University of Wollongong
Research Online
University of Wollongong in Dubai - Papers
University of Wollongong in Dubai
2013
Methods to increase research output: some tips
looking at the MENA region
Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan
University of Wollongong in Dubai, [email protected]
Publication Details
Balakrishnan, M. Stephens. 2013, 'Methods to increase research output: some tips looking at the MENA region', International Journal
of Emerging Markets, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 215-239.
Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library:
[email protected]
Methods to Increase Research Output: Some Tips looking at the MENA
region.
Abstract
Purpose: Business, Management and Accounting (BMA) papers published from the MENA
region, account for less than 1% of the total papers published. As nations in MENA try and
compete on the national competitive index, there is a tendency to adopt performance appraisal
criteria from more established research nations. MENA accounts for 6% of world population,
and has one of the world’s highest growth rates at 3%. Since over 1/3 of the population is under
15, if factors that hider and encourage research are identified, the research output can be
increased.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Since there is very little information from this region, the
research was exploratory in nature. Interviews with academics, officers in charge or research
grants, publishers and senior managers from industry using and conducting research were used as
a basis to identify research barriers and methods to overcome barriers. This was triangulated with
secondary data from existing academic research, industry and NGO reports and research
seminars and discussions.
Findings: The barriers and strategies to overcome research can be classified into three categories
based on key stakeholders: the government (or policy makers); the industry or market conditions;
the institutions. Strategies at the individual academic level are also identified whoch may
overcome more macroenvironmental limitations.
Research Limitations: Since the available data on MENA is low, findings from other regions are
extrapolated to the MENA context. Secondly findings from Science were extrapolated to the
social science context which accounts for just 8.8% of total research published. The interviews
were all conducted in UAE though the people concerned have a strong contextual knowledge on
the MENA region which is considered a “regional block”.
Originality: This paper is the first of its kind in this region that consolidates many aspects and
helps new researchers manage and improve research productivity. The paper is of value to any
researcher but especially to policy makers, academics, promotion boards and universities that
have doctoral programs.
Paper Type: Conceptual Paper
Keywords: Publication; research output; promotion criteria; relevance gap; MENA
1
Methods to Increase Research Output:
Some Tips looking at the MENA region.
1.1 MENA Region’s Research Output: Business, Management & Accounting
Research in emerging markets is low according to meta-analysis studies like that by Farley and
Lehmann (2001) and Geyskens et al., (1998). Less than 1 per cent of the 236 articles published
in the ten-year period between 1990 and 1999 in a prestigious international journal focused on an
Arab country in the Middle East (Robertson et al., 2001). Thompson Reuters finds that only 4%
of the world’s scientific literature is from the Middle East with 90% of that output concentrated
on Turkey, Iran, Egypt, KSA and Jordan (Adams et al., 2011). Looking at the research database
of 18,000 titles from more than 5,000 publishers, during the period 1996-2009; Business,
Management and Accounting (BMA) papers published from the MENA region, account for less
than 1% of the total papers published (SCImagojr.com, 2011).
Worldwide it is estimated there are over 50 million journal articles since they first
appeared in 1665 (Jinha, 2010). There are an estimated 5-6 million researchers in the world and
every year 1 million are unique repeat authors (Mabe and Amin, 2002). The average productivity
of each author is about one unique paper per year (Tenopir and King, 2000). The highest output
of BMA papers from MENA countries is UAE at 2.92% which is comparable to places like
Hong Kong (3.37%) but only in percentage terms. MENA countries lag behind in terms of total
output numbers, citations, self- citations and H-index (Scimagojr.com 2011) which is indicated
in Table 1. Since the MENA population in young and growing (6% of world population, 3%
growth rate; 1/3+ of the population is under 15); if the factors that hinder and encourage research
are identified, the MENA research output can be increased (Population Reference Bureau, 2001;
Atlas of Islamic-World Science and Innovation, 2011).
Take Table 1.
This study is exploratory addressing the research question: “How can research output in the
MENA region be increased?”. This question has two sub-questions. The first sub-question is:
“What are the benefits of research?”. If resources are to be invested into increasing research,
there must be tangible benefits for all stakeholders.
The second sub-question is “What are the current perceived researcher barriers? By
identifying perceived barriers, stakeholders can create strategies to overcome barriers. The study
uses secondary research and primary research to propose a conceptual model to increase research
output in BMA. Since data on BMA may not always be available, publication output from
sciences maybe used to extrapolate to the BMA context.
2.0: Methodology
The methodology used is exploratory. Qualitative research was used as it is an ideal method to
ask “what is happening here?” (Meyer, 2010). The findings of this paper are based on the initial
stages of a larger study using Mode 2 action research (Reason and Torbert, 2001) which was
chosen as (1) the focus is to increase research output (2) very little information is available in
this area (3) it is multidisciplinary looking at education, research, management and policy points
of view and requires an insider perspective (Sexton and Lu, 2009: 687-88). Mode 2 research has
five key characteristics (1) it is produced in the context of application, focusing on problem2
solving; (2) it is transdisciplinary; (3) it is heterogeneous and organizationally diverse; (4) it is
socially accountable and reflexive being sensitive to impacts of the interests outside the action
research group; and (5) it is has diverse quality controls reflecting the setting and broader
community (Gibbon et al., 2004: 3-8). Mode 2 type of research is being used as an effective tool
to close the Knowledge – Industry gap (example: Starkey and Madan, 2001; MacLean et al.,
2002) though there are various debates on whether the gap can be closed looking at existing
conditions (see Keiser and Leiner, 2009). Methodological rigor associated with action research
was maintained using guidelines by Grønhaug and Olson (1999). The study tries to add to the
body of knowledge and present a practical guide for researchers in the region to increase their
research output and quality and help policy makers take more specific steps to nurture research
capabilities in this region. The limitation of this study are first, action research itself is not a very
well popularized field. Secondly data on this region is scarce so the results are extrapolated from
science and other regions. Third, the interview sample size is small and it is a convenience
sample.
Interviews were conducted with three senior researchers at the institutional level, two
government level researchers and two senior industry managers who are active in the research
industry. There were two key questions: what were some of the key research barriers they
perceived when doing research in MENA. For those researchers who had lived out of the MENA
region, they were asked whether the perception of research barriers was higher in MENA than in
the previous countries they had conducted research. Finally they were asked for some tips and
strategies to increase research output and overcome research barriers. The data collected through
primary research was analyzed for content analysis. Key points were cross-referenced with
secondary sources of information using literature review, policy papers, newspaper and other
published sources of data and personal journal documentation of research meetings and research
progress. The paper is organized as follows. Stakeholders that affect research publications
outcomes were identified which were governments, industry, publishers and institutions.
Benefits to each stakeholder is discussed, followed by barriers. The next section focuses on
methods to overcome research barriers for each stakeholder including at the individual level. The
paper finally is concluded with a proposed conceptual model and potential areas of future
research.
3.0 Research Barriers
Research barriers can be classified from four points of view: government barriers,
market/industry barriers, publishing barriers and institutional barriers (which includes the
individual academic).
3.1: Government Barriers
Worldwide, 77% of researchers are concentrated in 5 countries - USA (20%), EU (20%) China
(20%), Japan (10%), Russia (7%) and with a strong migration pattern from South to North
(UNESCO, 2010) indicating policy making affects research output. Research output has a direct
correlation to National GDP (SESRIC, 2009). At the national level, research increases a nation’s
international economic competitiveness (NSF 2006a), its export market share (and
commercialization (Furman et al., 2002). At the human capital level, research can lead to an
improvement of standards of living through an earnings increase and productivity (WEF, 2010;
OECD, 2010). Ducharme (1998) suggests that private and social rates of return of R&D vary
3
between 25 and 50% of the investment. Since investment for research at the grassroot levels
begins with investment in education; the benefits are in long-term economic growth (OECD,
2010).
3.1.1: Government Funding
"Arab states collectively spend 0.2% of their GDP to invest in research and development (R&D)
which is the lowest percentage in the world," according to Dr. Wissam Rabadi, Director of the
Arab Science and Technology (Zaitoon, 2008). University –research collaboration for MENA in
the form of government spending on R&D is low (see Figure 1- NSF 2007; Table 2). The lack
of government funding for research is a major barrier in this region for research. Government
investment in R&D was much more significant in increasing publication than investment by
industry (Shelton, 2008; NSF, 2010).
Take Figure 1.
3.1.2: Critical Mass of Researchers
The growth rates in publication output rate are also related to number of researchers (NSF,
2010). To increase research productivity there is a need to gain a critical mass in researchers
(UNESCO 2010). The total number of doctoral students, or a population with a doctorate degree
(in some cases tertiary degree) maybe indicators of number of available researcher. MENA
countries have low tertiary enrollment when compared to countries of similar size in Asia like
Turkey, Israel, Hong Kong and Singapore (See Table 2).
Take Table 2.
In some MENA countries (GCC), there is tendency to “buy” intellectual assets which may also
explain why the Knowledge Assessment Methodology (Arab Knowledge Report, 2009) finds
that the correlation between the annual Arab expenditure on education (which tops $2 billion)
and the returns for 2002-2006, were so low resulting in only 38.2 patents per year and 5,000
published scientific papers. The reason the word “buy” was used is that labour contracts issued
by law in the GCC are around two-three years creating uncertainty; Palestinians diaspora account
for 10 million people; the Arab Spring has led to over …refugees. This impedes knowledge
transfer as citizenship is not an option in these countries.
3.1.3: Laws, Access to Information and Freedom of the Press
Another barrier at the national level is the regulations, laws or security conditions which may
prohibit the collection and dissemination of information without government approval. Most
MENA countries score low on the Freedom House Report on Press Freedom (2010) (Table 2).
The recent unrest and political upheavals in the first quarter of 2011 in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya,
Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, KSA have all led to less stability. In some cases Federal Law that might
dissuade research by indicating penalties for conducting statistical surveys without government
approval. For example: “Any non-government entity may also conduct a statistical survey
relating to the marketing of its products or services and may gather any statistical information
for a third party and disseminate such information after obtaining the Centre's prior written
approval….The Law states that without prejudice to any more severe penalties stated in other
4
laws, there shall be a penalty of jail for a period not more than one year and a fine not more
than thirty thousand (XXX) or either against any public employee or those working in similar
positions who disclose any confidential information under the definition included in this Law or
any industrial or trade secrets and other work methods which are considered secret and to which
he was privileged by his position, or disseminate or causes the dissemination of unauthorized
statistics or census and surveys results intentionally and purposefully withheld for himself any
statistical documents containing information or willfully destroyed or forged such documents or
neglected to preserve any statistical information of a confidential nature which caused their loss.
The maximum penalty mentioned in item (1) of this Article shall be exacted on repeat offenders
who recommit any of the above mentioned acts”.
A study by Faris and Villeneuve (2008) finds evidence of internet filtering and blocking
in 11 countries from MENA in 2006 for a variety of reasons ranging from political instability,
social and cultural reasons, religion, national security and protecting economic interests. For
whatever reason whether monetary or otherwise, reduced access to top tier research journals will
affect quality of research output. Lawrence (2001) finds that the free on-line ability of a paper
increases its impact by 157% from an average citations of 2.74 for offline articles versus an
average citation of 7.03 on-line articles.
3.2: Market/Industry Factors
Market Factors look at environment and cultural context of industry-research collaboration. In
market factors issues like access to data, quality of data, and collaboration were identified. The
benefit of industry collaboration is that it helps reduce the widening gap between academic
research and practice (“relevance gap‖) which has been highlighted as a concern area by editors
for journals like European Journal of Marketing (Greenley and Lee, 2010); British Journal of
Management, (Starky and Madan, 2001), and Harvard Business Review (Bennis and Toole,
2005). The NSF (2010) finds that the value added by commercial knowledge-intensive services
like commercial business, communication service, financial services, publically supported
education and health care has a direct correlation with GDP revenues (see Figure 2).
Take Figure 2.
3.2.1: Industry Mentorship
A study by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2007) finds formal long-term faculty
structural relationships and support programs with corporate partners in areas of research
important to industry led to knowledge and technology transfer (see Figure 3). Further research
requires some stability to develop contacts (especially linear studies); to have access to data (to
build trust) and qualified labour. An academic commented based on one country labor policy:
“foreign employees work on contract system where most contracts are renewed every two-three
years.” They mentioned that this was a reason why organizational representatives are reluctant
to put in writing their true and frank opinions and often cite reasons like “I may get fired”, “What
if my employer/government found out?”. Initial contacts developed were easily displaced
hindering research. This flux in manpower stability can be seen looking at remittances as a proxy
in Table 2.
Take Figure 3.
5
3.2.2: Access to Data at Industry Level
According to SESRIC (2011) there is the lack of information or data when doing research in this
region as evidenced by the discrepancy in the number of Universities that have disclosed data to
them and the actual number of Universities registered. In emerging markets, permissions maybe
required to collect data which complicates research (Walters, 2001). In fact during an interview
with a professional market research agency, cultural constraints were identified as a big factor.
According to local Arabic customs men should not approach women for interviewing and vice
versa. These are constraints most academic researchers will find too expensive to overcome.
Interviews with senior researchers has led to the following comments in some countries of the
GCC “there is a lack of data in the region, neither is much public data available”.
In tax-free countries, an organization is not obliged to publish an annual report. Hence
collecting data requires a lot of sanctions and “Wasta” (Cunningham and Sarayrah, 1994;
Hutchings and Weir, 2006). As an industry interviewee stated, “The reason for low research
output is because in many MENA countries businesses succeed because of government backing
or permission to operate which makes the market less competitive and industry does not need
nor perceive the true value of research”. In those countries where there is repeated conflict, or
corruption is high; or where there is no required disclosure of performance metrics like annual
reports; availability to secondary data is further restricted.
3.2.3: Survey Barriers
Collecting data by mail surveys in the Arab world has been very difficult (Harzing, 1997; Nasif
et al., 1991). This is compounded by the fact in some GCC countries, the method of mail
delivery is courier or through a PO Box which reduces response rates further. A researcher
lamented “Contact people, departments, even organizations disappear as it is dynamic and
chaotic”. A study by Baruch and Holtom (2008) finds the average response rate for
organizational research in over 490 survey studies (out of 1607 studies) over 5 years in 17
academic journals was 52.7% from individuals (standard deviation of 20.4%) and organizational
response was 35.7% (standard deviation of 18.8%). An interview with an employee from a UAE
regional bank said they sent out 45,000 questionnaires using the banks current database and got
just 1829 responses (4%). This was though the study was spread out over 4 months with a gift as
an incentive.
3.2.4: Quality of Data/relevance of study
Walters (2001) identifies the challenge of collecting reliable, up-to-date representative data as
one issue for lack of scholarly interest in these region. When asked whether the quality of
researchers in this region was low, an industry researcher stated “No, I have seen the quality of
work available across the globe and I think the problem we face why it looks like the quality of
research is low is the quality of information that is available to work with. As a research
company...in US when I go and present marketing strategy ....I have access to (data) which is
very detailed, I have geographic segmentation which is zip code plus ..I have access to consumer
panel data,...I have media data….. here I am working with a primary survey...so much
limitation”.
Developing valid and reliable instruments maybe problematic due to cultural and
language factors (Walters, 2001). Further there is the cultural bias, a practitioner form the market
6
research industry mentioned “there is a tendency to give positive answers (MENA) so using a
scale of 1 to 10…in general 80% of your responses will be the top half of the score …if you were
to do the same thing in the German culture or the Japanese culture, 80% of your scores will be
below which means you have to historically correct the data…so the problem happens when you
benchmark countries…what we do is have a benchmark…where we say a score of 80% is
equivalent to a score of …this is an area of potential collaboration”. Incidentally this not a
factor many academic researchers even in top journals consider (see Hult et al., 2008).
The gap between industry and research output widens due to lack of information (due to
access), money and support resources. An industry practitioner commented “The way I see it is
that if you need to do any kind of research, you need some base-line information....once you have
that you can use small pieces of research to build on it,.. if that (base-line research) is not
available you have to do research which is then very large in scope to be reliable.... And you do
not have the money or the resources to do the entire thing..”. Further from an industry point of
view, an industry expert felt that industry-research collaboration was still at its nascent stage in
most countries in the MENA because there still was not enough open competition and since
industry was dominated with few topline competitors (due to capital, licensing requirements)
which limit new market entries. Hence the value of research was still not fully recognized and
hence academic collaboration was low.
3.3: Publishing Industry Factors
Journals want to be ranked as top quality and to improve their impact factor which is based on
how often the journal was cited (Thompson Reuters, 2011). Journal quality becomes important
for Institutional ranking, receiving grants and promotions (Australian Business Deans Council,
2007). Since top ranked journals are much sought after, the quality of articles to choose from
increases. One senior academic wrote, “The journal ranking is one surrogate measure of quality
of a journal and hence the quality of your work….Decisions about academic promotions,
qualifying staff as research active and as doctoral supervisors, and short-listing applicants for
academic positions will still be based, among other things, on assessment of research
performance. This will still include evaluation of research outputs in high impact, high quality
journals.”
3.3.1: Competency in English
As antecedents to publishing, in the medical field, a correlation to TOEFL scores was associated
with an increase in publication (Man et al., 2004). First, English is not a first language for many
researchers from the MENA region and this creates the first barrier for publication which is
identified as a potential barrier for publishing across disciplines (Lukka and Kasanen, 1996;
Meneghini and Packer, 2007; Man et al., 2004, Walters 2001).
3.3.2: Reviewer Bias
There is the issue of “perception of quality”. This perception is influenced by reviewer beliefs
and experience (with context and region). A study by Mullins and Kiley (2002), find among
other factors, that inexperience examiners are dangerous as they often judge a paper from their
own perspective (their thesis) which is a sample size of 1. Further there a feeling of reciprocity –
(I‟ll judge by what happened to me), time constraints, and a tendency to let first impressions
carry them through. A similar trend may occur for journal paper reviews and this may make a
7
potentially good paper get rejected. Mahoney (1977) found in an experimental study of 75
reviewers that there was a strong bias against manuscripts which reported results contrary to the
authors own theoretical perspective. This was reinforced in another experiment involving 711
reviewers by Hergovich et al., (2010) where the authors find that qualitative evaluations were
higher for those paper results that confirmed their own beliefs.
2.3.3: Ethnocentricity of Journals
Lukka and Kasanen (1996) find in a study of six leading English language accounting research
journals from the U.S.A., Europe and Australia, during the period 1984–1993, that 77% of all the
papers have the same country of origin for the researcher, data and the journal. The number of
reviewers from MENA are few as the number of authors of papers from MENA are few so this is
a vicious circle. A random quick review of the some of the top leading journals across a number
of publishers in BMA (as of November 21, 2010) finds that there are few editor or the Editorial
board members from this region (see Table 3). The preference is to get representatives from
Turkey and Israel (which are the benchmark countries from MENA) and from Saudi Arabia.
Many journals are university based (example ASQ, HBR and Thunderbird), and some focus on
regions (EJM, The Accounting Review). MENA still needs to compete in some of these areas.
There are currently few journals based in this region listed on the ISI index and most are highly
specialized (example Journal of Islamic Finance and Banking, Journal of Islamic Marketing)
which reduces the broader appeal. The gatekeepers of prestigious business journals mostly
belong to the western hemisphere and have an overwhelming preference for quantitative studies
(Walters, 2001; Svensson, 2005) which are not easily feasible in the MENA markets.
3.4: Institutional Factors
EQUIS, AMBA and ACCSB among other factors, does consider faculty publications and grants.
These factors play an important role as institutions try and improve their international rankings.
Mitra and Golder (2008) find in a study of 57 business schools looking at 18 years of data that a
steady increase of at least three single-author articles per annum improves the school’s ranking
among academics by one place, and increases the graduates’ average annual starting salary of
more than $750. The higher the research productivity the less tendency also for faculty to take an
early retirement (Kim, 2003) which will facilitate transfer of knowledge.
3.4.1: Managing Organizational Strategic Priorities
Tarek Yousef, Dean of Dubai School of Government says, “Academics want time for research—
and they want you be rewarded…It has to be a two-way conversations…The first question people
ask is ―What is my teaching load? How much administrative work am I going to have to do?
Am I going to be able to organize seminars and attend conferences and deliver papers?”
(Drummond and Wigglesworth, 2010). As one researcher said “People don‗t have the time to sit
and even talk….if you leave a paper for 3-4months, you have to start again”. Since most
universities are teaching universities (especially in business); teaching loads do impact research.
UNESCO (2010) identifies the confusion in strategic priorities (teaching, knowledge transfer,
research, industry collaboration) as one key reason for low research output in MENA. In
countries where the poverty levels are high, ICT penetration is low, access to high quality
journals (electronic databases or hard copies) is difficult. In MENA, approximately less than 100
Universities have access to a key BMA electronic publisher of journals. In this region, there an
8
estimated 300+ business universities according to SESRIC (2011). World Bank (2007) also
highlights the lack of incentives for teachers as barrier in converting the investment into
education into tangible results. Performance appraisals of academics often is based on quantity
and quality of publications. A study by Theoharakis and Hirst (2002) on perceptions of 55
marketing journals show regional bias, discipline bias and the confusion increases when one
consider that there are over 10,000+ management journals (Mingers and Harzing, 2007).
3.4.2: Access to research support
Research output increases with access to human capital, namely doctoral students or potential
doctoral students (see Baird, 1991; Bland and Ruffin, 1992). In Arab countries, access to
doctoral students is a constraint as the regional gross enrolment ratio in upper secondary
education remains below 55% compared to more the industrially advanced states of Central Asia
which have enrolment rates of around 84 % (Arab Knowledge Report, 2009; see Table 2). Many
high potential students prefer to study abroad, as one Associate Professor says "One of the main
challenges that face the Arab world concerning R&D is the brain-drain, where 85% of Arab
individuals who study abroad do not come back to their countries," (Zaitoon, 2008). According
to the NSF (2002), Asia produces less doctoral students in Social Science than America and
Europe (see Figure 4). Secondly, TIMSS identifies that the inquiry based learning is not
prevalent in MENA (World Bank, 2007) which is much needed for research. Besides English,
we find that for Arab countries, performance of pupils from Arab in mathematics and the
sciences did not exceed 388 in mathematics and 424 in the sciences, while world averages were
445 and 466 (UNDP, 2007).
Take Figure 4.
A study by Kim, Morse and Zingales (2009) in a longitudinal study from 1970-2001; looks at
career information in terms of research productivity (number of articles written, published pages,
citations, and impact-weighted page counts) of for tenure track or visiting position of the leading
25 universities. The findings suggest that the single largest reason for productivity decline was
the lack of physical access to productive research colleagues. Often this means getting a “critical
mass of researchers in similar disciplines to promote collaboration”. A study by Rowlands and
Olivieri (2006) indicated that acquiring research staff in the medical field was one of biggest
barriers to research performance, which could be a significant factor even in the business field.
Historically there has been an “Over reliance upon ―buying-in expertise from outside
the country”, which was cheaper. To increase research standing, the fastest way for a University
is to hire a highly published academic (even as a once in a week visiting professor) rather than
take the more intensive method of developing research capabilities in-house. “You can try and
hire top professors, but you need a whole supporting apparatus, the professional environment”
(as cited in Drummond and Wigglesworth, 2010). The NSF (2006) finds that those fields with
the lowest citations also have the lowest international cross collaborations which may indicate a
need to increase productivity collaborations.
Take Figure 4.
9
4.0: Methods to Overcome Barriers to Research
4.1 Governmental Policy
The easiest route to encourage research is to dedicate money for research funds, take for example
the State of Qatar which has dedicated 2.8% of GDP (US$3.5Bn per year) to research (Qatar
Foundation, 2010). At the government level some suggestions are to encourage research at the
policy level where like the west, grant funding is given to deserving institutions based either
through a competitive process or through subsidies. Fox and Milbourne (1999) find that a 10%
increase in the number of grants held per year raises output per year by as much as 15%. An
increase of 1% in research funding was associated with a 2.17 unit increase in the publication
rate (Man et al., 2004). Payne and Siow (2003) finds that an increase of $1 million in federal
research funding to 68 research Universities results in 10 more articles and 0.2 more patents per
university.
At a more systematic level, Japan created the University townships like Tsukaba Science
City which not only received a significant amount of research funding, but also infrastructure
development (Dearing, 1995). In MENA though academic zones are developing for example
UAE- Masdar and Academic City; Qatar- ; KSA- and now perhaps Turkey and Lebanon; they
need more synergy and coordination at the governmental level to become “hot spots” and a
critical element is freedom and creativity and collaboration (Pouder and St. John, 1996;
UNESCO, 2010). Bontis (2004) advocates development of long-term policies for research, using
cooperation between R&D institutes, universities and industry.
The long-term route is through education and development. For OECD countries, in the
education sector over 83% of the funds come from public sector (2010). Since there is a
correlation to research publication output, with the English language and the Science and
Mathematics scores, these are areas for further emphasis on educational policy making. Finally
there is a social role governments need to play where they educate society, and businesses about
the need to volunteer time and effort to participate in research. International exposure and
standards will help improve research output. There needs to be policy changes with respect to
access of data and collection of data. On-line library access may also help promote research even
if this is open to public and methods are made to reduce subscription fees. More developed
countries try and attract and retain the best talent through education, industry employment and
finally migration opportunities (example see Fulbright Scholarships – USA; Chinese Scholarship
Council).
4.2: Industry Level Strategies
A study by Kirchmeyer (2005) finds that industry level mentorship increased research
publication output more than institutional mentorship. Hence a concentrated effort needs to be
made to tie up with industry partners, in terms of mutually beneficial relationships and projects
that involve funding or giving access to data collection. This is an educational effort and
academic institutions should work to create a long-term continuity at an organizational level in
terms of MOU, teaching and research priorities. Organizations can dedicate part of their CSR
budgets to education and research (which is one strategy many innovation companies use).
10
A survey geared at the industry, found responses were only forthcoming when incentives
in the form of industry reports were given prior to data collection. Yougovsiraj.com, an on-line
panel market research firm credits panel member accounts with USD 1 per questionnaire filled or
offer a chance at winning gifts like an iPod. Another reasons according to the local bank for its
low response rate was the length of the questionnaire which was 5 pages long. The questionnaire
was bi-lingual – half in Arabic and half in English but at a casual glance looked about ten pages
long. International cross country surveys often run beyond 10 pages. An interview with a
professional market research firm said 25 questions according to their experience of conducting
surveys in this region was the upper limit and the response rates would be below 30% if that
number was exceeded. Electronic data collection efforts (e.g. email, phone, web) also result in
response rates as high as or higher than traditional mail methodology (Baruch and Holtom 2008)
which maybe an easier option for MENA researchers.
4.3: Publishing-level Strategies
At the industry level the Academic Publishing Industry in BMA need to get more reviewers and
editorial board member from the MENA region and encourage special issues on relevant topics
for this region or on this region. Keeping in mind this research is still in the nascent stages, there
needs to be a focused encouragement of exploratory papers and qualitative methodologies. To
keep the high journal standards, workshops or guidelines on qualitative methodologies can be
posted in journal websites to allow researchers an opportunity to develop their research
credibility. Reviewer workshops need to be developed and good reviewers need to be rewarded
to facilitate the process, Since the review process is free intangible returns for the academics who
spend time, knowledge and effort in mentoring should be given.
4.4 Academic Institutional level Strategies
In terms of strategic priority, institutions should identify and prioritize focus research areas and
ensure they get a critical mass of researchers in that research theme across disciplines. In a study
looking at top publishing universities in the Asia-Pacific region from 1991-2000 (in the area of
marketing), it was found that the degree of research emphasis and research strategy of a
university plays a more important role than years of operation (Cheng et al., 2003). If a
University does not have that mass within, it should collaborate outside with other universities. It
should decide research stream/themes and aim for high impact work. These themes can be interdisciplinary in nature. Universities can sponsor membership to associations, and offer support
through training and encouraging peer networking through conference attendance grants,
offering research grants, English editing services. Recruitment strategies can be in line with
research areas. One MENA University regularly imports seasoned academics and requires them
to co-publish with developing researchers to facilitate mentorship.
To encourage research, it is important to link relevant publication metrics to promotions
(see ongoing debate on ERA ranking in Australia (Rowbotham, 2011). A study by Zivney and
Bertin (1992) found that over a 25-year period for finance doctorates, the publication of one
article per year in any finance journal (or finance, accounting, economics, or business journal)
was met by only 5% of the graduates. A study by Seggie and Griffith (2009) found for promotion
to Associate Professor from PhD conferral in marketing at the top 10-40 institutions was a
productivity of 0.57 articles to 0.47 articles in the leading marketing journals per year. MENA
Universities do not figure anywhere near the top 150 institutions in the world. “Increases in
11
output that reflect the growing level of investment will not immediately be translated into worldclass research because it will take time to train a new generation of researchers. It will also take
time to draw the quality of the new research to the attention of the rest of the world” (Adams et
al., 2011). A study of 150 economists by Fox and Milbourne (1999) found that a 10% increase in
number of teaching hours reduced research output by as much as 20%. Further in OECD
countries, Institutions on an average are spending 70% of budget marked for salaries (OECD
2010).
Performance appraisal could also include recognition for mentoring which is time
consuming and much needed for building a research culture. In terms of support Universities can
provide editing support (to overcome the language barriers), encourage collaboration and invest
in training researchers and providing mentorship. Publication output can also increase when
Universities produce their own Journal. Wilkerson (2009) – argues work experience helps in
closing the relevance gap – it is a good idea to encourage and reward industry collaboration.
Most Institutions reward quality of research publications. So when is quality linked to
quantity? Dong, Loh and Mondry (2005) mention that how the articles are cited in terms of the
technique, and conclusion is also important when looking at the merit of a paper. There is a
tendency to look at citation across discipline and discount the complexity of the discipline (see
Garfield, 1979) (and in this case the region) which are practices that can discourage relevant
research. For example an empirical study by Posner (2000) finds that the newspaper citation is a
better indication of the impact of popular appeal of research work than is a citation in a scholarly
journal to that work, but the latter is a better indication of the work's scholarly character. For
business research how important is application to real world context? Most Universities
benchmark scholars purely on scholarly work.
4.4: Individual level Strategies
For a researcher, these are areas within their control. They can build research networks looking
at peers in the same discipline area through networking in the region and internationally by
attending conferences, and research seminars. A study by the National Research Foundation
finds that in some fields of science the authors exceeded five collaboration, with average
authorship of 90% of S&E articles having two authors but the lowest growth in average number
of authors was in the field of social science with a growth from 1.4 authors per paper in 1988 to
1.9 in 2008 (NSF, 2010). This can give them access to experienced researchers who know “How
to Publish” and also help bridge their shortcomings in publishing like the English language or
quantitative methodologies.
Harzing (2005) finds that in the Economics & Business discipline in Australia, the
publication quantity was the highest in terms of the number of papers but it ranked lowest in
terms of quality (impact). Though there are concerns at an institutional level about quantity
versus quality (Butler, 2002); the quantity of research is important according to Hirsch (2005)
who finds that Nobel prize winners do not originate in one stroke of luck but in a body of
scientific work. A publishing MENA professor stated that “It is important to always have papers
in the pipeline –as good researchers have as many as 10”. A senior researcher replied “Any
publication is a good publication” saying that you could always build quality in.
Eaton, Ward, Kumar and Reingen (2002) find that in a top journal like Journal of
Consumer Behavior, average authors per article is 1.94 and while few authors publish once
(64%), those that publish more often have a higher volume of papers too indication collaboration
12
and productivity are highly correlated. At a personal level, an independent researcher can try and
belong to associations from both academic and industry/functional areas of their expertise. This
gives access to collaborators. Partnering with local industries by offering expertise and in
exchange getting industry access to their customers is another way of bypassing some of the
constraints researchers face. Researchers should also actively bid for grants no matter how
frustrating the process is as a 10% increase in the number of grants held per pear may raise
output per year by as much as 15% (Milbourne and Fox, 1999).
Milbourne and Fox (1999) find that doctoral students help create these productive
networks especially after graduating. In cases where this resource is unavailable, foster
relationships with students so at least you will get access to organizational data or funding and
hence have a productive collaboration. Students samples are used because of accessibility,
convenience and low cost but there are cautions to be exercised to using students (see Bello et
al., 2009, p. 363).
To improve self-citations researchers should try and focus in areas of research where
there is limited output. Findings from the National Science Foundation (USA) suggest that an
increase in collaborative work especially in multi-disciplinary research can lead to multiple
publications looking at different perspectives from each discipline without being repetitive (Bell
et al., 2007). Nakata, and Huang (2005) when looking at for example at 600 articles published
from 1990 to 2000 in international marketing find that there is potential to focus on crosscountry studies and strengthen the complexity and comprehensiveness of theories, as well as
diversify research methods beyond surveys. Walters (2001) identifies the dominance of
American-Western theories an area of research in terms of testing its applicability and suggesting
new theoretical paradigms applicable to the market. According to one researcher “There is a
novelty value of being in the UAE – so you have a good chance of getting a papers accepted
especially in popular journals but the data depth often prevents it being accepted into an A+
journal”.
Researcher can use mixed methodology to overcome the shortcomings of small sample
sizes. Information available in the press may not always be indicative of the true scenario and
this further dissuades employees from giving interviews, but it has been argued that publically
available newspaper articles are a valid source of information (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001:
557). A study by Hanson and Grimmer (2007) finds in that of 1,195 articles from 3 major
marketing journals published between 1993 and 2002 that 24.80% of journal articles used
qualitative methodology (which remained roughly constant) and 46.28% used quantitative
research. Qualitative research quality could be ascertained by its “Strong, trustworthy
inferences/conclusions, notable for: Richness Coherence, integrity, Relatedness, bouncledness,
Salience, verisimilitude, Generativity, Brevity, clarity, accessibility” (Inui and Frankel, 1991).
Hubbard and Vetter (1996) finds through a content analysis of 18 leading business
journals covering 22-years (1970 -1991) that replication and extension research constitutes less
than 10% of published empirical work in the accounting, economics, and finance areas, and 5%
or less in the management and marketing fields. Bennis and O’Toole (2005) find that the
industry perspective which been overtaken by the scientific perspective is resulting in blindness
rather than illumination. Further Stremersch et al., (2007, p. 182) find in their analysis of citation
and impact factors that breakthrough articles may develop at the boundaries of the discipline. In
a disruptive world, there is a need for practical and conceptual papers (Prahalad and Hamel,
2007). Figure 5 shows research output in various BMA disciplines per country. There is a
13
caution, as a researcher commented “You need to prevent the butterfly effect, flirting from one
topic to another as you progress in your research career and start developing a reputation for
areas of specialization”. Though most researchers stayed in their broad stream, they did look at
publishing opportunities and access to data often defined topic rather than interests.
5.0 Discussion and Future Scope
This papers looks at common barriers for publishing BMA research in the MENA region and
explores methods to overcome these barriers. Based on this analysis strategies were suggested to
overcome barriers to publishing. While individual strategies are more within the control of the
researcher, policy changes at the government level, more involvement of industry and the
institutions is required to overcome barriers to publishing.
See Figure 6
While the methods suggested for individuals are more controllable, institutional, industry and
government measure required changes in the mindset and require time. Future areas of research
are indentified and active involvement of publishers who have access to electronic databases
could help the research revolution. It is ironic that as businesses move out of western countries
into emerging markets, the research is lagging behind.
Bibliography
Adams, J., King, C., Pendlebury, D., Hook, D., Wilson, J (2011), Exploring the Changing
Landscape of Arabian, Persia and Turkish Research, Evidence, Thomson Reuters, UK.
Arab
Knowledge
Report,
(2009),
Available:
http://www.mbrfoundation.ae/English/pages/AKR2009.aspx, [accessed 10 February, 2011].
Atlas of Islamic-World Science and Innovation, Available: http://www.aiwsi.org/index.php
[Accessed 1 July 2011].
Australian Business Deans Council (2007), “Australian Business Deans Council Journal Quality
list”, Available: http://www.abdc.edu.au/download.php?id=37929,242,1, [Accessed 1June,
2011].
Baird, L.L. (1991), “Publication productivity in doctoral research departments: Interdisciplinary
and intradisciplinary factors”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 303-318.
Baruch, Y. and Holtom, B.C. (2008), “Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research”, Human Relations, Vol. 61, No. 8, pp. 1139-1160.
Bell, R.K., Hill, D. and Lehming, R.F. (2007), The Changing Research and Publication
Environment in American Research Universities”, Division of Science Resources Statistics,
National
Science
Foundation,
Available:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srs07204/pdf/srs07204.pdf, Accessed: May 10, 2011.
Bello, D., Leung, K., Radebaugh, L., Tung, R. L., and Witteloostuiijn, A. (2009), “From the
Editors: Student samples in international business research”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 361-364.
Bennis, W.G. and O'Toole, J. (2005), "How Business Schools Lost Their Way", Harvard
Business Review, May, pp. 96-104.
Bland, C.J. and Ruffin, M.T. (1992), “Characteristics of a productive research environment:
14
literature review”, Academic Medicine, Vol. 67, No. 6, pp. 351-357.
Bontis, N. (2004), “National intellectual capital index: a United Nations initiative for Arab
region”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 13-39.
Cheng, L.T.W., Chan, K.C., and Chan, R.Y.K. (2003), “Publications in Major Marketing
Journals: An Analysis of Research Productivity of Asia-Pacific Universities”, Journal of
Marketing Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Cunningham, R.B. and Sarayrah, Y.K. (1994), “Taming Wasta to Achieve Development”, Arab
Studies Quarterly, Vol. 16, Vol. 3, pp. 29-41.
Dearing, J.D. (1995). Growing a Japanese Science City: Communication in Scientific Research.
London: Routledge.
Dong, P. Loh, M. and Mondry, A. (2005), “The "impact factor" revisited”, Biomedical Digital
Libraries, Vol. 2, No. 7, Available: http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/2/1/7.
Ducharme, L. (1998), Measuring Intangible Investment, OECD, Paris
Drummond, J. and Wigglesworth, R. (2010), “Gulf States ro rebuild tradition of research”, Gulf
News, dated 24 July, p. 26.
Eaton, J.P., Ward, J.C., Kumar, A. and Reingen, P.H. (2002), “Social-structural foundations of
publication productivity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp.199-220.
Farley, J. U. and Lehmann, D.R. (2001), “The important role of meta-analysis in international
research in marketing”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.70 – 79.
Faris, R. and Villeneuve, N. (2008): “Measuring global Internet filtering” in Access Denied: The
Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering (Information Revolution and Global
Politics), Ed: Deibert, R.J, Palfrey, J.G., Rohozinski, R. and Zittrain, J. p. 1-24.
Freedom House (2010), “Freedom of the Press 2010 Table of Global Press Freedom Rankings”,
Available:
http://freedomhouse.org/images/File/fop/2010/FOTP2010Global&RegionalTables.pdf
,
[Accessed 5 April, 2011].
Fox, K.J. and Milbourne, R. (1999), “What Determines Research Output of Academic
Economists?”, Economic Record, Vol. 75, No. 3, Pp. 256 – 267.
Furman, J.L., Porter, M.E., and Stern, S. (2002), “The determinants of national innovative
capacity”, Research Policy, Vol. 31, No. 6, Pp. 899-933.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Trow, M., Scott, P. and Schwartzman, S. (2004), The
New Production of Knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary
societies, Sage, London: 3-8.
Garfield, E. (1979), “Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?”, Scientometrics, Vol. 1,
No. 4, pp. 359-375.
Geyskens, I., Steenkampa, J-B E.M., and Kumar, N. (1998), “Generalizations about trust in
marketing channel relationships using meta-analysis”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 223-248.
Greenley, G. and Lee, N. (2010), “The theory-practice divide: thoughts from the Editors and
Senior Advisory Board of EJM”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44, No. 1-2, pp. 5 –
20.
Grønhaug, K. and Olson, O. (1999), “Action research and knowledge creation: merits and
challenges”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.6 –
14.
Hanson, D. and Grimmer, M. (2007), “The mix of qualitative and quantitative research in major
15
marketing journals, 1993-2002”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, No.1/2, pp.58 –
70.
Harzing, A. (1997), “Response rates in international mail surveys: results of a 22-country study”,
International Business Review, Vol. 6, pp. 641-65.
Hergovich, A., Schott, R. and Burger, C. (2010), “Biased Evaluation of Abstracts Depending on
Topic and Conclusion: Further Evidence of a Confirmation Bias Within Scientific
Psychology”, Current Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.188-209.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005), “An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output”,
Proceeding
of
National
Academy
of
Science,
Available:
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full.pdf+html [Accessed: November 10, 2010].
Hubbard, R. and Vetter, D.E. (1996), “An empirical comparison of published replication
research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 35, No. 2, Pp. 153-164.
Hult, G.T., Ketchen, D.J., Griffith, D.A., Finnegan, C.A., Gozalez-Padron, T., Harmancioglu, N.,
Huang, Y., Talay, M.B. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2008), “Data equivalence in cross-cultural
international business research: assessment and guidelines”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 1027–1044.
Hutchings, K. and Weir, D. (2006), “Guanxi and Wasta: A comparison”, International Business
Review: Special Issue: Journeys Along the Silk Road: Intercultural Approaches to
Comparative Business Systems and Practices, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 141–156.
Inui, T.S. and Frankel, R.M. (1991), “Evaluating the quality of qualitative research: A proposal
pro tem”, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 5, 485-486.
Jinha, A.E. (2010), “Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in
existence”, Learned Publishing, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 258-263.
Kim, S. (2003), “The Impact of Research Productivity on Early Retirement of University
Professors”, Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 42, pp. 106–125.
Kim, E.H., Morse, A. and Zingales, L. (2009), “Are elite universities losing their competitive
edge?”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 93, No. 3, pp. 353-381.
Kirchmeyer, C. (2005), “The effects of mentoring on academic careers over time: Testing
performance and political perspectives”, Human Relations, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 637-660.
Lawrence, S. (2001), “Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact”, Nature
Webdebates,
Available:
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/eaccess/Articles/lawrence.html, [Accessed May 1, 2011].
Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M.A. (2001), “Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the
acquisition of resources”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 6-7, pp. 545-564.
Lukka, K. and Kasanen, E., (1996), “Is accounting a local or global discipline?”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 21, No. 7-8, pp. 755-773.
Mabe, M.A. and Amin, M. (2002), “Dr Jekyll and Dr Hyde: author-reader asymmetries in
scholarly publishing”, ASLIB Proceedings, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp.149-157.
MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R. and Grant, S. (2002). “Mode 2 management research”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 13, pp. 189–201.
Mahoney, M.J. (1977), “Publications Prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in
the peer review system”, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 161-175.
Man, J.P., Weinkauf, J.G., Tsang, M. and Sin, J.H.D.D, (2004), “Why do Some Countries
Publish More Than Others? An International Comparison of Research Funding, English
16
Proficiency and Publication Output in Highly Ranked General Medical Journals”, European
Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp. 811-817.
Meneghini, R. and Packer, A.L. (2007), “Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to increase
the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down language
barriers in scientific communication”, EMBO Reports, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 112–116.
Milbourne, R. and Fox, K.J. (1999), “What determines research output of academic
economists?”, Economic Record, Vol. 75, No. 230, pp. 256 – 267.
Meyer, M. D. (2010), Quantitative Research in Business and Management, Sage, London.
Mingers, J. and Harzing, A-W, (2007), “Ranking journals in business and management: a
statistical analysis of the Harzing data set”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol.
16, 303–316.
Mitra, D. and Golder, P.N. (2008), “Does Academic Research Help or Hurt MBA Programs?”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72, pp. 31–49.
Mullins, G. and Kiley, M. (2002), 'It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': How experienced examiners
assess research theses”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 369 – 386.
Nakata, C. and Huang, Y. (2005), “Progress and promise: the last decade of international
marketing research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 611-618.
Nasif, E., Al-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B. and Thibodeau, M. (1991), “Methodological problems in
cross-cultural research: an updated review”, Management International Review, Vol. 31, pp.
13-32.
NSF
(2002), Higher Education in Science and Engineering, Available:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c2/fig02-32.htm [Accessed May 11, 2010].
NSF (2006a), Chapter 3: Science and Engineering Labor Force, Available:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c3/c3s4.htm, [Accessed May 15, 2011]
NSF (2006b), Foreign Scientific Literature Cited in Worldwide Scientific Articles, Available:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c5/fig05-54.htm, [Accessed May 15, 2011].
NSF
(2010)
Trends
in
Country
and
Regional
Authorship,
Available:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c5/c5s4.htm [Accessed May 11, 2011].
OECD, (2010),
Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators, Available:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/39/45926093.pdf , [Accessed May 1, 2011].
Payne, A.A. and Siow, A., “Does Federal Research Funding Increase University Research
Output?”, The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.1-23.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (2007), “Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new
paradigm?‖, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 5-16.
Population Reference Bureau (2001), Population trends and challenges in the Middle East and
North Africa, Available: http://www.prb.org/pdf/PoptrendsMiddleEast.pdf, [Accessed May
1, 2011].
Pouder, R. and St. John, C. H. (1996), “Hot Spots and Blind Spots: Geographical Clusters of
Firms and innovations ”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 1192-1225.
Posner, R.A. (2000), “An economic analysis of the use of citations in the law”, American Law
and Economics Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 381-406.
Qatar Foundation (2010), Science and Research, Available: http://www.qf.org.qa/scienceresearch/science-research?t=316& [Accessed May 25,2012].
Reason, P. and Torbert, W.R. (2001), “The action turn: Toward a transformational social
science”, Concepts and Transformation, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-37.
17
Robertson, C., Al-Habib, M., Al-Khatib, J. and Lanoue, D. (2001), “Beliefs about work in the
Middle East and the convergence versus divergence of values”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 223-244.
Rowbotham, J (2011), “End of ERA: Journal Ranking dropped”, The Australian, dated 30 May,
Available:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/end-of-an-era-journalrankings-dropped-story-e6frgcjx-1226065864847 [Accessed 1 June, 2011].
Rowlands, I. and Olivieri (2006) Overcoming the barriers to research productivity: A case study
in Immunology and microbiology, Publishing Research Consortium, Available:
http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/overcoming_barriers_report.pdf, [Accessed
January 1, 2011].
SCImago. (2007). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Available:
http://www.scimagojr.com, [Accessed November 01, 2010].
SCImagojr.com (2011), Document Data ―1996-2009‖, Available: http://www.scimagojr.com,
[Accessed 1 April, 2011].
Seggie, S.H. and Griffith, D.A. (2009), “What Does It Take to Get Promoted in Marketing
Academia? Understanding Exceptional Publication Productivity in the Leading Marketing
Journals” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 122-132.
SESRIC (2011) Available: http://www.sesric.org/databases-universities.php [accessed 25, May,
2011].
SESRIC
(2009),
Available:
http://www.sesrtcic.org/files/science/scienceAndTechnologyInOICMemberCountries.pdf
[Accessed 26 January 2009].
Sexton, M. and Lu, S-L (2009), “The challenges of creating actionable knowledge: an action
research perspective”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, No. 7, Pp. 683 –
694.
Shahabudin, S.H.S.H. (2011), university’s worth is more than the criteria used in ranking,
UNESCO,
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-educationsystems/higher-education/singleview/news/a_universitys_worth_is_more_than_the_criteria_used_in_ranking/,
[Accessed
June 1, 2011].
Shelton, R. D. (2008) “Relations between national research investment and publication output:
Application to an American Paradox”, Scientometrics, Vol. 74, No. 2, 191-205.
Siemens J.C., Burton, S., Jensen, T. and Mendoza, N.A. (2005), “An examination of the
relationship between research productivity in prestigious business journals and popular press
business school rankings”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 467-476.
Starkey, K and Madan, P. 2001; Bridging the Relevance Gap: Aligning Stakeholders in the
Future of Management Research, British Academy of Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 326.
Stremersch, S., Verniers, I., and Verhoef, P.C. (2007), “The quest for Citations: Drivers if Article
Impact”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71, pp. 171-193.
Svensson, G. (2005) "Ethnocentricity in top marketing journals", Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 422–34.
Tenopir, CW and King, DW (2000), Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists,
Librarians and Publishers, Washington DC, Special Libraries Association.
Thompson
Reuters
(2011):
Journal
Citation
Reports,
Available:
18
http://thompsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/az/journal_citation_reports/ [Accessed 31 May, 2011].
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2007), “Knowledge and Technology Transfer (Partner
Survey) - IRC Program”, Available:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/20072008/inst/nse/nse02-eng.asp, [Accessed December 1, 2010].
Theoharakis, V. and Hirst, A. (2002) Perceptual Differences of Marketing Journals: A
Worldwide Perspective, Marketing Letters, Vol. 13, No. 4, 389-402.
UNDP (2007), cited in Preamble: Arab Knowledge Report 2009: p. 29 , Accessed from
http://www.mbrfoundation.e/English/Documents/AKR-2009-En/Preamble.pdf, [Accessed
April 1, 2011].
UNESCO
(2010),
UNESCO
Science
Report,
Available:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001899/189958e.pdf, [Accessed 30 May 2011].
Yeheskel and Shenkar (2009), “IB Statistical Yearbook – OIC Member Countries 2009”,
http://www.sesric.org/files/article/423.pdf, [Accessed March 10, 2010].
Walters, P.G.P. (2001), “Research at the “margin” Challenges for scholars working outside the
“American-European” domain”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 468473.
Wilkerson, J.M. (1999), "On research relevance, professors’ “real world” experience, and
management development: are we closing the gap?", Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 598–613.
World Bank, (2007), “MENA Development Report: The Road Not Traveled Education Reform
in
the
Middle
East
and
North
Africa”,
Available:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMENA/Resources/EDU_Summary_ENG.pdf
[accessed: November 11, 2010].
World
Bank
(2008),
Knowledge
Assessment
Methodology,
Available:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/WBIPROGRAMS/KFDLP/EXTUNI
KAM/0,,contentMDK:20584250~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:1414721,0
0.html, [Accessed May 1, 2011].
World Economic Forum (2010), The Global Competitiveness Report 2010–2011, World
Economic Forum, Geneva.
Zaitoon, N. (2008), “WIPO International Seminar Urges Arab Countries for More R&D
Development”,
Available:
http://www.ag-ipnews.com/getArticle.asp?Art_ID=6577&lang=en, [Accessed: 16 February, 2009].
Zivney, T.L. and Bertin, W.J. (1992), “Publish or Perish: What the Competition is Really
Doing”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 295-329.
19
Table 1: SCImagojr.com (2011), looking at data from 1996-2009 (Total BMA Publications =
218,047 documents)
Rank
(Total
papers)
Country
Total
Document
BMA
Documents
(% of Total
Published)
%
BMA/Total
Citable
documents
Citations
1
United States ©
4773842
67927
1.42
64,639
791,566
12
Taiwan ©
269263
3940
1.46
3,883
20,870
13
Hong Kong ©
116393
3918
3.37
3,835
36,555
15
South Korea ©
370841
2724
0.73
2,677
21,019
20
Singapore ©
94600
1917
2.03
1,875
17,924
22
Israel ©
170021
1693
1.00
1,660
14,933
204224
2838
1.72
2786
22260
25
Av. Benchmark
(w/o USA)
Turkey M
199676
1437
0.72
1,410
6,707
42
Egypt M
55446
368
0.66
365
935
45
United Arab
Emirates G
10709
313
2.92
310
812
47
Iran M
91323
279
0.31
273
518
51
Saudi Arabia G
30774
228
0.74
225
9828
123
1.25
56
59
G
Kuwait
M
No.
Citations
per
Document
H
index
12.9
230
6,024
(28.86)
5,147
(14.08)
2,486
(11.83)
1,357
(7.57)
2,222
(14.88)
3447
(15.28)
1,221
(18.20)
130
(13.90)
77 (9.48)
7.76
48
12.03
66
10.6
54
11.5
53
10.1
45
10.4
53
7.29
29
3.53
15
4.02
13
3.69
9
1,346
102
(19.69)
51 (3.79)
7.77
18
120
943
77 (8.17)
10.94
13
8706
112
1.29
110
421
62 (14.73)
6.08
11
60
Jordan M
12523
108
0.86
108
335
40 (11.94)
5.15
9
63
M
22216
89
0.40
87
218
30 (13.76)
4.72
8
4907
63
1.28
63
206
10 (4.85)
4.24
9
2201
40
1.82
40
98
5 (5.10)
3.01
6
2702
35
1.30
34
64
8 (12.50)
2.65
5
70
77
81
82
Lebanon
SelfCitations
(% of
Total
citation)
299,799
(37.87)
Tunisia
G
Oman
G
Bahrain
Qatar
G
M
14430
32
2.22
32
33
1 (3.03)
1.82
3
Morocco
M
18090
30
1.66
30
125
11 (8.80)
4.94
7
101
Palestine
M
1539
21
1.36
21
39
5 (12.82)
2.08
3
128
Syrian Arab
Republic M
2466
5
0.20
5
11
4 (36.36)
1.5
2
129
Yemen LCD
916
5
0.55
5
1
0 (0)
0.2
1
2568
2
0.08
2
0
0 (0)
0
0
85
151
NA
Algeria
Iraq
M
Djibouti
LCD
Av. MENA
73
25847
0.00
183
1.09
NA
180
712
102
4.09
9
(10.95)
Av. GCC
10187*
134*
1.55
132*
578*
38 (7.32)*
5.44
11
Av. Rest of
33075
207
0.79*
204
719
134
3.15*
7*
MENA
(12.77)
G
Retrieved from: http://www.scimagojr.com; © Benchmarks countries for comparison; GCC Countries; LCD –Least Developing Countries,
resource constraint, low GDP; M – mature, older countries with large populations; * Low Development
20
21
Table 2: MENA Comparison of research productivity, brain drain and education expenditure
Country
Economy
GDP pp US$/
(Stage of
Development)
(WEF 2010)
Total
papers
over 13
years
(A)
Local
availability of
specialized
research and
training (WEF
2010)
58
64
23
Tertiary
Enrolled
Students
(2008)
Quality of
Manageme
nt Schools
(WEF
2010)
Universityindustry
research
collaboration
(WEF 2010)
171,048
47,420
8,908
Education
expenditure %
GDP (R&D)
(CIA fact
book- World
Bank 2010)
2.9 (0.73)
3.8 (0.23)
0.9
Remittan
ces as %
of GDP
(2009)
Brain
Drain
(WEF
2010)
Productivity in
publication: No
tertiary
students/total
papers per year
Freedom of
Press (2010)
Ranking (1 –
very free)
ICT
Ranking
(200809) out
of 134
82
120
43
Articles per
publishing
university
(SESRIC
2007) NSF
2010
623.3
470.4
108.5
Turkey
Egypt
UAE
8723 (2)
2450 (1-2)
46,857 (3)
6601277
8745869
307338
105
122
28
0.0%
0.1%
NA
90*
114*
5
501.7106
2397.644
448.5175
51 (partly free)
60 (partly free)
71(not free)
61
76
27
KSA
Iran
14486 (1-2)
26,763
5.7 (0.05)
34
2233281
4460 (1-2)
68,401
4.8
74
9386322
60
33
385.8
NA
14
1084.806
83 (not free)
40
87
97
480.0
NA
109*
1783.924
89 (not free)
Kuwait
31482 (1-2)
8,780
3.8 (0.67)
75
NA
218325
95
96
1151.0
8.2%*
43
323.2603
55 (partly free)
57
Lebanon
8707 (2)
7,499
2.0 (0.09)
Jordan
3829 (2)
10,751
4.9
53
381689
20
109
302.0
17.0%*
113*
661.6825
55 (partly free)
NA
48
626629
83
99
284.2
2.2%
66*
757.7134
63 (not free)
Tunisia
3852 (2)
17,785
44
7.2
27
1041036
22
41
165.6
0.0%
42
760.9484
85 (not free)
38
Oman
18013 (2-3)
Bahrain
19455 (2-3)
4,234
4.0
85
276035
81
50
568.0
9.9%*
24
847.5331
71 (not free)
50
1,904
2.9
81
65594
45
88
113.5
6.6%*
15
447.8582
71 (not free)
Algeria
37
4027 (1-2)
11,664
4.3
105
3757311
91
119
93.5
NA
125*
4187.675
64 (not free)
108
Morocco
2865 (1-2)
15,952
5.7 (0.64)
60
3263851
49
104
115.3
0.1%
76
2659.859
66 (not free)
86
Qatar
68872 (1-2)
2,162
3.3
71
114283
1
27
140.0
NA
2
687.1781
66 (not free)
29
Palestine
NA
1,274
383200
NA
24.3
NA
3910.204
84 (not free)
Na
Syrian Arab
Republic
2579 (1-2)
2,173
4.9
114
2305499
115
137
18.7
0.4%
118*
13792.68
83(not free)
94
Iraq
-NA-
2,023
NA
-NA-
2858804
NA
-NA-
36.8
NA
-NA-
18370.96
65 (not free)
NA
Yemen
-NA-
762
5.2
-NA-
2403795
NA
-NA-
15.1
1.3%
-NA-
41009.63
80(not free)
NA
Djibouti
-NA-
NA
8.7
-NA-
85859
NA
-NA-
-NA-
0.5%
-NA-
NA
73 (not free)
NA
-
0.16
-0.34
0.13
-0.55
-0.14
Correlation
(A)
Av. MENA
0.42
27300.2
1750.0/
4.4
64.8
2371368.3 66.9
83.0
283.1
1958.5
70.3
57.5
0.04 50.3
pa
Av. GCC
33194.2
8791.8/
3.4
61.5
535809.3
51.7
56.2
411.1
639.9
69.5
40.0
0.04 17.2
pa
Av. Rest
4610.2
29729.3
4.9
67.0
3218549.3 77.1
100.9
219.1
6984.2
70.6
56.3
0.02 94.8
MENA
pa
MENA Comparison of research productivity, brain drain and education expenditure: Source World Bank (2010); CIA fact book; Freedom House Index (2010); Statistical Yearbook- OIC member countries
(2009)Source World Bank (2010); CIA fact book; Freedom House Index (2010) ; @ The Global Competitiveness Report, World Economic Forum (2010-11) - Rank out of 139; SESRIC 2009-Scientific and
Technical Journal Articles Published per Million People (1996-2005) (Yeheskel and Shenkar,(2009) (; SESRIC (2007), Articles per University, 2004-2006; http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c8/tt08-43.htm
[Comments: Rank of Competitiveness Index out of 139. Stage of Development: 1- factor driven economy; 2 – Efficiency driven economy; 1-2: transition between factor and efficiency driven economy; 3 –
Innovation driven economy; 2-3 – transition between efficiency and innovation driven economy]
22
Table 3: MENA based researchers in Editorial Boards
Journal
Administrative Science
Quarterly (ASQ)
Academy of Management
Journal
The Accounting Review
Accounting and Business
Research
Financial Management
Journal of Economic Issues
Review of Financial Studies
Journal of Marketing (JAM)
European Journal of Marketing
(EJM)
Journal of International
Business (JIBS)
Thunderbird International
Business Review
Harvard Business Review
Source: Author
Journal Affiliation to
University/Association
Johnson Cornell University
Editor from
MENA
No
Editorial Board member from MENA
NA
No
No
American Accounting
Association
NA
No
No
No
NA
NA
Association for
Evolutionary Economics
(AFEE).
The Society for Financial
Studies
American Marketing
Association
NA
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes (Koc Univeristy, Turkey; Tel Aviv University, Israel)
No
Yes (King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Saudi Arabia)
Academy of International
Business
No
Koc University, Turkey; Ozyegin University, Turkey; The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Israel
Thunderbird School of
Global Management
Harvard Business School
No
Yes: Prince Fahad Bin Sultan National University; KSA; Sabanci
University, Turkey
No
No
No
23
Figure 1: National R&D expenditure and share of world total, by region: 2007 (USD Billion, PPP)
Source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/figures.htm#c4
24
Figure 2: Value added of commercial knowledge-intensive services, by region/country: 1995-2007
SOURCE: National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators (2010b) http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/slides.htm#g3
25
Figure 3: Outcome Obtained from Industrial Collaboration
Source: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2007)
26
Figure 4: Doctoral S&E degrees in Europe, North America and Asia (1999)
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c2/fig02-32.htm
27
Figure 5: Areas where Published Research in Low
28
Figure 6: Conceptual Model .
OUTCOMES
Government
 GDP
 Human Capital
 Competiveness
Industry
 Reduce
relevance gap
 Competitiveness
Publishing
 Circulation/Rela
vance
 Knowledge
Generation
Institutional
 Better Ranking
 Students/Staff
Quality
Individual
 Research Active
 Promotions/
 Competitiveness
29
30