4.6 Article

Prioritization of Factors Impacting Lecturer Research Productivity Using an Improved Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14106134

关键词

lecturer research productivity; AHP; generalized fuzzy numbers; Vietnam National University

资金

  1. Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) [503.01-2019.03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Improving lecturers' scientific research productivity is an essential strategy for enhancing university reputation, attracting external funding, and improving student credibility. This study aims to determine the priority of university governance factors influencing lecturers' research productivity. The research findings indicate that research resources are the most crucial factor affecting lecturers' research productivity.
Improving the scientific research productivity of lecturers is an important strategy contributing to improving the reputation of universities, attracting external funding sources, and improving the credibility of both domestic and international students. This study was carried out with the aim of determining the priority of the university's governance factors that affect lecturers' scientific research productivity. Six university governance factors were considered, including (i) research objectives and strategies, (ii) decentralization, (iii) leadership, (iv) support for research activities, (v) policy towards lecturers, and (vi) resources for research activities. In this study, an improved analytic hierarchy process method using generalized triangular fuzzy numbers and a centroid index was proposed. The research data were collected via in-depth interviews with experts and administrators at Vietnam National University, Hanoi (VNU). The results indicate that resources for research activities constitute the most important factor affecting the research productivity of lecturers at VNU, followed by research objectives and strategies and leadership.

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

4.6
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