsible for the increased research productivity and changing mode of research
activities. However, in a cross-national analysis, not all resources are equally important in
influencing faculty research productivity. Teodorescu (2000) analyzed various factors that
impact research productivity in 10 countries and found that the availability of research funds is a
universal factor impacting research productivity across different countries. Further, contrary to
the findings of most previous research, Teodorescu’s analysis revealed that institutional
resources, such as libraries, laboratories, and research facilities, for supporting research activities
of faculty are not perceived to be a universal factor impacting the research performance of
faculty across 10 countries studied. For CU faculty, such resources as university libraries,
university digital search engines, and university research funds/grants to support faculty research
and publication will be examined.
36

Table 4 presents four types of organizational factors that influence CU faculty in
achieving their goal of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor research journals.

Table 4
Organizational Influences
Faculty goal:
Faculty will increase the number of their publications in high-impact-factor journals from 340
to 540 by 2025.
Critical behaviors:
Faculty will publish the required number of research papers in high-impact-factor research
journals.
Cultural model Cultural setting Policies/procedures Resources
A collegial culture of
collaboration
among faculty
members to conduct
research and grant
applications.

CU is a young
institution with a
strong teaching
background but
weak research
capacity.

CU prioritizes
research and
publication.
Resources support
faculty research and
publication,
including university
library, university
digital searching
engine, university
research
fund/grants.
Literature
Bolman & Deal
(2017); Bolman &
Gallos (2010);
Austin (1990);
Dundar & Lewis
(1998); Teodorescu
(2000); Murray et
al. (2012);
Neumann &
Neumann (1990);
Blackburn et al.
(1978); Zainab
(2000)
Huisman et al.
(2018); Teodorescu
(2000); Green &
Baskind, (2007);
Baldwin &
Chandler (2002);
Neumann &
Neumann (1990)
Teodorescu (2000);
Bolman & Gallos
(2010); Bolman &
Deal (2017)
Teodorescu (2000);
Gratch (1989);
Zainab (2000)

37

Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is a theoretical foundation that underlines any research
endeavor; it is a lens through which the researcher looks into the nature of the issue at hand
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). A conceptual framework helps the researcher draw upon the
concepts and terms from previous studies to interpret the subjects under study and convey the
meaning of the findings (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Consequently, a conceptual
framework is a road map that concludes previous research, sets the beginning, and establishes the
basic structure of the new study at hand. This dissertation applies Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis framework as its basic conceptual framework.
According to Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, the alignment between the
performance goals of an organization and the stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences plays a fundamental role in increasing stakeholders’ performance.
Although knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors related to stakeholder performance
are investigated separately, they are intertwined, and their impacts on stakeholder performance
are interpreted as a whole.
Figure 1 presents the detailed conceptual framework of this dissertation. It represents the
stakeholder’s (the CU faculty) knowledge, motivation, and the organizational factors related to
the performance of the stakeholder. The knowledge and motivational factors given in circles are
internal factors that influence faculty research performance. Further, these factors are immersed
in the external organizational settings enclosed in the triangle. These organizational factors are
cultural model, cultural setting, institutional policies and procedures, and institutional resources.
All these three groups of factors influence the faculty research performance in their achieving the
performance goal of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor journals, given in the
38

rectangle located on top of the triangle.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

39

Following data analysis and the development of recommendations, I applied the new
world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) for implementing and evaluating the
proposed recommendations in chapter five. This model uses four levels to evaluate how the
proposed recommendations impact the faculty reaction, learning, behavior, and overall research
productivity.
Summary
In this chapter of the dissertation, I presented a definition of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis framework. Next, based on the KMO model, I established three tables of the critical
KMO behaviors analysis and conducted a respective KMO influence literature review. As such,
the theoretical foundation of this dissertation is founded.
Historically, Kazakhstan's higher education has seen highly centralized governance as
well as gradual liberalization. However, the centralized system had such a profound impact that
it still has certain legacies of the Soviet past, such as lack of institutional autonomy, lack of
liberty in administration, and inconsistency in funding. This fact reminds me to be tentative in
applying established research findings in Western scholarship; thus, I used local literature to
avoid pure Western ideas in dealing with organizational issues.
40

Chapter Three: Methodology
This dissertation aimed to evaluate the degree to which CU faculty are meeting their goal
of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor research journals by 2025. The study
investigated knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence on faculty performance. Since
research and publication became essential parts of the work of a university professor, the
evaluation of university faculty’s research productivity has become the concern of many
investigators. This is because university faculty research productivity is directly related to the
research profile of that institution and ultimately impacts the institution’s ranking and its
perceived competitiveness.
Conceptual Framework
This dissertation used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework as its basic
theoretical foundation. This analysis framework seeks an alignment between the performance
goals of an organization and the different stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. I applied Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework to examine
CU faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors related to their performance goal. I
present the findings in Chapter four of the dissertation.
Research Question
One research question guided this study: How do knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences relate to achieving the faculty performance goal of publishing 540
research papers in high-impact-factor research journals by 2025?
Overview of Design
This dissertation applied Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework to evaluate
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to CU faculty research
41

performance. Each factor included in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences will
be assessed by analyzing the data collected from CU faculty with the help of an online survey.
The survey data collection was conducted at the end of the semester after faculty had reported
the results of their semester-long research and other academic work. The survey consisted of 29
items focusing on demographic information (nine items), knowledge (eight items), motivation
(five items), and organizational influences (seven items). Next, document analysis and eight
interviews were conducted to supplement and triangulate the findings discovered in the data
analysis of the survey. The document analysis and interviews provided more in-depth, saturated
information about faculty perceptions of factors that influence their research performance. As
this dissertation aimed to evaluate CU faculty research performance with the framework of gap
analysis, I did not focus on causal relations between possible variables and I do not provide
explanations for the root cause of the performance gaps in general. From a postpositivist
perspective (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015), this dissertation relies on descriptive analysis and certain
correlation analysis. Thus, qualitative and quantitative methods were used for data analysis.

Table 5
Data Sources
Research question Survey Interview
Document
analysis
How do knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences
relate to achieving the faculty
performance goal of publishing
540 research papers in high-
impact-factor research journals
by 2025?
X X X

42

Research Setting
This research was conducted at CU located in the Republic of Kazakhstan, a former
union republic of the USSR. CU is a young university established with the merger of two
teaching institutions. A common symptom of post-Soviet higher education was institutions with
low research capacity. Several researchers (Froumin & Kouzminov, 2018; Graham, 1975)
confirmed that it was because of the Soviet Union’s policy of separating research from education
and subsequent legacy in universities in post-Soviet states that led to low research capacity in
these institutions. The former two institutions that merged to form CU were pedagogical
institutions founded in the Soviet era (from the university website). Thus, CU has a deep
teaching cultural background. Moreover, CU was established only several decades ago, so it has
a relatively short history. Transitioning from a teaching institution background to a research
university is difficult to complete in such a short period. However, this institution is a good
representative of the higher educational institutions of post-Soviet countries. Thus, the findings
of this research will have implications for other universities.
The Researcher
I am both a Kazakhstan citizen and an immigrant to the United States. My knowledge
fund has been formed in the schools in China. Although I have had higher education in the
Kazakhstani education system and worked in the Kazakhstani higher education system for about
6 years, my knowledge in doing research has formed here in the United States. Thus, I asked
myself, “as an immigrant citizen and an American-based researcher, do I have the relevant
knowledge to be able to understand the organizational culture of Kazakhstani universities?” I
admit that I do not have a full understanding of the cultural knowledge of the native Kazakhstani
communities. To address this, I turned to Tillman’s (2002) framework of culturally sensitive
43

research approaches in conducting my research activities. Especially the elements of culturally
congruent research methods and culturally specific knowledge helped address my positionality
issues. Through culturally congruent research methods, I designed my research method,
especially the interviews and survey questions following local knowledge and cultural norms.
For example, in formulating the interview questions aimed at extracting necessary data, I was
careful not to solely rely on what I have learned in the U.S. higher educational setting. Since the
U.S. knowledge of organizational culture is contextual to the U.S. mature market economy, and
the Kazakhstani organizations are the fruits of a transitional economy from a Soviet-planned
economy, the institutional culture at Kazakhstani higher education might not match the
knowledge of the U.S. context. Therefore, I performed document analysis to understand the
Kazakhstani organizational culture so that I could have a more profound understanding of it
before beginning my data collection.
Concerning the element of culturally specific knowledge, I relied on the self-defined
experiences of native Kazakhstani faculty members, which means I knew I needed to collect the
perspectives of many participants. How Kazakhstani faculty perceived and experienced the
organizational culture and the organizational changes were important in my research.
From my work and life experience in Kazakhstan, I knew two main cultural domains exist: the
Kazakh and the Russian-speaking communities. In higher educational settings, it is not
uncommon that these two domains compete for dominance. I remember once the faculty was
required to have training. The trainer was, as usual, a Russian-speaking person. However, the
university administration might not have realized that the faculty composition had already
changed and that a majority of the faculty members were now Kazakh-speaking. As soon as the
trainer started to talk, the faculty began to complain that they did not understand and required a
44

Kazakh-speaking trainer. In the end, the trainer conducted his training in half-Russian and half-
Kazakh, as he was not fluent in Kazakh. Therefore, I anticipated that I might find some
interesting data regarding language and culture and how they interact with faculty perceptions of
the organizational culture and organizational change. As I am not a Russian-speaking person, I
might have a bias against Russian-speaking communities. Thus, my task was to balance the
narratives of these two competing cultural domains.
Data Sources
The data for this dissertation was collected from CU faculty via surveys and interviews
and from document analysis of the CU website, policies, regulations, library search engine, etc.
The survey was presented in three languages, English, Kazakh, and Russian, as these three
languages are the language of institution and communication at CU. Faculty chose from a
dropdown list of languages to select the version of the survey in their preferred language. I
translated the interview questions into the above-mentioned three languages. I asked each
respondent to choose the language of the interview as they prefer. CU documents are mostly in
Kazakh and Russian, but some are Russian. Documents in Kazakh and Russian languages were
translated into English. All documents were provided to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for
approval, which was granted on December 27, 2021.
Method 1: Survey
The first data collection method was an online survey developed based on several
research studies. The first instrument was the Research Self-Efficacy Inventory developed by
Pasupathy and Siwatu (2014). I did not extract all the survey items from the Research Self-
Efficacy Inventory, but selectively applied those relevant items and made necessary adjustments
for identifying faculty self-efficacy. For example, the survey item stem, “How confident are you
45

that you can” was extracted and relevant critical behaviors were added to it to form new survey
questions. However, the characteristics of the new survey questions did not deviate from the
original questions. I adopted items from the work of Hardré et al. (2011) to capture information
related to faculty personal value, percentage of effort, motivation for research, and self-efficacy.
Again, some selective survey items were extracted from this online survey and applied to the
current survey to collect data on faculty value, emotion, attribution, and organizational
influences, such as collaborative culture among faculty.
The first nine questions were demographic. They asked faculty members’ gender, age
group, the length of their service at CU, etc. The following ten questions were knowledge
questions, which concentrate on how faculty perceive their own knowledge and skills in research
and publication. The next seven questions are motivation questions. These questions examined
faculty’s value, self-efficacy, emotion and attribution. The final two questions, each including
several sub-questions, concentrate how faculty think about the organizational factors such as the
organizational culture, infrastructure and funding. Some of the survey questions were multiple
choices questions, some other are Likert scale questions. There were two open-ended questions
to collect faculty opinions about the barriers they perceive in doing research at CU.
Method 2: Interview
The second data collection method I used in this study was interviewing. As the planned
surveying did not collect enough data, I introduced interviewing. For this, I applied for a small
amendment request for IRB, and got immediate positive response. Eight faculty members were
requested and all agreed to participate. These faculty members were purposefully selected from
various disciplines and ranks, and their descriptive and perceptive comments were recorded to
obtain supplement data for a richer and deeper understanding of the faculty knowledge and
46

motivation and perceived organizational influences related to their research performance. The
interviews were conducted in Kazakh, and later translated into English for analysis.
Method 3: Document Analysis
The third data collection method was document analysis. CU websites, library
documents, library search engine, subscriptions, and institutional documents about policies and
procedures were analyzed and interpreted for understanding organizational factors, such as
organizational cultural settings, institutional policies and procedures, and institutional resources
allocated for supporting faculty research activities. As some documents did not have English
translations, I translated the most relevant parts of these documents into English for later
analysis.
Participants
Participants of this study were faculty members of CU. All the faculty members of CU
are contract employees, similar to clinical faculty in the U.S. higher education setting. The
faculty members are ranked by academic degrees in both the Soviet system of academic degrees
(aspirant, candidate of sciences, and doctor of sciences) and the newly introduced Western
system of academic degrees (master’s, doctorate), and by seniority, (i.e., by the length of time
they have served at CU). Demographically, there are several ethnic groups including Kazakh and
Russians. Predominantly, the language of communication and instruction are Kazakh and
Russian with some courses conducted in English.
A total of eight CU faculty members were interviewed for the study. All of them had
worked for at least 6 years at CU and served at different ranks. Two participants were male and
six were female.
47

Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected in spring, at the end of the first semester of the 2021–2022 academic
year when the faculty were completing their reports on their teaching, research, and service. To
collect survey data, I planned to send out the survey link to all the faculty members. The provost
at CU had promised to help me in this. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all classes got
transferred online. I could not meet the provost in person, and she also did not respond to my
emails. Thus, I turned to the faculty members that I know. They helped me send out the survey
link to all their colleagues from their departments and schools. So, with such a snow-ball
method, I managed to collect 87 responses within the planned period of data collection. Thirty-
three of these responses were not complete and not valid for data analysis. Fifty-six of these
responses were answered fully and were used for data analysis. The survey took approximately
20 minutes to complete. After the survey data were collected, eight interviewees were selected
from the faculty who are representatives of various demographic groups, academic ranks,
genders, and ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. These interviewees agreed to participate after my
request. I knew some of them personally, and some others were colleagues of my connections at
CU. The interviews each took about 10 minutes. The document analysis was performed in
parallel with two other data collection methods.
Data Analysis
Method 1. Survey Data Analysis
Survey data were collected and analyzed with the help of USC Qualtrics. Qualtrics
usually analyzes the collected data and gives a standard result automatically. Nevertheless, I
filtered the standard results and interpreted them according to the conceptual framework of the
dissertation. The fully answered surveys were short-listed. Overall, 56 responses were
48

completed, but with some survey items being missed here and there. Responses for each survey
items were counted. For Likert items, percentage of each scale was calculated and then their
mean is presented to show how faculty overall feel or think about that particular topic. Answers
for the open-ending questions were treated as qualitative data.
To deal with the nonresponse bias of the survey, with the suggestion of my chair, I added
interviews to the data collection method and interviewed eight faculty members to collect more
in-depth data about research faculty experience at CU. To eliminate item nonresponse bias, I
relied on the imputation method suggested by Fowler (2009). Fowler advised that if item
nonresponse is lower than 5%, then it will hardly impact the overall accuracy of data. For all
nonresponse items that are higher than 5%, I used mean responses for those items.
Method 2: Interview Data Analysis
Interview data were transcribed and coded according to the dissertation conceptual
framework. Next, the coded data was segmented accordingly, and a general pattern was
identified. For example, faculty members frustration in conducting research was colored in red
and clustered. The support the faculty members received was colored in green. In such a way,
special data points were sorted out and interpreted. As the interview data also acted as an
auxiliary tool to have a deeper understanding of what was found in the survey, I conducted a
side-by-side comparison between the survey and interview findings. Certain survey questions ask
about faculty knowledge in research and publication, and the interview also asked how many
publications they had. It is assumed that the more faculty members had publications in high-
impact-factor journals, the better their knowledge in research and publication is.
49

Method 3. Document Analysis
Document analysis was conducted alongside the survey and interview data analysis.
Documents not in English were translated into English. Bowen (2009) summarized five main
functions of the document analysis method that I applied to my study. First, document analysis
provided a context for understanding the study. Second, it posed some questions for me to
consider. Third, it acted as supplementary data for the main data. Fourth, documents allowed me
to trace changes in the subject matter. Finally, the analysis acted as a triangulating measure for
the findings of the research. CU constitutional documents, 5-year strategic development plan and
other documents were collected, and these documents’ specific sections where the priorities of
university functions were identified were retrieved and coded. Thus, the organizational
documents of CU not only helped me identify certain organizational factors but also provided
supplementary information for understanding the other KMO factors and triangulating the
findings of the research.
Validity and Reliability
Merriam and Tisdell (2015), citing Maxwell (2013), noted that a researcher cannot
convey reality in their research. Thus, I sought to maximize the validity and reliability of the
research results. For this, I applied the following strategies:
• Strategy 1: The researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and
interpretation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Although I am not in any official position
of power over the research subjects (i.e., the faculty), I hold the power of interpreting
and presenting the collected data. Thus, I conducted deep self-reflection and self-
check on my positionality to address possible bias.
50

• Strategy 2: Data collection relied on previous research methods published in articles
in peer-reviewed journals. The majority of the survey questions for identifying
motivation and organizational factors were derived from the online survey for faculty
personal value, percentage of effort, motivation for research, self-efficacy for
research by Hardré et al. (2011) and the Research Self-Efficacy Inventory by
Pasupathy and Siwatu (2014). However, these instruments were not used in their
original formats. Only selected survey items were chosen and adjusted according to
the conceptual framework and research question of the current dissertation. Since the
data collection instrument included already proven methods, it significantly increased
the validity of the instrument.
• Strategy 3: Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that multiple methods can be a good
means to cross-check the data collected. I employed three methods in this study and
the data from each instrument was used to triangulate the validity of the other tools.
• Strategy 4: Based on the suggestion of Merriam and Tisdell (2016), I used member-
checking to ensure the trustworthiness of my interpretation of the interview data.
Ethics
In considering the ethical issues of my research study, I tried to follow Patton’s Ethical
Issues Checklist (Patton, 2015):
• Explaining the purpose of the study: I explained my research purpose accurately and
understandably to my respondents. As there were both Kazakh and Russian-speaking
respondents, I conducted the interviews and survey in both Kazakh and Russian. I
also explained that the respondents’ data will only be applied to my dissertation, and
51

their responses may contribute to future changes in the university policies and the
betterment of the faculty conditions.
• Promises and reciprocity: I did not make any promises for payment or other types of
rewards for their participation. Although I stated that the responses will be analyzed
and later presented to the university as a recommendation, and thus may contribute to
the policy changes, I did not promise that this will happen for sure. I reminded them
that I am a researcher and not one of the decision-makers in the university
administration.
• Risk assessment: As there were no certain benefits for the respondents in participating
in this research, there were also no known risks. The participants were asked
questions regarding faculty knowledge and motivation in their research performance.
However, as Merriam and Tisdell (2015) noted, some interview questions about their
feelings and emotions might have induced discomfort and may have long-term
effects. In such a case, I was prepared to offer some resources of professional support.
• Confidentiality: I communicated to my interview respondents that their identification
would not be revealed in any circumstances. Since the survey was conducted
anonymously, there were no concerns about revealing identifications.
• Informed consent: All participants were provided all the necessary information about
the purpose, use and potential benefits, and risk of participation and signed an
informed consent letter.
• Data access and ownership: As mentioned in the Validity and Reliability section, I
conducted member-checking to ensure the validity of my findings. I believe this is
one way for the participants to access data and to show that all the participants of the
52

research project own the data. Since I was a former colleague of my participants and
now a doctoral student, there were no power dynamics from which I would benefit or
leave my colleagues in a disenfranchised position.
• Interviewer mental health: I am mentally firm, and due to the limitations of this study,
the data collected and the findings of the analysis did not impact my psychological
well-being. However, the faculty’s descriptive narrative of their perception of their
knowledge and motivation resonated with my own experiences and enhanced some of
my assumptions about the faculty performance and organizational factors.
• Advice: My ethical advisors were my dissertation chair, dissertation committee
members, and other professors from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California.
• Data collection boundaries: Due to the nature of the study, which is the evaluation of
faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors related to faculty research
performance, I did not encounter any ethical concerns in pressing participants for
data. I did not collect data about personal life experiences or traumatic incidents from
the participants. Thus, the interview and survey instruments were only used to extract
data about participants’ knowledge and motivation for research. There was not a
single occasion where the participants wanted to draw out of the data collection
process out of discomfort.
• Ethical vs. legal: Again, due to the nature of the study, there were no concerns about
legal issues. All procedures were approved by the IRB and no data collection took
place before the approval was granted.

53

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
CU has set a goal for its faculty to publish at least 540 research papers in high-impact-
factor journals by 2025. This dissertation aimed to identify KMO influences that impact CU
faculty in achieving the stated goal. To achieve a better understanding of the faculty’s
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, each of these influences was classified
into four groups. The results of the data analysis were organized by the classified influences.
Participating Stakeholders
The faculty of CU is the stakeholder group from which I collected data. CU faculty
members’ knowledge, motivation, and CU organization influences were explored to determine
their influence on members’ ability to achieve the assigned goal of publishing 540 research
articles in high-impact-factor journals by 2025. There are approximately 3,350 faculty members
at CU, all of which are contract employees of the university. Academic rankings of the faculty
include doctor of sciences (Soviet academic degree), PhD, candidate of sciences (Soviet
academic degree), aspirant (Soviet academic degree), and master’s degrees. Faculty range in age
from 20 years to over 60 years. They have been working at CU from less than 1 year to over 20
years. The survey link was sent out to faculty members with the help of a university
administrator and my former colleagues. However, as the data collection was conducted during
the COVID-19 pandemic, almost all participants were invited to the survey through a link
shared via email and social networks. I believe this caused the low response rate. After
employing snowball sampling, 87 respondents returned the survey. Among them, 19
respondents did not answer any of the survey questions, 12 respondents partially answered the
survey questions (mostly demographic questions), and 56 respondents returned fully answered
54

questionnaires, and thus served as the sample for the study. Table 6 presents the demographic
information of the survey respondents.

Table 6
Survey Respondents’ Demographics (N = 56)
Faculty categories Percentage
Gender
Male
Female
Prefer not to say

32.1%
63.9%
Age group
Under 20
21–30
31–40
41–50
51–60
Over 60

0%
3.6%
33.9%
39.3%
19.6%
3.6%
Academic degree
Bachelor
Master
Aspirant
Professional Doctor
Candidate of Sciences
PhD
Doctor of Sciences

1.8%
32.1%
32.1%
1.8%
0%
25%
7.1%
Length of service at CU
less than 1 year
1–5 years
6–10 years
11–15 years
16–20 years
over 20 years

1.8%
21.4%
12.5%,
17.9%
12.5%,
33.9%

A total of eight CU faculty members were interviewed for the study. All of them had
worked for at least 6 years at CU. Two participants were male and six were female. Table 7
summarizes the basic bio of participants, including gender, subjects they teach (social or hard
55

science), and the highest degree attained. Pseudonyms were applied to protect the identity of the
participants. The interview was comprised of five questions. The first three questions asked the
participants to state their academic degrees and describe their work at CU, including how long
they had been working at CU and what subject they teach. T questions were dedicated to the
participants’ research experiences at CU, including the support they have received and their
opinion on how CU should assist their faculty in doing research and getting published.

Table 7
Participants Interviewed for the Study (N = 8)
Participant
(pseudonym)
Gender Working years Major Degree attained
Jane Female 6–10
Social science
(languages)
PhD
Mark Male 11–15
Social science
(history)
MA
Dana Female 11–15
Hard Science
(mathematics)
PhD
Erik Male 6–10
Social science
(oriental studies)
MA
Annie Female 11–15
Social science
(languages)
PhD
Jannie Female 6–10
Social science
(teaching methodologies)
Candidate of sciences
Magie Female 6–10
Hard science
(mathematics)
Candidate of science
Angel Female 16–20
Hard science
(mathematics)
Candidate of science

56

Interview Findings
The interviewees expressed different opinions regarding the research at CU. Some of
them believed that CU did not support them in any form when they were doing research. Others
thought that they got all the necessary help whenever they were involved in research activities.
They following part gives detailed experiences of the interviewees.
Jane
Jane is a PhD and a lecturer at CU. She has been working at CU for 6 years. She teaches
social science classes. She has published several research papers in high-impact-factor journals
registered in scientometric databases like Scopus and Web of Sciences.
Jane completed her PhD abroad, but her research subjects were CU students. While she
was doing her dissertation research, she came to CU several times to collect data. When she was
describing her own experiences collecting data at CU, she expressed frustration. She described,
“It seemed to me that if I conduct my research work on CU campus, then the university would
look at me with a certain fear.” The university administration gave her a hard time in permitting
her data collection on campus.
Jane currently serves as an interim chair of one of the departments at CU, and she still
thinks that CU is not properly helping faculty research. She explained, “I have never received
any support from the university when I do research. But the university does give certain bonuses
after you have published your papers in (journals of) Scopus, Web of Science, or with a good H-
index.” When asked if she had any suggestions for how CU could better support research, Jane
mentioned two things. First, she recalled her frustration in data collection and said, “the
university should regulate the research review procedure.” Another issue she pointed out was
57

that research publishing sometimes takes a lot of researchers’ money. She felt “it would be good
if the university could help researchers in this respect.”
Mark
Mark holds a master’s degree and is a principal researcher at a CU-affiliated research
institute. He has been working at CU for 14 years. Although he has done history research,
published monographs, and also coauthored other monographs, he has never published an article
in a high-impact-factor journal. However, Mark said that he received the university’s support
when he was applying for a research grant offered by the Ministry of Education and Science:
When you apply for the research grant of the ministry, you got to have references and
many other accompanying documents. The university administrators helped us in this
respect. The rector (the university president) and the head of the department that oversees
research gave us their signature in a timely manner.
Nevertheless, Mark does not wholeheartedly appreciate what the university is doing to
support the research and the researchers. He suggested that CU should improve the researchers’
socioeconomic status. He felt this could be achieved by promoting their salary and giving more
research opportunities and grants.
Dana
Dana has a PhD in mathematics and teaches mathematics at CU. She is also a mother of
three and is pregnant with her fourth child. She has been working at CU for 12 years. She
completed her PhD at CU, and during her PhD years, she got pregnant and had her third baby.
She finds being a scholar and a mother particularly difficult.
Dana’s experience was unique. Although she said she had difficulties while doing her
doctoral degree, she still believes that the university is always supportive of its scholars. “If a
58

scholar or a researcher wants to do research, the university is always ready to help,” she said.
However, she could only give limited examples of such support. For example, she said if a
scholar published their paper in a high-impact-factor journal, the university would award them
with abundant bonuses.
She expressed that, as a mathematician, she does not need a laboratory or does not have
to work with humans or other types of subjects. Therefore, her concern has always been the
financial side of research. She believes that the university already has a good mechanism of
motivating the researchers financially and she had no other suggestions to offer:
If the university assigns good amounts of financial awards, the scholars would have
increased their chances of getting published in high-ranking journals. However, our
university has already established such a mechanism. What is left for the scholars is just
to work hard and get published.
Erik
Erik holds a master’s degree in social sciences. He completed his PhD in China, but he
has not defended it yet. Currently, he is employed at CU and teaches Oriental studies and the
Chinese language. Erik believes the university assigns too heavy of a teaching load to faculty
members and still requires them to publish. He first concisely answered “not at all” to the
interview question about what support he had received from the university in doing research and
publishing. Then he continued his suggestions:
I would like the university to free the faculty from the social works (service) and decrease
the teaching load. Teaching loads should follow the international standards, you know. …
I don’t know how much teaching loads the American universities’ faculty of different
ranks have, but I would say our teaching load is … let me put it this way, terrible.
59

He also said that financial support for the scholars, especially those young faculty members, was
essential. This financial support includes increasing their salaries and providing them with
housing and other material support.
Annie
Annie is a PhD in Chinese studies. She completed her PhD at a Chinese university. Annie
has been working at CU for 11 years and teaches the Chinese language and culture. She
compares her colleagues in Chinese universities to those at CU and believes that CU has put too
much pressure on faculty in terms of research work.
Annie thinks that the university supports the faculty in doing research. The first type of
support is informational assistance. For example, she noted that university administrators usually
send emails containing information about conferences, seminars, symposiums, and others to
inform the faculty where they can get published. Another type of support is that the university
organizes training sessions for those who would like to do research and get published. She
recalled one such training and said that it was dedicated to improving faculty academic English
and ways and procedures to publish in journals registered in scientometric databases like Scopus
and Web of Science.
However, Annie expressed her opinion about research. She explained, “research work is
not like manufacturing soap, you may write one research paper for one year, or may not write
any.” Annie stated that CU faculty have too heavy of a teaching load and they also do a lot of
service work. “Considering all these workloads, for me, it is difficult to write a research paper
and get it published,” she said. Annie could not hide her frustration by saying, “you have no
choice but to publish, because the university requires it.” Her scholarship experience abroad and
60

communication with her international fellow scholars have enabled her to see the research work
from different perspectives:
For example, my colleagues in Chinese universities are not required to publish research
work. I have a colleague at Dalian University and her leadership has never asked her to
publish papers. Possibly that she wrote her paper while she was teaching. You know
teaching gives a teacher a lot of ideas and inspiration. However, there has never been any
situation where her chair or president said that if you do not get published you will lose
your job. … Research work should be more voluntary.
Annie’s suggestion for the university is that it is always good to support the faculty in their
research work, but there should never be too much pressure on faculty to get published.
Jannie
Jannie has a candidate for a pedagogical sciences degree, a Soviet doctoral degree. She
has been working in the sphere of higher education for almost 30 years, of which 10 years has
been at CU. She teaches methods and methodologies of teaching in general, innovation in
education, and distance education.
She said when she was publishing her books the university supported her by including
her books in the university publishing program. That means she has her books published with
university funding:
We have published many research papers home and abroad. … Some research papers
have been published in journals recommended by the Committee for Quality Assurance
in Education and Science, others have been released in conferences, symposiums, and
forums in Turkey, Emirates, and the USA.
61

However, she noted that the university provided only some limited support for publishing these
papers. This is because these research papers, especially those they publish in international
journals, require a lot of time and effort, and quite often financial expenses, which the university
would not be able to provide.
Jannie also mentioned the workload problem:
The class time, or so-called teaching load of the faculty, lately, has increased. One full-
time faculty member’s teaching load used to be 24 credits (units) one year, then recently
it was increased to 32. For those faculty members who have already worked for twenty-
some years, the university should give less teaching load and allow them more time for
research, like book publishing, paper writing, etc.
When asked about the university training programs for the faculty research work, Jannie
said that there were many master classes and training. But the problem is that the faculty are too
busy to attend them. For the faculty who are already overwhelmed by the huge teaching load,
attending such training programs requires extra time and effort.
Magie
Magie is a candidate in physics and mathematics. She is also an associate professor at
CU, where she has worked for 10 years. She teaches differential mathematics at CU. However,
she says that her mathematics school is based in Almaty, a different city other than the one CU is
located, thus she feels alone in doing research at CU. She believes that support is always needed
for conducting research work.
At CU, Magie mostly conducts teaching and finds it difficult to do research:
We conduct lectures, and every week we have to put marks for students. Or at least every
2 weeks we need to assign marks. You have at least 25 students sitting in front of you,
62

and you need to put marks for their attendance, and their independent work (homework).
To do this, you need to assign homework for 25 students and collect them and then check
them. Then imagine you teach four to five classes and in each class, you have 25 to 30
students. … Your time will all be taken up by this.
She thinks doing research should be required from those elder doctors and professors
who have much more time on their own because they do not teach bachelor’s degree students but
master’s and doctoral students. In her opinion, research should be conducted systematically. She
explained, “one has to spend at least 3 days in a row in the library to produce good research.”
Another thing is that her field of interest is so narrow that only her colleagues in Almaty can
collaborate with her. “Here I can conduct research by myself, but it takes too much time,” she
said.
Some of her books were published with the help of the university, some were by herself.
Magie thought that the financial support she received including her salary, research fund, and
others was not enough. She compared her salary with the salaries of teachers in middle schools
and said that the government had increased the salaries in the middle schools but not the
university. This directly impacted the motivation of the university faculty.
Angel
Angel is also a candidate in physics and mathematics sciences. She has been working at
CU for 21 years. She teaches several mathematics subjects like Differential Equations,
Mathematical Equations, Integral Equations, and other special courses. She is also the chair of a
department at CU.
Angel admits that the government and the university administration were making an
effort to promote research and innovation. The Ministry of Education and Science has allocated
63

enough funding for research; the university administration is working to update the current legal
and regulatory frameworks, and university leaders from the research and innovation department
support faculty by talking individually with the faculty members to listen to their concerns.
However, there are still a lot of barriers to developing research at the university. “The Ministry
of Education and Science allocated funding for 1,000 grants for doctoral programs last year
overall, and our department got 10 of them,” Angel said proudly. But the problem is now that the
schoolteachers’ salaries are much more competitive than the university faculty, and potential
candidates for doctoral programs quit their ambition to become researchers and go for teaching
jobs at schools. “One of my doctoral students quit right before he was about to defend his thesis
and went to seek a teaching position at a local school.”
Another obstacle that the researchers at CU face, according to Angel, is the English
language requirement. Now, all the universities in Kazakhstan, including CU, require English
language proficiency when they apply for doctoral programs. “To fill all 10 positions of our
doctoral programs, we had to look for candidates with good English rather than those who know
mathematics,” said Angel.
Angel said the university policies were also working against developing research at the
university.
The university invited scholars to work for it, but these scholars need to be provided with
good funding and material basis. For example, if a doctoral student or an aspirant is
invited, they must be paid a good stipend, they should have a convenient place to come
sit and do research. Things like these are yet done enough, so we are failing to become a
developed center for research.
64

Except for the above-mentioned barriers, the university is also requiring the faculty to publish,
not considering the teaching load. For this, Angle suggests that the university should also
consider adding a research load and paying a salary for that.
Determination of Assets and Needs
This dissertation used surveys, interviews, and document analysis as the sources of data.
The main data source was a survey, and document analysis and interviews served as
supplementary data sources. The documents and interviews were also used for triangulation of
the data obtained from the survey.
There are over three thousand faculty members at CU, and the organizational goal of
publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor journals by 2025 requires all faculty
members to publish. In this regard, all faculty members must be knowledgeable and skilled to
publish in high-impact-factor journals. However, considering the factors mentioned in the
Limitations and Delimitations section, I could not gain access to all faculty members and collect
enough data through surveys to conclude whether certain influences were an asset or a need.
Thus, all influences in this dissertation will presumably be considered needs.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that influence whether CU will meet
its goal of having faculty publish 540 research papers in high-impact-factor journals by 2025. In
this section, I present data concerning faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
that impact CU faculty in achieving the goal of publishing the required number of research
papers.
65

Factual Knowledge
The first factual knowledge influence is that faculty know the high-impact-factor journals
of their fields. To the survey item, “I know at least one of the top 10 high-impact-factor journals
in my field (discipline),” 82.1% of the respondents replied “yes,” and 17.9% said “no.”
No document analysis was used to collect data for this influence. Overall, the majority of the
faculty at CU have knowledge of high-impact-factor journals in their field of study.
The second factual knowledge influence is that faculty have general knowledge of
publishing in high-impact-factor journals. To the survey item, “I have published in at least one of
the top 10 high-impact-factor journals in my field (discipline),” 64.3% of the faculty members
said they had, whereas 35.7% indicated they had not. The respondents who said they had
published in high-impact-factor journals also had the corresponding knowledge and skills needed
to publish in those journals. 64.3% of faculty members being knowledgeable and skilled in
research and publication is a high indicator considering CU’s teaching institution background.
No document analysis was conducted for this influence.
The third factual knowledge influence is the faculty’s knowledge of research paper
components. The survey item for identifying faculty knowledge of research paper components
has four choices that are the important components of a research paper: introduction, method,
results, and discussion (Table 8). Two other options were included as misleading options:
lead and examples. Respondents were asked to indicate what they believed were the important
parts of a paper, and they could check more than one item. More than half of the respondents
indicated that methods (69.6%), results (82.1%), and discussion (51.8%) are essential
components of a research paper. The least number of respondents chose the misleading
items lead and examples (23% and 41%, respectively). Although only 11% of the respondents
66

have chosen all answers correctly, these indicators show that the faculty members are
knowledgeable to write a research paper properly. No document analysis is used for this
influence.

Table 8
Faculty Knowledge of Research Paper Components (N = 56)
What are the important parts of a research article (check
all that apply)?
Responses

Introduction 46.4%
Lead (incorrect) 23.2%
Method 69.6%
Results 82.1%
Examples (incorrect) 41.1%
Discussion 51.8%

67

All the interviewees said that they published research papers either in domestic journals
and conference proceedings, or in international destinations. Jane published several research
papers in high-impact-factor journals registered in scientometric databases like Scopus and Web
of Sciences. Jannie published books and research papers during her thirty years of scholarship.
Maggie also said that she published over twenty papers in various destinations. Overll, according
to the interview findings, CU faculty’s factual knowledge in research publication is good.
Conceptual Knowledge
The first conceptual knowledge influence assumes that faculty know that their research
activity directly impacts the university's research profile. The survey respondents answered using
a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (No, it doesn't influence it at all) to 10 (Yes, it strongly
influences it). According to the survey results, less than 10% of the respondents think that their
research activities do not influence the research profile of the university at all, whereas 37.5% of
the respondents believe that their research activities have a strong influence on the image of the
university as a research institution (Table 9). Moreover, the data analysis shows that the mean for
this survey item was 7.2, which indicates that the CU faculty have a comparatively good
understanding that their research activities influence the research potential of the university to at
least some extent. No document analysis was used for this influence.
The second conceptual knowledge is that the faculty know that their research activities
impact their future career. According to the survey, only 5.4% of the respondents believe that
their research activities do not have any influence on their future careers (Table 9). However,
nearly half of the respondents (44.5%) think that their current research activities are important
for their future careers. The average answer of the respondents was 7.9, which indicates that the
68

majority of the CU faculty members believe that their research activities are significantly
important for their future careers. No document analysis is used for this influence.

Table 9
Faculty Perceived Conceptual Knowledge (N = 56)
Selection
I know that my research publication
influences the university’s research
profile. (%)
I know that my research
publication influences my
career path. (%)
0 (No, it does not
influence it at all.)
7.1 5.4
1 0.0 0.0
2 0.0 0.0
3 1.8 0.0
4 3.6 3.6
5 (It influences
somehow.)
19.6 12.5
6 3.6 0.0
7 10.7 7.1
8 7.1 5.4
9 7.1 10.7
10 (Yes, it strongly
influences it.)
37.5 44.6

69

Procedural Knowledge
The first procedural knowledge influence is the faculty's perceived knowledge of the
procedure of applying for research grants. This influence was identified by analyzing two sets of
data collected from two survey questions (Table 10). One asked the respondents about their
knowledge of the procedure for applying for university research grants, and the other retrieved
data about their knowledge of the application procedure of ministry (state) research grants.
Means were then calculated for the two sets of data. On average, nearly 30% of the respondents
thought they had some knowledge of the research grant application process. Almost 25% of them
thought that they knew the procedure very well. Generally, most of the respondents believe that
they know how to apply for research grants. The average answer to this knowledge influence was
5.9, which indicates the perceived knowledge of research grant applications of the faculty is
mediocre. No document analysis was performed for this influence.

70

Table 10
Procedural Knowledge Influence 1 (N = 56)
Selection
Knowledge of applying for
university research grants
(%)
Knowledge of applying for
research grants from the Ministry
of Education and Science (%)
Mean
(%)
0 (I have no
knowledge at
all.)
10.7 7.1 8.9
1 8.9 7.1 8
2 3.6 3.6 3.6
3 3.6 3.6 3.6
4 3.6 1.8 2.7
5 (I have some
knowledge.)
28.6 30.4 29.5
6 3.6 5.4 3.95
7 5.4 5.4 5.4
8 5.4 3.6 4.5
9 5.4 1.8 3.6
10 (I know it
very well.)
19.6 28.6 24.1

The second procedural knowledge influence is the faculty knowledge of writing a
research proposal. Although none of the respondents indicated that they were incompetent in
writing a research proposal, the survey results showed that the majority of the respondents said
they were not highly competent (Table 11). Only about one fifth (19.6%) of the respondents said
that they knew the procedure to write a research proposal very well. This indicates that the CU
faculty are moderately competent in writing a research proposal. Overall, although the majority
71

of the faculty members are positive that they had at least some knowledge in writing a research
proposal, their self-reported procedural knowledge is not sufficient. No document analysis was
performed for this influence.

Table 11
Procedural Knowledge Influence 2 (N = 56)

How would you rate your knowledge of the
procedure to write a research proposal for grants?
(%)
0 (I have no knowledge at all) 0.0
1 10.7
2 1.8
3 5.4
4 5.4
5 (I have some knowledge) 28.6
6 3.6
7 3.6
8 5.4
9 7.1
10 (I know it very well) 19.6

72

The interviewees’ procedural knowledge could be identified through their works which
they published with the help of certain grants or other organizational support. Only Janie said
mentioned that she had published books and papers with a university publishing program. No
other interviewees mentioned publishing research papers with grant funds. This reflected the
findings of the survey that CU faculty members’ procedural knowledge is not sufficient.
Metacognitive Knowledge
The metacognitive knowledge influence is how much effort faculty put into three
different activities at work: research, teaching, and service. The survey asked the respondents to
indicate how much effort they spend on each of the three functions at CU, namely, research,
teaching, and service. One interesting fact is that the majority of the respondents have incorrectly
selected the answers to this Likert scale question (Table 12). Presumably, when a respondent
selects a scale for each of the functions, the final sum of the three scales should add up to 100%.
However, only six respondents have done so, and the majority of the respondents’ answers added
up to over 150%, and some reached nearly 300%. The data shows that almost one third of the
respondents (32.1%) put 100% of their effort into teaching and much lower percentages of
respondents spend all of their effort on research (8.9%) and service (7.1%). Considering the
inappropriate data, I would discard this findings and refrain from drawing any conclusion about
the metacognitive knowledge of the CU faculty.
However, interview data presented some clues about faculty’s metacognitive knowledge.
The majority of the interviewees complained that they were overwhelmed by heavy teaching
load. This indicated that faculty had an understanding how they were distributing their time
among teaching, research and service. No document analysis was performed for this influence.

73

Table 12
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 1 (N = 56)
How much effort do you invest in each of the
following professional activities:
Research
(%)
Teaching
(%)
Service
(%)
0% 0.0 0.0 0.0
10% 5.4 0.0 3.6
20% 5.4 0.0 10.7
30% 16.1 1.8 5.4
40% 7.1 8.9 16.1
50% 5.4 5.4 5.4
60% 10.7 7.1 3.6
70% 17.9 1.8 5.4
80% 12.5 17.9 16.1
90% 10.7 14.3 14.3
100% 8.9 32.1 7.1

Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
Value
The value influence examines how much the CU faculty value research activities.
According to the survey results, nearly half of the respondents (44.6%) said they value teaching
very much (Table 13). Similarly, research activities are highly valued by 39.3% of the
respondents. Concerning service, 26.8% of respondents said they somewhat value service and
14.3% said they value service very much. These results represent that nearly equal proportions of
faculty members at CU highly value teaching and research, and much fewer faculty members put
74

a high value on service. The means for each of these activities are 7.7 for research, 8.2 for
teaching, and 5.3 for service. No document analysis was performed for this influence.

Table 13
Value Influence (N = 56)
To what extent do you personally value each of
these three professional activities?
Research
(%)
Teaching
(%)
Service (%)
0 (I don't value it at all.) 1.8 0.0 1.8
1 0.0 0.0 3.6
2 1.8 1.8 12.5
3 0.0 0.0 8.9
4 1.8 1.8 5.4
5 (I somewhat value it.) 16.1 8.9 26.8
6 3.6 5.4 1.8
7 16.1 8.9 3.6
8 10.7 12.5 7.1
9 7.1 8.9 5.4
10 (I value it very much.) 39.3 44.6 14.3

75

From the interviews’ results, it was clearly manifested that the interviewees valued
research. Being a researcher, Mark believed that the research was valuable work and the
researchers should be compensated properly. Erik’s suggestion was to free the faculty from
service work and reduce their teaching load so that they can concentrate on research. “Teaching
loads should follow the international standards, you know. … I don’t know how much teaching
loads the American universities’ faculty of different ranks have, but I would say our teaching
load is … let me put it this way, terrible”, he said. Annie believed that research should not be
considered as some type of mass production. She explained, “research work is not like
manufacturing soap, you may write one research paper for one year, or may not write any.”
Other interviewees also expressed that research was important and more time, effort and
organizational support needed for it.
Self-Efficacy
The first self-efficacy influence is the CU faculty’s overall confidence in writing research
papers. To identify CU faculty members’ self-efficacy in research work, the survey questions ask
respondents how confident they feel about five different procedures of research paper writing:
formulating research question(s), conducting a literature review, data collection, data analysis,
and writing up research results. In all these five steps of research work writing, almost 20% of
the respondents felt very confident (Table 14). And nearly 90% of the respondents said they were
somewhat confident or very confident in all steps of writing a research paper. The means of these
all five items are 74, 75, 76, 77, and 77, which indicates that the CU faculty members are
generally confident in writing research papers. No document analysis and interviews were
performed for this influence.

76

Table 14
Self-Efficacy Influence 1 (N = 56)
How confident
are you in…
Formulating
research
question(s)
(%)
Conducting
literature
review
(%)
Data
collection
(%)
Data
analysis
(%)
Writing up
research
results
(%)
0 (not confident
at all)
0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 3.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 3.6
30 1.8 3.6 0.0 3.6 1.8
40 7.1 3.6 5.4 1.8 3.6
50 (somewhat
confident)
14.3 14.3 14.3 16.1 12.5
60 3.6 3.6 5.4 5.4 1.8
70 8.9 10.7 10.7 8.9 7.1
80 25.0 16.1 16.1 16.1 21.4
90 12.5 17.9 19.6 21.4 19.6
100 (very
confident)
23.2 21.4 19.6 19.6 21.4

The second self-efficacy influence is that CU faculty have confidence in three activities
related to publishing a research paper in a high-impact-factor journal. These activities include
identifying worthwhile research questions, writing a good research paper, and publishing it in a
high-impact-factor journal. All three items received similar responses from the respondents
(Table 15). For all three tasks, the largest group of respondents indicated they were somewhat
confident and very much confident. None of the respondents said that they were not at all
77

confident in any of these three tasks. The means for each activity were 7.5, 7.4, and 6.4,
indicating that CU faculty have higher than average confidence in identifying research questions,
writing a good research paper, and publishing it in a high-impact-factor journal. No document
analysis was performed for this influence.

Table 15
Self-Efficacy Influence 2 (N = 56)
Selection
I can identify worthwhile
research questions.
I can write a good
research article.

I can publish in high-
impact-factor journals.
0 (not at all
true)
0.0 0.0 0.0
1 0.0 1.8 3.6
2 1.8 1.8 3.6
3 1.8 1.8 1.8
4 5.4 7.1 12.5
5 (somewhat
true)
16.1 16.1 19.6
6 7.1 1.8 5.4
7 14.3 3.6 5.4
8 5 8.9 8.9
9 7 14.3 5.4
10 (very much
true)
15 26.8 19.6

78

Emotion Influence
The emotional influence is that the CU faculty feel positive about and supported by their
departments and university in general. According to the survey results, nearly one third (30.4%)
of the respondents felt that they were very well supported by their departments (Table 16).
Comparatively, only 25% of the respondents said that they were supported well by the university
administration. However, more respondents (28.6%) felt that the university administration did
not support them fully, whereas an even smaller proportion of them (19.6%) responded that their
departments did not support them enough. Overall, in both categories, nearly 90% of the
respondents answered somewhat true or very much true that they were supported by their
department and by the university administration. The mean was 6.9 for each of these two items,
which indicates that nearly the same proportions of CU faculty think that they are somewhat
supported by their departments and by CU administration. No document analysis was performed
for this influence.

79

Table 16
Emotion Influence (N = 56)
To what extent are
these answers true
for you?
My department provides me with
choices in the research questions and
issues that I investigate. (%)
The university
administrators encourage
faculty research. (%)
0 (not at all true) 7.1 0.0
1 0.0 1.8
2 3.6 3.6
3 1.8 1.8
4 1.8 0.0
5 (somewhat true) 19.6 28.6
6 3.6 8.9
7 5.4 3.6
8 10.7 12.5
9 7.1 3.6
10 (very much true) 30.4 25.0

The interview findings indicated that CU faculty resented that the university did not
allow them to conduct research due to heavy teaching load. They also felt frustrated by some
daily procedures at CU.
Erik was a PhD candidate and taught Chinese language and culture at CU. He said that “I
would say our teaching load is … let me put it this way, terrible”. Jane was a PhD and taught
languages at CU. The university administration gave her a hard time in permitting her data
collection on campus when she was doing her PhD dissertation. “It seemed to me that if I
conduct my research work on CU campus, then the university would look at me with a certain
80

fear”, she said. Angel was the chair of a department at CU, and she also resented that the
university demoralized the faculty in doing research, because research work is not paid
separately.
Attribution
Most of the respondents (30.4%) said that their current research publication was
somewhat the result of their effort (Table 17). Fewer respondents (28.6%) indicated that they had
published their research work wholly relying on their effort. Less than 5% of the respondents
showed that extrinsic factors might be responsible for their success in getting published. The
average response for this item was 7.4. This represents that the CU faculty generally attribute
their success in getting published to their ability and attempt.

81

Table 17
Attribution Influence (N = 56)
Selection
What I have already published has all been the result of my
own effort (%)
0 (not at all true) 0.0
1 1.8
2 0.0
3 1.8
4 0.0
5 (somewhat true) 30.4
6 7.1
7 5.4
8 12.5
9 12.5
10 (very much true) 28.6

Among the interviewees, there were representatives who believed that doing research was
not a solo trip. Magie is a candidate in physics and mathematics. She said that because her
fellow-researchers were based in a different city and few people at CU could collaborate with
her, she felt alone in doing research at CU. “Here I can conduct research by myself, but it takes
too much time,” she said. This finding represented that at least some CU faculty attributed their
success in getting published to group work rather than individual effort. No document analysis
was performed for this influence.
82

Results and Findings for Organization Influences
I formulated in chapter two that there were four organizational influences: cultural model,
cultural settings, policies and procedures and resources. Here, I merged cultural model and
cultural settings into one section and presented the findings as organizational culture.
Organizational Culture
The first cultural influence is CU’s institutional research culture. According to the survey
results, most of the respondents (26.8%) said that CU had some research culture (Table 18). Only
a little less than one fifth (19.6%) of the respondents believed that CU was an institution with a
strong research culture. None of the respondents said that CU had no research culture at all. The
mean answer to this question was 6.4, which indicates that the CU faculty feel somewhat
positive that CU has a research culture.
According to the foundational document CU has no strong research tradition.
Notwithstanding the recent past of its teaching institution background, CU is planning to
announce itself as a research university, according to its strategic development documents (CU
official website). Furthermore, the recent change of the university leadership style from
centralized, top-down management to a more collegial cooperative leadership style (i.e., the
institutionalization of the board of trustees [CU official website]), indicates a tendency of
creating a more positive atmosphere for active research activities. CU is home to more than a
dozen schools and many research centers. To increase its research potential and to create a
research culture, CU organizes approximately 100 various types of conferences, roundtables,
seminars, and forums every year at its schools and research centers (from CU history posted on
university official website). Moreover, like many modern research institutions, CU also has its
83

own publishing house, from which institutional research journals and other scientific
publications are released periodically.
The second cultural influence is collegiality in doing research. When asked whether they
communicate with other colleagues regarding their research activities, over one quarter (26.8%)
of the respondents said that they somewhat communicated with other colleagues while doing
research (Table 18). Only 12.5% of the respondents said that they often communicated with
other colleagues on topics about research and publication. Nearly 2% of the respondents said
they did not communicate with their colleagues at all. The average response for this answer was
6.3, which suggests that CU faculty’s communication with their colleagues while doing research
is moderate. The survey results analysis demonstrates that the majority of the CU faculty have
some form of communication with their colleagues. However, the analysis also showed that the
CU faculty did not completely disregard communication with their colleagues while they were
actively doing research work. Overall, this finding suggests low collegiality in research
communication at CU. No document analysis was performed for this influence.

84

Table 18
Cultural Influences (N = 56)
To what extent are the
following answers true
for you?
The university has a strong
research culture
(%)
I communicate often with my
colleagues on topics about our
research and publication
(%)
0 (not at all true) 0.0 1.8
1 1.8 0.0
2 3.6 1.8
3 5.4 1.8
4 7.1 3.6
5 (somewhat true) 26.8 26.8
6 3.6 8.9
7 1.8 7.1
8 5.4 8.9
9 8.9 10.7
10 (very much true) 19.6 12.5

The third cultural influence is the overall activeness of research at CU. This influence did
not have a survey question. According to the university’s official webpage, CU publishes 16
journals. Each of these journals is devoted to specific fields of science and scholarship relevant
to the schools at CU. As mentioned, CU conducts a large number of conferences, roundtables,
seminars, and forums every year to create a research atmosphere for the faculty to immerse
themselves in. Every 5 years, the supervisory board of directors of CU works out a 5-year
development strategy for promoting teaching, research, and service at the university. In these 5-
85

year development strategies, increasing the faculty research output and growing the research
potential of the university has always been a priority (CU 5-year Strategy).
Communication with universities within and outside the country is also active. Each year,
the university sends a certain number of faculty to other universities in Kazakhstan to do various
training and invites professors from universities abroad to teach and do research on its campus
(university official page). CU faculty work in a comparatively well-organized, research-oriented
atmosphere filled with research conferences and seminars as well as research journals. The
university also actively communicates with other universities to promote its teaching and
research capacities. All these actions contribute to the research cultural settings at the CU
campus.
The fourth cultural influence encompasses the barriers that impact research publication in
high-impact-factor journals. The survey results showed that more than half of the respondents
(53.6%) said that time spent waiting for their research to get published is the primary problem
they faced (Table 19). Limited funds were selected as the second problem in publishing a
research paper (46.4%). Nearly one third of the respondents selected limitations in time (28.6%)
and limited English language skills (30.4%) as barriers to their research activities. Concerning
destination, 16.1% of the respondents said that the limited destination of the high-impact-factor
journals for publication was a barrier to their research publication. Less than 10% of the
respondents thought that finding references (7.1%) and the inability to use research software
(8.9%) are difficult for them. These survey findings indicate similar proportions of CU faculty
have similar barriers in their research activities.

86

Table 19
Institutional Barriers Faculty Face (N = 56)
What are the barriers for you to publish in high-impact-factor
journals? (Check all that apply)
Percentage of respondents
Limited funds 46.4
Limitation in time 28.6
Difficulty finding references 7.1
Relatively long publication processing time 53.6
Limitations English language skills 30.4
Limited ability to use software tools for paper examinations,
such as similarity tests and grammar tests
8.9
Limited destinations of the high-impact-factor journals to
publish the article
16.1

To the survey item, “Please briefly state the problems you have, if any, in conducting
research,” respondents gave various replies. One respondent said that research article publishing
has become a business Another respondent replied that research work is too laborious, and it
harms their eyesight and uses up their energy. The language barrier is another concern for the
respondents. That is because CU is not an English language medium institution. Time seems the
most important concern for the respondents because two respondents said that time is not enough
to do the research work and get published.
Overall, the survey findings suggest that CU faculty have several problems that hinder
faculty research publication. These problems are related to the overall organizational culture at
CU, including the motivation system at CU, the working conditions for researchers, the English
87

language barrier, and the time allocated for research. No document analysis is used for this
influence.
The interview data also suggested that CU did not have strong research culture. Almost
all the interviewees complained that teaching load was too much that they did not have enough
time for research. Erik complained that their teaching load was “terrible”. Jannie said that
teaching load had increased from 24 credits (units) to 32 credits these years. Magie was
frustrated the teaching and homework checking which took up all her time. All these indicated
that the university actually did not promote research except for doing some lip service.
CU leadership did not support the faculty enough. Jane said that the university
administration had given her some hard time when she was collecting data for her dissertation.
She said, “it seemed to me that if I conduct my research work on campus then the university
would look at me with a certain fear.” Angel also said that the previous chair of the research
department at CU had never had an individual talk with the faculty members. Thankfully the new
administration had a more individual approach to supporting the faculty. “The new chair is good.
He talked with every one of us separately.” But Angel criticizes how the university HR policies
are working against the departments’ will of attracting researchers to the university. “I brought a
good researcher. He did research in China and many other places and published many research
papers. The university could have just checked his online profile and hired him. However, they
want him to pass through a complicated job application procedure.” Overall, interview data
revealed that the CU organizational culture was not highly supportive of research.
Policies and Procedures
According to the survey results, over one quarter of the respondents thought that the
university might have some policies that prioritize research and publication (Table 20). Nearly
88

one fifth (19.6%) of the respondents believed that this was very much true. Overall, the median
answer was 6.4, which indicates that CU faculty had slightly positive thoughts that CU had
policies that support research at the institution.
According to the mission statement of CU, the institutional goal of the university is to be
innovative, create new knowledge, and train specialists for the economy of the state. The vision
statement of the university also envisions the university to be a research university that relies on
innovation and digital technology. Although the CU faculty have no high opinion on the
institutional research culture (presented in first organizational culture influence), the document
analysis indicated that CU policies were focused on becoming a research institution.

89

Table 20
Policies and Procedures Influence (N = 56)
Selection The university has policies that prioritize research and
publication
(%)
0 (not at all true) 0.0
1 1.8
2 3.6
3 5.4
4 7.1
5 (somewhat true) 26.8
6 3.6
7 1.8
8 5.4
9 8.9
10 (very much true) 19.6

The university regulatory documents that support research and publication were
investigated as the second policies and procedures influence. Only document analysis was used
to examine this influence. In the constitutional document of the university, research and
innovation are given priority. The university strives to provide all the necessary support for
conducting research activities, organizing research conferences, and publishing research
materials. Every 5 years, CU works out a development strategy. In a constitutional document, the
university outlines future development priorities, and research and innovation have always been
a priority since its foundation.
90

For quality insurance and as a motivational tool, the university has implemented a KPI
system since 2016 (Omarbekova et al., 2019). For the faculty section of the KPI system, there are
three fields of measurement: teaching, research, and service. Each section is measured by
evaluating faculty members’ various activities within that field by assigning a certain number of
credits. The more credit a faculty member gains in the KPI system, the more financial bonus they
will get at the final period of evaluation that is usually held at the end of an academic year.
In the research section of the faculty KPI system, sub measurements include credits for
publication in high-impact-factor journals listed in Scopus, Elsevier, and other scientometric
databases. For example, for a single-author research paper published in Web of Science, a
faculty member will earn 100 credits, if they publish with coauthors, they still earn 90 credits for
each author. Comparatively, for a research paper published in journals within the country, a
faculty member earns from 7 to 10 credits. If a faculty member is a curricular development team
member, they will earn 5 to 8 credits. So, one can see that publication in high-impact-factor
journals is given high priority in the faculty KPI system.
Resources
Overall, I investigated six infrastructure resources for supporting research activities. The
results of the survey can be found in Table 21. I discuss each of the influences in relation to the
survey results and relevant document analysis.
General Infrastructure
The first resource influence I investigated was the university’s general infrastructure for
supporting faculty research. The survey results showed that the respondents had various opinions
regarding the general infrastructure of the university for supporting the faculty research activities
(Table 21): 8.9% of the respondents did not believe that the university had strong research-
91

supporting infrastructure, 23.2% of the respondents thought the infrastructure was somewhat
good for faculty research, and 14.3% of the respondents said that the university had a very strong
research-supporting infrastructure. The mean answer to this survey question was 5.4, indicating
that CU faculty, in general, do not have a high opinion about the university infrastructure for
supporting faculty research activities. No document analysis was conducted for this influence.
Electronic Library
The second resource influence I asked respondents about was the CU electronic library.
The survey results indicated that the majority of the respondents believed that the electronic
library resources at CU were either very good or somewhat good (Table 21). One quarter of the
respondents (25%) thought that the CU electronic library resources were very good, and 28.6%
of the respondents thought they were neither good nor bad. The respondents who had negative
opinions about the electronic library resources at CU consisted of less than 10% of all the
respondents. The average response for this item was 7.2.
CU has an online data repository. This database collects all the scholarly and scientific
works of all the CU faculty members, research centers, and personnel. The data in this repository
is organized into the following categories:
1. CU institutional journals
2. Magazines
3. Articles
4. Books
5. Books by the university president
6. Proceedings of conferences, seminars
7. Patents
92

8. Schools
9. Research institutes, etc.
Although a large number of publications are stored in the repository, some sections of the data
are not complete. For example, the Journal of Physics (the journal name was changed
intentionally for deidentification purpose) only has one volume in the repository—2017. The
most recent editions are missing. Another similar example is that under the Books section, there
is a textbook subsection, where the latest published book was in 2013. The materials under
Proceedings of Conferences, and Seminars also end in 2020. The proceedings for the last 2 years
are missing. Overall, the materials in the data repository are outdated.
The CU library has started to cooperate with 24 domestic and international libraries and
databases. The CU faculty and students can use their personal accounts to log into these online
databases and libraries to have full access to the materials there. In September 2021, the CU
library announced that it has started cooperating with one of the international electronic libraries,
allowing CU faculty and students to have full access to the resources of international online
libraries such as journals, magazines, and other publications.
Campus Libraries
The third resource influence I investigated was the CU libraries. The survey results
analysis indicates that the respondents generally have a positive opinion about the library
resources at CU (Table 21). Only 12.5% of the respondents had negative opinions about the
library, 23.2% of respondents said it was neither good nor bad, and 21.4% of the respondents
claimed that it was very good for research. Overall, more than 60% of respondents had positive
opinions about the library at CU. The average answer to this item was 6.9, indicating that the CU
93

faculty have somewhat positive opinions about the CU libraries. No document analysis was
performed for this influence.
Quiet Spaces
The fourth resource influence is quiet spaces for faculty to conduct work related to their
research activities. The respondents had varied opinions about whether the university provides a
quiet environment for conducting research. The two largest groups felt the availability of quiet
spaces was neither good nor bad (17.9%) or good (17.9%). In general, the majority of the
respondents believed that the university provided a quiet space for doing research. The average
answer to this survey item was 6.3, which indicated CU faculty generally believe that the
university provides a quiet space for them to conduct their research. No document analysis was
performed for this influence.
Research Funding
The fifth resource influence I investigated was research funding at CU. The survey results
showed that the majority of the respondents replied that the university had a deficit in funding for
research. The largest groups (both 16.1%) said the funding was neither good nor bad (score of 5)
or slightly bad (score of 4). Only 3.6% said the research funding at CU was very good. The
average answer to this question was 4.7, which indicates the CU faculty have a negative opinion
about the research funding at CU.
According to the interviewees, the university was not funding research properly. Mark
hoped that the university would help the researchers financially because their material condition
needed promotion. He thought this could be achieved by promoting their salary and giving more
research opportunities and grants. Jannie said that the university provided only some limited
support for publishing her papers. This was because these research papers, especially those they
94

published in international journals, required a lot of time and effort, and quite often financial
expenses, which the university would not be able to provide. Overall, the interviewees did not
have high opinion regarding how the university was funding research. No document analysis was
performed for this influence.
Laboratory Facilities
Last, participants were asked to evaluate the laboratory facilities at CU. The respondents
had varied opinions about the laboratory resources at CU. Over one fifth (21.4%) of the
respondents said that the laboratory facilities at CU were neither good nor bad. Only 5.4% of the
respondents said that the laboratory facilities at CU were very good, compared to 7.1% who said
that they were not at all good. The mean score of 5 indicates that the CU faculty generally feel
that laboratory facilities at CU were neither good nor bad.
According to the official website of CU, there are 28 research laboratories at CU. They
include the laboratories of various physics disciplines and information technology. Although the
names of the laboratories are listed on the official website of CU, there is no information about
how the facilities are set up or what kinds of research and experiments are conducted in each of
them. So, it is difficult to conclude whether these laboratories are wholly functional. The lack of
information about the functionality of these laboratories seems to reflect the varied opinions of
CU faculty about these laboratories.

95

Table 21
Resources Influences (N = 56)
Selection
Strong
infrastructure
(%)
Electronic
library
resources
(%)
Library
resources
(%)
Quiet
spaces
(%)
Research
funding
(%)
Laboratories
facilities
(%)
0 (not good
at all)
8.9 1.8 1.8 5.4 5.4 7.1
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 7.1 7.1
2 8.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 8.9 7.1
3 5.4 1.8 1.8 5.4 3.6 1.8
4 3.6 0.0 7.1 7.1 16.1 7.1
5 (neither
good nor
bad)
23.2 28.6 23.2 17.9 16.1 21.4
6 8.9 3.6 7.1 5.4 10.7 7.1
7 1.8 5.4 3.6 0.0 5.4 8.9
8 7.1 19.6 10.7 8.9 7.1 7.1
9 3.6 7.1 8.9 14.3 3.6 5.4
10 (very
good)
14.3 25.0 21.4 17.9 3.6 5.4

Summary of Survey and Interview Data and Document Analyses
The previous sections outlined the results of the survey and interview data and document
analysis concerning CU faculty's knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences for
achieving the assigned goal of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor journals.
The findings indicate that CU faculty members believed they were knowledgeable, skilled and
motivated to a certain extent in doing research and getting published. The organizational factors
96

including leadership support, infrastructure, and funding do not seem as good according to the
currently available data. However, due to the limited data, I restrain from concluding certain
influences as an asset or a need.
Synthesis of the Research Findings
Knowledge
Knowledge and skills in doing research and publishing are necessary for CU faculty in
achieving the assigned goal of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor journals. CU
faculty were generally competent in knowledge of research and publication, but with certain
areas to be promoted and enhanced. The following parts will synthesize the findings of the
knowledge section in detail.
Factual Knowledge
Although not all respondents of the survey indicated that they were fully competent in
factual knowledge of research activities, it can be concluded that CU faculty’s factual knowledge
of high-impact-factor research journals and their understanding of research article structure is
comparatively high. Some interviewees also commented that the university administration and
elder scholars always share information about publication destinations. Thus, the CU faculty
have good knowledge of factual knowledge of research articles and journals.
Conceptual Knowledge
The survey also indicated that the CU faculty have good conceptual knowledge. The
majority of the respondents believed that their research activities directly impact their university
research profile as well as their career path. Some of the interviewee also indicated the
connection between the researchers’ publication and the university research profile. Angel
mentioned that, as a chair of a department, she had been trying hard to attract prolific researchers
97

to work for her department. This single deed can prove that at least some CU faculty members
like Angel have conceptual understanding that it was the researchers who uplift the research
profile of the university.
Procedural Knowledge
The respondents of the survey indicated that not all of them had comprehensive
knowledge of how to apply for a research grant and how to write a research proposal. However,
they demonstrated a higher-than-average knowledge in these aspects. Some of the interviewees
also indicated that they have applied for certain university and ministry-level research grants and
won. This suggests that CU faculty do have a certain level of research proposal writing and
research grant application knowledge and skills. I also was a member of a research project team,
attended a proposal writing workshop, and learned the basic procedure of how to apply for a
research grant.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Due to the inappropriate survey data collection procedure, I did not conclude ay results
for this knowledge influence. However, interview data revealed that faculty were well aware
how they were distributing their time among teaching, research and service.
Motivation
Internal motivation like value, interest for research and external motivation such as
financial incentives and favorable policies and infrastructure for research are essential for
promoting faculty research productivity. CU faculty are internally motivated to do research,
however, there are numerous external factors which discourage them in committing to research
work. The following section concludes the findings of each type of motivational influence.
98

Value
Almost an identical proportion of respondents of the survey said they highly value
research and teaching. According to the interviewees, they were highly interested in doing
research, but they were hindered by a heavy teaching load and some bureaucratic obstacles.
Some even suggested that research work should be paid like teaching. This indicates that at least
CU faculty highly value research.
Self-Efficacy
The survey respondents demonstrated higher than average confidence in their ability to
write a research paper and get it published. The interviewees were also confident when they
talked about their research publication. Some interviewees even mentioned that they had over 20
publications.
Attribution
The survey respondents’ answers concerning attribution influences neither too high nor
too low. They believed that they got their papers published mostly by themselves. The
interviewees, however, tended to attribute their success to some external assistance. One
interviewee said that senior professors usually share publication destinations with them, whereas
other interviewees said that the university administration shares informational letters to assist
them in publishing their papers. One interviewee mentioned that it was difficult to write a paper
on her own because her colleagues from her field of interest were mostly located in another city
and she heavily relied on cooperation with them in doing research.
Emotion
The interviewees resented the heavy teaching load interfering their research activities.
But some of them also mentioned that the current leadership supports them by talking to them
99

and listening to their concerns individually. Overall, faculty members were frustrated by
inappropriate work load but were still hopeful leadership supporting them more.
Organizational Influences
Organizational factors like institutional culture, policies and procedures, organizational
resources are considered the prerequisite for the researchers to function properly in the first
place. CU faculty demonstrated a lack of confidence in the organizational support. The findings
suggest that CU culture needs more intense transformation to be more research oriented, and the
institutional policies should be adapted to be more pro-research. CU also needs to improve the
infrastructure to meet the demand of the faculty research needs.
Organizational Culture
The survey results indicated that the CU faculty did not perceive CU as a university with
a very strong research culture. The collegiality mindset in doing research among CU faculty was
also not strong, according to the survey findings. The document analysis showed that the
university is striving to become a research institution by changing its profile, adopting new
leadership patterns, and improving the infrastructure.
The interviewees also commented that CU was on its way to becoming a research
institution. However, they also pointed out various problems that hinder research. They
highlighted inappropriate funding, a lack of leadership support, poor policies in the sphere of
research, etc. I also felt that CU was not a strong research institution.
The document analysis found that CU was taking several actions to improve the research
culture at CU, including publishing research journals, organizing conferences, and other types of
scholarly activities to enhance research, other data sources proved that these efforts gave few
tangible results. Further, the university had been publishing development strategies every 5 years
100

to promote many aspects of university life, especially research. However, the survey findings
indicated that the faculty members at CU faced various challenges, such as a shortage of funding,
difficulty finding references, long publication time, English language barrier, and difficulty
finding publication destination. Except for these, the interviewees added that the CU leadership
was not supporting the researchers enough, and the HR policies at CU were also causing
problems in attracting research personnel to CU.
Policies and Procedures
The survey respondents believed that it was somewhat true that CU had a certain policy
that prioritized research. The document analysis also indicated that although CU had mission and
vision statements, and the development strategies that prioritize research, the constitutional
document of CU did not emphasize research as much., The interviewees had various opinions
about the policies at CU. One of them complained that the HR policies at CU were working
against attracting researchers to CU. Thus, except for the fundamental document of the
institution, many working documents needed to be examined.
Resources
The survey findings indicated that several resources, namely electronic library resources,
libraries, quiet spaces, funding, and laboratories, were not highly appreciated by the survey
respondents. Although document analysis showed that the university is making some effort in
developing the infrastructure and resources at CU for research purposes, the outcome is not all
good. For this purpose, recommendations will be given in chapter five.
With the limited data, this dissertation could only synthesize the findings of the analysis.
Thus, I did not judge whether a certain influence was an asset or a need. In Chapter Five, I
discuss the results presented here in relation to the literature review and conceptual framework of
101

this dissertation. Last, I present some recommendations and suggestions for CU regarding certain
aspects of CU faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
102

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation
This dissertation examined CU faculty’s knowledge, motivation and the organizational
influences related to their goal of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor journals
using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework. It evaluated CU faculty’s knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors and how they influence achieving the performance goal of
publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor journals by 2025. With a background in a
teaching institute, CU has recently reformulated its goal to become a research university. Thus,
improving faculty research performance and output is vital for its growth as a research
university. To achieve the assigned goal, the university must align the faculty knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences. From this standing point, the research question was
formulated based on the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). The research question
that guided the study was: How do knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences relate
to achieving the faculty performance goal of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-
factor research journals by 2025? A mixed-methods design was used to collect data and conduct
analysis. After analyzing the survey results, documents, and interview data, recommendations
were developed for CU administration, which are discussed in the next section.
Delimitations
This dissertation studied only one higher educational institution; thus, the scope of the
study is limited. Therefore, the findings of the research might not be generalizable to other
higher educational institutions in the region. However, as the university under study is
representative of many higher educational institutions in Kazakhstan, it might have certain
implications for other similar institutions in the country. I used a mixed-methods design to have
an understanding of the gap in faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors related
103

to the faculty research performance. However, the study did not try to reveal any causal relations
between any identified variables or constructs.
Limitations
Because I was living in North America during the research process, the theoretical
foundation of the research might have an over-representation of the higher education theories
specific to the North American context. These factors might impact the congruence between the
theoretical foundation and the data analysis. In addition to my geographical location, the
COVID-19 pandemic impacted the data collection process of the dissertation. During the
pandemic, CU adopted an online format of teaching, and I had difficulty reaching many faculty
members during the data collection process. Thus, the response rate was lower than what I
expected. Thus, my chair advised that I conduct interviews to collect more data. Due to
differences in working hours (13 hours difference between my location and the research site), I
had to conduct interviews early in the morning or late at night, as these times were more
convenient for the interviewees. All these factors have impacted the quality and quantity of the
data collected.
The narrow academic nature of the dissertation makes its language specific only for
individuals in educational spheres or social sciences. For example, terms such as self-efficacy
and attribution theories are not easily comprehended by the general populace. This fact may limit
the findings of the current research to be limited to academic circles only.
Recommendations for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
The data analysis indicated that CU faculty knowledge and motivation related to research
and publication is not notably high, but it is also not completely low. The organizational factors
are also not a hindrance to the faculty research performance, but it is also not encouraging for the
104

CU researchers to publish prolifically. The following discussion provides recommendations for
addressing the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors for achieving the goal of
publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor research journals by 2025.
Knowledge
Overall, CU faculty knowledge in research paper writing and publishing can be evaluated
as good in some areas (e.g., factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge) but to ensure faculty
to be competent in research and publication, these knowledge influences need to be further
enhanced. Clark and Estes (2008) offered four types of knowledge and skill enhancement:
information, job aids, training, and education. The knowledge and skills that can be easily
acquired, such as factual knowledge about research paper components, publication destination,
knowledge about university resources, and conceptual knowledge about the relation between
research and university profile, and research and personal career development, can be promoted
with the help of a job aid. Specifically, the university or the dean of different schools can provide
faculty with that specific information via emails or by distributing information brochures,
whereas procedural knowledge and skills in the research grant application or skills in writing a
research paper can be assisted with training programs. The following sections give detailed
recommendations for each type of knowledge influence.
Factual Knowledge
CU faculty’s factual knowledge about research and publication is good, but not notably
high. Since factual knowledge is separate information chunks (Anderson et al., 2001), and in CU
faculty’s case, it is knowledge about research publication destination and research paper
components, it is recommended that CU provide its faculty with an information brochure or so-
called job aid that contains the above-mentioned information.
105

Conceptual Knowledge
CU faculty's conceptual knowledge about their research activities and their impact on the
university research profile and their career is good, but it still needs promotion and enhancement.
As conceptual knowledge is about understanding the connections among different knowledge
chunks (Anderson et al., 2001), improving such understanding would need some informational
assistance or explanatory help. Thus, a job aid in the form of an informational brochure would
suffice for such a purpose.
Procedural Knowledge
CU faculty’s procedural knowledge in research paper writing and grant application is also
good, but not particularly high. As procedural knowledge denotes the expertise in doing
something (Anderson et al., 2001), this kind of knowledge and skills ought to be improved by
training, as it requires “practice and corrective feedback” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 58). As such,
it is recommended that CU should organize more training sessions on research paper writing and
research grant application procedures. For CU, this is not new, as some interviewees also
mentioned such training programs. The next step is to encourage more faculty members to
engage with such programs.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Data analysis indicated that the CU faculty’s metacognitive knowledge was not high. CU
faculty had difficulty distributing their own time and effort in teaching, research, and service. As
metacognitive knowledge is knowledge about one’s learning and knowing (Anderson et al.,
2001), it needs informational and explanatory assistance. However, as time is a precious and
limited resource, CU faculty possibly need more than an explanation. For instance, a wider
approach that includes changing the organizational culture, adjustment of university policies, and
106

a change of leadership style would make faculty understand and gain control over their research
activities and their relation to other activities, such as teaching and service.
To conclude the knowledge influence, CU faculty have factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive knowledge that needs improvement and enhancement. Thus, I provided two
recommendations: job aids and training programs. These programs will be discussed in the
following section.
Motivation
Generally, CU faculty motivation in research paper writing and publishing is good. They
demonstrated higher than average value, self-efficacy, and attribution for research and
publication. However, they are emotionally unappreciative of the university assigning them too
heavy of a teaching load. According to Clark and Estes (2008), four factors impact motivation:
individual and group confidence; beliefs about the external barriers at the workplace in attaining
goals; emotional condition of the individuals at the workplace; and individual and group values
for their assigned goals. These four factors are highly relatable for the CU faculty.
Based on Clark and Estes’ (2008) suggestions, the following can be achieved. CU faculty’s value
can be enhanced by external incentives, such as assigning more abundant bonuses. Self-efficacy
of the faculty members can be promoted by assigning more specific but challenging goals and
creating a more collegial environment. CU faculty’s emotions at the workplace can be promoted
in various ways including redistributing faculty work load and providing more emotional support
from the university leadership. The following part will discuss these recommendations in more
detail.
107

Value
CU faculty equally value research and teaching. Clark and Estes (2008) offered quota,
price-rate, tournament, and flat-rate schemes as ways of enhancing value. I recommend that CU
adopt quota and price-rate schemes. CU already has a quota scheme, the so-called KIP system,
which evaluates faculty performance and rewards faculty on a competitive basis. However, as it
is based on competition, it is more of a tournament scheme, which Clark and Estes (2008)
criticize as only effective for top performers. I suggest CU widen the receivers of the rewards
and increase the reward amount for the faculty members who publish quality papers. The KPI
system also functions as a price-rate scheme, as each type of publication is rewarded with
certain fixed credits. The more of a certain type of publications a faculty member has, especially
those published in high-impact-factor journals, the higher credit they receive, enabling them to
gain more abundant financial benefits. I recommend CU keep this mechanism in place.
Self-Efficacy
Generally, CU faculty members were confident in their ability to write research papers
and get them published. Nevertheless, it was not completely high. Here, I draw on Clark and
Estes’ (2008) recommendations. First, the university should “assign specific, short-term, and
challenging but achievable goals” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 91). Not all faculty members were
highly competitive in research and publishing, which means certain groups of faculty members
(e.g., those with master’s degrees) generally do not have publishing experience. I recommend
that CU assign publishing quality papers in high-impact-factor journals to those faculty
members with doctoral degrees. Other faculty members may attend training sessions to learn
how to publish. Second, I recommend CU provide job aids for the faculty. This can be carried
out by sending newsletters to faculty about research publication destinations, such as journals,
108

seminars, and conferences, so that the faculty members feel at ease at doing research and getting
it published. Third, leadership should provide encouragement. From department chairs to the
university president, all leadership should create an encouraging environment for faculty
members in research and publishing.
Emotion
According to the interview findings, CU faculty felt positive about the university
supporting their research, but they also resented certain pressure for publication from the
university and for not having sufficient time for doing research. For solving faculty anxiety and
role conflict, Murray et al. (2012) offered Ruch’s (2007) model of containment for facilitative
leadership. According to this model, CU leadership should provide clear research goals for the
faculty members, help faculty members to understand the importance of research and
publication while not jeopardizing their teaching and service work, and provide the faculty with
a pleasant environment for doing research that also protects the faculty members from
distractions.
Attribution
Although CU faculty had higher than average confidence that their research publication
was the result of their effort, they also attributed their accomplishments to external factors.
Attribution theory (Weiner, 1985) proposes that the more one attributes their success to their
effort, the harder they will work to better their performance. Therefore, when faculty members
receive acknowledgment and affirmation about their research work, they will produce better
research outcomes. Hence, it is highly recommended that the CU leadership increase their
meeting frequency with the faculty members and affirm their effort and achievements. On the
other hand, the university should also focus on the financial benefit through the above-
109

mentioned KPI system, since financial incentives are the most effective external motivational
factor proposed by Clark and Estes (2008).
Organizational Influences
CU faculty’s perception of organizational influences on their research activities varied.
Overall, the faculty members believed that a certain level of research culture exists at CU, but it
was not proved high when the documents were analyzed. Visible cultural settings at CU also
proved supportive of research; however, some factors also hindered the research productivity of
the faculty. Although the university's fundamental policy documents support research and
innovation, some day-to-day procedures did not keep up with the requirements of research. As
for the resources, the faculty members believed the university resources for research were not
sufficient for productive research activities. To conclude, the organizational factors at CU
required some system-wide changes. Clark and Estes (2008) offered six types of support
essential for organizational changes: clear and measurable goals, alignment between
organizational goals and its structure and processes, constant and honest communication, the
constant engagement of top leadership with changes, and providing organization members with
appropriate knowledge and motivational assistance. In the following paragraphs, I discuss the
different organizational influences in detail and offer corresponding recommendations.
Organizational Culture
CU’s historical teaching college background was still influencing its current
organizational culture. This was reflected in faculty survey results and interviews. The faculty
members highly valued both teaching and research. Clark and Estes’ (2008) suggestions for
organizational culture change start with setting specific and measurable goals. Although CU had
mission and vision statements, both emphasizing the importance of research and innovation, the
110

interview findings indicated that some day-to-day procedures frustrated the faculty members
during the research and innovation processes. Thus, it is recommended that the higher-level
management should watch over the realization of the organizational mission and vision in the
university’s day-to-day activities. This can be carried out by working out measurable tasks for
the midlevel managers and faculty members that will lead to the realization of the longer-term
goals. Meanwhile, university leadership should also conduct more individual talks with
midlevel managers and faculty members to have a close-up vision of the processes of the
realization of the university goals.
In its effort to become a research university, CU has implemented organizational changes
to create a more immersive research culture. However, some difficulties such as administrative
barriers and inappropriate funding remained that the faculty believed to be unfriendly to their
research work. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that the organization should align its structures
and processes with its goals. CU aims to become a research university by increasing research
publications, so I highly recommend that CU leadership increase the power of the research
department to oversee the realization of research activities at the university. The emphasis
should be on clearing the path for the researchers to obtain employment at CU, secure
references, and receive appropriate funding. Moreover, since many survey respondents and
interviewees complained about the lack of time for doing research, CU should organize a
writing retreat, which according to Murray et al. (2012), is an effective way of improving
faculty research productivity.
Policies and Procedures
The analyzed CU organizational documents all proved to be supportive of research and
innovation, but the fundamental documents were more oriented toward teaching. Further, the
111

day-to-day policies and procedures got in the way of researchers, according to the findings from
Chapter Four. For these problems, I suggest Clark and Estes’ (2008) second type of support that
an organization should offer (i.e., aligning CU’s structure and processes with its goals).
Accordingly, the regulatory documents of the daily activities of the university should be revised
and updated.
Resources
CU’s resources for supporting research and innovation also earned a low evaluation from
the faculty. The document analysis indicated that the university was trying in many ways to
improve its infrastructure for research, but the updating process did not keep up with the plan.
Resources are heavily dependent on huge investments, and the university’s limited funding
mainly comes from the state. Thus, CU should reevaluate its priorities and direct the resources to
what is deemed to be the most important. With this in mind, CU needs to work closely with the
state entities in resource allocation and distribution. As the main stakeholders of the university,
the parliament of the republic is the primary organization that decides the resource allocation
decision of the university. Lobbying for more financing should go hand-in-hand with other
universities that also prioritize research and need better financing. Another stakeholder is the
Ministry of Education and Science, which directs and oversees the activities of the universities
according to the general national policies. CU should closely follow the directions and
requirements of the Ministry of Education and Science to secure the distribution of the resources
to its prioritized sections.
Once the resource allocation and distribution priorities are solved, CU should focus on
the betterment of the research infrastructure of the university. This can be realized with group
decision processes. Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized the importance of communication with
112

those who are involved in the organizational plans and changes. CU managers must consider that
letting the faculty members have a role in developing the research infrastructure is the best way
to promote the research capacity of the university.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
After identifying the challenges, this dissertation recommended certain changes to the
organization. The four-level new world Kirkpatrick model was offered for CU to implement to
achieve the necessary changes. The details of the implementation plan were presented in the
following part.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
To implement evaluation and solutions to the existing challenges at CU, I adopted the
new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model is based on four
levels of training and evaluation and plans the evaluation in reverse order: Level 4 (results),
Level 3 (behavior), Level 2 (learning), and Level 1 (reaction). Level 4 evaluates whether the
expected outcomes have been achieved. This evaluation operates by measuring leading
indicators to ensure that critical behaviors to achieve the desired results are in place. At Level 3,
the organization can understand how individuals are implementing what they have learned from
training in their work processes. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) claimed that this level
encompasses critical behaviors, required drivers, and on-site learning. The critical behaviors are
behavioral patterns the employees are supposed to maintain to achieve the desired outcomes; the
drivers are the methods of observing, encouraging, strengthening, and incentivizing those critical
behaviors. Level 2 evaluates the employees’ knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment acquired at learning sessions. Level 1 ensures that the organization measures
113

employees’ reactions to learning sessions. This reaction can be evaluated in three measurements:
customer satisfaction, engagement, and relevance (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Results are the targeted outcomes as a result of training and following-up reinforcement.
These outcomes are measured with the leading indicators (i.e., short-term observations and
measurements), which indicate that the employees are sustaining critical behaviors that
positively impact the desired results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 22 shows the
leading indicators of this project. It shows the results of the CU faculty members’ desired critical
behaviors and the mechanisms of measuring these indicators.

Table 22
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal outcomes
Increased faculty
knowledge in high-
impact-factor journals of
their field of interest
A short survey about faculty
knowledge about high-
impact-factor journals in
their field of interest
Comparison of survey results on
faculty knowledge and skills in
research and publication from
different periods of a school
year
Increased faculty
knowledge about
research paper structure
A short survey about faculty
knowledge about research
paper structure
Comparison of survey results on
faculty knowledge and skills in
research and publication from
different periods of a school
year
Increased faculty
knowledge in research
and publication in
general
Analysis of faculty semester
report on research and
publication
Analyze and compare faculty
research reports at the end of
each semester
114

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal outcomes
Increased faculty
knowledge in research
grant application
Analysis of faculty semester
report on research and
publication
Analyze and compare faculty
research reports at the end of
each semester
Increased faculty value for
research and publication
Feedback from faculty on
their thought on research
and publication
Monthly solicit faculty thoughts
on their research activities
Increased faculty self-
efficacy in research and
publication
Feedback on faculty research
confidence
Monthly solicit faculty thoughts
on their research activities
Faculty emotionally feel
positive about research
at CU
Feedback on faculty feelings
about research support and
frustration
Monthly solicit faculty thoughts
on their research activities
Faculty attribute their
research achievement to
their own effort
Feedback on faculty
confidence in research
achievement
Monthly solicit faculty thoughts
on their research activities
External outcomes
Faculty publish 540
research papers in high-
impact-factor journals by
2025
Analyze and compare faculty
annual research reports
Compare university research
reports annually and aggregate
the final publication quantity by
the end of the 2025 school year

Level 3: Behavior
Behavior is the extent to which employees implement what they acquired at learning
sessions when they come back to their work site. There are three components of Level 3: critical
behaviors, required drivers, and on-the-job learning.
Critical Behaviors
Critical behaviors are those actions that the employees sustain to achieve organizational
success (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The CU faculty members are expected to be
115

knowledgeable, skilled, and highly motivated in research and publication. The first critical
behavior is that the CU faculty members actively communicate about research and publication,
while the second critical behavior is that the CU faculty feel positive about doing research and
publishing. The third critical behavior is that the CU faculty members actively do research, and
the fourth critical behavior is that the CU faculty members cooperate with other faculty members
while doing research. The final critical behavior is that the CU faculty members publish at least
one research paper each school year. Table 23 demonstrates the critical behaviors the CU faculty
members should maintain.

116

Table 23
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
CU faculty members
actively
communicate about
research and
publication.
The number of
positive
communications
about research and
publication.
Observe how the
faculty members
communicate about
research and
publication.
Weekly for a
semester, thereafter
at the end of each
semester.
CU faculty feel
positive about doing
research and
publishing.
The number of
positive experiences
with research and
publishing.
Interview faculty
members.
Monthly for a
semester, thereafter
at the end of each
semester.
CU faculty members
actively do
research.
The length of time
they spend doing
research.
Survey to find out
how many hours
they spend on
research each week.
Monthly for a
semester, thereafter
at the end of each
semester.
CU faculty members
cooperate with other
faculty members
while doing
research.
The number of
coauthored
publications among
faculty members.
Interview faculty
members to find out
how often they
cooperate with other
faculty members.
Monthly for a
semester, thereafter
at the end of each
semester.
CU faculty members
publish at least one
research paper each
school year.
The number of
publications.
Analyze faculty
members' research
reports.
At the end of each
semester.

Required Drivers
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), required drivers are institutional
processes and systematic mechanisms that enhance, observe, motivate, and incentivize the
employees to sustain the desired critical behaviors. These drivers may come in the form of job
aids, training, performance incentivization, and even education (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Several recommendations were made for the CU leaders to sustain the desired critical
117

behaviors of the faculty members and keep up with the assigned goal of increasing their research
productivity. These recommendations include informational assistance, training sessions,
university leaders making time to talk with each faculty member, increasing the number of
reward receivers, and gaining more financial support for developing the research infrastructure
of the university. Table 24 presents the required drivers for sustaining the desired critical
behaviors.

Table 24
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical behaviors
supported
Reinforcing:

Emails and newsletters about research destinations
like research journals, conferences, and
symposiums.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Create an informational brochure of common
research paper structures for the faculty
members.
Annually 1, 2, 3
Organize research paper writing sessions or
retreats.
Each semester 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Encouraging:

University leaders talk with individual faculty
members about their research activities.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Introduce the best researcher of the year
nomination.
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Rewarding

Increase the number of the receivers of KPIs
system financial bonuses and the amount of the
bonuses.
Gradually till the end
of this 5-year
strategic
1, 2, 3, 5
118

Method(s) Timing Critical behaviors
supported
development plan
(by 2025)
Set up research as a separate workload and assign
a salary for it.
Gradually till the end
of this 5-year
strategic
development plan
(by 2025)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Monitoring:

Departmental research representatives observe
faculty communication.
Weekly in the first
year, then monthly
1, 2, 3, 4
University research department monitors that all
faculty members receive newsletters.
Monthly 1, 2
University research department monitors faculty
members to attend research training.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
University research department monitor that the
faculty receive rewards or other financial
bonuses as decided in the regulatory documents.
Annually 2, 3

Organizational Support
The above-mentioned drivers need to be implemented with better organizational support.
First, CU should reconsider the workload of the faculty members and ensure the faculty
members have enough time for research. Second, the university administration should increase
the authority of the research department to enhance its role in creating a favorable research
environment and condition for the faculty. Third, the research department should conduct
monthly meetings with the research representatives from each department of the university.
Finally, the research department should conduct a monthly evaluation of the faculty's research
activeness and productivity. Besides these measures, the university should also cooperate with
119

other research universities to promote the importance of research and innovation at the national
level to draw more funding.
Level 2: Learning
This level is about the intended learning outcomes of the employees. These outcomes are
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment that the employees should have
acquired after the implementation of the proposed solutions, such as job aid and learning
sessions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). For CU faculty members, the desired learning
outcomes are corresponding knowledge and skills in research, their positive feelings, and their
strong motivation for research and publication.
Learning Goals
After implementing the proposed solutions, the CU faculty should be able to:
1. Describe the research journals in their field of interest.
2. Describe the structure of different types of research papers.
3. Demonstrate communication and cooperation with other faculty members while
doing research.
4. Demonstrate high value for research.
5. Demonstrate a positive attitude toward conducting research activities.
6. Explain that their research is not an isolated work process, but a part of their career
growth and the development of the university as a research institution.
7. Write research grant proposals.
8. Be confident to do research and publish.
9. Write a research paper and publish.
120

Program
The learning goals listed above are achieved through several types of programs that
enhance faculty knowledge, motivation, and attitude in doing research and publication. To
improve faculty knowledge of research publication destinations and research paper structures,
the research department should apply two types of methods: newsletters and brochures. The
newsletters should be delivered to faculty members whenever there is a new conference or a
symposium to be held. The research department should also provide faculty members with a list
of research journals for each department, or at least for each school. Further, the research
department should also create a brochure containing knowledge and information about different
types of research papers and their structures. These brochures, either in electronic or hard copy
format, should be handed to each faculty member at the beginning of each academic year.
The next program I suggest is shared leadership (Holcombe et al., 2021). Holcombe et al.
(2021) suggested that across the borders of traditional institutional structures, a group of leaders
who work together to promote the work of the organization should exist. Since CU has already
implemented shared leadership in university-level administrators, that is, the board of trustees, it
should also extend such a leadership style to structural bodies of the university. For example, the
university should involve midlevel leaders and faculty members to be part of the shared
leadership to promote research. These leaders would visit departments to conduct individual
talks and roundtable discussions with faculty members at least once each semester. As shared
leadership is horizontal, the leaders’ and followers’ roles are interchangeable and they interact
with and influence university-level leadership. Accordingly, the faculty members will feel that
they are also part of the decision-making process. Such shared leadership will encourage,
motivate, and inspire the faculty members and eventually promote their research productivity.
121

Holcombe et al. (2021) claimed that shared leadership and traditional hierarchical
leadership can coexist. CU’s traditional leadership should also wield its power in promoting
faculty spirit through individual talks. The university president and research department
managers should visit departments at least once a semester to conduct individual talks with
faculty members. They should show appreciation to faculty for their work in promoting
university research potential.
Young researchers, especially those who lack research and publication experience should
be invited to training sessions for research and publication. These training sessions should
include detailed training in formulating research questions, conducting literature reviews, data
collection, data analysis, final drafting as well as selecting appropriate research destinations and
submitting for publication. Such training sessions should be organized at least once a semester
and continue until the last faculty member is deemed to be knowledgeable and skilled in research
and publication. For those experienced faculty researchers who feel challenged in time
management and get distracted by external factors, the university can organize special writing
retreats. For such retreats, the university should prepare quiet and well-facilitated spaces, such as
library halls or computer classrooms. These writing retreats should happen once each semester
for all those who want to be part of it.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
After all the programs are implemented, it is vital to trace and evaluate faculty learning
outcomes. CU faculty should be knowledgeable and skilled in research paper writing and
publishing; they should possess a positive attitude toward research and feel confident that they
can do it, and they also show that they are committed to doing research. Table 25 presents the
evaluation of the components of learning for the program.
122

Table 25
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or activity(ies) Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it”

Knowledge in research paper writing and publishing is examined and
evaluated by observing faculty’s daily communication
Weekly
Annual publication report Annually
Procedural skills: “I can do it right now”

Observing faculty research activeness Weekly
Examining faculty annual research report Annually
Evaluation after training sessions Each semester
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile”

Observe faculty members’ daily communication Weekly
Interview faculty members for their attitude toward research and
publishing
Monthly
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job”

Observe faculty members’ daily communication Weekly
Interview faculty members for their confidence in research and
publishing
Monthly
Analyze and evaluate faculty research reports Annually
Commitment: “I will do it on the job”

Interview faculty members after they finish training sessions Monthly
Obser faculty members who attend writing retreats Weekly

123

Level 1: Reaction
For the CU administrators, it is vital to find out how the faculty members feel and react to
the training. The faculty should find the learning events favorable, engaging, and relevant to their
jobs. Table 26 presents how the reactions of the faculty members to the learning events are
measured.

Table 26
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Interview faculty members who attend the training sessions Monthly
Observe faculty daily attendance rate Weekly
Midterm training evaluation Each semester
Relevance

Interview faculty members who attend the training sessions Monthly
Midterm training evaluation Each semester
Customer satisfaction

Interview faculty members who attend the training sessions Monthly
Midterm training evaluation Each semester

Evaluation Tools
Each month, and after the training sessions, the faculty members will be interviewed
briefly (see Appendix D for the survey questions). At the midterm of each training session, the
faculty members will also fill out a training evaluation questionnaire (see Appendix E for the
124

questionnaire). The interview will identify if the faculty members find the training sessions
relevant to their job and if they feel the training is satisfactory. The questionnaire also checks the
relevance of the training, the faculty members’ commitment, attitude, and confidence in
transferring what they have learned to their work. The interview is brief, and it mainly focuses on
faculty members’ reactions to the ongoing training sessions (Level 1). The questionnaire (see
Appendix D for the midterm survey) takes place in the midterm of the training; thus, it is more
detailed and examines the learning environment, barriers, the motivational aspect of the training,
and the faculty’s expectations from the training (Level 2).
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) asserted that a delayed evaluation should take place,
as the participants feel comfortable with what they have learned after a certain length of time.
Approximately 2 to 3 months after training, the faculty members who attended the training will
fill out a survey (see Appendix F for survey questions), which contains questions about faculty
satisfaction, feelings, the relevance of the training to the research, and publication (Level 1). The
survey also checks faculty knowledge, skills, confidence, attitude, commitment, and value of the
training (Level 2). Moreover, the survey questions concentrate on the faculty’s daily activities
and how they are applying what they have learned from the training sessions for improving their
research productivity (Level 3). Finally, there are also questions about to what extent they have
improved their research productivity (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal for the CU faculty is measured by how active they are in doing research
and how many research papers they publish by the end of the 2025 school year. CU faculty must
have knowledge and skills and motivation to conduct research and publish their research papers
in high-impact-factor journals. The representatives from the research department will compile
125

the research report of the faculty members each year and analyze whether the faculty research
productivity is improving. To keep track of the faculty research productivity, a checklist is used
(Table 27). For all four levels, similar checklists will be created.

Table 27
Checklists for Tracking Faculty Research Productivity
Faculty research productivity
2021–
2022
2022–
2023
2023–
2024
2024–
2025
Goal
Faculty members actively
communicate about research
X X X X Very active
Faculty members actively engage
in research activities
X X X X Very active
Faculty members publish research
papers in all types of
destinations
X X X X
At least one
paper for each
faculty
Faculty members publish research
papers in high-impact-factor
research papers
X X X X 540 all together

126

Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
To improve faculty research productivity, several recommendations were offered based
on the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These four levels of
training and evaluation ensure that CU faculty have the desired knowledge, motivation, and
organizational support to enhance their research productivity. The model also enables the
university to identify the barriers and shortcomings that potentially hinder the faculty to achieve
the assigned goal. The new world Kirkpatrick model first presents the desired outcomes, metrics,
and methods to evaluate the outcomes of the job aids and raining that is essential for the
university's goal of improving the faculty research productivity. Next, the model identifies the
faculty’s critical behaviors they develop after they have attended training and received various
job aids. Furthermore, the faculty’s knowledge, attitude, commitment, and confidence related to
research and publishing are evaluated. In the end, faculty reactions concerning the training are
examined. These reactions include faculty satisfaction, engagement, and the relevance of the
training.
While implementing this model, the data about the change in the faculty knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences are collected. These data will answer the questions,
“Does the level of … meet expectations? If so, then why? If not, then why not?” (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Tracking the changes and answering these questions will assist in adjusting
the program and enhancing the program results. If the level of the faculty reaction is lower than
the expectations, or the learning outcomes are poorer than desired, then it is necessary to
implement changes to the program. If CU faculty are not satisfied with the training, they do not
think that the training is relevant to their research activities, or they believe that they are not
learning what they should be learning, then the representatives of the research department will
127

interview the faculty to identify the issues and implement necessary changes. On the other hand,
if the program works as expected and the faculty members feel positive about it, the research
department representatives can also identify the reasons behind this success through the above-
mentioned methods.
When the training is completed, faculty members are also evaluated for their behavioral
changes and the overall outcomes of their research productivity. If the results are not satisfactory,
then the representatives of the research department will examine the required drivers and critical
behaviors for any problems (Level 3). For Level 4, the representatives will examine the leading
indicators and desired results and ask why they are not improving (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The trainers also engage in improving the training program by analyzing faculty feedback
to change the training content or the delivery methods to enhance the outcomes. If the results are
satisfactory (i.e., the faculty desired critical behaviors and the expected outcomes are all in
place), then those most successful faculty members are interviewed or invited to group
discussions to find out how they have achieved their goals so that the whole university can learn
from their experiences (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
To ensure the successful implementation of the training program, it is important to
provide the faculty members and the university administrators with reports of the training
outcomes. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommended periodical reports, so-called
touchpoints, throughout the program to ensure its successful implementation, as “the mere
existence of the touchpoint drives the performance and outcomes and creates the data for you to
report” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 125). To ensure that the university administrators
get involved in improving the program quality, the reports should communicate how the
relevance, credibility, and efficiency of the program.
128

Recommendations for Future Research
This dissertation used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework to identify CU
faculty’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in achieving the organizational
goal of publishing 540 research papers in high-impact-factor journals by 2025. In the initial plan
of the dissertation, I aimed to collect at least 100 survey responses. However, due to the COVID-
19 pandemic and the different geolocations of myself and the research subjects, I did not reach
the expected response rate. Therefore, more data collection methods were required, namely
interviews and researcher experiences. For future researchers, it is recommended that such gap
analysis research should be conducted when the researcher is at the research site to ensure
effective data collection.
Although Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework is a widely used analytical tool
for the North American context, it is comparatively new for the Kazakhstani context. Therefore,
future researchers exercise caution when using this framework. Specifically, the organizational
cultures and historic-economic foundations of the organizations in Kazakhstan may differ from
their counterparts in North America, which means the theoretical understanding may not apply in
another context.
Finally, future researchers should conduct more gap analyses to generate more in-depth
data from Kazakhstani organizations of various types. Only extensive data analysis and
interpretation can draw the overall picture of Kazakhstani organizations and ensure policymakers
have a basic understanding of how to cope with various organizational problems.
Further, I suggest future researchers use other frameworks like Albert Bandura’s Social
learning theory (1986, 1999), which also examines the interactions between personal,
environment and behavior factors to investigate the organizations.
129

Conclusion
Modern universities fiercely compete for funding and students. To attract more abundant
funding and more talented students, universities need to tout their positional goods to prove that
they are worthwhile institutions. One way of such show-off comes in the form of university
rankings of various kinds. As most important rankings in the world highly emphasize research
publications of the universities, promoting research and publication has become one of the
priorities of modern universities’ existence. CU, as one of such competing institutions, also set a
specific goal for its faculty in research and publishing.
This research aimed to identify CU faculty knowledge, motivation, and the organizational
influences that impact the faculty members in achieving their goal of publishing 540 research
papers in high-impact-factor journals by 2025. With a mixed-methods design, 56 survey
responses were collected and eight faculty representatives were interviewed. Document analysis
was also conducted to obtain additional data on organizational influences. The data analysis
indicated that CU faculty members were generally knowledgeable and skilled in research and
publication, but with certain degrees of potential for further promotion. The teaching institution
background and the weak research infrastructure at CU also suggested a need for enhancement
and promotion. By offering several recommendations, this dissertation applied the new world
Kirkpatrick model to implement and evaluate the suggested recommendations, such as job aids
and training sessions.

130

References
Amsler, S. S., & Bolsmann, C. (2012). University ranking as social exclusion. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 33(2), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2011.649835
Anderson, L. W., Krathhwohl, D. R., & Airasian, P. W. (2001). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy
of educational objectives. Longman.
Axtell, J. (2016). Wisdom's Workshop: The Rise of the Modern University. United
States: Princeton University Press.
Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 13.
Baldwin, C., & Chandler, G. E. (2002). Improving faculty publication output: The role of a
writing coach. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(1), 8–15.
https://doi.org/10.1053/jpnu.2002.30896
Bandura, A. (1977a). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 191–215.
Belcher, W. L. (2009). Reflections on ten years of teaching writing for publication to graduate
students and junior faculty. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 40(2), 184–200.
https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.40.2.184
Betsey, C. L. (2007). Faculty research productivity: Institutional and personal determinants of
faculty publications. The Review of Black Political Economy, 34(1–2), 53–85.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12114-007-9004-9
Blackburn, R. T., Behymer, C. E., & Hall, D. E. (1978). Research note: Correlates of faculty
publications. Sociology of Education, 51(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112245
131

Blackburn, R., Wenzel, S., & Bieber, J. P. (1994). Minority vs. majority faculty publication
performance: A research note. The Review of Higher Education, 17(3), 271–282.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1994.0017
Boice, R. (1994). How Writers Journey to Comfort and Fluency: A Psychological Adventure.
Praeger.
Boice, R., & Jones, F. (1984). Why academicians don’t write. The Journal of Higher Education,
55(5), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981822
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organization: Artistry, choice and leadership.
Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Gallos, J. V. (2010). Reframing academic leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy higher education: University and college league tables. Quality in
Higher Education, 6(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320050001063
Brodbeck, F. C., Hanges, P. J., Dickson., M. W., Gupta, V., & Dorfman, P. W. (2004).
Comparative influence of industry and societal culture on organizational cultural
practices. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.),
Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 654-668).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cakir, M., Acarturk, C., Alaşehir, O., & Çilingir, C. (2015). A comparative analysis of global
and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics, 103, 813–848.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1586-6
Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-
national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-1746-8
132

Docquier, F., Lohest, O., & Marfouk, A. (2007). Brain drain in developing countries. The World
Bank Economic Review, 21(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhm008
Dodani, S., & LaPorte, R. E. (2005). Brain drain from developing countries: How can brain
drain be converted into wisdom gain? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98(11),
487–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680509801107
Dolence, M. G., & Norris, D. M. (1994). Using key performance indicators to drive strategic
decision making. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1994(82), 63–80.
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives.
Management Review, 70(11).
Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education.
Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 607–631.
Ehie, I. C., & Karathanos, D. (1994). Business faculty performance evaluation based on the new
AACSB accreditation standards. Journal of Education for Business, 69(5), 257.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Froumin, I., & Kouzminov, Y. (Eds.). (2018). Common legacy: Evolution of the institutional
landscape of soviet higher education. In 25 Years of Transformations of Higher
Education Systems in Post-Soviet Countries: Reform and Continuity (pp. 45–72).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6
Ganguli, I. (2014). Scientific Brain drain and human capital formation after the end of the
Soviet Union. International Migration, 52(5), 95–110.
https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12165
Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. CMAJ, 161(8), 979–980.
133

Graham, L. R. (1975). The formation of Soviet research institutes: A combination of
revolutionary innovation and international borrowing. Social Studies of Science, 5(3),
303–329.
Gratch, B. (1989). Fostering research activity: Examples of institutional support. College &
Research Libraries News. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.50.11.979
Green, R. G., & Baskind, F. R. (2007). The second decade of the faculty publication project:
Journal article publications and the importance of faculty scholarship. Journal of Social
Work Education, 43(2), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2007.200600050
Green, R. G., Baskind, F. R., & Bellin, M. H. (2002). Results of the doctoral faculty publication
project: Journal article productivity and its correlates in the 1990s. Journal of Social
Work Education, 38(1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2002.10779087
Hardré, P. L., Beesley, A. D., Miller, R. L., & Pace, T. M. (2011). Faculty motivation to do
research: Across disciplines in research–Extensive universities. Journal of the
Professoriate, 5(1), 35–69.
Harrison, J. E. (2002). The Quality of University Teaching: Faculty Performance and
Accountability. A Literature Review. CSSHE Professional File, 21, 3–20.
Haugen, K. K., & Sandnes, F. E. (2016). The new Norwegian incentive system for publication:
From bad to worse. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1299–1306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
016-2075-2
OECD (2017), Higher Education in Kazakhstan 2017, Reviews of National Policies for
Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268531-en.
Hofmeister, U. (2016). Civilization and russification in Tsarist Central Asia, 1860-1917.
Journal of World History, 27(3), 411–442.
134

Holcombe, E. M., Kezar, A. J., Elrod, S. L., & Ramaley. (2021). shared leadership in higher
education: A framework and models for responding to a changing world. Stylus
Publishing, LLC.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Addison-Wesley series on occupational
stress. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
Huang, M.-H. (2012). Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings. Research
Evaluation, 21(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvr003
Huisman, J., Smolentseva, A., & Froumin, I. (2018). 25 Years of Transformations of Higher
Education Systems in Post-Soviet Countries: Reform and Continuity. Springer.
Imakhanbet, R. (2012, December 6). Ғұлама ғұмырнамасы/Biography of the scholar. Қазақ
Үні Газетінің Ресми Сайты (Kazakh Voice News website)
https://qazaquni.kz/alash/14085--lama-myirnamasyi-2
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential
explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.
Johnson, M. S. (2008). Historical legacies of soviet higher education and the transformation of
higher education systems in post-Soviet Russia and Eurasia. In D. P. Baker & A. W.
Wiseman (Eds.), The worldwide transformation of higher education (Vol. 9, pp. 159–
176). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3679(08)00006-
6
Josephson, P., Karlsohn, T., & Östling, J. (2014). The Humboldtian tradition: Origins and
legacies. BRILL.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/detail.action?docID=1823653
135

Julius, D. J., Baldridge, J. V., & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A memo from Machiavelli. The Journal of
Higher Education, 70(2), 113–133.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kuraev, A. (2016). Soviet higher education: An alternative construct to the western university
paradigm. Higher Education, 71(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9895-5
Kuzhabekova, A. (2019). Learning the ropes of academic publishing as a non-native speaker of
English research. Interrupted: Navigating Challenges in Qualitative Education Research,
194–205.
Kuzhabekova, A., & Ruby, A. (2018). Impact factor publication requirement in Kazakhstan.
European Education, 50(3), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2018.1444942
Kuzminov, Ia. I., Semenov, D. S., & Froumin, I. D. (2015). The Structure of the University
Network: From the Soviet to Russian “Master Plan.” Russian Education & Society, 57(4),
254–321.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10609393.2015.1068576
Lawrence, J. H., Trautvetter, L. C., & Blackburn, R. T. (1989). Predicting faculty publication
output: Evaluation a model across institutional types. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper.
https://files-eric-ed-gov.libproxy2.usc.edu/fulltext/ED313967.pdf
Leveille, D. E. (2006). Accountability in higher education: A public agenda for trust and
cultural change. Research and Occasional Paper Series, 202.
Lucas, C. J. (2016). American Higher Education, Second Edition: A History. Springer.
136

Lukman, R., Krajnc, D., & Glavič, P. (2010). University ranking using research, educational
and environmental indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 619–628.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.015
Masood, E. (2017). Science and Islam (Icon Science): A History. Icon Books.
Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher Education.
Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-7649-x
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
McInnis, C. (2002). The impact of technology on faculty performance and its evaluation. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 2002(114), 53–62.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.46
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Moody, R. A. (1996). Report: Reexamining brain drain from the former Soviet Union. The
Nonproliferation Review, 3(3), 92–97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10736709608436643
Mostafa, G. (2009, November). Higher education in post-Soviet Central Asia: Search for new
identities. In International Conference of the Asian Philosophical Association,
Jakarta (pp. 4-6).
Musselin, C. (2018). New forms of competition in higher education1. Socio-Economic Review,
16(3), 657–683.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwy033
137

Murray, R., Steckley, L., & MacLeod, I. (2012). Research leadership in writing for publication:
A theoretical framework. British Educational Research Journal, 38(5), 765–781.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.580049
Nelson, R., & Dawson, P. (2017). Competition, education and assessment: Connecting history
with recent scholarship. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 304–315.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1105932
Neumann, Y., & Neumann, E. (1990). The support-stress paradigm and faculty research
publication. The Journal of Higher Education, 61(5), 565–580.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1981977
Ngoma, A., & Ismail, N. W. (2013). The determinants of brain drain in developing countries.
International Journal of Social Economics, 40(8), 744–754.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-05-2013-0109
OECD (2019), Education Policy Outlook 2019: Working Together to Help Students Achieve
their Potential, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b8ad56e-en.
Oleksiyenko, A. (2014). Socio-economic forces and the rise of the world-class research
university in the post-Soviet higher education space: The case of Ukraine. European
Journal of Higher Education, 4(3), 249–265.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2014.916537
Ostmoe, P. M. (1986). Correlates of university nurse faculty publication productivity. Journal
of Nursing Education, 25(5), 207–212.
O’Keefe, R. D., Hamer, L. O., & Kemp, P. R. (2015). Characteristics of a "Teaching
Institution": Administrative Objectives, Actions, Activities and Assessment. Journal of
Academic Administration in Higher Education, 11(2), 69–78.
138

Panova, A. (2008). Governance structures and decision making in Russian higher education
institutions. Russian Social Science Review, 49(5), 76–93.
Pasupathy, R., & Siwatu, K. O. (2014). An investigation of research self-efficacy beliefs and
research productivity among faculty members at an emerging research university in the
USA. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(4), 728–741.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.863843
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. SAGE.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American College and University: A History (2nd ed.). University of
Georgia.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press.
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2019). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistic + IBM
SPSS statistics base, integrated student, edition, version 24.0, flash drive for Mac OS &
Microsoft Windows (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
Sarinzhipov, A. (2013). Opportunities for faculty to influence academic matters at Kazakh
National University and Eurasian National University [Doctoral dissertation, University
of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
http://www.proquest.com/docview/1442567505/abstract/FD823B19BDC44652PQ/1
Schmidt, C. E., McNulty, B., Howard-Baptiste, S., & Harvey, J. (2017). Perspectives about how
to define and use collegiality in higher education. International Journal of Kinesiology in
Higher Education, 1(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/24711616.2016.1277674
Schroen, A. T., Thielen, M. J., Turrentine, F. E., Kron, I. L., & Slingluff, C. L. (2012). Research
incentive program for clinical surgical faculty associated with increases in research
139

productivity. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 144(5), 1003–1009.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.07.033
Schunk, D. (2019). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.
Scott, J. C. (2006). The Mission of the University: Medieval to Postmodern Transformations.
The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0007
Skarupski, K. A., & Foucher, K. C. (2018). Writing accountability groups (WAGs): A tool to
help junior faculty members build sustainable writing habits. The Journal of Faculty
Development, 32(3), 47-54.
Starr, S. F. (2015). Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to
Tamerlane. United States: Princeton University Press. Swygert, M. I., & Gozansky, N. E.
(1985). Senior law faculty publication study: Comparisons of law school productivity.
Journal of Legal Education, 35(3), 373–394.
Taylor, J. (2006). Managing the unmanageable: The management of research in research-
intensive universities. Higher Education Management and Policy, 18(2), 1–25.
Taylor, P., & Braddock, R. (2007). International university ranking systems and the idea of
university excellence. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(3), 245–
260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800701457855
Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis.
Higher Education, 39(2), 201–222.
Vrugt, A., & Koenis, S. (2002). Perceived Self-efficacy, personal goals, social comparison, and
scientific productivity. Applied Psychology, 51(4), 593–607.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00110
140

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and
emotion. Psychological review, 92(4), 548.
Wright, S. (2014). ‘Humboldt’, Humbug! Contemporary Mobilizations of ‘Humboldt’ as a
Discourse to Support the Corporatization and Marketization of Universities and
Disparage Alternatives. The Humboldtian Tradition, 141–163.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004271944_010
Yessirkepov, M., Nurmashev, B., & Anartayeva, M. (2015). A Scopus-based analysis of
publication activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: Positive Trends, concerns, and
possible solutions. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 30(12), 1915–1919.
https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.12.1915
Zainab, A. N. (2000). Publication productivity, focus on institutional, collaborative and
communicational correlates: A review of literature. Malaysian Journal of Library &
Information Science, 5(1), 53–94.

141

Appendix A: Survey
Target population: The faculty members of the Central University
Dear Participant:
My name is Bibol Alipbay, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California (USC) and a former faculty member of the Central University (CU). My role at the CU
was as a teacher of the English language, but I do not work at the CU currently, so I have no role
and authority concerning the evaluation of faculty research performance. For my dissertation, I am
examining the CU faculty knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related faculty
research performance. As you are engaged with your teaching, research and service, I invite you
to participate in this research study by completing the attached surveys. The following
questionnaire will require approximately 15 minutes to complete. There is no compensation, nor
is there any known risk for completing the survey. All information regarding your identity will
remain confidential, and neither any staff nor faculty from either CU or USC will have access to
it except for me.
Participation in this research is voluntary, and you can draw out of the research at any
time before, during and after the research. The data collected from this survey will provide
important information about the faculty knowledge, motivation and the CU organizational
factors related to the faculty achieving their research goal of publishing 540 research papers in
high-impact-factor journals by 2025.

142
Table A1
Survey Items
Survey (N = 56 faculty
members)
Survey items Responses Theoretical foundation
Demographic 1. What is your age group?

(Under 20; 20–30; 31–
40; 41–50; 51–60;
over 60)

2. What is your gender?

Male;
Female;
Decline to indicate.

3. What language do you use most often Kazakh;
Russian;
English

4. What is your highest academic degree?

Doctor of Sciences;
PhD,
Candidate of Sciences;
Professional Doctor;
Aspirant;
Master;
Bachelor

5. What is your title?

Professor;
Associate professor;
Assistant professor
Docent;
Senior Teacher;
Junior Teacher;

6. What discipline do you teach? Hard science;
Social science

7. How many years have you been in your
current position?

less than 1 year;
1–5 years;
6–10 years;

143
Survey (N = 56 faculty
members)
Survey items Responses Theoretical foundation
11–15 years;
16–20 years;
over 20 years
8. How many years have been working at this
university?

less than 1 year;
1–5 years;
6–10 years;
11–15 years;
16–20 years;
over 20 years

9. When did you gain your current academic
degree?

less than 1 year ago;
1–5 years ago;
6–10 years ago;
11–15 years ago;
16–20 years ago;
over 20 years ago

Knowledge 10. I know at least one of the top 10 journals
in my field (discipline)?
Yes;
no.
Factual knowledge
11. I have published in at least one of the top
10 high-impact-factor journals in my field
(discipline)?
Yes;
no.
Factual knowledge
12. How many research papers have you
published in high-impact-factor (Scopus)
journals?
None;
1–3;
3–5;
more than 5.
Factual knowledge
13. What are important parts of a research
article (check all that apply)?
Introduction
*Lead
Method
Results
*Example
Discussion
Factual knowledge

Choices marked with
“*” are the wrong
answers.

144
Survey (N = 56 faculty
members)
Survey items Responses Theoretical foundation
14. How would you rate your knowledge of
the procedure
- for applying for university grants?
- for applying for research grants of the
Ministry of Education and Science?
- to write a research proposal for grants.
0 (I have no knowledge
at all)
1…4
5 (I have some
knowledge)
6…9
10 (I know it very well)
Procedural knowledge
Procedural knowledge
Procedural knowledge
15. What are the barriers for you to publish in
high-impact-factor journals? (Check all that
apply.)
Limited funds;
Limitation in time;
Difficulty finding
references;
Relatively long
publication
processing time;
Limitations in English
language skills;
Limited ability to use
software tools for
paper examinations
such as similarity
tests and grammar
tests;
The limited destinations
of high impact
journals that will be
the places to publish
the articles.

16. Or your answer: Open-ending
17 - I know that my research publication ...
- influences the university research profile
- influences my own career path
0 (No, it does not
influence it at all)
1
Conceptual knowledge
Conceptual Knowledge

145
Survey (N = 56 faculty
members)
Survey items Responses Theoretical foundation
2
3
4
5 (It influences
somehow)
6
7
8
9
10 (It strongly
influences it.)
18. According to your university requirement,
how much of your time and effort are you
expected to invest in each of the following
professional activities?
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

146
Survey (N = 56 faculty
members)
Survey items Responses Theoretical foundation
19. How much effort do you invest in each of
the following professional activities?
- research
- teaching
- service
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Metacognitive
Knowledge
Adopted from Hardré,
Beesley, Miller &
Pace (2011)

Motivation 20 - How confident are you in ...
- Formulating research questions
- Conducting literature review
- Data collection
- Data analysis
- Writing up my research results
0 (Not confident at all)
1
2
3
4
5 (Somewhat confident)
6
7
8
9
10 (Very confident)
Self-efficacy
21. Please briefly state the problems you have,
if any, in conducting research.
Open-ending question

147
Survey (N = 56 faculty
members)
Survey items Responses Theoretical foundation
22. To what extent do you personally value
each of these professional activities?
- research
- teaching
- service
0 (I don’t value it at all)
1
2
3
4
5 (I somewhat value it)
6
7
8
9
10 (I value it very
much)
Value
23. I do research because …
- I like to do it
- I have to do it to keep my job
0 (Not at all true)
1
2
3
4
5 (Somewhat true)
6
7
8
9
10 (Very much true)
Personal value
Online survey for faculty
personal value,
Percentage of effort,
Motivation for
research, Self-efficacy
for research.
Adjusted from Hardré,
Beesley, Miller &
Pace (2011)

24. I can …
- identify worthwhile research questions
- write good research article
- publish it in high-impact-factor journals
0 (Not at all true)
1
2
3
4
5 (Somewhat true)

Self-efficacy
Adjusted from
(Pasupathy & Siwatu,
2014)

148
Survey (N = 56 faculty
members)
Survey items Responses Theoretical foundation
6
7
8
9
10 (Very much true)
25. To what extent are the following answer
true for you?
- my department provides me with choices in
the research questions and issues
- the university administrators encourage
faculty research

0 (Not at all true)
1
2
3
4
5 (Somewhat true)
6
7
8
9
10 (Very much true)
Organizational
26. What I have already published has all been
the result of mu own effort.

0 (Not at all true)
1
2
3
4
5 (Somewhat true)
6
7
8
9
10 (Very much true)

Attribution

149
Survey (N = 56 faculty
members)
Survey items Responses Theoretical foundation
Organizational Influences 27. I have problems in finding international
journals appropriate for my publication.
Never
Sometimes
About half the time
Most of the time
Always

Cultural setting
28. To what extent are the following answer
true for you?
- the university has a system that
evaluates faculty research and
publication
- I communicate often with my colleagues
on topics about our research and
publication
- the university has a strong research
culture
- the university has policies which
prioritizes research and publication
- the university has a strong infrastructure
to support faculty research.
0 (Not at all true)
1
2
3
4
5 (Somewhat true)
6
7
8
9
10 (Very much true)

Policies and procedures
Cultural model
Cultural model
Policies and procedures
Recourses

150
Survey (N = 56 faculty
members)
Survey items Responses Theoretical foundation
29. Please evaluate the infrastructure of the
university for conducting research:
- Electronic library resources
- libraries
- a quiet space to conduct research
- research funding
- laboratories facilities
Resources

151

Appendix B: Interview
Target population: Faculty members of the Central University
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer my questions. As I mentioned when we last spoke, the interview should take
about 10–15 minutes, does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to remind you about my research. The overview for my
research was provided to you in the Study Information Sheet, and answer any questions you
might have about participating in this interview. I am a doctoral student at USC and am
conducting a study on the faculty research activities. I am particularly interested in understanding
how the faculty perceive the support of faculty research on the part of the university.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of the researcher today. What this
means is that the nature of my questions is not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on
how you are performing as a faculty member. My goal is to understand your perspective.
This interview is confidential. What that means is that your name will not be shared with anyone
outside of the research team. I will not share them with other faculty members, the university
administrators, or any other individuals. The data for this study will be compiled into a report
and while I do plan on using some of what you say as direct quotes, none of this data will be
directly attributed to you. I will use a pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and will try my
best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you. I am happy to provide you with a copy of
my final paper if you are interested.
I will keep the data in a password-protected computer and all data will be destroyed after
three years.
Might you have any questions about the study before we get started? I have brought
a cellphone with me today so that I can accurately record what you share with me. The recording
152

is solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be shared with anyone
outside the research team. May I have your permission to record our conversation?

Table B 1
Interview Items
Questions Interview (N = 8 faculty)

Demographic questions
What is your academic degree?
How many years have you been working at this university?
o What discipline do you teach?

Interview questions about
faculty research experience
at CU
What kind of research work, if any, have you published ever?
What kind of support, if any, have you received from the
university to advance your research work?
From your own experience, what kind of support the
university should provide for the faculty to promote their
research work?

153

Appendix C: Document Analysis
Document analysis of this dissertation was conducted in several formats. It included
analyzing the organizational documents of CU, reviewing the institutional policies, and
examining the university website:
1. Conduct document analysis of CU history and organizational documents:
Critical behaviors – organizational influences/ cultural setting:
CU is a young institution with a strong teaching background but weak research capacity.
2. Conduct document analysis of CU policies and procedures:
Critical behaviors – organizational influences/ policies and procedures:
The CU has policies which prioritizes research and publication
3. Conduct document analysis of CU website, research policies and library book
holdings and library search engine:
Critical behaviors – organizational influences/ resources:
There are resources to support faculty research and publication, including University
library, University digital searching engine, University research fund/grants

154

Appendix D: Midterm Survey for Faculty Research Training Program
This is the survey suggested for evaluating the faculty research training program. It is
presented as it is shown to the trainees of the research training program.

Figure C1
The Midterm Survey for Faculty Research Training

155

Appendix E: Faculty Daily Research Activity Observation Checklist
Context: This is a checklist that the representatives from the research department or the
research representatives from different departments use when observing the faculty behaviors to
rate the faculty knowledge and skills in research and publication.
Rating Scale:
1 = Proficient researcher
2 = Moderate researcher
3 = Nonproficient researcher
The notes may include certain observations that the representatives use to support the
rating. It also includes feedback to help the faculty members be more research-oriented in their
work-related daily activities.

Table E1
Faculty Daily Research Activity Observation Checklist
Target behavior Rating Notes
Faculty members talk about their research interest to other faculty
members

Faculty members ask questions about each other’s research work

Faculty members collaborate in doing research and publications

Faculty members use the university resources

Faculty members actively search for references

Faculty members actively search for references

Faculty members actively search for funding

156

Appendix F: Delayed Survey for Faculty Research Training Program
This is the delayed survey suggested for evaluating the faculty research training program.
It is presented as it is shown to the trainees of the research training program.

Figure F1
Faculty Daily Research Activity Observation Checklist

157

Appendix G: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
STUDY TITLE: Faculty Research Performance Evaluation with the Gap Analysis
Framework
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Bibol Alipbay
FACULTY ADVISOR: Patricia Tobey, PhD
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to examine the factors that influence Central University’s
faculty in meeting their goal of publishing 540 research articles in high-impact-factor
research journals by 2025. We hope to learn how CU faculty’s knowledge, motivation,
and the CU organizational influences impact faculty research performance. You are
invited as a participant because you are a CU faculty member, and you have the
insights and knowledge that will be important data for this study.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
As a participant of this study, you will be asked to respond to survey questions, and you
may also be chosen as an interviewee for some in-depth feedback. To answer the
survey questions, you will get an electronic link, which leads you to a Qualtrics survey.
The survey includes 29 questions and takes about 15 minutes for you to complete. The
interview is shorter, and it takes five to ten minutes to finish the interview procedures.
The interview responses will be recorded on an audio recording device. Before
158

participating in both the survey and the interview, you will be provided a consent letter
for you to acquaint yourself with the purpose, process, and possible outcomes of this
study. It will also ensure that any information related to your personal identification will
not be revealed to any third party, except the University of Southern California. And you
have all rights not to participate in the study, or draw out of it at any time during the
study.
If you decide to participate, you will be asked to provide some demographic information
about yourself and to answer some research-related questions. However, all
identification information about you will be kept confidential.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
For participating in this research, there is no form of payment. However, for the survey
participants, there will be a lottery drawing after all the data collection procedures are
over. For this, your email will be requested when you finish the survey questions. The
lottery drawing will be conducted with the help of a machine, possibly an online engine.
Three winners of the lottery drawing will get 25 dollars’ worth of gift cards for each
person.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
The data collection of this study is confidential. What that means is that your name will
not be shared with anyone outside of the research team. I will not share them with other
faculty members, the university administrators, or any other individuals. The data for this
159

study will be compiled into a report and while I do plan on using some of what you say
as direct quotes, none of this data will be directly attributed to you. I will use a
pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the
data I gather from you.
For the interview, your responses will be recorded and kept as an audio file for the
researcher to transcribe and analyze for the sole purpose of this study. The audio file
will be kept in a mobile device or a computer, both protected by a security code. When
transcribing your response, any data that might identify you will be omitted or replaced.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact the principal investigator
Bibol Alipbay at alipbay@usc.edu, and the dissertation chair Patricia Tobey at
tobey@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Faculty research performance has become an essential factor in institutional profile because of increased competition among universities. This dissertation aimed to evaluate Central University (CU; pseudonym) faculty research performance using the gap analysis framework. CU faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors were considered key factors in faculty achieving their performance goal of publishing 540 research articles in high-impact-factor journals by 2025. A mixed-method design was applied in this research. Data were collected from CU faculty through surveys (N = 56) and interviews (N = 8). A document analysis of the CU website, policy papers, and other regulations was also conducted. Data were analyzed using USC Qualtrics data analysis software. Interview and document analysis data were coded and conceptualized according to existing theories and conceptual framework. The findings suggested that CU faculty needed to improve their knowledge in research paper writing, and CU should work on promoting the faculty motivation in conducting research. Moreover, CU needed to upgrade its policies and infrastructure to create more favorable conditions for the faculty to conduct research. Finally, recommendations for addressing the above issues were given, and a detailed implementation plan of the recommendations was presented.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition

PDF

Closing the safety gap for airlines in emerging markets using the gap analysis model

PDF

Evaluating the teacher residency model: a new first way

PDF

Service provider compliance with regional center service agreement: a gap analysis

PDF

Improving veterans employment outcomes through increasing enrollment in vocational rehabilitation and employment program

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve implementation and accountability approaches using a gap analysis framework

PDF

Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model

PDF

Violence experienced by registered nurses working in hospitals: an evaluation study

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluating the pursuit of advanced degrees in a health information profession: a gap analysis study

PDF

Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study

PDF

The utilization of data analytics in the entertainment sector

PDF

Universal algebra: an evaluation

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study

PDF

Positive behavior intervention support plan: a gap analysis

PDF

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Alipbay, Bibol (author)

Core Title Faculty research performance evaluation with the gap analysis framework

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 11/29/2022

Defense Date 08/25/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag faculty,Knowledge,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational influence,publishing,research

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee chair), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member), Yates, Kenneth Anthony (committee member)

Creator Email alipbay@usc.edu,alipbaybibol@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112542521

Unique identifier UC112542521

Identifier etd-AlipbayBib-11335.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-AlipbayBib-11335

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Alipbay, Bibol

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20221201-usctheses-batch-993 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu