Examining the interface factors affecting research output of accounting academics in African universities of technology

  • 75 Views
  • 14 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

The inadequacy of research engagement among accounting academic staff, who predominantly hold affiliations with professional bodies and exhibit limited interest in research pursuits, has been identified as a significant contributor to suboptimal quality and diminished research productivity within the field. This study aims to investigate the intricate relationships among research attributes, research motivation, research enablers, and the perception of research output among accounting academics in African universities of technology. Drawing on a sample of 92 academics from accounting departments in the top 13 universities of technology in Africa, Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modelling is employed to empirically test the formulated hypotheses. Four distinct constructs are derived from the selected items through Exploratory Factor Analysis. The findings reveal that individual researcher attributes and research enablers exert a substantial influence on the perception of research outputs. In contrast, research motivation exerts a significant impact only when fully mediated by research enablers. Consequently, the study recommends the establishment of collaborative initiatives between accounting research, accounting scholarship, and accounting practices. Additionally, policies governing research operations in Universities of Technology should be designed to empower and facilitate researchers in realizing tangible returns from their research findings.
view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Conceptual framework guiding the study
    • Figure 2. Structural model with path coefficient
    • Table 1. Data on respondents
    • Table 2. Descriptive statistics
    • Table 3. Correlation analysis
    • Table 4. Validity and reliability of constructs
    • Table 5. Discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker criterion)
    • Table 6. Discriminant validity (Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) criterion)
    • Table 7. Hypotheses testing results
    • Table 8. Mediation analysis results
    • Conceptualization
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Data curation
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Formal Analysis
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Funding acquisition
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Investigation
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Methodology
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Project administration
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Resources
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Software
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Supervision
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Validation
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Visualization
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju, Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi
    • Writing – review & editing
      Odunayo Magret Olarewaju
    • Writing – original draft
      Thabiso Sthembiso Msomi