Congeniality and Research Productivity in State-Professional-Market Driven Systems of Mass Higher Education

  • Gerard A. PostiglioneEmail author
  • Jisun Jung
Part of the The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective book series (CHAC, volume 13)


This study aims to compare congeniality and research productivity across higher education systems and examine the impact of congeniality on research productivity. Most of the literature has grouped influential factors into two broad categories: individual-level characteristics and institutional features. This study covers both levels. It conceptualizes congeniality as situations that are suitable to one’s professional inclinations and that are beneficial to the academic profession. We hypothesized that the relationship between congeniality and research productivity varies across the state-professional-market-oriented systems of mass/non-mass higher education. Results show that congeniality was higher in the professional model, which also had lower research productivity than in the state and market models. Despite the assumption that each country’s context is important, there are also common predictors that explain faculty research productivity.


Research Productivity Market Model Academic Freedom High Education System High Education Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bain, O., & Cummings, W. (2000). Academe’s glass ceiling: Societal, profession/organizational, and institutional barriers to the career advancement of academic women. Comparative Education Review, 44(4), 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackburn, R. T., & Bentley, R. J. (1993). Faculty research productivity: Some moderators of associated stressors. Research in Higher Education, 34(6), 725–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bland, C. J., & Ruffin, M. T. (1992). Characteristics of a productive research environment: Literature review. Academic Medicine, 67(6), 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2005). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine, 80, 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspectives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cresswell, J. W. (1985). Faculty research performances: Lessons from the science and social sciences (ASHE-ERIC Higher education Report No. 4). Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  8. Cummings, W. K., Bain, O., Postiglione, G., & Jung, J. (2013). Internationalization of the academy: Rhetoric, recent trends, and prospects. In M. Finkelstein, F. Huang, & M. Rostan (Eds.), The internationalization of the academy: Changes, realities and prospects (pp. 55–77). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 607–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Exline, R. V. (1960). Interrelations among 2 dimensions of sociometric status, group congeniality and accuracy of social perception. Sociometry, 23(1), 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fox, M. F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibbons, M. (1998). Higher education relevance in the 21st century. Washington: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  14. Harley, S. (2002). The impact of research selectivity on academic work and identity in UK universities. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levy, D. (1992). Private institutions of higher education. In B. R. Clark & G. R. Neave (Eds.), The encyclopedia of higher education (pp. 1183–1195). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mamiseishvili, K., & Rosser, V. J. (2011). Examining the relationship between faculty productivity and job satisfaction. The Journal of the Professoriate, 5(2), 100–132.Google Scholar
  17. McAlpine, L., & Akerlind, G. S. (2010). Academic practice in a changing international landscape. In L. McAlpine & G. S. Akerlind (Eds.), Becoming an academic: International perspectives (pp. 1–17). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1967). Scientists in organizations: Productive climates for research and development. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28(2), 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rey-Rocha, J., Martin-Sempere, M. J., & Garzon, B. (2002). Research productivity of scientists in consolidated vs. non-consolidated teams: The case of Spanish university geologists. Scientometrics, 55(1), 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shin, J. C., & Cummings, W. K. (2010). Multi-level analysis of academic publishing across discipline: Research performance, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85(2), 582–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shin, J. C., & Harman, G. (2009). New challenges for higher education: Global and Asia-Pacific perspectives. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 10, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shin, J. C., & Kehm, B. M. (Eds.). (2012). Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Smeby, J. C., & Try, S. (2005). Departmental contexts and faculty research activity in Norway. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 593–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Teichler, U., Arimoto, A., & Cummings, W. K. (2013). The changing academic profession in international comparative perspective: Major findings of a comparative survey (pp. 25–35). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis. Higher Education, 39(2), 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Volkwein, J. F., & Parmley, K. (2000). Comparing administrative satisfaction in public and private universities. Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S., & Gregorio, D. I. (1981). Research productivity in academic: A comparative study of the sciences, social sciences and humanities. Sociology of Education, 54(4), 238–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wood, F. (1990). Factors influencing research performance of university academic staff. Higher Education, 19(1), 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhou, Y., & Volkwein, J. F. (2004). Examining the influence on faculty departure intentions: A comparison of tenured versus non-tenured faculty at research universities using NSOPF-99. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 139–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationThe University of Hong KongHong Kong SARChina

Personalised recommendations