Skip to main content
Log in

Promoting Internationally Visible Researchers through Research Performance Policies: The Case of a Saudi University

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The pressure to enhance research productivity in higher education institutions (HEIs) has led many universities to regulate faculty research activities through various accountability and incentive policies around the globe. Previous studies examining research performance policies (RPPs) documented the various responses of HEIs and faculty as well as faculty’s perceptions toward RPPs. However, previous studies did not attempt to understand the underlying purposes and assumptions behind variation in responses and perceptions. Accordingly, the study sought to understand how faculty and administrators from two disciplinary areas (health and social sciences/education), at a Saudi university, understand, perceive and make sense of the University RPP. Using sensemaking theory, and through interviews and document analysis, the study revealed the divergent beliefs and held perceptions about the RPP, across the institutional actors. On the one hand, college/department administrators perceived the RPP as problematic given the current unsupportive organizational culture and the faculty’s traditional role that is heavily dependent on teaching and services. On the other hand, faculty perceived the RPP as limiting their research autonomy and thus actively resisted it. Policy requirements held different perceived consequences for international faculty and highlighted the distinct power status associated with faculty’s employment status based on their nationality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alghanim, S. A., and Alhamali, R. M. (2011) ‘Research productivity among faculty members at medical and health schools in Saudi Arabia’, Saudi Medical Journal 32(12): 1297–1303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alzahrani, J. A. (2011) ‘Overcoming barriers to improve research productivity in Saudi Arabia’, International Journal of Business and Social Science 2(19): 50–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. L. and Tressler, J. (2014) ‘The New Zealand performance-based research fund and its impact on publication activity in economics’, Research Evaluation 23(1): 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Research Council [ARC]. (2015) ‘Excellence in research for Australia: ERA 2015 evaluation handbook, available at http://www.arc.gov.au.

  • Borg, S. and Alshumaimeri, Y. (2012) ‘University teacher educators’ research engagement: Perspectives from Saudi Arabia’, Teaching and Teacher Education 28(3): 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinn, T., Jones, M. J. and Pendlebury, M. (2001) ‘The impact of research assessment exercises on UK accounting and finance faculty’, The British Accounting Review 33(3): 333–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M. and Signori, A. (2014) ‘Performance-based funding and university research productivity: The moderating effect of university legitimacy’, The Journal of Technology Transfer 41(1): 85–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, D., Nyeu, F. and Chang, H. (2015) ‘Balancing quality and quantity to build research universities in Taiwan’, Higher Education 70(2): 251–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, M. M. (2014) ‘Culture, politics, and policy interpretation: How practitioners make sense of a transfer policy in a 2-year college’, Educational Policy 30(7): 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2011) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, J. (2008) ‘Critique of research assessments’, International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives 9(1): 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S. (1989) Order without design: Information production and policy making, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, Y. (2015) ‘Constructing internationalisation in flagship universities from the policymaker’s perspective’, Higher Education 70(3): 359–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A. and Martin, B. R. (2003) ‘University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison’, Minerva 41(4): 277–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, L. D. (2013) ‘Faculty sensemaking and mission creep: Interrogating institutionalized ways of knowing and doing legitimacy’, The Review of Higher Education 36(2): 179–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, L. D. and Núñez, A. M. (2014) ‘The ranking regime and the production of knowledge: Implications for academia’, Education Policy Analysis Archives 22(31): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, B. M. and Elizabeth, V. (2015) ‘Unpredictable feelings: Academic women under research audit’, British Educational Research Journal 41(2): 287–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2012) ‘Performance-based university research funding systems’, Research Policy 41(2): 251–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M. and Bennett, D. (2013) ‘Survival skills: The impact of change and the ERA on Australian researchers’, Higher Education Research & Development 32(3): 340–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, J. and Currie, J. (2004) ‘Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled water?’, Higher Education 48(4): 529–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Contreras, E., Anegón, F. M. and López-Cózar, E. D. (2003) ‘The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact of the national commission for the evaluation of research activity’, Research Policy 32(1): 123–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. (2013) ‘Understanding sensemaking/sensegiving in transformational change processes from the bottom up’, Higher Education 65(6): 761–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leisyte, L., Enders, J. and De Boer, H. (2008) ‘The freedom to set research agendas—illusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch universities’, Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. and VanderWende, M. (2007) ‘To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education’, Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3–4): 306–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazi, A. A. and Altbach, P. (2013) ‘Dreams and realities: The world-class idea and Saudi Arabian higher education’, in L. Smith and A. Abouammoh (eds). Higher Education in Saudi Arabia: Achievements, Challenges and Opportunities, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNay, I. (2007) ‘Research assessment; researcher autonomy’, in C. Kayrooz, G. S. Åkerlind, and M. Tight (eds.) Autonomy in Social Science Research, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 183–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2009) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2008) ‘UK Research Assessment Exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity?’, Scientometrics 74(1): 153–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J. (2012) ‘Research governance and the role of evaluation: A comparative study’, American Journal of Evaluation 33(4): 583–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, T. and Sage, D. (2015) ‘Perceptions of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014: A small survey of academics’, Australian Universities’ Review 57(2): 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment [NCAAA]. (2015) Standards for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of HEIs, available at www.ncaaa.org.sa.

  • Nedeva, M., Boden, R. and Nugroho, Y. (2012) ‘Rank and file: Managing individual performance in university research’, Higher Education Policy 25(3): 335–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olssen, M. (2016) ‘Neoliberal competition in higher education today: Research, accountability and impact’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 37(1): 129–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pederzini, G. D. A. (2018) ‘Neoliberal awakenings: a case study of university leaders’ competitive advantage sensemaking’, Higher Education Policy 31(3): 405–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raaper, R. (2017) ‘Tracing assessment policy discourses in neoliberalised higher education settings’, Journal of Education Policy 32(3): 322–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Excellence Framework [REF]. (2011) Assessment framework and guidance on submissions, available at http://www.ref.ac.uk.

  • Roberts, P. (2007) ‘Neoliberalism, performativity and research’, International Review of Education 53(4): 349–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandy, W. and Shen, H. (2019) ‘Publish to earn incentives: How do Indonesian professors respond to the new policy?’, Higher Education 77(2): 247–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saudi Higher Education Council. (1998) Bylaws regulating faculty’s affairs at Saudi universities. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: University publishing. No. 4/6/1417.

  • Saudi Ministry of Education. (2015) National commission for assessment and academic accreditation, available at www.moe.gov.sa.

  • Smart, W. (2009) ‘The impact of the performance-based research fund on the research productivity of New Zealand universities’, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 34(1): 136–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995) The art of case study research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tertiary Education Commission. (2016) Performance-based research fund: A guide for staff members participating in the 2018 quality evaluation. Wellington, New Zealand: The Tertiary Education Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • University Grant Committee [UGC]. (2014) ‘Research assessment exercise 2014: Guidance notes’, available at http://www.ugc.edu.hk.

  • Vision 2030. (2016) ‘Saudi Vision 2030’, available at http://vision2030.gov.sa/.

  • Weick, K. E. (1995) Sensemaking in organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (2001) Making sense of the organization, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005) ‘Organizing and the process of sensemaking’, Organization Science 16(4): 409–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, R. (2011) ‘Self and the other in the Confucian cultural context: Implications of China’s higher education development for comparative studies’, International Review of Education 57(3–4): 337–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, R. (2014) ‘China’s strategy for the internationalization of higher education: An overview’, Frontiers of Education in China 9(2): 151–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, R., Vidovich, L. and Currie, J. (2007) ‘University accountability practices in Mainland China and Hong Kong: A comparative analysis’, Asian Journal of University Education 2(1): 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014) Case study research: Design and methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yokoyama, K. (2006) ‘The effect of the research assessment exercise on organisational culture in English universities: Collegiality versus managerialism’, Tertiary Education and Management 12(4): 311–322.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the participants of this research. Also, grateful thanks are due to Dr. Motoko Akiba for her comments, support and guidance; it is highly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sama’a H. AlMubarak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

AlMubarak, S.H. Promoting Internationally Visible Researchers through Research Performance Policies: The Case of a Saudi University. High Educ Policy 34, 1027–1048 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00188-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00188-9

Keywords

Navigation