Institutional and individual factors associated with faculty scholarly productivity

This study was undertaken to expand current knowledge about faculty productivity and the institutional and individual factors that may contribute to increased levels of faculty scholarly productivity. A sample of fulltime faculty from the restricted 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99) database was used to address the two main research questions. The first research question related to procedures that can be used to statistically model faculty productivity and was answered using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques such as Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Multiple-group CFA, Latent Profile Analysis and CFA with covariates. The second research question related to factors associated with high levels of faculty productivity and was investigated using a set of explanatory models using Multilevel Logistic Regression Modeling. ^ Three factors (inflation, sole productivity and joint productivity) were used to model the productive behaviors of the sample. Several independent variables, such as gender, rank, and type of institution were positively and negatively associated to the three dependent variables. These variables differed, however, across the three factors in the model of scholarly faculty productivity. These outcomes suggested some level of independence that existed among the variables associated with each of the factors in the model of productivity developed as part of this study. In addition, another outcome was the development of different analytic pathways that can be used to better understand faculty productivity as a latent variable that can be modeled using different types of products as observed indicators. ^ The results of this research have important implications for university administrators and agency directors who develop policies designed to foster faculty professional development. This study also provided valuable data for researchers in the field of gifted education and talent development related to fostering creative productivity and talent development in adulthood. Future research should include a more comprehensive set of indicators of faculty productivity that also address other dimensions of faculty scholarly responsibilities such as teaching productivity. These future studies may lead to more accurate understandings of a broader conception of scholarship in higher education institutions.