Predicting Research Productivity in STEM Faculty: The Role of Self-determined Motivation

Abstract

How are university faculty members in STEM disciplines motivated to conduct research, and how does motivation predict their success? The current study assessed how multiple types of self-determined motivation predict research productivity in a sample of 651 faculty from 10 US institutions. Using structural equation modeling, the basic psychological needs of autonomy and competence predicted autonomous motivation (enjoyment, value) that, in turn, was the strongest predictor of self-reported research productivity. Using negative binomial regression, autonomous motivation was the strongest predictor of faculty publications and citations, with a one-standard deviation increase in autonomous motivation (approximately a half response option on a 1–5 Likert scale) corresponding to an 11.63% increase in publications and a 22.57% increase in citations over a three-year period. Occupational and social-environmental background variables (e.g., research percentage on contract, career age, balance, collegiality), as well as controlled motivation (guilt, rewards), had comparatively limited predictive effects. These results are of relevance to higher education institutions aiming to support scholarly productivity in STEM faculty in identifying specific beneficial and detrimental aspects of faculty motivation that contribute to measurable gains in research activity.

Influence of Workplace Microaggressions on Engineering Female Faculty Motivation to do Research

“…"), and amotivation ("Honestly, I don't know why I do research."). Exploratory factor analysis revealed the intrinsic and identified subscales be combined to form the autonomous motivation subscale, which is consistent with past research on faculty motivation for research (Stupnisky et al, 2017(Stupnisky et al, , 2019(Stupnisky et al, , 2022.…”

“…This study utilized self-determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 1985;Deci et al, 1997) as a framework to understand faculty motivation for research (Stupnisky et al, 2019(Stupnisky et al, , 2022. SDT recognizes autonomy (choice), competence (self-efficacy), and relatedness (connectedness) as three basic individual psychological needs and defines the degrees to which these are satisfied as determining the type and level of motivation for particular tasks.…”

Nurturing the scientific mind: resilience and job satisfaction among Saudi faculty

“…The JCM, used in Hanson et al (2022) , emphasizes job autonomy and professional development as key drivers but may have limitations in diverse contexts. Stupnisky et al (2023) suggest integrating intrinsic motivation, psychological need fulfillment, and intellectual stimulation for satisfaction. Yet, Berkowitz et al (2021) highlight a gap in these models in addressing evolving academic roles, underscoring the need for dynamic, integrative models that reflect modern academia’s complexities.…”

“…Furthermore, the applicability of Western-developed models in the Saudi educational context remains questionable. Studies by Hanson et al (2022) , Stupnisky et al (2023) , Turgumbayeva et al (2019) , and Marcus et al (2022) highlight the underexplored regions, particularly how resilience and job satisfaction collectively influence research motivation and the relevance of motivational theories like self-determination theory (SDT) and social cognitive career theory (SCCT). Addressing these gaps, our study seeks to provide a more holistic understanding of these interactions, aiming to enrich academic discourse and inform policy-making and institutional practices in Saudi Arabian universities.…”

Exploring the role of motivation in STEM education: A systematic review

“…These studies were followed by instructors-level factors (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012;Lechuga, 2012;Richardson et al, 2020), model development (Yahaya et al, 2021), parental attitudes (Marotto & Milner-Bolotin, 2018), public motivation (Critchley, 2008), the purposes of STEM practices among policymakers (Wong et al, 2016), developing a scale (De Loof et al, 2021;Luo et al, 2019), teacher-level factors (Arís & Orcos, 2019;Cheng et al, 2020;Stupnisky et al, 2022). For example, in the study of instructor-level factors, Bouwma-Gearhart (2012) explored the motivations of science and engineering faculty to engage their students at a major research university.…”