Next Article in Journal
Green Construction Grade Evaluation of Large Channels Based on Uncertain AHP-Multidimensional Cloud Model
Next Article in Special Issue
A Personal Growth System Supporting the Sustainable Development of Students Based on Intelligent Graph Element Technology
Previous Article in Journal
Anti-Corruption Disclosure, Corporate Social Expenditure and Political Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from Bangladesh
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Empirical Investigation of Reasons Influencing Student Acceptance and Rejection of Mobile Learning Apps Usage
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

1
VNU School of Interdisciplinary Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, 144 Xuan Thuy Road, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
2
VNU University of Economics and Business, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, 144 Xuan Thuy Road, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
3
VNU International School, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, 144 Xuan Thuy Road, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
4
VNU University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Hanoi 336 Nguyen Trai Road, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
5
Vietnam Institute of Economics, 01 Lieu Giai Road, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
6
VNU Institute for Education Quality Assurance, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, 144 Xuan Thuy Road, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(10), 6134; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106134
Submission received: 17 April 2022 / Revised: 10 May 2022 / Accepted: 13 May 2022 / Published: 18 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Educational Intelligence and Emerging Educational Technology)

Abstract

:
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.

1. Introduction

In recent years, administrators and universities all over the world have been increasingly interested in improving lecturers’ research productivity, which is a key criterion for university rankings and one of the most important factors to consider when evaluating a university’s research performance [1,2]. Many scholars have conducted research on individual and organizational factors that influence university lecturers’ research productivity and research outcomes [3,4,5]. According to Nafukho et al. [3], the research productivity of lecturers at top Kenyan universities varies with gender, subject major, number of years of experience, terminal degree, number of students enrolled, proportion of students pursuing a doctoral degree, and research funding. These authors also point out that at top Kenyan universities, lecturers’ experience is not a determining factor in their research productivity. Abramo et al. [4] investigated how individual and organizational factors interact to influence lecturer collaboration and research productivity in Italy. According to their findings, academic rank has an impact on cooperation but not on lecturers’ research productivity. The authors further show that research productivity has a positive impact on national and international collaboration, but only domestic collaboration has a positive impact on research productivity. Tafreshi et al. [5] investigated the factors that influence lecturers’ research productivity at Islamic Azad University. Their results show that individual factors such as job satisfaction, learning and teaching processes, and the desire to specialize have an impact on lecturers’ scientific research productivity, but organizational factors such as organizational support, organizational culture, organizational objectives, motivational factors, student characteristics, and industrial relationships have no direct impact.
In addition, there have been a number of studies addressing factors related to university governance that affect lecturers’ research productivity. Typical factors include research objectives and strategies [2,6,7], the autonomy and decentralization of academic institutions and lecturers [1,8,9], leadership [6,10,11], support for scientific research activities [4,12], policy regimes affecting lecturers [13,14] and resources [15,16]. Jung [1] indicated that the research productivity of Hong Kong academics was influenced by personal characteristics, workload, differences in research styles, and institutional characteristics. Hedjazi and Jaleh [2] found that network of communication with colleagues, resources of facilities, corporate management, and clear research objectives were significant predictors for agricultural faculty members’ research product all over Tehran Province. Abramo et al. [4] applied different cross-lagged panel models to analyze the relationship between research productivity, collaboration, and their determinants. Their results showed that only collaboration at the intramural and domestic level has a positive effect on research productivity. Jahan et al. [6] indicated that research training and skill, financial support, technical and logistic support, mentorship, and teamwork were the main factors affecting quality academic research at Oman Medical College. Bland [7] found that faculty productivity was influenced more by individual and institutional characteristics; group productivity was more affected by institutional and leadership characteristics. Ryu [9] showed that leadership was the most important factor affecting basic research performance. Knowledge sharing, autonomy, collaboration, and creativity in sequence were also statistically valuable factors that impact the performance of basic research in South Korea. Kok and McDonal [10] revealed a thematic framework of eight broad themes that contribute to excellence in academic departments. These were in the areas of change management, research and teaching, communication, strategy, and shared values, leadership, departmental culture, rewards, and staffing. Salman [13] found that teaching responsibilities and conferences play a significant role in determining research productivity in universities. Hoffmann et al. [14] indicated that the research productivity of academic librarians was significantly impacted by individual attributes, peers and community, and institutional structures and supports. Yang [15] mentioned that university professors in Taiwan generally considered governmental research funding to be the most important indicator, followed by students’ academic ability and digital library resources. However, there seems to have been no research examining the overall impact of university governance factors on lecturers’ scientific research productivity. The research methods frequently applied in previous studies include regression analysis [1,3,17], analysis of variance [10,18], structural equation modeling [4,5,19], descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis [11,20], and analytic hierarchy process methods [15].
Currently, the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP, as proposed by Chang [21], has become one of the most widely used tools for multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM). Fuzzy AHP methodology is used to demonstrate a hierarchical structure and to examine the weights of the decision elements reviewed and evaluated by experts in a vague environment. The literature has proposed numerous fuzzy AHP approaches for solving various types of problems, including renewable energy resources selection [22,23], urban green evaluation [24], operational efficiencies of airports [25], digital transformation strategy analysis [26], land suitability assessment [27], diagnosis of heart diseases [28], supplier selection [29,30], and teaching performance evaluation [31]. Despite its merits, there are some shortcomings associated with Chang’s [21] approach. Wang et al. [32] indicated that Chang’s [21] approach may assign an irrational zero weight to some useful decision criteria and sub-criteria. In addition, Chang’s [21] approach may make a wrong decision and select the worst decision alternative as the best one. Furthermore, the application of the approach is limited in normalized triangular fuzzy numbers. To overcome all the aforementioned shortcomings with Chang’s [21] approach, this paper proposes an improved fuzzy AHP approach for generalized triangular fuzzy numbers. In the proposed approach, a centroid index is used to determine the priority of the weight vectors. The proposed approach is further applied to define the prioritization of factors impacting lecturer research productivity at Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam (VNU).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the concepts and definitions of generalized fuzzy numbers. Section 3 briefly reviews Chang’s extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP. Section 4 presents the shortcomings of Chang’s method and the proposed and improved generalized fuzzy AHP method. An application of the proposed method is given in Section 5 to demonstrate its suitability. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 6.

2. Fuzzy Number

In this section, some basic concepts of generalized fuzzy numbers are reviewed as follows [33].
Definition 1.
A generalized fuzzy number T ˜ is described as any fuzzy subset of the real line R with a membership function f T ˜ that can generally be defined as:
  • f T ˜ [ 0 , w ] ,   0 w 1 ;
  • f T ˜ ( x ) = 0 , for all x ( , a 1 ] ;
  • f T ˜ is strictly increasing on [ a 1 , a 2 ] ;
  • f T ˜ ( x ) = w , for all x [ a 2 , a 3 ] ;
  • f T ˜ is strictly decreasing on [ a 3 , a 4 ] ;
  • f T ˜ ( x ) = 0 , for all x ( a 4 , ] ,
where a 1 , a 2 , a 3 and a 4 are real numbers.
Definition 2.
The fuzzy number T ˜ = ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , a 4 ; w ) is a trapezoidal fuzzy number if its membership function is given by:
f T ˜ ( x ) = { f T ˜ L ( x ) ,      a 1 x a 2 , w ,        a 2 x a 3 , f T ˜ R ( x ) ,      a 3 x a 4 , 0 ,        otherwise ,  
where f T ˜ L ( x ) and f T ˜ R ( x ) are the left and right membership functions of T ˜ , respectively. If a 1 < a 2 = a 3 < a 4 then T ˜ becomes a generalized triangular fuzzy number and can be denoted by T ˜ = ( a 1 , a 2 , a 4 ; w ) . If w = 1 , then T ˜ is a normal fuzzy number.

3. Chang’s Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP

Chang [21] proposed an extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP to obtain a crisp priority vector from a triangular fuzzy comparison matrix. Chang’s [21] approach is briefly discussed as follows:
Let T = { t 1 , t 2 , , t n } be an object set and G = { g 1 , g 2 , , g m } be a goal set. According to Chang’s [21] approach, each object is taken, and an extent analysis for each goal ( g i ) is performed. Therefore, m extent analysis values for each object can be obtained as M g i 1 , M g i 2 , , M g i n ,   i = 1 , 2 , , n , where M g i j ( j = 1 , 2 , , n ) are triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs).
Assuming that M g i j = ( l i j , m i j , u i j ) are the values of the extent analysis of the ith object for m goals, the value of the fuzzy synthetic extent S i is defined as:
S i = j = 1 n M g i j [ i = 1 n j = 1 n M g i j ] 1 = ( j = 1 n l i j i = 1 n j = 1 n u i j , j = 1 n m i j i = 1 n j = 1 n m i j , j = 1 n u i j i = 1 n j = 1 n l i j ) ,   i , j = 1 , 2 , n .
Letting S 1 = ( l 1 , m 1 , u 1 ) and S 2 = ( l 2 , m 2 , u 2 ) be two TFNs, the degree of possibility of S 1 S 2 is defined as follows:
V ( S 1 S 2 ) = sup x 1 x 2 [ min ( μ S 1 ( x 1 ) , μ S 2 ( x 2 ) ]
The membership degree of possibility can be expressed as in Equation (4)
V ( S 1 S 2 ) = h g t ( S 1 S 2 ) = { 1        if   m 1 m 2 0        if   l 1 u 2   l 1 u 2 ( m 2 u 2 ) ( m 1 l 1 ) otherwise
where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point of two membership functions μ S 1 ( x 1 )   and   μ S 2 ( x 2 ) , as shown in Figure 1.
The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k convex fuzzy numbers S I ( i = 1 , 2 , , k ) can be defined as:
V ( S S 1 , S 2 , , S k ) = min V ( S S i ) , i = 1 , 2 , , k .
The weight vector is given by:
W = ( d ( A 1 ) , d ( A 2 ) , , d ( A n ) ) T
where A i ( i = 1 , 2 , , n ) are n elements,
d ( A i ) = min V ( S i S k ) , k = 1 , 2 , , n ; k i
Via normalization, the weight vectors can be obtained as:
W = ( d ( A 1 ) , d ( A 2 ) , , d ( A n ) ) T
where W is a non-fuzzy number.

4. Shortcomings of Chang’s Approach and the Proposed Improved Generalized Fuzzy AHP Method

Wang et al. [32] indicated that using Chang’s [21] approach may assign an irrational zero weight to some useful decision criteria and alternatives, leading to them not being considered in decision analysis. This problem is shown in Example 1.
Example 1.
Assume that a university wishes to evaluate its lecturers’ performance. Three decision makers, D1, D2, and D3, are responsible for the evaluation of three candidates, A1, A2, and A3. Five criteria are chosen for evaluating the lecturers: publication (C1), classroom teaching (C2), student advising (C3), personality factors (C4), and fluency in a foreign language (C5). Table 1 shows the fuzzy comparison matrix of the five criteria based on three decision makers. Accordingly, the priority vector of the five criteria is estimated by Chang’s approach as W = (1, 0, 0, 0.008, 0), which means that the criteria C2, C3, and C5 are given a zero weight and are not considered in decision analysis.
In addition, Liu et al. [34] found that Chang’s [21] approach is inappropriate for determining the relative importance in some cases. Consider two TFNs, i.e., A ˜ = ( l a , m a , u a ) and B ˜ = ( l b , m b , u b ) . In the case that m a = m b but l b l a and u b u a , one can logically infer that A ˜ should have priority over B ˜ (Figure 2a). However, according to Equation (4), when m a = m b , V ( A ˜ B ˜ ) = V ( B ˜ A ˜ ) = 1 , the priorities of A ˜ and B ˜ are the same. In the case that m b = m a + δ ,   u b = m b + δ ,   l a = m a δ ,   l b = m b + γ ,   u a = m a + γ , where δ is a very small positive number close to 0 and γ is a large positive number (as shown in Figure 2b), intuitively, the TFN A ˜ should be preferred over B ˜ . However, using Equation (4), we have V ( B ˜ A ˜ ) = 1 > V ( A ˜ B ˜ ) , which indicates that the TFN B ˜ has a higher priority. Chang’s approach, therefore, fails to correctly determine the relative importance of fuzzy numbers.
Furthermore, Chang’s [21] approach only can apply to normal fuzzy numbers. However, in the real world, it is impossible to restrict the membership function to the normal form in some cases. In order to overcome the shortcomings of Chang’s [21] approach, this paper proposes a revised fuzzy AHP based on the centroid index ranking approach as follows.
The first step defines the generalized triangular fuzzy comparison matrix. The matrix is expressed by:
T ˜ = ( x ˜ i j ) n x n = [ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ; w 11 ) ( a 12 , b 12 , c 12 ; w 12 ) ( a 1 n , b 1 n , c 1 n ; w 1 n ) ( a 21 , b 21 , c 21 ; w 21 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ; w 22 ) ( a 2 n , b 2 n , c 2 n ; w 2 n )   ( a n 1 , b n 1 , c n 1 ; w n 1 ) ( a n 2 , b n 2 , c n 2 ; w n 2 ) ( 1 , 1 , 1 ; w n n ) ]
where x ˜ i j = ( a i j , b i j , c i j ; w i j ) , x ˜ i j 1 = ( 1 / c i j , 1 / b i j , 1 / a i j ; w i j ) for i , j = 1 , , n and i j .
The second step determines the values of the fuzzy synthetic extents. In this paper, the values of fuzzy synthetic extents S i are defined using the correct normalization formula presented by Wang et al. [32] in the following equation:
S i = ( g i , h i , k i ; min ( w i j ) ) = j = 1 n M g i j [ i = 1 n j = 1 n M g i j ] 1 = ( j = 1 n a i j j = 1 n a i j + k = 1 , k i n j = 1 n c k j , j = 1 n b i j i = 1 n j = 1 n b i j , j = 1 n c i j j = 1 n c i j + k = 1 , k i n j = 1 n a k j ; min ( w i j ) )
where j = 1 n M g i j = ( j = 1 n a i j , j = 1 n b i j , j = 1 n c i j ; min ( w i j ) ) ,   i , j = 1 , 2 , , n
The third step is to calculate the centroid indices of the fuzzy synthetic extent, S i by using Dat et al.’s [35] approach.
Suppose S 1 , S 2 , , S n are the values of the fuzzy synthetic extents. The centroid point of all fuzzy numbers C i = ( x ¯ S i , y ¯ S i ) , i = 1 , 2 , , n can be calculated by:
x ¯ S i = ( g i + h i + k i ) / 3
y ¯ S i = min ( w i j ) / 3
The distance between the centroid point C i = ( x ¯ S i , y ¯ S i ) , i = 1 , 2 , , n and the minimum point G = ( x min , y min ) , is determined by Equation (12) and Figure 3:
D ( S i , G ) = ( x ¯ S i x min ) 2 + ( y ¯ S i ϖ 3 y min ) 2
where x min = min ( g i ) , y min = min ( w i j )
The fourth step defines the weight vector W = ( w 1 , , w n ) T of the fuzzy comparison matrix as:
w i = D ( S i , C i ) i = 1 n D ( S i , C i ) = ( x ¯ S i x min ) 2 + ( y ¯ S i ϖ 3 y min ) 2 i = 1 n ( x ¯ S i x min ) 2 + ( y ¯ S i ϖ 3 y min ) 2 ,   i = 1 , , n
Example 2.
This re-considers the data in Example 1. Using Equations (9)–(11), the new fuzzy synthetic extents and the centroid point of five criteria are obtained, respectively (as shown in Table 2). The minimum point of the five criteria is ( x min , y min ) = ( 0.07 , 1.0 ) . By using Equation (12), the distances between the centroid point and minimize point of five criteria are calculated. Finally, the priority vector of five criteria is obtained using Equation (13). Evidently, the priority vector obtained by the proposed fuzzy AHP approach is more reasonable than the outcome obtained using Chang’s [21] approach.
Example 3.
This considers two fuzzy numbers in Figure 2a, i.e., A ˜ = ( 3 , 4 , 7 ) and B ˜ = ( 1 , 4 , 5 ) . Using Equation (9), thefuzzy synthetic extent values of fuzzy numbers A ˜ and B ˜  are 0.375, 0.500, and 0.875 and 0.125, 0.500, and 0.625, respectively. Then, the centroid points of fuzzy numbers A ˜ and B ˜ are obtained by using Equations (10) and (11), i.e., C A ˜ = ( 0.583 , 0.333 ) and C B ˜ = ( 0.417 , 0.333 ) . By using Equation (12), the relative importance measures of A ˜ and B ˜ are 0.611 and 0.389, respectively, and thus A ˜ B ˜ . Note that the priority A ˜ B ˜ obtained using Chang’s approach is seen as unreasonable and not consistent with human intuition. Clearly, the revised approach can overcome the shortcomings of the inconsistency of Chang’s [21] approach.
Example 4.
This considers two fuzzy numbers in Figure 2b, i.e., A ˜ = ( 6 , 6.2 , 11.6 ) and B ˜ = ( 1 , 6.4 , 6.6 ) . Using Equation (9), thefuzzy synthetic extent values of fuzzy numbers A ˜ and B ˜  are 0.476, 0.492, and 0.921 and 0.079, 0.508, and 0.524, respectively. Then, the centroid points of fuzzy numbers A ˜ and B ˜  are obtained by using Equations (10) and (11), i.e., C A ˜ = ( 0.63 , 0.333 ) and C B ˜ = ( 0.37 , 0.333 ) . By using Equation (12), the relative importance of A ˜ and B ˜ is 0.654 and 0.346, respectively, and thus A ˜ B ˜ . Note that the priority B ˜ A ˜ obtained using Chang’s [21] approach is not consistent with human intuition. Again, this example shows that the proposed approach can overcome the shortcomings of Chang’s [21] approach.

5. Application of the Proposed Fuzzy AHP Approach

In this section, the improved fuzzy AHP approach is applied to define the priority of the university’s governance factors that affect lecturers’ scientific research productivity at Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam (VNU). VNU is one of two leading multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral national universities in Vietnam. VNU is entrusted with the task of producing highly qualified human resources for the industrialization and modernization of the country. VNU holds a special position in Vietnam’s higher education system, operating according to a special regulation promulgated by the Prime Minister. Currently, this university has 35 members (including 8 affiliated universities, 4 affiliated schools, 7 research institutes, 2 training and research centers, and 13 support/service units), 33 research groups, 216 laboratories, and 4.326 staff members. As of the end of 2020, VNU had 488 training programs (including 185 undergraduate programs, 187 master’s programs, and 116 doctoral programs), with 40.038 undergraduate students, 7500 graduate students, and 819 international students.
In this study, data were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews with the director of VNU’s Organization-Personnel Department, University of economics and Business -VNU’s Office of Human resources and department head, University of economics and Business-VNU’s faculty head. A committee of three decision makers (D1, D2, and D3) conducted the evaluation of the university’s governance factors.
The entire the evaluation of university’s governance factors was characterized by the following steps:
  • Step 1: Defining the university’s governance factors.
  • Step 2: Determining fuzzy judgment matrices of factors and sub-factors.
  • Step 3: Aggregating decisions from decision makers based on geometric means.
  • Step 4: Calculating fuzzy synthetic extent values of factors and sub-factors.
  • Step 5: Determining the weight vector of factors and sub-factors impacting lecturer research productivity.
Steps 1 and 2 were performed by the committee (three decision makers, i.e., D1, D2, and D3) without any intervention from the authors. Steps 3–5 were calculated using the improved fuzzy AHP approach on a spreadsheet.

5.1. Defining the University’s Governance Factors

Following a survey of the literature and discussions with the committee, six factors and twenty-two sub-factors affecting lecturers’ scientific research productivity were chosen. Table 3 shows the factors and sub-factors used in this study.

5.2. Determining Fuzzy Judgment Matrices of Factors and Sub-Factors

In this study, the committee was requested to separately proceed to their own fuzzy judgment matrices for the evaluation of the university’s governance factors. This study adopts an intensity scale for fuzzy numbers to transform the linguistic values into TFNs, as shown in Table 4.

5.3. Aggregating Decisions from Decision Makers Based on Geometric Means

By using the collected data from questionnaires, the averaged fuzzy comprehensive pair-wise comparisons for the two levels of a hierarchical system are calculated, as shown in Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11.

5.4. Calculating Fuzzy Synthetic Extent Values of Factors and Sub-Factors

Using Equation (9) and Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11, the fuzzy synthetic extent values of factors and sub-factors are calculated (as shown in Table 12).

5.5. Determining the Weight Vector of Factors and Sub-Factors Impacting on Lecturer Research Productivity

Using Equations (10)–(13), the weight vectors of the factors and sub-factors affecting lecturer research productivity are shown in Table 13. The result indicates that “resources for research activities” is the most important factor affecting the research productivity of lecturers at VNU. This result is similar to other studies in which it has been found that the quality of human resources, investment in facilities, equipment, and investment funds for research activities have a strong impact on the research productivity of lecturers. VNU is a multi-disciplinary university with a higher percentage of lecturers with doctoral degrees than many other universities in Vietnam. This has been used by VNU in the establishment of interdisciplinary research groups and has resulted in many important achievements through the implementation of national and international research missions. However, at present, the facilities of many universities under VNU are quite limited, scattered, and not synchronized. The financial resources invested in science and technology activities are not commensurate with the potential or the need to improve the research capacity of the teaching staff to meet international standards.

6. Conclusions

Increasing lecturers’ research productivity plays an important role in improving teaching quality, as well as universities’ global status and prestige. This study indicated the shortcomings of Chang’s extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and proposed an innovative revised fuzzy AHP approach. The proposed AHP approach considers both normal triangular fuzzy numbers and non-normal triangular fuzzy numbers. Comparative examples were presented to demonstrate the validity and advantages of the proposed fuzzy AHP approach. This study shows that the results obtained using the proposed fuzzy AHP approach are more consistent with human intuition than Chang’s approach. The proposed fuzzy AHP approach was further applied to determine the priority of the university’s governance factors that affect lecturers’ scientific research productivity. The result indicated that “Resources for research activities” is the most important factor affecting the research productivity of lecturers at VNU, followed by research objectives and strategies and leadership.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.T.H., L.T.L. and D.D.H.; Data curation, T.T.H., N.A.T., L.H.V., D.D.H. and L.T.A.; Resources, T.T.H. and N.A.T.; Visualization, T.T.H., L.T.L. and L.T.A.; Writing—original draft, T.T.H., N.A.T., L.H.V., L.T.L. and D.D.H.; Funding acquisition, N.A.T. and N.X.H.; Methodology, N.A.T., L.H.V. and L.Q.D.; Project administration, N.A.T.; Supervision, N.A.T.; Formal analysis, L.H.V. and L.Q.D.; Validation, L.T.L. and D.D.H.; Investigation, L.T.A.; Writing—review & editing, N.X.H. and L.Q.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number 503.01-2019.03.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number 503.01-2019.03.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jung, S. Faculty Research Productivity in Hong Kong across Academic Discipline. High. Educ. Stud. 2012, 2, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hedjazi, Y.; Behravan, J. Study of factors influencing research productivity of agriculture faculty members in Iran. High. Educ. 2011, 62, 635–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nafukho, F.M.; Wekullo, C.S.; Muyia, M.H. Examining research productivity of faculty in selected leading public universities in Kenya. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2019, 66, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abramo, G.; D’Angelo, C.A.; Murgia, G. The relationship among research productivity, research collaboration, and their determinants. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 1016–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Tafreshi, G.H.; Imani, M.H.; Ghashlag, P.M. Designing a Model for Research Productivity Evaluation of Faculty of District 2 of Islamic Azad University of Iran. World Appl. Sci. J. 2013, 21, 1708–1720. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jahan, F.; Siddiqui, M.; Khabouri, Z.; Riyami, R.; Ahuja, A. Factors influencing quality of academic research: Perception of faculty researchers at Oman Medical College. Arch. Med. Res. 2018, 2, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bland, C.J.; Center, B.A.; Finstad, D.A.; Risbey, K.R. A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Acad. Med. 2005, 80, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Aydin, O.T. Research Performance of Higher Education Institutions: A Review on the Measurements and Affecting Factors of Research Performance. J. High. Educ. Sci. 2017, 7, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Ryu, Y.; Hwang, K.; Choi, S.O. The Factors Affecting Basic Research Performance Funded by Government: Creative Research Program Case in South Korea. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2016, 21, 349–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kok, K.S.; McDonal, C. Underpinning excellence in higher education and investigation into the leadership, governance and management behaviours of high-performing academic departments. Stud. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 210–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Aref, F.; Washington, A.; Johnson, J.; Davis, D.; Cross, K. Factors Affecting Rehabilitation Research Productivity in Minority Serving Institutions. In Proceedings of the LU-RRTC State of the Science Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 28–29 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
  12. Yumeen, S.; Ho, S.M.; Reg, O.; Wong, W.; Borschel, G.H. What Factors Influence Resident Research Publication in the Division of Plastic Surgery? J. Surg. Educ. 2018, 75, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Salman, S.; Kausar, T.; Furqan, M. Factors affecting research productivity in private universities of Lahore: A discriminant analysis. Pak. Bus. Rev. 2018, 19, 1046–1064. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hoffmann, D.; Berg, S.; Koufogiannakis, D. Understanding Factors that Encourage Research Productivity for Academic Librarians. Evid. Based Libr. Inf. Pract. 2017, 12, 102–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Yang, J.C. A study Of Factors Affecting University Professors’ Research Output: Perspectives of Taiwanese Professors. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 2017, 14, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hosseinifar, T.; Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A.; Zare, A. Factors affecting and inhibiting scientific productivity from the viewpoint of faculty members of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. Educ Res. Med. Sci. 2016, 5, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sheridan, J.; Savoy, J.N.; Kaatz, A.; Lee, Y.G.; Filut, A.; Carnet, M. Write More Articles, Get More Grants: The Impact of Department Climate on Faculty Research Productivity. J. Women’s Health 2017, 26, 587–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Negash, M.; Lemma, T.T.; Samkin, G. Factors impacting accounting research output in developing countries: An exploratory study. Br. Account. Rev. 2018, 51, 170–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wichian, S.N.; Wongwanich, S.; Bowarnkitiwong, S. Factors Affecting Research Productivity of Faculty Members in Government Universities: Lisrel and Neural Network Analyses. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2009, 30, 67–78. [Google Scholar]
  20. Heinze, T.; Shapira, P.; Rogers, J.D.; Senker, J.M. Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 610–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chang, D.Y. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1996, 3, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, Y.; Xu, L.; Solangi, Y.A. Strategic renewable energy resources selection for Pakistan: Based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sadat, S.A.; Fini, M.V.; Hashemi-Dezaki, H.; Nazififar, M. Barrier analysis of solar PV energy development in the context of Iran using fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101549. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ding, D.; Wu, J.; Zhu, S.; Mu, Y.; Li, Y. Research on AHP-based fuzzy evaluation of urban green building planning. Environ. Chall. 2021, 5, 100305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yilmaz, M.K.; Kusakci, A.O.; Aksoy, M.; Hacioglu, U. The evaluation of operational efficiencies of Turkish airports: An integrated spherical fuzzy AHP/DEA approach. Appl. Soft Comput. 2022, 119, 108620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Büyüközkan, G.; Havle, C.A.; Feyzioğlu, O. An integrated SWOT based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS methodology for digital transformation strategy analysis in airline industry. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2021, 97, 102142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kılıc, O.M.; Ersayın, K.; Gunal, H.; Khalofah, A.; Alsubeie, M.S. Combination of fuzzy-AHP and GIS techniques in land suitability assessment for wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivation. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 29, 2634–2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nazari, S.; Fallah, M.; Kazemipoor, H.; Salehipour, A. A fuzzy inference-fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-based clinical decision support system for diagnosis of heart diseases. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018, 95, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Awasthi, A.; Govindan, K.; Gold, S. Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 195, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Kumar, D.; Rahman, Z.; Chan, F.T.S. A fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi objective linear programming model for order allocation in a sustainable supply chain A case study. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2017, 30, 535–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, J.F.; Hsieh, H.N.; Do, Q.H. Evaluating teaching performance based on fuzzy AHP and comprehensive evaluation approach. Appl. Soft Comput. 2015, 28, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, Y.M.; Luo, Y.; Hua, Z.S. On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008, 186, 735–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dubois, D.; Prade, H. Operations on fuzzy numbers. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 1978, 9, 613–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, Y.; Eckert, C.M.; Earl, C. A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 161, 113738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dat, L.Q.; Yu, V.F.; Chou, S.Y. An Improved Ranking Method for Fuzzy Numbers Based on the Centroid-Index. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2012, 14, 413–419. [Google Scholar]
  36. Okendo, O. Constraints of research productivity in universities in Tanzania: A case of Mwenge Catholic University, Tanzania. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2018, 6, 201–210. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rubin, A.; Callaghan, C.W. Entrepreneurial orientation, technological propensity and academic research productivity. Heliyon 2019, 5, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Yucel, A.G.; Demir, S.B. Academic Incentive Allowance: Scientific Productivity, Threats, Expectations. Int. Online J. Educ. Sci. 2018, 10, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Farzaneh, E.; Amani, F.; Taleghani, Y.M.; Fathi, A.; Aghdam, F.G.; Ardalan, G.F. Research barriers from the viewpoint of faculty members and students of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences. Int. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2016, 4, 1926–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Ramli, M.S.B.; Jusoh, A.B. Expectancy Theory Analysis to Conduct Research at Malaysian Research University. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Issues 2015, 5, 366–372. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The comparison of two fuzzy numbers.
Figure 1. The comparison of two fuzzy numbers.
Sustainability 14 06134 g001
Figure 2. Triangular fuzzy numbers A ˜ and B ˜ . (a) The case that m a = m b ,   l b l a and u b u a ; (b) The case that m b = m a + δ ,   u b = m b + δ ,   l a = m a δ ,   l b = m b + γ ,   u a = m a + γ .
Figure 2. Triangular fuzzy numbers A ˜ and B ˜ . (a) The case that m a = m b ,   l b l a and u b u a ; (b) The case that m b = m a + δ ,   u b = m b + δ ,   l a = m a δ ,   l b = m b + γ ,   u a = m a + γ .
Sustainability 14 06134 g002
Figure 3. The distance between the centroid point C i = ( x ¯ S i , y ¯ S i ) and the minimum point G = ( x min , y min ) .
Figure 3. The distance between the centroid point C i = ( x ¯ S i , y ¯ S i ) and the minimum point G = ( x min , y min ) .
Sustainability 14 06134 g003
Table 1. Fuzzy comparison matrix of five criteria and its priority vector using Chang’s approach.
Table 1. Fuzzy comparison matrix of five criteria and its priority vector using Chang’s approach.
CriteriaC1C2C3C4C5Chang’s [21] Approach
Value Of Fuzzy Synthetic ExtentPriority Vector
C1(1.00, 1.00, 1.00)(4.00, 5.00, 6.00)(5.00, 6.00, 7.00)(2.00, 3.00, 4.00)(4.00, 5.00, 6.00)(0.34, 0.52, 0.78)1
C2(0.17, 0.20, 0.25)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00)(0.33, 0.50, 1.00)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00)(0.07, 0.10, 0.14)0
C3(0.14, 0.17, 0.20)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00)(0.33, 0.50, 1.00)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00)(0.07, 0.10, 0.14)0
C4(0.25, 0.33, 0.50)(1.00, 2.00, 3.00)(1.00, 2.00, 3.00)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00)(1.00, 2.00, 3.00)(0.09, 0.19, 0.34)0.008
C5(0.17, 0.20, 0.25)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00)(0.33, 0.50, 1.00)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00)(0.07, 0.10, 0.14)0
Table 2. Fuzzy comparison matrix of five criteria and its priority vector using the proposed approach.
Table 2. Fuzzy comparison matrix of five criteria and its priority vector using the proposed approach.
CriteriaC1C2C3C4C5
The proposed approachValue of fuzzy synthetic extent(0.41, 0.52, 0.62)(0.08, 0.10, 0.14)(0.07, 0.10, 0.13)(0.10, 0.19, 0.28)(0.08, 0.10, 0.14)
Centroid point(0.52, 0.33)(0.10, 0.33)(0.10, 0.33)(0.19, 0.33)(0.10, 0.33)
The distance between the centroid point and minimized point0.4410.0270.0260.1180.027
Priority vector0.6890.0430.0410.1840.043
Table 3. Factors affecting lecturers’ scientific research productivity.
Table 3. Factors affecting lecturers’ scientific research productivity.
No.FactorsSub-Factors and DescriptionReferences
1Research objectives and strategies (RO&S)Development orientation towards research university (RO&S1)[2,5,6]
Establishing a set of plans and strategies to boost research activities (RO&S2)[9,11,36]
Specific and widely communicated objectives (RO&S3)[7]
Research strategies and objectives are built up in multiple dimensions (from top to bottom, from bottom to top, there is coordination between units and peer groups) (RO&S4)[1,7,17]
2Decentralization (DC)Governance decisions are made on the basis of extensive stakeholder engagement, with emphasis on feedback systems and collaboration (DC1)[7,8]
Governance activities promote academic independence, equality, communication, and connection among members (DC2)[1,17]
The autonomy of institutions and lecturers (DC3)[9]
Degree of lecturers’ participation in the decision-making process about scientific research activities in their faculty/university (DC4)[17]
3Leadership (LD)Professional competence and research experience (LD1)[9]
Ability to connect research groups, attract funding, and create an environment that ensures research activities and innovation (LD2)[20]
Having a high reputation and clear communication skills (LD3)[6,10]
Leaders’ support for scientific research work and ability to create a departmental research atmosphere (LD4)[15]
4Support for research activities (SR)Specific policies to support scientific research activities (SR1)[19]
Administrative support of employees, coordinators in departments, and lecturers’ efforts in promoting research (SR2)[6,11,12,17]
Support for the transfer and commercialization of research products (SR3)[16,37]
5Policy towards lecturers (PL)Policy on salaries, bonuses, and incentives (P1)[6,11,38,39]
Research training activities for lecturers (P2)[8]
Recruiting and signing labor contracts commensurate with lecturers’ scientific research capacities (P3)[11,40]
6Resources for research activities (R)Facilities and equipment for research activities (R1)[9,18]
Budget and research funds for research (R2)[3,14]
Human resources for research activities (R3)[16]
Appropriate resource allocation mechanisms (R4)[11]
Table 4. Intensity scale for generalized fuzzy AHP pair-wise comparison.
Table 4. Intensity scale for generalized fuzzy AHP pair-wise comparison.
OrderLinguistic ValuesTriangular Fuzzy NumbersReciprocal Triangular Fuzzy Scale
1Equal importance (EI)(1, 1, 1; 1.0)(1, 1, 1; 1.0)
2Between EI and WI(1, 2, 3; 0.7)(1/3, 1/2, 1; 0.7)
3Weak importance of one over another (WI)(2, 3, 4; 0.7)(1/4, 1/3, 1/2; 0.7)
4Between WI and SI(3, 4, 5; 0.8)(1/4, 1/4, 1/3; 0.8)
5Strong importance (SI)(4, 5, 6; 0.8)(1/6, 1/5, 1/4; 0.8)
6Between SI and VSI(5, 6, 7; 0.9)(1/7, 1/6, 1/5; 0.9)
7Very strong importance (VSI)(6, 7, 8; 0.9)(1/8, 1/7, 1/6; 0.9)
8Between VSI and AI(7, 8, 9; 1.0)(1/9, 1/8, 1/7; 1.0)
9Absolute importance (AI)(8, 9, 9; 1.0)(1/9, 1/9, 1/8; 1.0)
Table 5. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of six factors assessed by the committee.
Table 5. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of six factors assessed by the committee.
FactorsRO&SDCLDSRPLR
RO&S(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(1.11, 1.83, 2.67; 0.70)(1.33, 2.33, 3.33; 0.70)(1.67, 2.67, 3.67; 0.70)(0.50, 0.56, 0.67; 0.70)(0.21, 0.26, 0.36; 0.70)
DC(0.53, 0.94, 1.50; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(0.23, 0.31, 0.44; 0.70)(0.28, 0.39, 0.67; 0.70)(0.23, 0.31, 0.44; 0.70)(0.14, 0.16, 0.19; 0.90)
LD(0.31, 0.44, 0.83; 0.70)(2.33, 3.33, 4.33; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(0.33, 0.50, 1.00; 0.70)(2.00, 3.00, 4.00; 0.70)(0.16, 0.19, 0.23; 0.80)
SR(0.28, 0.39, 0.67; 0.70)(1.67, 2.67, 3.67; 0.70)(1.00, 2.00, 3.00; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(1.00, 1.33, 1.67; 0.70)(0.53, 0.94, 1.50; 0.70)
PL(1.67, 2.33, 3.00; 0.70)(2.33, 3.33, 4.33; 0.70)(0.26, 0.36, 0.61; 0.70)(0.78, 0.83, 1.00; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(0.22, 0.29, 0.42; 0.70)
R(3.00, 4.00, 5.00; 0.70)(5.33, 6.33, 7.33; 0.90)(4.33, 5.33, 6.33; 0.80)(1.11, 1.83, 2.67; 1.00)(2.67, 3.67, 4.67; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)
Table 6. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of four sub-factors with respect to “research objectives and strategies” as assessed by the committee.
Table 6. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of four sub-factors with respect to “research objectives and strategies” as assessed by the committee.
RO&SRO&S1RO&S2RO&S3RO&S4
RO&S1(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(0.51, 0.58, 0.78; 0.70)(2.00, 2.67, 3.33; 0.70)(1.00, 1.67, 2.33; 0.70)
RO&S2(1.67, 2.33, 3.00; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(4.00, 5.00, 6.00; 0.70)(2.33, 3.33, 4.33; 0.70)
RO&S3(0.48, 0.53, 0.61; 0.70)(0.19, 0.24, 0.33; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(0.56, 0.67, 1.00; 0.70)
RO&S4(0.56, 0.67, 1.00; 0.70)(0.24, 0.33, 0.56; 0.70)(1.00, 1.67, 2.33; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)
Table 7. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of three sub-factors with respect to “decentralization” as assessed by the committee.
Table 7. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of three sub-factors with respect to “decentralization” as assessed by the committee.
DCDC1DC2DC3DC4
DC1(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(1.33, 2.33, 3.33; 0.70)(1.67, 2.67, 3.67; 0.70)(0.53, 0.61, 0.83; 0.70)
DC2(0.31, 0.44, 0.83; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(1.00, 1.67, 2.33; 0.70)(0.22, 0.29, 0.42; 0.70)
DC3(0.28, 0.39, 0.67; 0.70)(0.56, 0.67, 1.00; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(0.19, 0.24, 0.33; 0.70)
DC4(1.33, 2.00, 2.67; 0.70)(2.67, 3.67, 4.67; 0.70)(3.33, 4.33, 5.33; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)
Table 8. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of four sub-factors with respect to “leadership” as assessed by the committee.
Table 8. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of four sub-factors with respect to “leadership” as assessed by the committee.
LDLD1LD2LD3LD4
LD1(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(1.33, 2.33, 3.33; 0.70)(1.67, 2.67, 3.67; 0.70)(0.51, 0.92, 1.44; 0.70)
LD2(0.31, 0.44, 0.83; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(1.00, 1.33, 1.67; 0.70)(0.21, 0.29, 0.49; 0.70)
LD3(0.28, 0.39, 0.67; 0.70)(0.78, 0.83, 1.00; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(0.18, 0.26, 0.45; 0.70)
LD4(1.44, 2.17, 3.00; 0.70)(3.67, 4.67, 5.67; 0.70)(4.33, 5.33, 6.44; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)
Table 9. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of three sub-factors with respect to “support for research activities” as assessed by the committee.
Table 9. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of three sub-factors with respect to “support for research activities” as assessed by the committee.
SRSR1SR2SR3
SR1(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(0.51, 0.58, 0.78; 0.70)(1.33, 2.00, 2.67; 0.70)
SR2(1.67, 2.33, 3.00; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(2.67, 3.67, 4.67; 0.70)
SR3(0.53, 0.61, 0.83; 0.70)(0.22, 0.28, 0.39; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)
Table 10. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of three sub-factors with respect to “policy towards lecturers” as assessed by the committee.
Table 10. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of three sub-factors with respect to “policy towards lecturers” as assessed by the committee.
PLPL1PL2PL3
PL1(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(1.33, 2.33, 3.33; 0.70)(1.00, 1.33, 1.67; 0.70)
PL2(0.31, 0.44, 0.83; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(0.53, 0.61, 0.83; 0.70)
PL3(0.78, 0.83, 1.00; 0.70)(1.33, 2.00, 2.67; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)
Table 11. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of four sub-factors with respect to “resources for research activities” as assessed by the committee.
Table 11. Averaged fuzzy comparison matrix of four sub-factors with respect to “resources for research activities” as assessed by the committee.
RR1R2R3R4
R1(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(0.28, 0.39, 0.67; 0.70)(0.78, 1.17, 1.67; 0.70)(0.28, 0.39, 0.67; 0.70)
R2(1.67, 2.67, 3.67; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(2.00, 3.00, 4.00; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)
R3(0.78, 1.17, 1.67; 0.70)(0.28, 0.40, 0.75; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(1.56, 2.00, 2.67; 0.70)
R4(1.67, 2.67, 3.67; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)(0.72, 1.40, 2.08; 0.70)(1.00, 1.00, 1.00; 1.00)
Table 12. Fuzzy synthetic extent values of factors and sub-factors.
Table 12. Fuzzy synthetic extent values of factors and sub-factors.
FactorsFuzzy Synthetic ExtentSub-FactorsFuzzy Synthetic Extent
RO&S(0.08, 0.15, 0.24; 0.70)RO&S1(0.17, 0.25, 0.35; 0.70)
RO&S2(0.37, 0.49, 0.74; 0.70)
RO&S3(0.08, 0.10, 0.51; 0.70)
RO&S4(0.10, 0.15, 0.97; 0.70)
DC(0.03, 0.05, 0.09; 0.70)DC1(0.18, 0.28, 0.41; 0.70)
DC2(0.09, 0.15, 0.31; 0.70)
DC3(0.07, 0.10, 0.26; 0.70)
DC4(0.34, 0.47, 0.99; 0.70)
LD(0.09, 0.14, 0.23; 0.70)LD1(0.16, 0.27, 0.38; 0.70)
LD2(0.08, 0.12, 0.24; 0.70)
LD3(0.07, 0.10, 0.23; 0.70)
LD4(0.39, 0.51, 0.99; 0.70)
SR(0.08, 0.14, 0.23; 0.70)SR1(0.21, 0.29, 0.39; 0.70)
SR2(0.44, 0.56, 0.83; 0.70)
SR3(0.12, 0.15, 1.00; 0.70)
PL(0.09, 0.14, 0.22; 0.70)Pl1(0.31, 0.44, 0.55; 0.70)
Pl2(0.15, 0.19, 0.46; 0.70)
Pl3(0.26, 0.36, 1.00; 0.70)
R(0.26, 0.38, 0.51; 0.70)R1(0.09, 0.14, 0.23; 0.70)
R2(0.24, 0.36, 0.55; 0.70)
R3(0.14, 0.21, 0.58; 0.70)
R4(0.18, 0.29, 0.99; 0.70)
Table 13. Weight vector of factors and sub-factors impacting lecturer research productivity.
Table 13. Weight vector of factors and sub-factors impacting lecturer research productivity.
FactorsWeight ScoreSub-FactorsWeight Score
RO&S0.144RO&S10.165
RO&S20.399
RO&S30.145
RO&S40.291
DC0.076DC10.231
DC20.132
DC30.103
DC40.535
LD0.143LD10.219
LD20.106
LD30.096
LD40.579
SR0.139SR10.189
SR20.499
SR30.313
PL0.137P10.353
P20.167
P30.480
R0.362R10.091
R20.292
R30.227
R40.390
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hue, T.T.; Tuan, N.A.; Van, L.H.; Lien, L.T.; Huong, D.D.; Anh, L.T.; Huy, N.X.; Dat, L.Q. Prioritization of Factors Impacting Lecturer Research Productivity Using an Improved Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106134

AMA Style

Hue TT, Tuan NA, Van LH, Lien LT, Huong DD, Anh LT, Huy NX, Dat LQ. Prioritization of Factors Impacting Lecturer Research Productivity Using an Improved Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):6134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106134

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hue, Truong Thi, Nguyen Anh Tuan, Luu Huu Van, Luong Thuy Lien, Do Dieu Huong, Luong Tram Anh, Nghiem Xuan Huy, and Luu Quoc Dat. 2022. "Prioritization of Factors Impacting Lecturer Research Productivity Using an Improved Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 6134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106134

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop