3.9 Article

Research self-efficacy sources of DBA candidates: A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) study in China

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0020720920983527

关键词

DBA; research self-efficacy; social cognitive theory; fsQCA

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University [21619804]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research explores the collective effects of individual behaviors and environmental factors on DBA candidates' research self-efficacy, with mentorship effectiveness and course experience being key factors. Learning motivations and strategies appear to have limited effects on research self-efficacy, acting more as contributing conditions. This study makes theoretical contributions to both DBA and research self-efficacy fields.
Based on social cognitive theory, this research examines the collective effects of individual behaviours (learning motivations and learning strategies) and environmental factors (mentorship effectiveness, course experience, and research training environment) on DBA candidates' research self-efficacy. Based on data from 156 questionnaires collected from Jinan University and Shanghai Jiaotong University in China, this study adopts an fsQCA approach and concludes that (1) DBA candidates' research self-efficacy stems from all three sets of factors, including learning motivations, learning strategies, and environmental factors. These factors, at either a high level or a low level, combine to generate a number of antecedent configurations; (2) environmental factors, especially mentorship effectiveness and course experience, substantially boost DBA students' research self-efficacy; (3) unlike environmental factors, learning motivations and learning strategies seem to have limited effects on the development of research self-efficacy and act more as contributing conditions than core conditions. This paper makes theoretical contributions to the research fields of both DBA and research self-efficacy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据