08832323.2012.717121
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Gender Differences in Business Faculty's Research
Motivation
Yining Chen & Qin Zhao
To cite this article: Yining Chen & Qin Zhao (2013) Gender Differences in Business
Faculty's Research Motivation, Journal of Education for Business, 88:6, 314-324, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2012.717121
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.717121
Published online: 26 Aug 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 309
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 21:05
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 88: 314–324, 2013
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2012.717121
Gender Differences in Business Faculty’s
Research Motivation
Yining Chen and Qin Zhao
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:05 11 January 2016
Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA
The authors use expectancy theory to evaluate gender differences in key factors that motivate
faculty to conduct research. Using faculty survey data collected from 320 faculty members at 10
business schools, they found that faculty members, both men and women, who displayed higher
motivation were more productive in research. Among them, pretenured faculty were motivated
by extrinsic rewards; conversely, posttenured faculty were motivated by intrinsic rewards.
Gender differences were observed in faculty’s overall and intrinsic motivations. Specifically,
female faculty displayed higher overall and intrinsic motivations than male faculty, and such
a gender difference was especially profound between posttenured female and male faculty.
Faculty members, both men and women, considered receiving tenure and promotiosn to be
the most important research motivations. Other important motivational factors included salary
raises, satisfying a need for creativity–curiosity, and staying current.
Keywords: business faculty, expectancy theory, gender differences, research motivation,
research productivity
In the progression of higher education, scholarly activities
and research productivity habe become increasingly crucial elements in the quality of education across all business schools. Research productivity is also critically related
to individual faculty member’s compensation, promotions,
tenure, prestige, and marketability. Many research studies
have documented that publication requirements for promotions and tenure have increased over time (Campbell & Morgan, 1987; Cargile & Bublitz, 1986; Englebrecht, Iyer, &
Patterson, 1994; Milne & Vent, 1987; Read, Rama, & Raghunandan, 1998), and a number of studies have successfully
identified and examined individual or institutional factors
that most significantly influence the research productivity of
faculty members (Cargile & Bublitz, 1986; Diamond, 1986;
Goodwin & Sauer, 1995; Hu & Gill, 2000; Levitan & Ray,
1992). Existing literature, however, has provided limited discussion of motivational factors and how they affect faculty
research productivity, and few have examined the gender
differences in faculty’s research motivation.
Correspondence should be addressed to Yining Chen, Western Kentucky
University, Department of Accounting, 1906 College Heights Boulevard,
Bowling Green, KY 42104, USA. E-mail: yining.chen@wku.edu
LITERATURE REVIEW
Factors Influencing Research Productivity
Prior studies have examined the factors that considerably influence the research productivity of faculty members (Cargile
& Bublitz, 1986; Diamond, 1986; Goodwin & Sauer, 1995;
Hu & Gill, 2000; Levitan & Ray, 1992). Without a doubt, personal characteristics such as intelligence, insight, curiosity,
and work ethic have an influence, but other observable and
systematic traits can also be important indicators of scholarly achievement. Prior studies have identified the following
factors that can influence research productivity (Buchheit,
Collins, & Collins, 2001; Cargile & Bublitz, 1986; Chow &
Harrison, 1998). Among them, the demographic factors are
tenure status, allocated working time to research activities,
and academic rank; and the institutional factors are length of
the tenure probationary period, teaching loads, and financial
research support.
Some scholars believe that external rewards, such as
promotion, have a motivating effect on research productivity.
For instance, Fox (1985) suggested that higher education
institutions can influence faculty research behavior through
manipulation of the reward structure for promotion. Other
researchers, however, insist that faculty publish not for external rewards but because they enjoy the process of inquiry
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:05 11 January 2016
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RESEARCH MOTIVATION
(McKeachie, 1979). Overall, prior studies have identified
two categories of motivational factors that drive academic
research: (a) investment factors or extrinsic rewards (e.g.,
salary increase, tenure, and promotion) and (b) consumption
factors or intrinsic rewards (e.g., an individual’s personal
satisfaction from solving research puzzles, contributing to
the discipline, and achieving peer recognition). Based on
a well-established research productivity theory, life-cycle
theory, Hu and Gill (2000) suggested that in general the
research productivity of a researcher rises sharply in the
initial stages of his or her career, peaks at the time of tenure
review, and then begins to decline. They indicated that
pretenured research productivity is dominated by investment
factors and extrinsic rewards and posttenured productivity
by consumption factors and intrinsic rewards.
Motivation and Achievement
Motivation is the basic drive for human actions. Forms of
motivation include extrinsic, intrinsic, physiological, and
achievement motivation. Achievement motivation can be defined as the need for success or the attainment of excellence.
Individuals will satisfy their needs through different means,
and are driven to succeed for varying reasons both internal
and external (Rabideau, 2005). Based on reaching success
and achieving aspirations in life, motivation for achievement
represents a desire to show competence, which affects the
way a person performs a task (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter,
Lehto, & Elliot, 1997).
Motivation for achievement includes three generic motivational factors that influence outcome attainment: (a) attitude or belief about one’s capability to attain the outcome,
(b) drive or desire to attain the outcome, and (c) strategy or
techniques employed to attain the outcome (Tuckman, 1999).
Recent experimental research demonstrates a contributive influence of each proposed factor on academic engagement and
achievement. Pintrich and Schrauben (1992) reviewed a large
body of research that suggested that the value of an outcome
to the student affects his or her motivation, and motivation
leads to cognitive engagement that manifests itself in the use
or application of various learning strategies. By and large,
researchers have explored and evidenced the critical relationship between motivation, engagement, and achievement. The
current knowledge base in motivation gained from this line of
research offers hope and possibilities for educators-teachers,
parents, coaches, and administrators to enhance motivation
for achievement.
Gender and Achievement Motivation
The role of gender in shaping achievement motivation has a
long history in psychological and educational research. Early
studies drew on achievement motivation theories (e.g., attribution, expectancy, self-efficacy, and achievement goal perspectives) to explain why adult women and men differed in
315
their educational and occupational pursuits and achievement
(Meece, Glienke, & Burg, 2006). Developing from traditional
research on achievement motivation and achievement behavior, many successive studies contemplated or challenged the
stereotyped gender differences typically found in areas such
as science and mathematics performance (Hyde & Kling,
2001). Research in science and medical disciplines found
general support that female faculty published less than did
their male colleagues. Cole and Singer (1991) found that gender differences in the effects of family roles, such as marital
and parenting responsibilities, can adversely affect women’s
achievement in the scientific research community. Xie and
Shauman (1998) reported empirical evidence that the differences in research productivity between female and male
scientists declined over time, and that most of the differences
could be attributed to personal characteristics, structural positions, and marital status. Nakhaie (2008) discovered that,
in aggregate, Canadian female scientists published significantly less than their male counterparts; these differences
were largely accounted for by differences in rank, years since
PhD, discipline, type of university, and time set aside for
research. Barnett et al. (1998) took a different angle by evaluating the relationships between both internal and external
career-motivating factors and academic achievement among
full-time medical faculty, and found that female faculty published less than did their male colleagues, but this difference
could not be accounted for by gender differences in career
motivation.
Despite the notable literature, Broadbridge and Simpson
(2011), in their review of the gender research in the past
25 years, urged researchers to continue monitoring and publicizing gender differences and to reveal hidden gendered
practices and processes currently concealed within norms,
customs, and values. Moreover, the gender differences of
faculty’s research motivation and the effects of motivational
factors on the research productivity appear to have received
limited attention in broader literature. Our study fills this gap
by examining the gender differences in faculty’s research
motivation (behavioral intention) and its relationship with
actual research productivity in a constructive manner using
expectancy theory.
Perspective Behavioral Theories
Expectancy theory has been recognized as one of the most
promising conceptualizations of individual motivation (Ferris, 1977). Many researchers have proposed that expectancy
theory can provide an appropriate theoretical framework for
research that examines an individual’s acceptance of and intention to use a system or devote to a pursuit (DeSanctis,
1983). However, empirical research employing expectancy
theory within academe has been limited.
Expectancy models are cognitive explanations of human
behavior that cast a person as an active, thinking, predicting
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:05 11 January 2016
316
Y. CHEN AND Q. ZHAO
creature in his or her environment. He or she continuously
evaluates the outcomes of his or her behavior and subjectively
assesses the likelihood that each of his or her possible actions
will lead to various outcomes. The choice of the amount of
effort he or she exerts is based on a systematic analysis of
(a) the values of the rewards from these outcomes, (b) the
likelihood that rewards will result from these outcomes, and
(c) the likelihood of attaining these outcomes through his or
her actions and efforts.
According to Vroom (1964), expectancy theory shows that
the overall motivation (M) of a faculty member to conduct
research is the summation of the products of the attractiveness
of various individual outcomes associated with research (Ak )
and the probability that research will produce those outcomes
(Ik ):
M=
n
∗
Ak Ik
(1)
k=1
where M is motivation for conducting research, Ak is attractiveness (or value or importance) of outcome k associated
with research productivity, and Ik is the perceived probability (or impact) that being productive in research will lead to
outcome k.
In our application of the expectancy theory, each faculty
evaluates the attractiveness of 13 possible outcomes resulting from performing research. He or she then considers the
likelihood that each of these outcomes will occur. According to expectancy theory, the faculty member would multiply
the attractiveness of each outcome by the probability of its
occurrence. He/she then sums these resulting products to
materialize his or her total motivation to conduct research.
Based on this systematic configuration, the faculty member
determines how much effort he or she would like to exert in
conducting research.
The conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1 includes
the factors that may influence faculty’s research productivity with a focus on the motivational factors measured by
expectancy theory. Based on the conceptual framework, we
then proceed to consider the related scholarly work and to
generate a set of hypotheses for further advancements in this
area.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND HYPOTHESIS
Our first research objective was to investigate the gender
effects on the relationship between research motivation and
research productivity. Prior studies substantiate that there
is a positive correlation between research productivity and
motivation for research rewards (Chandra, Cooper, Cornick,
& Malone, 2011; Chen, Gupta, & Hoshower, 2006; Tien,
2000). Specifically, those who show higher total motivation
for research rewards display better research performance.
Though it is expected that gender can have some observable
effects, the exact nature of those effects is open to question.
Based on the literature reviewed and the research objectives
discussed above, we formulated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): There will be a positive correlation between research productivity and motivation, and the positive correlation will be observable in both male and
female faculty.
Literature also suggests that the pretenured research productivity is dominated by investment (extrinsic) factors and
posttenured productivity by consumption (intrinsic) factors
(Hu & Gill, 2000). In order to examine whether this assertion applies to both male and female faculty, we posited the
following hypotheses.
H1a: For both pretenured male and female faculty, research
productivity will be positively correlated with extrinsic
motivation but not with intrinsic motivation.
H1b: For both posttenured male and female faculty, research
productivity will be positively correlated with intrinsic
motivation but not with extrinsic motivation.
The second research objective was to discover the gender
differences in faculty’s research motivation; in other words,
to determine whether male and female faculties have different
regard in various research motivations. Because pretenured
and posttenured faculty can be radically different in their research motivation and preferences of the rewards, we analyze
the gender differences across all faculty members as well as
by group. Based on the research objectives discussed previously and the literature to date, we formulated the following
hypotheses:
H2: Male and female faculty members will be comparable
in their motivation for research.
H2a: Pretenured male and female faculty members will be
comparable in their extrinsic motivation for research.
H2b: Posttenured male and female faculty members will be
comparable in their intrinsic motivation for research.
METHOD
We selected Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business–accredited colleges of business at 10 Midwestern
universities with a balanced teaching and research mission.
These ten universities are Carnegie Research Classification
II research universities that do not offer PhD programs in
the business college. They have similar research expectations and academic standards. Questionnaires (see Appendix)
were mailed to 670 business faculty members exclusive of
non–tenure-track faculty. Between the original mailing and
the one reminder mailing, we received 320 useable questionnaires, representing a 48% response rate.
317
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:05 11 January 2016
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RESEARCH MOTIVATION
FIGURE 1
Conceptual framework: factors influencing faculty research productivity (color figure available online).
The questionnaire asked each faculty member to evaluate
the importance of the thirteen research rewards to him or her
(Ak ) and his or her perceived probability that research productivity would result in each of the thirteen rewards at his or
her school (Ik ).1 Of the 13 rewards, six are extrinsic and six
intrinsic. The six extrinsic rewards are (a) receiving or having tenure, (b) being a full professor or receiving promotion,
(c) receiving better salary raises, (d) receiving an administrative assignment, (e) receiving a chaired professorship, and (f)
receivinga reduced teaching load. The six intrinsic rewards
are (a) achieving peer recognition, (b) gaining respect from
students, (c) satisfying a personal need to contribute to the
field, (d) satisfying a personal need for creativity–curiosity,
(e) satisfying a personal need to collaborate with others, and
(f) satisfying a personal need to stay current in the field. The
thirteenth reward, the ability to find a better job at another
university, is probably an extrinsic reward because a better
job probably means higher pay, better research support, and
a lower teaching load. However, a better job could mean
higher prestige and sense of achievement, which is an intrinsic reward. Even though this thirteenth reward is probably an
extrinsic reward, we segregated it from the other six extrinsic
rewards, because, unlike the other six extrinsic rewards, it
cannot be part of the reward system of the faculty member’s
current university.
The questionnaire also collects demographic information
such as academic discipline, gender, time allocated to research, academic rank, tenure status, research output during
his or her entire academic career, and research output during
the past 24 months. The summary statistics of these respondents’ profile and demographic information are provided in
Tables 1 and 2.
RESULTS
Respondent Profile
Among the 320 respondents reported in Tables 1 and 2, 232
(72%) were men and 88 (28%) were women. Though the
male and female samples were not even in size, they both
TABLE 1
Respondent Profile
Men
Characteristic
Total sample
Discipline
Accounting
Finance
Management information systems
Marketing
Human resource management
Organization behavior
Business law
Management (includes decision
science, production, operations
management, and quantitative
business analysis)
Other
Rank
Full professor
Associate professor
Assistant professor
Tenure status
Tenured
Untenured
Women
n
%
n
%
232
72
88
28
53
29
22
43
12
8
11
22
22.8
12.5
9.5
18.5
5.2
3.4
4.7
9.5
16
9
4
20
8
9
6
6
18.2
10.2
4.5
22.7
9.1
10.2
6.8
6.8
32
13.8
10
11.4
120
76
34
51.7
32.7
14.7
16
37
24
18.2
42.0
38.6
193
38
83.2
16.3
52
36
59.1
40.9
318
Y. CHEN AND Q. ZHAO
TABLE 2
Research Activities
Activity
Male
(n = 232)
Female
(n = 88)
TABLE 3
Motivation for Research and Research Productivity
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients and p Values
(in Parentheses)
Equality test
(p)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:05 11 January 2016
Item
Average research output per
year in academic career
Books (Y1 )
Book chapters or cases (Y2 )
Journal articles (Y3 )
Grants (in $000) (Y4 )
Research output in the last 24
months
Books (Y5 )
Book chapters or cases (Y6 )
Journal articles (Y7 )
Grants (in $000) (Y8 )
Percentage of time spent in
research
Number of years in academic
employment
0.07
0.16
1.13
5.57
0.01
0.13
1.36
3.55
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Gender Differences in Business Faculty's Research
Motivation
Yining Chen & Qin Zhao
To cite this article: Yining Chen & Qin Zhao (2013) Gender Differences in Business
Faculty's Research Motivation, Journal of Education for Business, 88:6, 314-324, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2012.717121
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.717121
Published online: 26 Aug 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 309
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 21:05
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 88: 314–324, 2013
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2012.717121
Gender Differences in Business Faculty’s
Research Motivation
Yining Chen and Qin Zhao
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:05 11 January 2016
Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA
The authors use expectancy theory to evaluate gender differences in key factors that motivate
faculty to conduct research. Using faculty survey data collected from 320 faculty members at 10
business schools, they found that faculty members, both men and women, who displayed higher
motivation were more productive in research. Among them, pretenured faculty were motivated
by extrinsic rewards; conversely, posttenured faculty were motivated by intrinsic rewards.
Gender differences were observed in faculty’s overall and intrinsic motivations. Specifically,
female faculty displayed higher overall and intrinsic motivations than male faculty, and such
a gender difference was especially profound between posttenured female and male faculty.
Faculty members, both men and women, considered receiving tenure and promotiosn to be
the most important research motivations. Other important motivational factors included salary
raises, satisfying a need for creativity–curiosity, and staying current.
Keywords: business faculty, expectancy theory, gender differences, research motivation,
research productivity
In the progression of higher education, scholarly activities
and research productivity habe become increasingly crucial elements in the quality of education across all business schools. Research productivity is also critically related
to individual faculty member’s compensation, promotions,
tenure, prestige, and marketability. Many research studies
have documented that publication requirements for promotions and tenure have increased over time (Campbell & Morgan, 1987; Cargile & Bublitz, 1986; Englebrecht, Iyer, &
Patterson, 1994; Milne & Vent, 1987; Read, Rama, & Raghunandan, 1998), and a number of studies have successfully
identified and examined individual or institutional factors
that most significantly influence the research productivity of
faculty members (Cargile & Bublitz, 1986; Diamond, 1986;
Goodwin & Sauer, 1995; Hu & Gill, 2000; Levitan & Ray,
1992). Existing literature, however, has provided limited discussion of motivational factors and how they affect faculty
research productivity, and few have examined the gender
differences in faculty’s research motivation.
Correspondence should be addressed to Yining Chen, Western Kentucky
University, Department of Accounting, 1906 College Heights Boulevard,
Bowling Green, KY 42104, USA. E-mail: yining.chen@wku.edu
LITERATURE REVIEW
Factors Influencing Research Productivity
Prior studies have examined the factors that considerably influence the research productivity of faculty members (Cargile
& Bublitz, 1986; Diamond, 1986; Goodwin & Sauer, 1995;
Hu & Gill, 2000; Levitan & Ray, 1992). Without a doubt, personal characteristics such as intelligence, insight, curiosity,
and work ethic have an influence, but other observable and
systematic traits can also be important indicators of scholarly achievement. Prior studies have identified the following
factors that can influence research productivity (Buchheit,
Collins, & Collins, 2001; Cargile & Bublitz, 1986; Chow &
Harrison, 1998). Among them, the demographic factors are
tenure status, allocated working time to research activities,
and academic rank; and the institutional factors are length of
the tenure probationary period, teaching loads, and financial
research support.
Some scholars believe that external rewards, such as
promotion, have a motivating effect on research productivity.
For instance, Fox (1985) suggested that higher education
institutions can influence faculty research behavior through
manipulation of the reward structure for promotion. Other
researchers, however, insist that faculty publish not for external rewards but because they enjoy the process of inquiry
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:05 11 January 2016
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RESEARCH MOTIVATION
(McKeachie, 1979). Overall, prior studies have identified
two categories of motivational factors that drive academic
research: (a) investment factors or extrinsic rewards (e.g.,
salary increase, tenure, and promotion) and (b) consumption
factors or intrinsic rewards (e.g., an individual’s personal
satisfaction from solving research puzzles, contributing to
the discipline, and achieving peer recognition). Based on
a well-established research productivity theory, life-cycle
theory, Hu and Gill (2000) suggested that in general the
research productivity of a researcher rises sharply in the
initial stages of his or her career, peaks at the time of tenure
review, and then begins to decline. They indicated that
pretenured research productivity is dominated by investment
factors and extrinsic rewards and posttenured productivity
by consumption factors and intrinsic rewards.
Motivation and Achievement
Motivation is the basic drive for human actions. Forms of
motivation include extrinsic, intrinsic, physiological, and
achievement motivation. Achievement motivation can be defined as the need for success or the attainment of excellence.
Individuals will satisfy their needs through different means,
and are driven to succeed for varying reasons both internal
and external (Rabideau, 2005). Based on reaching success
and achieving aspirations in life, motivation for achievement
represents a desire to show competence, which affects the
way a person performs a task (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter,
Lehto, & Elliot, 1997).
Motivation for achievement includes three generic motivational factors that influence outcome attainment: (a) attitude or belief about one’s capability to attain the outcome,
(b) drive or desire to attain the outcome, and (c) strategy or
techniques employed to attain the outcome (Tuckman, 1999).
Recent experimental research demonstrates a contributive influence of each proposed factor on academic engagement and
achievement. Pintrich and Schrauben (1992) reviewed a large
body of research that suggested that the value of an outcome
to the student affects his or her motivation, and motivation
leads to cognitive engagement that manifests itself in the use
or application of various learning strategies. By and large,
researchers have explored and evidenced the critical relationship between motivation, engagement, and achievement. The
current knowledge base in motivation gained from this line of
research offers hope and possibilities for educators-teachers,
parents, coaches, and administrators to enhance motivation
for achievement.
Gender and Achievement Motivation
The role of gender in shaping achievement motivation has a
long history in psychological and educational research. Early
studies drew on achievement motivation theories (e.g., attribution, expectancy, self-efficacy, and achievement goal perspectives) to explain why adult women and men differed in
315
their educational and occupational pursuits and achievement
(Meece, Glienke, & Burg, 2006). Developing from traditional
research on achievement motivation and achievement behavior, many successive studies contemplated or challenged the
stereotyped gender differences typically found in areas such
as science and mathematics performance (Hyde & Kling,
2001). Research in science and medical disciplines found
general support that female faculty published less than did
their male colleagues. Cole and Singer (1991) found that gender differences in the effects of family roles, such as marital
and parenting responsibilities, can adversely affect women’s
achievement in the scientific research community. Xie and
Shauman (1998) reported empirical evidence that the differences in research productivity between female and male
scientists declined over time, and that most of the differences
could be attributed to personal characteristics, structural positions, and marital status. Nakhaie (2008) discovered that,
in aggregate, Canadian female scientists published significantly less than their male counterparts; these differences
were largely accounted for by differences in rank, years since
PhD, discipline, type of university, and time set aside for
research. Barnett et al. (1998) took a different angle by evaluating the relationships between both internal and external
career-motivating factors and academic achievement among
full-time medical faculty, and found that female faculty published less than did their male colleagues, but this difference
could not be accounted for by gender differences in career
motivation.
Despite the notable literature, Broadbridge and Simpson
(2011), in their review of the gender research in the past
25 years, urged researchers to continue monitoring and publicizing gender differences and to reveal hidden gendered
practices and processes currently concealed within norms,
customs, and values. Moreover, the gender differences of
faculty’s research motivation and the effects of motivational
factors on the research productivity appear to have received
limited attention in broader literature. Our study fills this gap
by examining the gender differences in faculty’s research
motivation (behavioral intention) and its relationship with
actual research productivity in a constructive manner using
expectancy theory.
Perspective Behavioral Theories
Expectancy theory has been recognized as one of the most
promising conceptualizations of individual motivation (Ferris, 1977). Many researchers have proposed that expectancy
theory can provide an appropriate theoretical framework for
research that examines an individual’s acceptance of and intention to use a system or devote to a pursuit (DeSanctis,
1983). However, empirical research employing expectancy
theory within academe has been limited.
Expectancy models are cognitive explanations of human
behavior that cast a person as an active, thinking, predicting
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:05 11 January 2016
316
Y. CHEN AND Q. ZHAO
creature in his or her environment. He or she continuously
evaluates the outcomes of his or her behavior and subjectively
assesses the likelihood that each of his or her possible actions
will lead to various outcomes. The choice of the amount of
effort he or she exerts is based on a systematic analysis of
(a) the values of the rewards from these outcomes, (b) the
likelihood that rewards will result from these outcomes, and
(c) the likelihood of attaining these outcomes through his or
her actions and efforts.
According to Vroom (1964), expectancy theory shows that
the overall motivation (M) of a faculty member to conduct
research is the summation of the products of the attractiveness
of various individual outcomes associated with research (Ak )
and the probability that research will produce those outcomes
(Ik ):
M=
n
∗
Ak Ik
(1)
k=1
where M is motivation for conducting research, Ak is attractiveness (or value or importance) of outcome k associated
with research productivity, and Ik is the perceived probability (or impact) that being productive in research will lead to
outcome k.
In our application of the expectancy theory, each faculty
evaluates the attractiveness of 13 possible outcomes resulting from performing research. He or she then considers the
likelihood that each of these outcomes will occur. According to expectancy theory, the faculty member would multiply
the attractiveness of each outcome by the probability of its
occurrence. He/she then sums these resulting products to
materialize his or her total motivation to conduct research.
Based on this systematic configuration, the faculty member
determines how much effort he or she would like to exert in
conducting research.
The conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1 includes
the factors that may influence faculty’s research productivity with a focus on the motivational factors measured by
expectancy theory. Based on the conceptual framework, we
then proceed to consider the related scholarly work and to
generate a set of hypotheses for further advancements in this
area.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND HYPOTHESIS
Our first research objective was to investigate the gender
effects on the relationship between research motivation and
research productivity. Prior studies substantiate that there
is a positive correlation between research productivity and
motivation for research rewards (Chandra, Cooper, Cornick,
& Malone, 2011; Chen, Gupta, & Hoshower, 2006; Tien,
2000). Specifically, those who show higher total motivation
for research rewards display better research performance.
Though it is expected that gender can have some observable
effects, the exact nature of those effects is open to question.
Based on the literature reviewed and the research objectives
discussed above, we formulated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): There will be a positive correlation between research productivity and motivation, and the positive correlation will be observable in both male and
female faculty.
Literature also suggests that the pretenured research productivity is dominated by investment (extrinsic) factors and
posttenured productivity by consumption (intrinsic) factors
(Hu & Gill, 2000). In order to examine whether this assertion applies to both male and female faculty, we posited the
following hypotheses.
H1a: For both pretenured male and female faculty, research
productivity will be positively correlated with extrinsic
motivation but not with intrinsic motivation.
H1b: For both posttenured male and female faculty, research
productivity will be positively correlated with intrinsic
motivation but not with extrinsic motivation.
The second research objective was to discover the gender
differences in faculty’s research motivation; in other words,
to determine whether male and female faculties have different
regard in various research motivations. Because pretenured
and posttenured faculty can be radically different in their research motivation and preferences of the rewards, we analyze
the gender differences across all faculty members as well as
by group. Based on the research objectives discussed previously and the literature to date, we formulated the following
hypotheses:
H2: Male and female faculty members will be comparable
in their motivation for research.
H2a: Pretenured male and female faculty members will be
comparable in their extrinsic motivation for research.
H2b: Posttenured male and female faculty members will be
comparable in their intrinsic motivation for research.
METHOD
We selected Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business–accredited colleges of business at 10 Midwestern
universities with a balanced teaching and research mission.
These ten universities are Carnegie Research Classification
II research universities that do not offer PhD programs in
the business college. They have similar research expectations and academic standards. Questionnaires (see Appendix)
were mailed to 670 business faculty members exclusive of
non–tenure-track faculty. Between the original mailing and
the one reminder mailing, we received 320 useable questionnaires, representing a 48% response rate.
317
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:05 11 January 2016
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RESEARCH MOTIVATION
FIGURE 1
Conceptual framework: factors influencing faculty research productivity (color figure available online).
The questionnaire asked each faculty member to evaluate
the importance of the thirteen research rewards to him or her
(Ak ) and his or her perceived probability that research productivity would result in each of the thirteen rewards at his or
her school (Ik ).1 Of the 13 rewards, six are extrinsic and six
intrinsic. The six extrinsic rewards are (a) receiving or having tenure, (b) being a full professor or receiving promotion,
(c) receiving better salary raises, (d) receiving an administrative assignment, (e) receiving a chaired professorship, and (f)
receivinga reduced teaching load. The six intrinsic rewards
are (a) achieving peer recognition, (b) gaining respect from
students, (c) satisfying a personal need to contribute to the
field, (d) satisfying a personal need for creativity–curiosity,
(e) satisfying a personal need to collaborate with others, and
(f) satisfying a personal need to stay current in the field. The
thirteenth reward, the ability to find a better job at another
university, is probably an extrinsic reward because a better
job probably means higher pay, better research support, and
a lower teaching load. However, a better job could mean
higher prestige and sense of achievement, which is an intrinsic reward. Even though this thirteenth reward is probably an
extrinsic reward, we segregated it from the other six extrinsic
rewards, because, unlike the other six extrinsic rewards, it
cannot be part of the reward system of the faculty member’s
current university.
The questionnaire also collects demographic information
such as academic discipline, gender, time allocated to research, academic rank, tenure status, research output during
his or her entire academic career, and research output during
the past 24 months. The summary statistics of these respondents’ profile and demographic information are provided in
Tables 1 and 2.
RESULTS
Respondent Profile
Among the 320 respondents reported in Tables 1 and 2, 232
(72%) were men and 88 (28%) were women. Though the
male and female samples were not even in size, they both
TABLE 1
Respondent Profile
Men
Characteristic
Total sample
Discipline
Accounting
Finance
Management information systems
Marketing
Human resource management
Organization behavior
Business law
Management (includes decision
science, production, operations
management, and quantitative
business analysis)
Other
Rank
Full professor
Associate professor
Assistant professor
Tenure status
Tenured
Untenured
Women
n
%
n
%
232
72
88
28
53
29
22
43
12
8
11
22
22.8
12.5
9.5
18.5
5.2
3.4
4.7
9.5
16
9
4
20
8
9
6
6
18.2
10.2
4.5
22.7
9.1
10.2
6.8
6.8
32
13.8
10
11.4
120
76
34
51.7
32.7
14.7
16
37
24
18.2
42.0
38.6
193
38
83.2
16.3
52
36
59.1
40.9
318
Y. CHEN AND Q. ZHAO
TABLE 2
Research Activities
Activity
Male
(n = 232)
Female
(n = 88)
TABLE 3
Motivation for Research and Research Productivity
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients and p Values
(in Parentheses)
Equality test
(p)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:05 11 January 2016
Item
Average research output per
year in academic career
Books (Y1 )
Book chapters or cases (Y2 )
Journal articles (Y3 )
Grants (in $000) (Y4 )
Research output in the last 24
months
Books (Y5 )
Book chapters or cases (Y6 )
Journal articles (Y7 )
Grants (in $000) (Y8 )
Percentage of time spent in
research
Number of years in academic
employment
0.07
0.16
1.13
5.57
0.01
0.13
1.36
3.55