1

TRANSFORMING R&D CULTURE FROM A TECH-VOCATIONAL BASEDINSTITUTION TO A RESEARCH UNIVERSITY: SSU EXPERIENCE

FELISA E GOMBASamar State UniversityCatbalogan City, Samar

Abstract

Vocational Education Act which was passed in thePhilippines in 1927 created technical vocational(tech-voc)schools with the controlling purpose to fit students foruseful employment. This mandate to tech-voc schools createda culture that has remained even until these schools havebeen converted into university. Samar Trade School(STS))and about 31 others in the region have been created throughthat vocational education act which was legislated intonine(9) state universities and one college with littleconsideration on its capacities in performing one of themajor identities of a university which is research. InAugust 7, 2004, STS finally becomes Samar StateUniversity(SSU) through Republic Act 9313. It is duringthis conversion that emphasized the new weakness of thenewly converted university in terms of research anddevelopment. With greater expectation as a new universityand to live to its name, the SSU management crafted severalstrategies and slowly transformed the appreciation ofpersonnel towards Research & Development andExtension(R&D/E). The major factors consequential intransforming the research culture from tech-voc basedinstitution into becoming a research university was thehigher R&D leadership skills of the upper management whocrafted, approved and strictly implemented a strategicphase-by-phase introduction of reforms within theuniversity towards improving research productivity. Theformation of critical mass(greater than majority involvedin R&D/E related activities) for a sustainable change was

2

realized when government has forcedly implemented reformsin State Universities and Colleges such as Executive OrderNo. 80, Normative Financing Scheme, and the implementationof the Philippine Higher Education Roadmap to name a fewthat required higher productivity in R&D/E among others.The sustainability of the transformation can be secured ifthe university president as well as the members of the topmanagement from academic and facilitative departments hashigh and strong R&D/E skills and R&D/E appreciationrespectively.

Keywords: Research, Research and Development, R&D management, transformingresearch culture,

RATIONALE

The research function of a state university is a vital

importance since it is mandated to be an effective

instrument for national development as regulated by the

Commission on Higher Education(CHED) through the Republic

Act 7722 known as the “Higher Education Act of 1994”.

Moreover, the UNESCO World Declaration on Higher Education

for the Twenty-first Century states that “higher education

institution should advance, create and disseminate knowledge

through research and provide, as part of its service to the

3

community, relevant expertise to assist societies in

cultural, social and economic development, promoting and

developing scientific and technological research as well as

research in the social sciences, the humanities and the

creative arts”.

The Philippines has 110 State Universities and

Colleges(SUCs) which are expected to contribute to the

national development through human resource professional

training, research and extension. Most of these SUCs were

converted technical-vocational schools created in 1927

through the vocational act. In Eastern Visayas, there were

six(6) technical-vocational based institutions that were

converted into universities and one of these is Samar State

University(SSU) through Republic Act (RA) 9313 in August 4,

2004. SSU started as a laboratory high school for trade

technical training. It was converted into Samar Trade School

in 1932, Samar School of Arts and Trade in June 15, 1959

thru Republic Act 2435, and into Samar State Polytechnic

College(SSPC) in November 18, 1981 thru Batas Pambansa

Bilang 323.

4

The research efforts of SSU started as early as Samar

Trade School(Annual Reports, 1932), when faculty and

students were required to develop innovative products for

their trade skills competitions and exhibits. However, these

were not sustained, because at that time research was not a

part of the duties of the faculty. The mandate of trade

schools and tech-voc was to train students to have specific

technical skills that they could use after their secondary

education. In developing countries, tech-voc institutions

were established to support socio-economic rural prosperity

and progress with the hope that the graduates were honed

with necessary skills to start their own entrepreneurial

works/jobs(Tilak, 2002:4). It is on this purpose that Samar

State Polytechnic College(SSPC) had not considered research

as a major function and had almost zero in research output.

The RA 9313 which converted SSPC into SSU explicitly

identified research as one of the mandated functions of the

university. This forced the SSU management to create the

Office of the Vice-President for Planning, Research and

Extension Services to set its research and extension

5

directions, wherein, several strategies and approaches were

implemented in order to re-engineer the research culture in

the university.

OBJECTIVES

This paper aimed to assess the transformation of the

research culture from a tech-voc based institution to a

research university and evaluate the research management of

Samar State University. Specifically, it was guided by the

following objectives:

1. To describe the R&D management from 1982 to 2012 in

terms of:

1.1 leadership;

1.2 profile of faculty by education qualification and

rank;

1.3 historical accounts on R&D strategies and

innovations implemented; and

1.4 research outputs.

6

2. To determine the factors consequential in transforming

the research culture from tech-voc based institution to

research university in terms of:

2.1 leadership;

2.2 government support; and

2.3 incentives and awards.

METHODOLOGY

This paper aimed to document the processes used by the

University in transforming from a tech-voc institution

towards a research university taken into account from 1982

to 2012. It also identified the factors that helped changing

the R&D culture positively. It employed documentary analysis

and interview of leaders, academic administrators,

presidents, and research managers on the stated timeline of

this study. The documents from the human resource management

office were taken to describe the profile of the faculty and

research managers in terms of educational qualifications and

ranks.

The data on research policies implemented were taken

7

from the records’, board secretary’s, and R&D’s offices.

Other documents on research outputs, research projects,

publications, patents, technology generation, and awards

were taken from the annual reports of the University. The

factors consequential in transforming tech-voc based

institution towards a research university were taken from

structured interview and evidences of documents gathered

from different sources and offices. The analytical

frameworks used in this study are percentages, mean, and

time series.

The R&D leaderships were grouped according to the terms

of the president which is divided into these periods: 1982-

1992; 19993-1999; 2000-2004; 2005-2011; and 2012-present. In

these periods, the leadership attributes such research

skills, research outputs, research policies supported,

research capability conducted or supported, linkage

established for R&D, and external funds sourced out for

research projects were rated. The rating ranged from 1 to 5

measured according to the number of these attributes. The

rating of 5 is highest and 1 is lowest as shown in Table 1.

8

Table 1. The R&D Leadership Measurements

R&D LeadershipAttributes

Indicators RatingScale

R&D Skills PhD 3MS/MA only 2BS degree only 1Participated in at least 2scientific conference

1

Attended at least 2 R&D relatedtraining

1

R&D Output Published in refereed journal 2Published in local(non refereedjournal)

2

Patented technology 2Patent pending 1Presented paper in at least innational fora

1

R&D policies More than 2 R&D policies per year 2At least 1 policy per year 1

R&D capabilitybuildingActivities conducted

More than five activities per year 5Four activities per year 4Three activities per year 3Two activities per year 3One activity per year 3None None/blank

Linkages establishedandSupported

At least five functional linkages 5Four functional linkages 4Three functional linkages 3Two functional linkages 2One functional linkages 1None None/blank

Externally fundedR&D Projects

Greater than PhP 2 M 5PhP 1.0 M to PhP 2M 4PhP 500 T to PhP 999T 3PhP 100T to PhP 499T 2PhP 99T and below 1None None/blank

DISCUSSION

This section presents the description of the research

management from 1982 to 2012 in terms of leadership, profile

9

of faculty by educational qualification and by rank, and

research outputs. The factors consequential in transforming

the research culture from tech-voc based institution to a

research university were presented herein. Furthermore, this

section presents the research outputs from 1982 to 2012. The

strategies implemented in SSU that helped in the changing of

the research culture from tech-voc institution towards a

research university was discussed herein through historical

accounts per year.

R&D Management

The research and development management was described

in terms of leadership; profile of faculty by educational

qualification and rank; historical accounts on R&D

strategies and innovations implemented; and research

outputs.

Leadership. The leadership of the different periods was

described by means of indicators or attributes. The

leadership is best described in terms of numerical ratings

as shown in Table 2. The leadership period was taken based

10

on the years the President was elected into office like in

1982-1992 which was 10-year period of the president. The new

president came in 1993 and stayed up to 1999. The next

president was appointed in August 9, 1999, but the changed

of R&D managers took in January 2000. Hence, the period was

taken up at 2000-2004. In August 2004, this was the period

when SSPC was converted into SSU and first University

President was elected. In February 1, 2012, the current

President was elected into SSU second University President.

The R&D managers were the R&D Center head, Director for

R&D/E, Vice-President for R&D/E. The academic heads were the

Deans and Vice-President for Academic Affairs.

Table 2. The Leadership Description per Period

Leadership attributes Total RatingLeadershipperiod

/researchleaders

R&Dskills

R&Doutputs

R&Dpolicie

s support

ed

R&DCapability

initiated andsupport

ed

Linkages

established

on R&D

ExternalFundforR&Dprojects

R&DLeaders

Period

President 2 1 1 1 1 6 15R&DManagers

1 1 1 1 1 4

Academic 2 1 - 1 3

11

1982-92

HeadSupportStaff

1 - 1 21993-99

President 3 1 2 5 3 1 15 38R&DManagers

2 1 2 5 1 1 12

AcademicHead

3 1 3 6

SupportStaff

1 1 3 5

2000-04

President 3 1 4 5 4 3 20 59R&DManagers

5 3 4 5 5 5 27

AcademicHead

2 1 1 3 7

SupportStaff

1 1 3 5

2005-11

President 3 2 4 3 3 3 19 66R&DManagers

5 5 5 5 5 5 28

AcademicHead

3 3 2 2 1 12

SupportStaff

2 1 2 2 7

2012→

President 3 2 5 5 4 3 22 78R&DManagers

5 5 5 5 4 4 28

AcademicHead

3 3 5 5 2 2 20

SupportStaff

2 2 2 8

The data in Table 2 shows the rating of the research

leaders increased over time. It started with a rating of 15

for 1982-1992 to 78 in 2012. This implied that there was a

changing research culture of the leaders in the University.

12

In 1993-1999, the President had higher R&D management

skills than the R&D managers, because, the President was

exposed to scientific conferences and was able to include

research budget allocation in the General Appropriations

Act(GAA). There were 2 new policies on research approved and

implemented.

Furthermore, it was the President in 1993 that SSPC at

this period established strong linkages with regional

organizations and research consortia like the Visayas

Consortium for Agriculture and Resources Program (VICARP),

Department of Science and Technology Regional Office(DOST

8), National Economic and Development Authority(NEDA), and

other State Colleges and Universities(SUCs) in the Region 8;

the President allocated the budget for R&D operation and

management was set and included in the GAA; SSPC submitted

seven programs to Level I accreditation by the Association

of Accredited Chartered Colleges and Universities of the

Philippines(AACCUP) in 1997 initiated by the President in

this period. From the national government initiatives, the

SSPC budget passed through DOST approval and R&D program was

13

one the evaluation criteria of DOST. Hence, R&D programs and

projects were formulated and submitted to DOST for

endorsement.

As shown in Table 2, the R&D managers for the period of

2000-2004 have higher R&D skills than the President because

the R&D head had publications and presented research outputs

in R&D scientific regional and national conferences.

Furthermore, the rating of the R&D managers along research

policies supported is higher compared that of the President

and academic heads, because, the R&D managers were

aggressive in the creation of research policies like

inclusion of R&D/E in year-end clearance, higher percentage

in the Performance Evaluation System, incentives and awards.

This implied that the R&D managers were aggressive in

transforming the research culture in SSU.

For the period of 2012 to present as shown in Table 2,

the rating along R&D policies and R&D capability building

activities of the President and Academic heads were 5,

because, the President had strong appreciation in R&D/E

programs that cascaded to the academic heads. They have

14

strong support to the implementation of R&D policies and

activities. It is also in this period that the national

government through CHED have cascaded the EO 80, Normative

financing scheme, Higher Education Roadmap, national and

international accreditation.

Profile of the Faculty. Academic personnel or faculty

are the researchers of most SUCs in the country. They are

expected to perform research together with instruction and

extension services. The profile of faculty presented in

Figures 1 to 5.

PhD MA w/PhD units

MA BS w/ MA BS05

10152025303540

ProfessorAsso ProfAsst Prof

Educational Qualifications

Numb

er o

f Fa

cult

y

Figure 1. Faculty profile by educational qualification andacademic rank in 1982-1990

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 199905101520253035404550

PhDMTEMA/MSBS

Year

Number of F acu

lty

15

Figure 2. Profile of the faculty by educationalqualification from 1991-1999

Figure 3. Profile of the faculty by academic rank from 1991-1999

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 199905101520253035404550

PhDMTEMA/MSBS

Year

Number of F aculty

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 19990

10

20

30

40

50

60

ProfessorAsso ProfAsst ProfInstructor

Year

Number of faculty

16

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PhDMS/MABS

Year

Number of Faculty

Figure 4. Profile of faculty by educational qualificationfrom 2000-2012

01020304050607080

ProfessorAsso ProfAsst ProfInstructor

Year

Numb

er o

f Fa

cult

y

Figure 5. Profile of the faculty by academic rank from 2000-2012

As shown in Figures 1 to 5, the faculty have capability

17

to do research. Figure 1 shows the profile of the faculty in

1982-1990, there was about 5 professors with PhD, 25

associate professors with PhD units, and more or less 30

with masteral degrees. These qualifications and ranks of the

faculty on this period were indicators that the faculty had

the capability to do research. In the period of 1991-1999,

the number of PhD and mastral degree holders among faculty

as well as the number of professor and associate professors

had increased as shown in Figures 2 and 3. There were 10

professors, 50 associate professors, 10 faculty with PhDs

and almost 50 faculty with masteral degree holders. Figures

4 and 5 showed the profile of the faculty from 2000-2012 by

educational qualifications and academic rank respectively.

It can seen in these figures that most of the faculty are

instructors. The number of PhD and masteral as well as the

number of professors had decreased due to retirement and in

most cases they are replaced with BS degree holders as

instructors. These data implied that the faculty of Samar

State Univeristy as early as 1982 had the capability to

conduct research.

18

Historical accounts on R&D strategies and innovations.

This section presents the strategies and innovations in

managing R&D/E per period. The R&D management started in

1987 through the establishment of R&D Center Office headed

by a competent center head. However, the only major output

was the publication o f the Graduate Research Journal with

first published issue in November 1987.

In 1993-1997, the R&D Center had its new head, because

SSPC had new President. In this period, the President had

background in R&D that required the R&D head to attend

seminars and scientific conferences at the regional and

national level. At this period, there was one in-house R&D

Proposal writing workshop attended by about 30 faculty. In

1996, the R&D projects’ outputs were submitted to VICARP for

evaluation and as entry to regional R&D contest. In August

1997, SSPC hosted the 9th Regional VICARP Symposium on R&D

Highlights that slowly educate some faculty on research

processes.

In August 9, 1999, new President was elected and new

set of officers was formed in SSPC. Moreover, Samar

19

Regional School of Fisheries was integrated to SSPC through

RA 8745. With this integration, the potential research

areas were increased and widen thru inclusion of fishery and

marine resources.

In January 2, 2000, the R&D Center had new leadership.

The new R&D Head organized the research and extension

coordinators per college. Regular meetings were conducted to

organized research and extension programs, projects, and

activities in each college. In 2001, SSPC management

approved the following R&D thrusts and priority programs

with a banner commodity of marine resources:1)aquatic

fishery resources system; 2)agricultural resources and

environment management system;3) development based resources

system; 4)education; 5)socio-cultural studies; 6)

engineering, science and technology; 7)health and medicine;

and 8) special projects and support services. These priority

programs were set in line with the regional and national

programs as well as with the CHED research agenda.

Another factor that enhance the research leadership of

the University when it became the host and secretariat of

20

the Eastern Visayas Consortium for Industry and Energy

Research and Development(EVCIERD) in 2000, wherein SSPC R&D

Services served as a secretariat and the College President

was the First EVCIERD President. As a host of EVCIERD, SSPC

management strongly supported research activities in order

to show to EVCIERD member agencies its research leadership

capability. The President was forced to fund research

programs, projects and activities related to industry and

energy.

The first Research and Extension Manual was crafted,

developed, approved by the SSPC Board of Trustees, and

implemented as a guide to the R&E operations and management.

Moreover, the research and extension efforts were guided by

a roadmap approved by the Board of Trustees in June 2000.

The year 2000 was the turning point of the SSU R&D

culture, when the new head of the R&D Center conceptualized

the R&D Roadmap and approved by the President and the Board

of Trustees and when SSU was converted approved by the Board

of Regents. The R&D Roadmap has the following major

strategies:1)2000-2003: Massive R&D capability building

21

activities such as in-house seminar-workshop on research

writing, mentoring, and coaching, wherein the faculty were

trained of doing R&D tasks without requiring high quality

research output. At this phase, the faculty were given time

to polish his/her project execution and reporting. Fast

learners were trained more and sent to outside trainings to

polish their capability in research project execution,

management, and reporting. They were required to join

scientific conferences as paper presenter or R&D paper

contestants in the region, national, and international to

test their capability and comparability with the researchers

in the region and in the country as well. 2)2003-2010: R&D

policies were implemented such as R&D/E functions as a

requirement for year-end clearance; inclusion of R&D/E

functions in the Performance Evaluation System(PES) for all

faculty; SSU-Intellectual Property Rights Manual; and Awards

and publication/patent incentives policy. At this period,

faculty joined R&D contest and presented papers in regional,

national and international scientific conferences.

Furthermore, SSU got 3 external funds for R&D projects from

22

NEDA, DOST, and CHED. 3) 2011-2015: R&D management crafted a

policy that student researches like thesis and projects must

pass through the R&D office to fit in to the R&D programs of

the University. The Director for Research and Extension or

the VP for R&D/E must be a member of the panel of evaluators

in the undergraduate and graduate thesis/projects. Students

R&D works were submitted to regional and national R&D

contest that placed SSU in the scientific community in 2012.

In the 2010 Regional Invention Contest and Exhibit held at

Tacloban City, SSU made a grandslam as its students clinched

the first, second, and third prizes in the Outstanding

Student Creative Research-College Category. The first prize

represented the region in the 2012 National Invention

Contest and Exhibit sponsored by DOST at Mall of Asia, Pasay

City and was awarded as second prize at national level.

Research centers were created such as Mussel Research Center

and working to become Regional Mussel R&D Center;

Engineering and Technology Center to support marine industry

in Samar; Samar Socio-cultural Research Studies.

Samar State University was converted into University on

23

August 7, 2004. Along research and extension functions, the

leadership totally changed, because, it was headed now by

Vice-President for Planning, Research and Extension with

attached offices headed by directors, namely: Director for

Research and Extension; Director for Gender and Development;

Director for Publication; Director for Information and

Communication; Director for Management Information System;

and Director for Technology Licensing & Innovation Support

Office.

SSU R&E Manual of Operation was updated through

inclusion of de-loading of faculty involved in R&D/E,

honoraria of R&D/E projects, R&D publication and awards

incentives. The R&D Roadmap in 2000 was continuously

implemented with strict implementation of the clearance

policy on R&D/E and increased by 20% on R&D/E in the

Performance Evaluation System.

In 2005, Normative Financing Scheme was introduced to

SUCs by DBM-CHED, wherein research and extension were the

two(2) major functions being measured. The University

President enforced research in the University. Several

24

national policies were also implemented to improve research

functions of SUCs.

In 2007, SSU R&D/Extension services spearheaded

students and faculty research contest and exhibits

competitions, and hosted the Samar Island R&D/E Conference.

The activities aimed to encourage, expose, and experience

faculty and students R&D In-house review were conducted

twice a year. Moreover, these conferences invited the policy

makers, LGU officials, leaders from non government

organizations, owners of Small and Medium industries for

their awareness of SSU research outputs.

In 2008, SSU submitted its seven(7) curricular programs

for Level III accreditation by AACCUP. This accreditation

forced the deans to imposed policies to their faculty like

involvement in research projects, participation in regional,

national and international conferences and competitions,

publications, and technology generation.

In February 1, 2012, the second President of Samar

State University was elected by the Board of Regents. The

vision of the new President for SSU is to become great

25

university. Research and development is the priority of the

new President. In this period, national government

implemented reforms in all sectors including higher

education, SUCs in particular. These reforms in higher

education pushed the new President to give more focus on

research. His leadership was flooded by several reforms from

the national government like the Higher Education Roadmap

implemented by CHED, Result Based Performance Management

System, and many others that pushed him to implement reforms

in R&D at SSU.

The President provided higher support to research

capability to meet the demands of these reforms. In February

9, 2012, SSU submitted nine(9) patent applications(2

inventions and 7 utility model) to Philippine Intellectual

Property Office.

The SSU R&D Roadmap was conceptualized, approved and

implemented in 2000 as shown in Table 3 that guided the R&D

managers to change the research culture. This roadmap is

presented herein to show the different strategies and

innovations by the R&D manager from 2000 to present. The

26

policies that helped the R&D leaders and managers in

changing the research culture from tech-voc institution to a

research university are also presented in Table 3.

Table 3. The SSU R&D/E Roadmap 2000-2030

Phases Strategies and Innovations MilestonePhase 1 2000 Massive R&D training was started. The

main goal is to train faculty inperforming R&D tasks by doing.

Faculty aredoing R&D.Quality ofresearchprojects are notexpected to behigh.

Corrosion Control was implemented. Thismeans faculty who are negative in R&Dwere not forced to attend the training.

Phase 2 2001-2003

Mentoring of faculty to polish his/herR&D project execution and reporting.

Significantchanges on theattitude offaculty towardsdoing R&D tasks

This phase will take a while and willvary depending on the capability of thefaculty- researcher.

Phase 3 2003-2010

Fast learner faculty that develops R&Dskills in Phase 1 are encourage to joinresearch competition in the region andnational level.

Faculty-researchers arecomparable withthat in theregion andcountry.SSU sourced outexternal fundsfor R&D projectsFaculty andstudents R&Defforts areawarded by DOSTand otherrecognized awardgiving body

R&D Policies are crafted and BORapproved and implemented, namely: 1)R&DManual of Operation approved in 2005;2)R&D/E function as a requirement for ayear-end clearance; 3)R&D/E percentrating is raised in PerformanceEvaluation System(PES); 4)SSUIntellectual Property Rights Manualapproved in 2010; 5)R&DAwards/Incentives including publicationapproved in 2010.

Phase 4 2011-2015

Technology/information/processesdeveloped will be protected throughsubmission of application to IPOPhilippines.Awarded faculty researchers encourage tosubmit proposals to funding agencies,

Number of patentapplicationssubmittedR&D projectswith externalfunds

27

DOST, CHED, funding organizations,GOCCs.Establishment of Mussel and Rock OysterR&D Center, Samar Socio-cultural R&DCenter, Technology and engineering R&DCenter for Agri-fishery based industriesin Samar

Publications inrefereed journal

Functional R&DCenters

Phase 5 2016-2029

Conduct high quality R&D in theestablished research centers..

The conduct ofhigh quality R&Dhas become aculture.Technologiestransferred toSMEs

Increased technology development forSMEs Faculty participation as presenters ininternational scientific conferencesincreases.

Phase 6 2030 ↑ Sustainable R&D culture. SSU partner ofSMEs in technology development.Establish strong linkage with knownresearch universities in the country andabroad.SSU attain it vision on improving livesin Samar

The name of SSUis knownworldwide.

Research Outputs. The research outputs per year were

measured according to the number of projects conducted

funded internally and externally, number of participation in

local, regional, national and international research

conferences, number of assisted small and medium

enterprises(SMEs), and number of publication in local,

regional, national and international journals as shown in

Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 shows the research outputs from 1991-1999. All

research projects conducted in this period were funded

internally by the University. The research projects in 1997

28

to 1999 were presented in regional and national research

conferences. The publications were mostly local or in the

SSPC Graduate and research journals. National publications

were recorded in 1997 to 1999.

Table 4. The research outputs from 1991-1999

R&D Outputs 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Number of Projects

Internally Funded

2 3 2 2 3 3 3 5 5

Externally Funded

R&D Projects Presented

LocalRegional 1National 2 4International

Number of SMEs assistedPublication

Local 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2Regional 1 2 2NationalInternational

29

Table 5. The research outputs from 2000-2010

R&D Outputs

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Number of Projects

Internally Funded

4 4 6 6 5 6 7 7 13 21 22 23 26

Externally Funded

2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3

R&D Presented

Local 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 12 13 28 29 34 34

Regional 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 4 2 3 6 6 6

National 1 2 2 2 2 1 5 5

International 2 2 2 5 5

Number of SMEsassisted as

consultants

4 4 6 6 5 6 8 10 12 12 16 15 14

Publication

Local 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 8 12 12 15 15 14

Regional 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2

National 2 2 3 3 4 4

International 2 2 2 3 5 5

Awards & recognition

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 3 5

Patent Applications Pending

9

Table 5 shows the research outputs from 2000-2012 and

that there was a transformation in research activities in

the University. The research projects conducted had

30

increased from 6 in 2000 to 22 in 2010. About 3 research

projects were externally funded. There was already a

culture of R&D project outputs presentations in local and

national. The international presentation of research outputs

was observed in 2005 to 2010. Furthermore, Table 5 shows the

number of publications from 2000-2010 and there was an

increasing trend of publication in the local, regional,

national, and international. Some researchers got awards and

recognitions both national and international.

In order to substantiate the research outputs as

indicator of research culture transformation, the

participation of the faculty by college is presented in

Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9. As shown in Figure 6, the College

of Engineering had the highest number of faculty

engaged/involved in research for the period 1991 to 1999.

Engg Education CIT CAS Graduate0123456789

Faculty Involved Cummulative Involvement

31

Figure 6. Faculty Involvement in Research from 1991 to 1999

Figure 7. Faculty Involved in Research from 2000-2010

For the period of 2000-2010 as shown in Figure 7, the

highest number of faculty with comulative involvement in

research were from the R&D Office, College of Fisheries and

Marine Sciences(COFMAS). In terms of personnel involvement,

it is from the College of Engineering, since most personnel

in the R&D Office were from the College of Engineering.

32

Figure 8. Faculty Involvement in research by academic rank

In terms of academic rank as shown in Figure 8, most of

the faculty researchers had academic rank of instructors.

This implied that faculty with higher academic ranks were

not active in research.

33

Figure 9. Participation of Faculty and Staff in research

In 2000-2012 as shown in Figure 9, there was an

increasing trend of personnel involved in research as well

as cumulative participation. This implied that the faculty

and staff had set research as part of their function in the

University.

Factors Consequential in Transforming the R&D Culture

The factors consequential in transforming the R&D

culture from tech-voc institution to a research university

were evaluated through structured interview. The respondents

were about 30 faculty who are active in research for the

34

past ten(10) years.

Leadership. This was evaluated qualitatively based on

the capacity of the research leaders in the implementation

of programs, policies, support to research capability

building, laboratories support to research and other

infrastructures used in research. These are shown in Table

6.

Table 6. Leadership Factor in transforming R&D Culture

Leadership attributes SA(5)

MA(4)

A(3)

DA(2)

SDA(1)

Mean Interpre-tation

R&D programs 15 12 3 4.40 MAR&D policies 19 11 4.63 SAR&D capabilitybuilding

8 2 16 4 3.46 A

Support to laboratories 3 7 14 3 3 3.13 ASupport infrastructure 4 14 2 10 2.53 DALegend: SA= Strongly Agree; MA=Moderately Agree; A=Agree; DA=Disagree; SDA=strongly Disagree1.0-1.50=SDA; 1.51-2.50=DA; 2.51-3.50=A; 3.51-4.50=MA; 4.51-5.0=SA

It can be gleaned from Table 6 that the respondents

“moderate agree” that the research culture was transformed

due to the leadership skills in setting R&D programs. The

leadership attributes “R&D programs” and “R&D policies” were

rated “strongly agree”. This implied that these were the

35

factors in the building of R&D culture in the University.

Table 6 implied further that the respondents “strongly

disagree” that the support to infrastructure in leadership

attributes was not a factor to this transformation.

The data in Table 6 showed that the research leaders

must set a clear research programs with appropriate policies

supported by capability building activities in the building

of R&D culture.

Government support. This is defined in terms of

programs, policies, funds for capability building(training &

seminar), funds for facilities, and funds for research

projects as shown in Table 5. As shown in Table 7, the

respondents “strongly agree” that the government support on

research was a factor consequential in transforming the R&D

Culture in SSU. Hence, it implied that the R&D culture had

been transformed because of government support from national

level.

36

Table 7. Government support as factor in transforming R&D

Culture

Government Support interms of:

SA(5)

MA(4)

A(3)

DA(2)

SDA(1)

Mean Interpre-tation

R&D programs 26 4 4.73 SAR&D policies 28 2 4.93 SAFunds forcapability building

23 7 4.76 SA

Funds for R&Dfacilities

26 4 4.86 SA

Funds for R&D Projects 27 3 4.90 SASA= Strongly Agree; MA=Moderately Agree; A=Agree; DA=Disagree; SDA=strongly Disagree1.0-1.50=SDA; 1.51-2.50=DA; 2.51-3.50=A; 3.51-4.50=MA; 4.51-5.0=SA

Incentives and Awards. These are the honoraria

received by the researchers during the conduct of research,

publication incentives, travel incentives, awards and

recognition as shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Incentives and Awards as factor in transforming R&DCulture

Incentives and awards SA(5)

MA(4)

A(3)

DA(2)

SDA(1)

Mean Interpre-tation

Honoraria 12 4 14 3.93 MAPublicationincentives

8 12 10 2.93 MA

Otherincentives( travel,etc.)

12 18 2.40 DA

Awards and recognition 9 15 6 4.10 MASA= Strongly Agree; MA=Moderately Agree; A=Agree; DA=Disagree; SDA=strongly Disagree1.0-1.50=SDA; 1.51-2.50=DA; 2.51-3.50=A; 3.51-4.50=MA; 4.51-5.0=SA

In Table 6, the respondents “moderately agree” that the

37

incentives and awards as factor in transforming the R&D

culture in SSU. This implied that incentives and awards

were factors to the transformation in some degree.

CONCLUSIONS

The following are the conclusions derived from this

paper.

1. Developing and transforming R&D culture from tech-voc

based institution to SSU as a research University is a

life-long process. The administrators(deans to the

university president) must have the high level of research

appreciation and understanding to encourage faculty to

conduct research. The support of the University President

is a remarkable contribution to this transformation process

of the research culture in SSU. Hence, the university

president must have an excellent research exposure in order

to sustain the R&D culture.

2. The culture of appreciation of the administrators on

R&D/E has not been intensified due to some accountabilities

such as financial matters, poor understanding toward R&D/E,

38

and lack of long term planning and visioning. Faculty and

staff have poor appreciation on R&D function, because the

orientation of tech-voc faculty is on instruction and

skills development.

3. The strong support and the leadership skills of the R&D

managers with the support of the University management in

terms of setting direction and implementation of R&D

programs, policies, strong capability building among

faculty and staff were the factors consequential in

transforming the R&D culture in SSU. Many of those faculty

hired as technical instructors have difficulty in

translating ideas into a formal research activity.

4. The government agencies like CHED, DBM, DOST and even

AACCUP through their implemented and planned policies were

also contributing factors consequential in transforming the

R&D culture of the University. The realization and

appreciation of the administration of SSU with government

support from the national level like policies, funds,

trainings, etc. have contributed in transforming the tech-

voc based education into a research based SSU.

39

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The national government should provide strong support

to newly converted tech-voc institutions to a university for

easy transition of the four functions of the University such

as advanced higher education service, research, extension,

and production. There is a need to hire researcher-ready

personnel in replacement of retiring tech-voc hired faculty.

There is a need to re-tool existing personnel for greater

appreciation towards R&D.

Transformation requires a phase-by-phase strategic

approach and could not be achieved in very short period of

time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are the recommendations:

1. The administrators from president, vice-presidents,

deans and directors of support service offices should have

strong appreciation towards the role of the institution in

40

various R&D activities to sustain the transformation

process of tech-voc based institution to a research

university. There is a need for them to be exposed to

successful research university through various forms such

as experiential learning tours, immersion programs,

scientific conferences and seminars, invention contests and

competition.

2. R&D should be emphasized and included as major duties

and responsibilities during hiring of faculty. R&D

accomplishments must be a major factor in promotion on top

of other requirements set by the government.

3. The national government should continuously implement

and sustain policies like EO 80, Normative Financing

Scheme, SUCs Performance Evaluation/Leveling, etc. to

enhance the functions of the state owned higher education

institutions.

References:

1. Samar Trade School Annual Report (1932)

2. Samar State Polytechnic College Annual Reports (1981 to

2003)

41

3. Samar State University Annual Reports (2004 to 2012)

4. Overview of Tech-Voc Education Unesdoc.unesko.org/image/0009/00952/095257/eo.pdf

5. Tilak, Jandhayal B.G.(2003). Vocational Education and Trainingin Asia. International handbook of Educational Research in the Asia-Pacific Region.

42