Research Engagement of Faculty in Higher Education Institutions

Ilusstration by AI

Filipina– PIT Study Reveals Key Barriers to Faculty Research Engagement. A recent study by Geryl D. Cataraja, Elvenne M. Bate, and Maricris Potot of the Palompon Institute of Technology (PIT) was published in the Journal of Educational Analytics (JEDA) Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026).

A recent study by Geryl D. Cataraja, Elvenne M. Bate, and Maricris Potot of the Palompon Institute of Technology (PIT) revealed that although lecturers recognize the importance of research for professional development and institutional reputation, high workloads and limited institutional support are major barriers.

Research as a Core Academic Function—But Not Always a Priority

Research is widely regarded as a central function of higher education institutions. It drives knowledge production, enhances institutional credibility, and contributes to national and global competitiveness. Faculty members play a critical role in shaping research output and academic reputation.

However, in teaching-focused institutions such as PIT, faculty members often juggle multiple responsibilities, including instruction, administrative duties, and committee work. These competing demands significantly reduce the time and energy available for sustained research engagement.

The study explored faculty attitudes toward research, the challenges they face, and the strategies they use to remain academically active.

Method: In-Depth Faculty Interviews

Using a qualitative research design, the study conducted semi-structured interviews with faculty members at PIT. Thematic analysis was applied to identify patterns in attitudes, institutional barriers, and adaptive strategies.

The findings reveal a spectrum of perspectives regarding research engagement.

Five Key Faculty Attitudes Toward Research

1️⃣ Positive Attitudes Toward Research

Some faculty members demonstrate strong enthusiasm for research. They view it as:

A pathway for career advancement
An integral part of academic identity
A contribution to institutional growth

These faculty members often show intrinsic motivation and pursue research despite limited external incentives.

2️⃣ Conditional Engagement

Another group expresses willingness to conduct research under certain conditions. Their engagement depends on:

Adequate funding
Research training and mentorship
Manageable teaching loads
Clear institutional incentives

Without structural support, research is often deprioritized in favor of instructional responsibilities.

3️⃣ Recognition of Research Benefits

Many faculty members acknowledge that research:

Enhances teaching quality
Keeps course content updated
Supports promotion and professional recognition
Expands academic networks

Research engagement allows faculty to integrate evidence-based knowledge into classroom instruction and participate in scholarly communities.

4️⃣ Negative Attitudes Toward Research

Some faculty perceive research as an additional burden. Contributing factors include:

Heavy teaching workloads
Administrative obligations
Limited research incentives
Perceived complexity of research processes

Without adequate training or support, research may appear overwhelming and secondary to teaching.

5️⃣ Institutional Barriers to Research Engagement

The study identifies several systemic challenges:

Limited research funding
Restricted access to academic journals and databases
Insufficient technical and statistical support
Lack of structured mentorship
Unclear reward and incentive systems

These institutional constraints significantly influence the sustainability of research participation.

Major Challenges in Conducting Research

The findings further categorize faculty challenges into five primary areas:

🔹 Resource Limitations

Insufficient funding and limited access to scholarly materials reduce research scope and quality.

🔹 Time Constraints

Heavy teaching and administrative workloads restrict opportunities for long-term research planning.

🔹 Gaps in Research Support

The absence of research mentors and technical assistance complicates proposal writing, data analysis, and publication.

🔹 Accessibility Issues

Limited digital library access and bureaucratic hurdles in data collection hinder research progress.

🔹 Weak Incentive Structures

Without recognition, workload adjustments, or promotion credits, faculty motivation declines.

Faculty Strategies to Overcome Barriers

Despite these constraints, faculty members demonstrate resilience through:

Collaborative research projects to share workload
Participation in workshops and research training
Seeking external funding partnerships
Utilizing open-access journals and inter-institutional networks
Strategic time management during academic breaks

However, these adaptive strategies alone are insufficient to build a sustainable research culture without institutional reform.

Risk of Research Withdrawal

In some cases, faculty members:

Postpone research projects
Engage only in small-scale or minimal research activities
Withdraw entirely from research engagement

Such disengagement poses long-term risks to institutional research productivity and academic competitiveness.

Policy Implications for Higher Education Institutions

The study emphasizes that strengthening research engagement requires systemic support, including:

Reduced teaching loads
Clear research incentives and recognition systems
Structured mentorship programs
Dedicated research funding
Improved access to academic databases
Professional development in grant writing and publication

Intrinsic motivation alone is insufficient to sustain faculty research productivity. Institutional alignment between workload policies, incentives, and research goals is essential.

Author Profiles

Geryl D. Cataraja- Palompon Institute of Technology.
Elvenne M. Bate- Palompon Institute of Technology.
Maricris Potot- Palompon Institute of Technology t.

Research Source

Cataraja, G. D., Bate, E. M., & Potot, M. (2026). Research Engagement of Faculty in Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Educational Analytics (JEDA), Vol. 5 No. 1, 173–186.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.55927/jeda.v5i1.622

URL : https://nblformosapublisher.org/index.php/jeda