Research agendas and job dissatisfaction among Hong Kong academics

This study's principal objective was to explore the statistically predictive power of academics' research agendas for their job dissatisfaction beyond demographics. Five hundred and forty-seven academics from the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong responded to the Multi-Dimensional Research Agenda Inventory-12 (MDRAI-12) and the Job Dissatisfaction Scale (JDS). Three key findings were obtained. First, good psychometrics for the MDRAI-12 and the JDS were obtained. Second, research agendas varied by age, gender, academic rank, and academic discipline, while job dissatisfaction varied by age, academic rank, and institutional ranking. Third and most importantly, when age, gender, academic rank, academic discipline, and institutional ranking were statistically controlled, trailblazing research agendas generally negatively contributed to job dissatisfaction, whereas a cohesive (conservative) research agenda positively predicted job dissatisfaction, as hypothesized. Implications of the findings are discussed for academics and university senior managers.

Automated summary

This study aimed to explore the predictive power of academics' research agendas for their job dissatisfaction. The findings showed that research agendas varied based on age, gender, academic rank, and discipline, while job dissatisfaction varied based on age, academic rank, and institutional ranking. Controlling for these factors, trailblazing research agendas negatively contributed to job dissatisfaction, while cohesive (conservative) research agendas positively predicted job dissatisfaction.