Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 6 no. 12 (2025)

Exploring Factors Affecting Research Engagement of Instructors in Davao de Oro State College: Bases for Enhancement and Policy Recommendations

Rey John B Rebucas | Loren P. Sangco | Orville J Evardo Jr. | Chrizon Rian S. Cubio

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Research engagement in Philippine Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is a pressing challenge. Despite its recognized importance for instructional innovations and institutional development, many faculty members avoid research, even when incentives are available. This qualitative-transcendental phenomenology explores and describes the experiences and insights of instructors on the factors affecting their research engagement. Through purposive sampling, specifically the criterion sampling technique, thirty-two (32) participants were selected from the four branches of Davao de Oro State College (DdOSC). The validated interview guide questions were used as the primary instrument in obtaining data through in-depth interviews and focus-group discussion, and the responses were thoroughly analyzed using thematic analysis. The significant factors identified by faculty were graduate studies and work responsibilities. Additionally, their lack of technical research writing knowledge contributed to their research limitations. Faculty members emphasized the need for ongoing research guidance, mentorship, and a wider range of incentives, such as integrating research into teaching loads, salary increases, and travel opportunities. Communication gaps between faculty and institutional research policies were evident, as some faculty members were unaware of the college's support. This study's implications stress the need for institutions to reconsider faculty workloads, offer additional training, and establish support systems that create a more research-friendly environment. Addressing these factors and expanding incentives can inspire faculty to participate in research activities, fostering a vibrant research culture and advancing knowledge within the academic community.



References:

  1. Ahmed, S. K. (2025). Sample size for saturation in qualitative research: Debates, defini-tions, and strategies. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 5, 100171.
  2. Abaya, H. (2017). Influence of instructional materials on pre-school children’s learn-ing achievement in number work in Matungu division, Kakamega Coun-ty (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). https://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/101424
  3. Aguilar-de Borja, J. M. (2018). Teacher action research: Its difficulties and implica-tions. Humanities & Social Science Re-views, 6(1), 29-35. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2018.616
  4. Ahmed, S. K. (2025). Sample size for saturation in qualitative research: Debates, defini-tions, and strategies. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 5, 100171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100171
  5. Akinyode, B. F., & Khan, T. H. (2018). Step by step approach for qualitative data analy-sis. International Journal of built envi-ronment and sustainability, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v5.n3.267
  6. Alcazaren, H. K., Barandino, E., Narvacan, C., & Campoamor-Olegario, L. (2022). Investi-gating Filipino school teachers' engage-ments with research: A bioecological sys-tems case study. Issues in Educational Re-search, 32(4), 1251-1271. https://tinyurl.com/3vmzs48k
  7. Algar, R. G., Basaňes, M., De La Luna, A., Jen-telizo, J. A., Salbibia, M. G., & Trecho, R. (2025). Balancing act: Exploring the im-pact of ancillary duties on Filipino teach-ers’ professional lives. International Journal of Research and Innovation in So-cial Science, 846–855. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300066
  8. AlSardi, M., AlAskar, D., Alsahafi, M., AlAmeel, T., & Al Sulais, E. 2020, Barriers to re-search productivity among gastroenter-ologists and hepatologists in Saudi Ara-bia. Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology: Official Journal of The Saudi Gastroenter-ology Association, 27(2), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.4103/sjg.SJG_332_20
  9. Bay Jr, B. E., & Clerigo, M. E. C. (2013). Factors Associated with Research Productivity among Oral Healthcare Educators in an Asian University. International Education Studies, 6(8), 124-135. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n8p124.
  10. Beerkens, M. (2013). Competition and concen-tration in the academic research industry: an empirical analysis of the sector dy-namics in Australia 1990–2008. Science and Public Policy, 40(2), 157-170. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs076
  11. Bhandari, P. (2022). Ethical consideration in research example. Scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics
  12. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching the-matic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The psychologist, 26(2). https://tinyurl.com/2s4mh7we
  13. Chen, L.Y., Hsiao, B., Chern, C.C., & Chen, H.G. (2014). Academic Self-Efficacy Scale. PsycTESTS. https://doi.org/10.1037/t32195-000
  14. Cocal, C. J., Cocal, E. J., & Celino, B. (2017). Fac-tors limiting research productivity of fac-ulty members of a state university: The Pangasinan state university Alaminos city campus case. Asia Pacific Journal of Aca-demic Research in Social Sciences, 2(43-48). https://tinyurl.com/5ducfffy
  15. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods ap-proaches. Sage publications.
  16. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  17. Dangan, S. D. (2014). Gender, rank, and teach-ing hours as predictors of research productivity among higher education faculty. IAMURE International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 11(1), 1-1. https://www.ejournals.ph/article.php?id=2682
  18. Ellis, N., & Loughland, T. (2016). The Challeng-es of Practitioner Research: A Compara-tive Study of Singapore and NSW. Aus-tralian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2).https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n2.8
  19. Fawzi, H., & Al-Hattami, A. (2017). Faculty production of research papers: Challeng-es and recommendations. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 7(2), 221-228. https://tinyurl.com/3jjn77xk
  20. Gruber, J., Borelli, J. L., Prinstein, M. J., Clark, L. A., Davila, J., Gee, D. G., et al. (2020). Best practices in research mentoring in clini-cal science. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 129, 70–81. https://doi: 10.1037/abn0000478.
  21. Heng, K., Hamid, M., & Khan, A. (2020). Factors influencing academics' research engage-ment and productivity: A developing countries perspective. Issues in Educa-tional Research, 30(3), 965-987. https://www.iier.org.au/iier30/heng.pdf
  22. Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 2nd Edition, Sage, London.
  23. Lagrio, R., Fabonan, J., & San Jose, L. (2022). Research competence and productivity among school heads and teachers: Basis for district research capacity build-ing. Psych Educ, 1-7. https://doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6994889
  24. Lichtman, M. (2010). Understanding and eval-uating qualitative educational research. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
  25. Linderholm, T., Gallard Martínez, A. J., & Kim, J. (2022). The Scholarship Development Program: a team-based mentoring ap-proach to support scholarship productivi-ty for untenured faculty. The Journal of Faculty Development, 36(1), 96-103. https://tinyurl.com/yu4fv5jt
  26. Mägi, E., & Beerkens, M. (2016). Linking re-search and teaching: Are research-active staff members different teachers?. Higher Education, 72(2), 241-258. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-015-9951-1
  27. Mantikayan, J. M., & Abdulgani, M. A. (2018). Factors Affecting Faculty Research Productivity: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature. JPAIR Multidis-ciplinary Research Journal, 31(1), 1-1. https://philair.org/index.php/jpair/article/view/561
  28. Nguyen, N. D., Nguyen, T. D., & Dao, K. T. (2021). Effects of institutional policies and characteristics on research produc-tivity at Vietnam science and technology universities. Heliyon, 7(1). https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(21)00129-8
  29. Norasmah, O., & Chia, S. Y. (2016). The chal-lenges of action research implementation in Malaysian schools. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 24(1), 43-52. https://tinyurl.com/bd8dup3n
  30. Okoduwa, U. J. (2018). Attitudes, perceptions, and barriers to research and publishing among research and teaching staff in a Nigerian Research Institute. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3(26). https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00026
  31. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualita-tive data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation re-search. Administration and policy in men-tal health and mental health services re-search, 42(5), 533-544. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
  32. Psychological Research (2016). Competence motivation theory. Psychology IResearch Net Wordpress. https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/sports-psychology/sport-motivation/competence-motivation-theory/
  33. Ramirez-Montoya, M. S., Ceballos, H. G., Mar-tínez-Pérez, S., & Romero-Rodríguez, L. M. (2023). Impact of teaching workload on scientific productivity: Multidimen-sional analysis in the complexity of a Mexican private universi-ty. Publications, 11(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11020027
  34. Rush, S. C., & Wheeler, J. (2011). Enhancing junior faculty research productivity through multiinstitution collaboration: Participants’ impressions of the school psychology research collaboration con-ference. Canadian Journal of School Psy-chology, 26(3), 220-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573511413552
  35. Sarcino-Almase, V. (2021). Increasing the Number of Faculty Research Outputs Through Faculty Development Pro-gram. Turkish Online Journal of Qualita-tive Inquiry, 12(6). https://tinyurl.com/kyxpw3kj
  36. Shollen, S. L., Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., & Taylor, A. L. (2014). Relating mentor type and mentoring behaviors to academic medicine faculty satisfaction and productivity at one medical school. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1267-1275. https://doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000381
  37. Tariq, M., & Ahmad, T. (2016). Is English lan-guage a barrier in research productivity among information professionals? A de-scriptive study. Pakistan Journal of In-formation Management and Libraries, 17, 162-173. https://pjiml.pu.edu.pk/jo/index.php/pjiml/article/view/99/78
  38. Tarrayo, N., Hernandez, P.J. & Claustro, J.M.A (2021). Research Engagement by English Language Teachers in a Philippine Uni-versity: Insights From a Qualitative Study. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review. Vol. 21 No. 3. https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/apssr/vol21/iss3/7/
  39. Tindowen, D. J. C., Bassig, J. M., & Cagurangan, J. A. (2017). Twenty-first-century skills of alternative learning system learn-ers. Sage Open, 7(3), 2158244017726116. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017726116
  40. Toquero, C. M. D. (2020). “Real-world:” pre-service teachers' research competence and research difficulties in action re-search. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(1), 126-148. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-03-2019-0060
  41. Ulla, M. B. (2018). Benefits and challenges of doing research: Experiences from Philip-pine public-school teachers. Issues in Ed-ucational Research, 28(3), 797– 810. http://www.iier.org.au/iier28/ulla.pdf
  42. Zhou, N., Liu, X., Jin, X., Li, T., Wang, C., & Ad-miraal, W. (2024). Motivation for and Challenges in Teacher Research in Un-derdeveloped Areas of Northwest China: An Exploratory Study. Behavioral Scienc-es, 14(11), 1064. https://doi.10.3390/bs14111064

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic