Individual Features

The analysis of means scores of sample’s responses about individual features: content

knowledge and research skills, and personal commitment and motivation is presented in

Table 17.

The results of one-sample t-test presented in Table 17clearly show that all items have mean values greater than 3 but their respective p-value (1-tailed) is smaller than 0.05 except in case of item 8.c. These statistics suggest that the mean scores of all the items, apart from 8.c are significantly higher than 3 (the cut-off point) in statistical terms. In other words, the respondents were agreed with the items but disagreed or remained neutral with item 8.c.

Following conclusions can be drawn from of the analysis of reported mean scores. The respondents, in their own opinion, kept themselves up-to-date with current literature in their areas of teaching and research (4.a and 4.b). They also believed that they were currently up-to-date in different kinds of research skills except ‘grant getting skills’ with varying intensity. The respondents further claimed that they are not only highly committed to

contribute to the success of their departments, faculty, university, and academic discipline but also motivated to fulfil their job responsibilities (i.e. research, teaching and service to

Table 17: The summary of individual features Df Mean SD Mean Difference (Mean - 3) t p- value (1- tailed) Effect size Cohen’s d Content knowledge and research skills

4. Academics stay “up-to-date” with current literature in their:

a. research interest area(s) 69 3.71 0.950 0.71 6.29 0.000 0.75

b. teaching area(s) 69 3.96 0.770 0.96 10.41 0.000 1.24

8. Academics believe they are currently up-to-date in:

a. quantitative research design and

analysis 69 3.59 0.925 0.59 5.30 0.000 0.63

b. qualitative research design and

analysis 69 3.29 0.980 0.29 2.44 0.009 0.29

d. computer skills 69 4.17 0.761 1.17 12.88 0.000 1.54

e. presentation skills 69 4.10 0.837 1.10 11.00 0.000 1.31

f. writing skills 69 3.84 0.879 0.84 8.03 0.000 0.96

g. in using relevant software for

data-collocation and analysis 69 3.57 0.878 0.57 5.45 0.000 0.65 h. publisher-hunting skills 69 3.26 1.030 0.26 2.09 0.020 0.25 c. grant getting skills for their area 69 3.19 0.997 0.19 1.56 0.062* - Personal commitment and motivation

5. Academics are highly committed to contribute to the success of their:

a. department/ institute 69 4.44 0.581 1.44 20.79 0.000 2.48

b. faculty 69 4.24 0.690 1.24 15.07 0.000 1.80

c. university 69 4.33 0.631 1.33 17.63 0.000 2.11

d. discipline outside the university 69 3.94 0.849 0.94 9.29 0.000 1.11 6. Academics would describe

themselves as being self- motivated to

a. conduct research 69 4.17 0.798 1.17 12.28 0.000 1.47

b. teach 69 4.39 0.728 1.39 15.92 0.000 1.91

c. provide service to

industry/community** 63 3.91 0.938 0.91 7.73 0.000 0.97

community). There were also six respondents who believed that they were not supposed to provide service to industry or community.

According to Cohen’s criterion cited in (Morgan et al., 2011) for interpreting the effect size (Cohen’s d), it can be noticed that the effect size of the items pertaining to

personal commitment and motivation (i.e. items 5 and 6), and content knowledge (i.e. item 4)

is very large (i.e. >1.0). However, in case of items related to research skill, the effect size varied from medium to very large with the exception of item 8.h which has a small (0.25) effect size. According to the standard conventions of interpreting effect size, once, during normal course of experience in the context, one would be able to notice the existence of such individual features having large effect size as compared to those of small Cohen’s criterion cited in (Morgan et al., 2011).

The following section presents a comparison of the mean scores of individual features based on personal characteristics (i.e. gender, age range, highest academic qualification, and the experience of research publications).

Table 18 : Mean difference based on personal characteristics (gender, age range, highest academic qualification, and experience in research)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean

Diff. F** t df Sig. (2- tailed) Eta square

Gender Male (n=29) Female (n=41)

Content knowledge and research skills

8.g. Academics believe they are currently up-to-date in using

relevant software for data-collocation and analysis 3.83 .76 3.39 .92 0.44 5.97* 2.174 66 0.03 0.07 8.h. Academics believe they are currently up-to-date in

publisher-hunting skills 3.59 .91 3.02 1.06 0.56 0.833 2.315 68 0.02 0.07

Personal motivation and commitment

5.a. Academics are highly committed to contributing to the

success of their department/ institute 4.62 .62 4.32 .52 0.30 0.768 2.215 68 0.03 0.07

5.c. Academics are highly committed to contributing to the

success of their university 4.55 .57 4.17 .63 0.38 0.255 2.591 68 0.01 0.09

6.a. Academics would describe themselves as being self-

motivated to conduct research 4.45 .63 3.98 .85 0.47 0.001 2.535 68 0.01 0.09

Age range 25-35 Years

(n=31)

36 years and above (n=39)

Content knowledge and research skills

4.a. Academics stay “up-to-date” with current literature in

their research interest area(s) 3.32 .98 4.03 .81 -0.71 9.397* -3.216 58 0.00 0.15

8.d. Academics believe they are currently up-to-date in

computer skills 4.48 .63 3.92 .77 0.56 0.499 3.271 68 0.00 0.27

8.e. Academics believe they are currently up-to-date in

8.h. Academics believe they are currently up-to-date in

publisher-hunting skills 2.97 1.05 3.49 .97 -0.52 0.043 -2.148 68 0.04 0.13

Personal motivation and commitment

6.b. Academics would describe themselves as being self-

motivated to teach 4.1 .83 4.62 .54 -0.52 0.791 -3.145 68 0.00 0.25 Academic qualification Masters (n=19) M. Phil /PhD (n=51)

Content knowledge and research skills

4.a. Academics stay “up-to-date” with current literature in

their research interest area(s) 3.21 .98 3.90 .88 -0.69 3.223 -2.843 68 0.01 0.31

8.g. Academics believe they are currently up-to-date in using

relevant software for data-collocation and analysis 3.16 1.01 3.73 .78 -0.57 5.912* -2.209 26 0.04 0.16 8.h. Academics believe they are currently up-to-date in

publisher-hunting skills 2.84 1.01 3.41 1.00 -0.57 .001 -2.106 68 0.04 0.20

Experience in publication NO (n=24) YES (n=46)

Content knowledge and research skills

8.d. Academics believe they are currently up-to-date in

computer skills 4.58 .58 3.96 .76 0.63 .206 3.534 68 0.00 0.36

8.h. Academics believe they are currently up-to-date in

publisher-hunting skills 2.75 1.03 3.52 .94 -0.77 .060 -3.160 68 0.00 0.30

Personal motivation and commitment

6.a. Academics would describe themselves as being self-

motivated to conduct research 3.79 .98 4.37 .610 -0.58 5.470* -2.642 33 0.01 0.18

An independent sample t-test was conducted to investigate the mean difference of the individual features based on gender, age group, higher academic qualifications and the experience of research separately (see Table 18). Only statistically significant results of the t- test (p < 0.05, 2-tailed) were presented in table. In other words, the mean difference based on the personal characteristics was found statistical significant only in the case of the presented items in the table. However, the results of the remaining items with p ≥ 0.05 (2-tailed) which shows no significant difference in mean scores are not reported here.

The results based on gender indicate that the mean scores of males and of females were significantly different (as p values < 0.05) regarding the use of data collection softwares (8.g) and publishing skills (8.h). The mean scores of males’ commitment to the success of their department (5.a) and university (5.c) were also differed from those of females.

Moreover, the male respondents reported significantly different level of self-motivations for conducting research (6.a) as compared to their female counterparts. It is a noticeable point that the mean scores of males for all presented items related to gender are numerically higher than that of female. The results related to gender presented in the table indicate that the effect size (Eta square) of the items is either 0.07 or 0.09 which may be considered as medium to large effects size according to Cohen’s criteria for Eta square. Following the standardised convention for interpreting an effect size, it can be said that the statistically significant difference in mean scores based on gender is large enough in the context to be seen with naked eyes.

The t-test statistics based on the age of the respondents, presented in the table,

indicates the respondents aged 25-35 years have significantly different mean scores than that of respondents aged 36 years and above for keeping themselves up-to-date with current literature in their research area(s) (item 4.a.) as well as, in computer, presentation and

publishing skills (items 8.d, 8.e, and 8.h). It is noticeable point that the respondents aged 25-

35 years have numerically higher mean score in computer and presentation skills than that of respondents aged 36 years and above. However, the mean scores of the respondents aged 36 years and above regarding self-motivation for teaching (item 6.b) were not only numerically but also significantly different from that of respondents aged 25-35 years. The effect size (Eta square) of the items, for which the mean difference based on age was found significant, varied from 0.13 to 0.27 which may be considered large by following Cohen’s guidelines in this regard.

The table indicates that the mean scores of the respondents with an M. Phil /PhD degree about staying up-to-date in publishing skills (item 8.h), using relevant software for data-collection/analysis (item 8.g), and literature in relevant research area(s) (4.a) were numerically higher as well as significantly different from those of respondents with a

master’s degree. Moreover, similar to results based on age, the effect size of the items was large as its values were 0.16 and above.

The comparison between the mean scores of the respondents with and without experience of publication reveals statistically significant difference regarding items 8.d, 8.h, and 6.a as their p-values were less than 0.05. These results suggest that the groups of

respondents based on their expertise of research reported different opinions about their current level of self-motivation to conduct research and of computer and publishing skills. The difference of opinion between these group may be noticed easily in the context as the effect sizes (Eta square) of these items varied from 0.18 to 0.36 which can be called medium to large by following Cohen’s criterion of assessing effect size (Eta square).

Overall results infer that the current level of publishing skills (8.h) was the only individual feature which was found sensitive to all of the four personal characteristics of interest i.e. gender, age, highest academic qualification and publication experience. It was also found that the respondents’ opinion about their level of current literature in their relevant research areas (4.a) changes with the variation in their age or/and academic qualification. Moreover, the variation in the respondents’ opinion about the use of relevant software for data-collection and analysis (8.g) was only found with reference to gender and academics qualification. However, the groups based on age and publication experience reported different perceived levels of their computer skill (8.d). The self-motivation level of the respondents for conducting research (6.a) varied only with respect to gender and publication experience. In conclusion, the respondents largely hold similar opinion regarding most of the individual features except some aspects reported above.