CHAPTER 6: SYSTEMIC COXTEXT-II
6.3 Analysis of Existing Features of the Context
6.3.3 Institutional Features
This section presents the results of one sample t-test computed for examining the mean values of the sample’s responses about various institutional features. As mentioned earlier, the institutional features of interest comprise six sets of relevant factors. For the convenience of readers, the results of each of the six sets are presented separately in the following tables (Table 21 to Table 26).
Table 21 : Communication with professional network
df Mean SD Mean - Test value i.e. 3 t p- value (1- tailed) Effect size (Cohen'd) 15. Academics have a well-
developed network of colleagues for discussing research and writing projects:
a. within their department /
institute 69 3.41 1.20 0.41 2.89 0.00 0.35
b. outside the university 69 3.20 1.21 0.20 1.38 0.09* - 16. At least weekly, academics have
substantive uninterrupted
conversations about research and writing with colleagues in their:
a. department/institute 69 2.93 1.17 -0.07 -0.51 0.31* -
b. faculty 69 2.91 1.13 -0.09 -0.64 0.26* -
c. university 69 2.60 1.07 -0.40 -3.13 0.00 0.37
17. At least monthly, academics have substantive uninterrupted conversations about research and writing with colleagues in their:
a. department/institute 69 3.24 1.21 0.24 1.68 0.05* -
b. faculty 69 3.07 1.11 0.07 0.54 0.30* -
c. university 69 2.74 1.09 -0.26 -1.98 0.03 0.24
29. Academics frequently exchange information with their colleague through:
a. face-to-face communication 69 4.10 0.62 1.10 14.91 0.00 1.78 b. paper based written
communication 69 2.91 0.99 -0.09 -0.73 0.24* -
c. electronic communications 69 3.43 1.04 0.43 3.44 0.00 0.41
Table 21 summarises the results of the items related to the communication of academics with their professional network. It shows that the means score of approximately half of the items were numerically higher than 3. Further, t-test results revealed that the mean difference was found statistically significant for five items, as their p-values (1-tailed) are less than 0.05. The noticeable point was that the mean score of three out the five items (15.a, 16.c, 17.c, 29.a & 29.c) was statistically greater than three while, in case of remaining two items (16.c and 17.c) it was found statistically smaller than three. It is clear from the table the effect size (Cohen’s d) of the items lies between 0.20 to 0.50 which may be considered small to medium effect. However, item 29.a, with very large effect size (i.e. 1.78), was an exception in this respect.
It can be inferred from the reported results that the respondents have a well-developed network of colleagues for discussing research and writing projects within their department (15.a). However, they neither agreed nor disagreed that they have a discussion network of colleagues outside the university. The respondents disagreed that they have substantive uninterrupted conversations about research and writing with their colleagues in the university on weekly (16.c) and even monthly (17.c) basis. However, they remained neutral in case of such interaction with their colleagues in the department (16.a & 16.b) or faculty (17.a & 17.b). It was also found that they frequently use face-to-face (29.a) and electronic (29.c) modes of communication to exchange information with their colleagues. The data implies that the frequent exchange of information through face-to-face communication may be noticed by anyone in the normal course of events in the context as this item has a very large effect size.
Table 22 : Milieu df Mean SD Mean - Test value i.e. 3 t Sig. (1- tailed) Effect size (Cohe n'd)
10. Academics feel appreciated and valued by their department/ institute colleagues for their work in:
a. research 69 3.36 1.12 0.36 2.68 0.00 0.32
b. teaching 69 3.43 1.16 0.43 3.09 0.00 0.37
c. service to industry
/community** 58 2.93 1.10 -0.07 -0.48 0.32* -
d. managerial position (team
members, chairs)** 59 3.25 1.10 0.25 1.76 0.04 0.23
11. Academics feel appreciated and valued by their university colleagues for their work in:
a. research 69 3.43 1.06 0.43 3.39 0.00 0.41
b. teaching 69 3.44 1.00 0.44 3.70 0.00 0.44
c. service to industry
/community** 59 3.03 1.10 0.03 0.23 0.41* -
d. managerial position (team
members, chairs)** 58 3.24 1.02 0.24 1.78 0.04 0.23
12. Academics have excellent opportunities in their university to pursue their interests in:
a. research 69 3.26 1.19 0.26 1.81 0.04 0.22
b. teaching 69 3.53 1.05 0.53 4.23 0.00 0.51
c. service to industry
/community 60 3.03 1.18 0.03 0.22 0.41* -
d. managerial role (chairs)** 57 3.12 1.19 0.12 0.78 0.22* - 14. A large portion of their
department/institute colleagues can be considered to :
a. be productive in research 69 3.29 0.98 0.29 2.44 0.01 0.29 b. be significant external grant
“getters” 69 2.93 0.97 -0.07 -0.62 0.27* -
c. provide quality education 69 3.47 1.06 0.47 3.72 0.00 0.44 d. provide service to the
university and beyond. 69 3.34 1.02 0.34 2.81 0.00 0.34
* p ≥ 0.05
** Not Applicable (NA) for: item 10.c = 11(15.7 %), item 10.d = 10(14.2%), item 11.c = 10(14.2%), item 11.d=11(15.7%), item 12.c = 9(12.8%) and item 12.d = 12 (17.1%)
Table 22 presents the summary of t-test statistics of the items related to prevailing milieu. It is clear from the table that the mean scores of all the items were greater than or approximately equal to three. It was also found statistically higher than the cut-off point (i.e. 3) between the level of agreement and disagreement as their respective p-values were < 0.05. Moreover, the effect size of these items varies from 0.29 to 0.51 which may be considered as small to medium.
However, the means scores of few items (10.c, 11.c, 12.c, 12.d and 14.b), most of them emphasising on ‘service to industry/community’, were not found significantly
above/below three in statistical terms since the corresponding p-values were ≥ 0.05. Here it is important to mention that almost one-sixth of the respondents believed that the items related to ‘service to industry/community’ and ‘managerial position/role’ (i.e. 10.c, 10.d, 11.c, 11.d, 12.c and 12.d) were not applicable to them.
The respondents believed that their teaching, research and managerial activities were appreciated by their department and university colleagues. However, the appreciation for both teaching and research work at university level seems to be a more prominent feature in comparison with the appreciation at the department level as their effect size at the former level was relatively higher than that at the latter level. The respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the point that their work in ‘service to industry/community’ was appreciated by their department/university colleagues. The respondents believed that a large portion of their department colleagues may be considered to be productive in research works which were not externally funded. Owing to its small effect size, it seems difficult for a layman to identify such a belief during a normal course of observation. The academics thought that the majority of their colleagues provide quality education, and service to the university and beyond. They also believed that they have excellent opportunities for pursuing their research and teaching interests in their university. Since the effect size (i.e. 0.51) of the dominating opinion about teaching opportunities was medium, therefore, this feature may easily be noticed within the context. However, the respondents remained undecided about the opportunities to promote their agenda for service to industry/community and managerial activities.
Table 23 : Mentoring practice df Mean SD Mean - Test value i.e. 3 T Sig. (1- tailed) effect size (Coh en'd)
2. As a junior academics, they have been/ was formally assigned an advisor/mentor within their department / institute which provided them valuable guidance in:
a. research** 61 2.56 1.40 -0.44 -2.45 0.01 -0.31
b. teaching** 60 2.67 1.34 -0.33 -1.91 0.03 -0.25
c. service to industry
/community** 56 2.35 1.19 -0.65 -4.13 0.00 -0.55
3. Academics have / had an “unassigned” mentor either in their or other department/ institute who provide(s/d) them valuable guidance in:
a. research 69 2.80 1.31 -0.20 -1.27 0.10* -
b. teaching 69 2.93 1.21 -0.07 -0.50 0.31* -
c. service to industry
/community** 56 2.81 1.23 -0.19 -1.18 0.12* -
9. To be promoted at their present institution, academics fully understand the expectations of their university regarding:
a. research 68 3.99 0.93 0.99 8.79 0.00 1.06
b. teaching 68 3.94 1.00 0.94 7.84 0.00 0.94
26. Academics get constructive feedback, guidance, and
suggestions on their research and writing from their:
a. department/ institute
colleagues 69 3.33 1.11 0.33 2.47 0.01 0.30
b. department/ institute
chairperson (or director) 69 3.24 1.14 0.24 1.79 0.04 0.21 c. colleagues outside my
department/ institute 69 3.00 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.50* -
* p ≥ 0.05
** Not Applicable (NA) for: item 2.c = 13(18.6 %), item 3.c = 13(18.6%), item 2.a = 8(11.4%) and item 2.b = 9 (12.8%)
The results for the items pertaining to mentoring practice at department/institution level within the university are presented in Table 23. The table clearly indicates that the mean values of the items about the provision of mentor, either formally assigned or unassigned, were numerically below 3. However, the mean difference was found statistically significant only in case of items (i.e. 2.a, 2.b, and 2.c) about formally assigned mentor as their respective p-values is less than 0.05. Here, it is worth mentioning that almost one-fifth (18.6%) of the sample reported that items 2.c and 3.c were not applicable in their case. Moreover,
approximately 12 % of the respondents had similar opinion about items 2.a and 2.b. The table also indicates that the mean values of items in questions 9 and 26 were significantly higher than 3 in statistical terms as their corresponding p-values are smaller than 0.05. However, the item 26.c with p > 0.05 was an exception in this regard.
The effect size of the items in questions 2 and 26 varied from 0.21 to 0.55 which may be called small to medium effect according to Cohen’s criteria. However, it became large for both items in question 9.
In other words, the reported results in Table 23 indicate that the respondents were not formally assigned a mentor within their department to guide them in teaching, research and service to industry/community. However, the respondents remained neutral while answering the statement about the presence of unassigned mentors for the similar purposes. They also agreed that they usually receive constructive feedback, guidance, and suggestions on their research from their department colleagues and/or chairperson. Finally, they believed that they fully understood the expectations of their university regarding research and teaching to get promotion in their present institution. Moreover, the understanding of these expectations appears to be a prominent feature of the context because of the large effect size of the statement corresponding to these aspects.
Table 24: Research emphasis Df Mean SD Mean - Test value i.e. 3 t Sig. (1- tailed) effect size (Cohe n'd)
13. There is a high expectation in their department/ institute for academic staff to:
a. be productive in research 69 3.73 0.99 0.73 6.15 0.00 0.73 b. conduct research that is
externally funded 69 3.27 1.10 0.27 2.06 0.02 0.25
c. provide quality education 69 3.86 1.07 0.86 6.72 0.00 0.80 d. provide service to my
university and beyond** 64 3.45 1.00 0.45 3.60 0.00 0.45 24. It is clear to academics how
their research agenda is or can be related to the vision of their department/ institute.
69 3.73 0.99 0.73 6.15 0.00 0.73
28.Their department/ institute has a communication system that allows them to be adequately informed in a timely fashion about major issues, important events, and upcoming concerns regarding research
69 3.24 1.21 0.24 1.68 0.05* -
* p ≥ 0.05
** Not Applicable (NA) for item 13.d= 5(7.1%)
The analysis of items related to department emphasis on research is presented in Table 24. It can be noticed that the mean scores of all the items in the table were numerically above three (the minimum level of agreement). One-sample t-test statistics for these items show that the corresponding p-values of these items were less than 0.05, therefore, the mean of these items was also found significantly higher than 3 in statistical terms. However, the item 28 with p ≥ 0.05 was an exception in this respect.
The table also shows that the effect size of the items varied from 0.25 to 0.80. According to Cohen’s criterion, the effect size of item 13.b and 13.d was small to large, however, it was medium to large for items 13.a and 24. However, 13.c was the only item with a large effect size.
In the light of the reported results it can be inferred that the departments of
respondents highly expect from them not only to conduct funded and non-funded research but also to provide quality education and service. Owing to a large effect size, high expectations
for quality education and research appeared more visible features of the context. Moreover, the respondents’ belief that their research agenda may be related to the vision of their
department was found another prominent feature of the context. However, the sample neither agreed nor disagreed with the point that the information about important events and
upcoming concerns about research was communicated to them in time. Table 25: Resources Df Mean SD Mean - Test value i.e. 3 t Sig. (1- tailed) effect size (Cohen' d)
20. Academics have access to adequate resources such as computers, library materials, technical support, etc., to:
a. conduct my research projects 69 3.67 1.22 0.67 4.59 0.00 0.55
b. teach 69 3.79 1.22 0.79 5.41 0.00 0.65
21. Academics have access to adequate human resources such as secretarial support, support staff etc., to:
a. conduct my research projects 69 2.67 1.29 -0.33 -2.13 0.02 -0.25
b. teach 69 2.99 1.28 -0.01 -0.09 0.46* -
22.Their university provides them adequate financial support to travel to participate in academic
conferences:
a. within Pakistan 69 3.13 1.24 0.13 0.87 0.19* -
b. outside Pakistan 69 3.09 1.21 0.09 0.59 0.28* -
23. Their university provides them adequate administrative support to apply for travel grant from HEC or other external sources for
presentation of paper in academic conferences:
a. within Pakistan 69 3.26 1.19 0.26 1.81 0.04 0.22 b. outside Pakistan 69 3.27 1.19 0.27 1.91 0.03 0.23
* p ≥ 0.05
Table 25 summarises the analysis of the mean scores of the items about the availability of resources for conducting and presenting research. The table shows that the mean score of items in questions 20 and 23 were not only numerically but also statistically above 3 as their
p-values were less than 0.05. However, the mean values of items 22.a and 22.b were found only numerically above 3 and remained statistically insignificant because their corresponding p-values are smaller than 0.05. In case of question 21, both items have mean scores less than or equal to 3 but only the mean difference for item 21.a with a p-value of 0.02 is statistically significant.
According to Cohen’s guidelines, the effect size of items 20.a and 20.b is medium to large (i.e. between 0.5 to 0.8) whereas, it is small (around 0.2) in case of items 23.a, 23.b and 21.a.
The results imply that the respondents have access to adequate physical resources for both teaching and research. It seems to be one of the visible features of the context since it has medium to large effect size. They also believed that their university provides them administrative support to apply for financial aid for the presentation of papers in the conferences within and outside the country. However, they neither agreed nor disagreed about the point that their university gives them financial support for this purpose. Finally, they reported that they do not have access to adequate human resources for conducting research; however, they remained neutral about the fact that they have such resources for teaching.
Table 26: Sufficient work time
Df Mean SD Mean - Test value i.e. 3 t Sig. (1- tailed) effect size (Cohen' d)
1. Academics have adequate time to:
a. conduct research 69 2.84 1.16 -0.16 -1.13 0.13* -
b. teach 69 4.03 0.85 1.03 10.12 0.00 1.21
c. provide service to industry
/community** 62 2.71 1.20 -0.29 -1.89 0.03 0.24
d. fulfil managerial roles (team
members)** 62 3.43 1.04 0.43 3.26 0.00 0.41
7. Academics have a system that allows them to protect
uninterrupted time for:
a. research activities 69 2.77 1.09 -1.75 -0.23 0.04 1.60 b. teaching activities 69 3.13 1.09 0.99 0.13 0.16* -
** Not Applicable (NA) for: item 1.c = 7(10 %) and item 1.d = 7(10%)
Table 26 summaries the mean scores of the items related to the availability of time to
1.d and 7.b) in the table was numerically above 3 while it is less than 3 for the remaining items. Further, the results of t-tests revealed that the mean difference is statistically
significant for all items except items 1.a and 7.b. Another noticeable point in the table is that the effect of items 1.a and 7.b is very large according to Cohen’s criteria.
The respondents strongly agreed that they have adequate time to teach but remained neutral about the existence of a system protecting uninterrupted time for teaching. They were unsure about the availability of sufficient time for research. However, they believed that there was not a system in place which may allow them to protect uninterrupted time for research. Finally, the respondents believed that they have adequate time to fulfil their managerial roles but they do not have enough time to provide service to industry/community. It is interesting to note that almost 10% of the respondents believed that they were not supposed to perform managerial roles or to provide service to industry/community.
The overall analysis of 58 items grouped into six sets of institutional features presented in tables Table 21-Table 26 reveals that, in the opinion of the academics, the context in which they live is featured with the presence of 29 factors. Only the contrary, they also reported the absence of 8 factors (16.c, 17.c, 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, 12.a, 1.c and 7.a) which mainly include some features related to the communication of academics with professional networks and mentoring practices in the university. The academics remained undecided about the presence or absence of remaining 21 factors pertaining to various institutional features grouped in all of the six sets. The next section examines the reported opinions of academics about the institutional features; whether these vary with respect to the personal characteristics of the sample or not.
Table 27 : Mean differences 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 saqure GENDER Male (n=29) Female (n=41) Resources
21.a. Academics have access to adequate human resources such as secretarial support, support staff etc., to conduct their research projects
3.10 1.26 2.37 1.24 0.74 0 2.432 68 0.018 0.08 Sufficient work time
1.d. Academics have adequate time to fulfil
managerial roles (team members) 3.07 1.07 3.69 0.95 -0.62 1.41 -2.427 61 0.018 0.09 7.a. Academics have a system that allows them to
protect uninterrupted time for research activities 3.10 0.98 2.54 1.12 0.57 1.511 2.197 68 0.031 0.07
AGE 25-35 Years
(n=31)
36 years & above (n=39) Milieu
14.a A large portion of their department/institute colleagues can be considered to be productive in research
3.61 0.92 3.03 0.96 0.59 0.51 2.591 68 0.012 0.09 14.c A large portion of their department/institute
colleagues can be considered to provide quality education
3.81 0.98 3.21 1.06 0.60 2.26 2.442 68 0.017 0.08 HIGHEST ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION Masters
(n=19)
M. Phil/PhD (n=51)
Communication with professional network 16.b At least weekly, academics have substantive uninterrupted conversations about research and writing with colleagues in their faculty
2.47 1.02 3.08 1.13 -0.61 1.537 -2.044 68 0.045 0.06 16.c At least weekly, academics have substantive
uninterrupted conversations about research and writing with colleagues in their university
Milieu
10.a Academics feel appreciated and valued by their department/ institute colleagues for their work in research 2.89 1.15 3.53 1.07 -0.64 0.388 -2.17 68 0.033 0.06 EXPERIENCE OF PUBLICATION NO (n=24) YES (n=46) Communication with professional network
15.b Academics have a well-developed network of colleagues for discussing research and writing projects outside the university
2.71 1.08 3.46 1.21 -0.75 0.282 -2.549 68 0.013 0.09 17.c At least monthly, academics have substantive
uninterrupted conversations about research and writing with colleagues in their university
2.38 0.97 2.93 1.10 -0.56 0.493 -2.097 68 0.04 0.06 Milieu
14.b A large portion of their department/institute colleagues can be considered to be significant external
grant “getters” 3.25 0.94 2.76 0.95 0.49 0.056 2.053 68 0.044 0.06 14.c A large portion of their department/institute
colleagues can be considered to provide quality education
3.83 0.96 3.28 1.07 0.55 3.537 2.116 68 0.038 0.06 Mentoring
26.a Academics get constructive feedback, guidance, and suggestions on their research and writing from their department/ institute colleagues
3.83 0.87 3.07 1.14 0.77 7.918 3.141 59 0.003 0.14 26.b Academics get constructive feedback, guidance,
and suggestions on their research and writing from their department/ institute chairperson (or director)
3.75 0.85 2.98 1.18 0.77 11.83 3.142 61 0.003 0.14 Resources
20.b Academics have access to adequate resources such as computers, library materials, technical support, etc., to teach
4.17 0.87 3.59 1.33 0.58 6.206 2.197 64 0.032 0.07 **Equal variances assumed
Table 27 presents the results of independent sample t-test, which was conducted to compare the means of the institutional features based on the personal characteristics of respondents. The table only presents the results of those features in which the mean difference was found statistically significant (p<0.05, 2- tailed). However, the remaining results were not reported here.
The mean comparison based on gender revealed that the males and females have significantly different means score in relation to their access to adequate human resources as well as in relation to the availability of sufficient work time to fulfil their managerial roles. Moreover, the difference of opinions regarding the availability of uninterrupted time for their research was also found statistically significant. The corresponding eta square of these items varies from 0.07 to 0.09 which is moderate according to the criterion suggested by Cohen. Besides, both males and females have the similar opinions about the presence/absence of all other institutional features.
T-test results based on age indicate that the means scores of the respondents aged 25-35 years were significantly different from those of the respondents aged 36 years and above only in case of a couple of items related to milieu. The mean scores of relatively younger respondents were numerically higher than those of older counterparts. Moreover, the values of eta square of both items were 0.09 and 0.08 which may be considered moderate in accordance with the commonly accepted criteria for interpreting eta square.
The table indicates that the respondents with Masters degree and those with M Phil/PhD have statistically different means scores only for a couple of items. They reported difference about weekly substantive undisrupted conversation about research with colleagues in their faculty or university. Moreover, they also have different opinions about the appreciation or value given by their department colleagues for their work in research. However, the difference in the opinions cannot easily be noticed by a layperson during normal course of actions as these items have a small effect size (i.e. 0.06).
The table also shows a difference in the mean scores of the respondents with and without the experience of publications. However, the difference was found statistically significant only in case of 7 out of 58 items group into six sets of institutional features. The respondents from each group (with and without research publications) reported different opinions about the presence of colleague networks outside the university aimed at discussing research and writing projects. They were also different from each other in relation to the arrangement of substantive