Exploring the Role of Supervision, Infrastructure and Research

Culture in the Research Experience and Outputs of a Pakistani

Business Postgrad

ALIYA AHMAD SHAIKH

1
 ABSTRACT

The Pakistani higher education institutes comprise of a mushroom growth of business schools
which inter-compete to deliver a quality research experience and outcomes, in order to
participate in the competitive ranking. This study explored the same concept by evaluating
the research experience of academic researchers; however the investigation was limited to the
top public and top private business schools of Punjab, Pakistan only.

This study utilized mix methodologies i.e. qualitative and quantitative both. In order to
explore supervision and infrastructure as the factors shaping the research experience and
impacting the research outcomes; the questionnaire survey as the quantitative technique was
adopted. Also, the mediating role of research culture was explored. The responses obtained
were analyzed through SPSS version 20 by correlation and regression, mediation through
regression and sobel test for mediation. Also, the semi-structured interviews as the qualitative
technique were conducted to explore the issues that a Pakistani researcher faces regarding
research supervision, infrastructural facilities and research culture. The responses of the
interviews were analyzed through content analysis.

The analysis of questionnaire results validated the implementation of PGSQUAL and SREQ
for the first time in Pakistan by approving the hypotheses regarding the impact of research
supervision and infrastructure over the quality of research service experience conducive to
research outcomes. Also, the sobel test revealed the mediating role of research culture in the
execution of supervision and infrastructural services.

Research culture as the mediator was also supported by the findings of interviews. The
interpretation of the interviews revealed that infrastructural and supervision issues are the
common complaints of academic researchers at Pakistan. These constraints are further
compounded by the wrecked research culture. Therefore, the findings of this research is a
wakeup call to the rising number of business schools in Pakistan to focus on need oriented
research services regarding strengthening the research culture, infrastructural facilities and
supervision practices. Also it signifies to resolve the issues of academic researchers so as to
deliver a competitive, skilled and satisfied yield which uplifts their university brands in the
national and international university rankings.

Keywords: Supervision, Infrastructure, Research Culture, Research Experience, Research

outcomes.

2
 INTRODUCTION

The higher education institutes being the "people processing institutes" (Aadil, Khan, &
Fahim, 2010) act as a service (Oldfield & Baron, 2000; Angell, Heffernan & Megicks, 2008;
Govender & Ramroop, 2012); whose industry (Arif, Ilyas & Hameed, 2013) provides
qualified HR (human resources) (Mukhtar, Islam & Siengthai, 2012) through the activities
of teaching and research. These activities of teaching, research and other value added services
make the university offering a special experienced good (Petruzzellis, Uggento, &
Romanazzi, 2006) which has lately been a special focus of attention for the student who is
recognized as the ‘core consumer’ of higher education (Hill, 1995; Faganel, 2010; Hameed &
Ajmal, 2011; Arif, Ilyas & Hameed, 2013; Ezeokoli & Ayodele, 2014).

Nowadays, students want to gain a world class knowledge experience (Rezeanu, 2011;
Asaduzzaman, Hossain & Rahman, 2013). This ‘educational experience' results as an
outcome (Ezeokoli & Ayodele, 2014) from interaction with the organization’s interrelated
systems and processes, policies, procedures and employees and customers (Bitner et al.,
1997; Ezeokoli & Ayodele, 2014). Therefore, students constantly evaluate the services
encountered during the educational experience (Asaduzzaman, Hossain, & Rahman, 2013) as
they interact with various academic and non-academic factors of an educational institute.

This phrase 'student experience' defines the quality of relationship of students with the
affiliated institute, governments and overall academics (Sabri, 2011). Therefore, it is
acknowledged that the student’s overall degree experience (teaching and learning) at a
university is the predictor of his/her satisfaction (Hameed & Ajmal, 2011; Grebennikov &
Mahsood 2013a; Wilkins & Balakrishnan, 2013). Also, it is an affirmed fact that this
paradigm vastly changes just as the student transits from the teaching experience towards the
research experience.

Things are different for the postgraduate students because a postgrad is not only a customer
but also the unique co-producer of the service (Govender & Ramroop, 2012) who invests for
the sake of knowledge experience (Angell, Heffernan & Megicks, 2008). For a postgrad it is
acknowledged as a critical decision to choose an institute aligned to their expectations
(Mutula, 2011). Caring for the service encounter with an institute (Govender & Ramroop,
2013b) a postgrad becomes very sensitive to the research experience (Jancey & Burns, 2013)
resulting from the interaction with the internal and external environment of the university
(Arambewela & Hall, 2013). This has led to the drastic evolution of the concept of service

3
quality at higher education (Asaduzzaman, Hossain, & Rahman, 2013), as the postgraduates
evaluate the service quality of experience at the university and form different attitudinal
judgments (Arambewela & Hall, 2013).

This constant evaluation and perception about the service quality offered at an institute is
important as it is the representative of overall quality of experience with an institute’s
services (Govender & Ramroop, 2011). The strive for service quality deliverance and student
satisfaction as the ultimate goals for university’s survival (Rana, 2009, Hameed & Ajmal,
2011; Kayastha, 2011) owes to the vital role of academic researchers in producing quality
researches which add to the country’s socio economic development (Isani, 2002;
Grebennikov & Shah, 2007). Also, the quality research uplifts the respective university’s
ranking and prestige (Nelson, 2007; Jabnoun, 2009; Bakioğlu & Kurnaz, 2009) among other
institutes. Hence the universities across the world are focusing upon researcher development
(Evans, 2011) and providing him/her with the best ever resources so as to contribute to the
overall research experience (Jancey & Burns, 2013) which makes him/her more capable and
more satisfied (Grebennikov & Shah, 2007).

Grebennikov & Shah (2007) and Turner & McAlpine (2011) posited the fact that the diverse
and enormous amount of research scholars (taking research degrees) has posited the need for
HEIs to assess the general and academic services shaping a research experience. In fact it has
become the responsibility of graduate schools to assess the experience and satisfaction level
of their research students (Barnes & Randall, 2012) so that they could produce such a
research which acts as a tool for competitive ranking, and progress and performance. Also,
Ahmed (2014) was of opinion that it would help the universities in fulfilling their obligation
to understand the dynamic and ever increasing expectations of the students, in order to shape
the academic and non-academic services in the best interest of student’s satisfaction.

Due to the lost trend of evaluating students’ educational experience (Grebennikov & Shah,
2012) evaluating research experience has been the least explored area across the world and
especially in the developing countries like Pakistan. Zeng, Webster & Ginns (2013) stated
that very less research at hand exists evaluating the research experience variables. Few
known studies exploring the experiences of academic researchers and factors comprising the
research outcomes i.e. satisfaction and skill development; include the research of Stephanie
(1990), Behzadi & Davarpanah (2013), Swager (1997), Asmar (1999), Kardash (2000),
Mabrouk & Peters (2000), Merkel (2001), Seymour et al. (2004), Loppato (2004), Hunter et

4
al. (2006), Kreig (2007) and Hanburay (2007). On the flip side of the picture, Krauss &
Ismail (2010) asserted that PhD students in the non-western region do not have qualitative
studies exploring the research experiences of students. This fact is also supported by Zeng,
Webster & Ginns (2013) that there is the scarcity of literature in the non-western context
which discusses the relationship of student learning experiences and their impact on research
outcomes.

It has also contributed to the reason that there has not been any instrument developed yet in
Pakistani context which monitors the factors contributing to the overall research experience
and their resultant outcomes. While, the Australian and British studies have explored the
research experiences of research scholars’ through different research instruments (Zeng,
Webster & Ginns, 2013). The studies reporting them include ‘Research Student Satisfaction
Survey’ (RSSS) (Grebennikov & Shah, 2007), ‘Postgraduate Research Experience
Questionnaire’ (PREQ) (Behzadi & Davarpanah, 2013; Bills, 2003; Drennan, 2008), ‘Student
Research Experience Questionnaire’ (SREQ) (Govendir et al., 2009; Zeng & Webster, 2010;
Zeng, Webster & Ginns, 2013); which have explored various factors i.e. infrastructure,
research climate, administrative services, supervision etc. None of the aforementioned
research instrument is checked for its validity, reliability and applicability especially at
developing countries like Pakistan.

Also, there is a dearth of literature about the researcher development and the challenges faced
by them during a research process (Nelson, 2007). Abbasi et al. (2011) asserted that at
Pakistan the issue of student satisfaction is already a widely unexplored subject. While
Mukhtar, Islam & Siengthai (2012) stated that this is due to that fact that at Pakistan issues of
faculty and students are not given much importance which lets down the overall educational
standard of HEIs.

Whereas, it is a known fact that a research intensive university is challenged by various

factors occurring in the form of internal and external forces (Evans, 1997) which lead to the
dissatisfaction in a research scholar (Harman, 2003). These factors need to be highlighted
especially at the universities in a country like Pakistan, which are already being sabotaged by
various educational industry crisis discussed in numerous studies (Ullah, Ajmal & Rahman,
n.d.; Ali, 2012; Malik, 2002; Iqbal, 2004; Azam, 2007; Memon, 2007; Jahangir, 2008; Aziz
et al., 2014). These crises have made ‘academic research’ as the greatest operational
challenge (Aadil, Khan & Fahim, 2010). The most common factors being identified as the

5
operational challenges including resource inadequacy, poor research culture, inadequate
facilities, infrastructural issues, inefficient management system for education, technological
lapses, non-integration between students, teachers and industry for research, lack of research
skills, aptitude and motivation; which worsen the academic activities i.e. teaching and
research on the whole (Aadil et al., 2010). These problems are coupled by other issues of
mismanagement, lack of administrative support, being uninformed about resources or lack of
resources (Abbasi et al., 2011). Mangi, Soomro & Ghumro (2011) have identified these
challenges as the major cause of directionless academic research and development activities
among Pakistani postgraduates.

However none of the study yet has identified the significant contribution of these factors and
how their crisis can affect the research experience of a postgrad. Except for the single study
of (Waseem, Mujtaba & Shakir, 2013) describing the role of system, culture, structure and
supervision as factors to be contributing to the research output; and the respective problems
associated with them which complicate the research experiences of students.

The importance of researching this aspect is also highlighted in the study of Behzadi &
Davarpanah (2013) which revealed the importance of exploring the needs and issues of
postgraduate students regarding research in order to exploit their talents in a better way.
While, Fraser (2005) attributed it as the university’s responsibility to identify the issues
concerning a student. Harman (2003) emphasized that the issues of student’s dissatisfaction
with the research experience must be explored and resolved because the unsatisfactory results
indicate the failure of an institute not only in providing better research experiences and PhD
trainings, but it also has becomes a major hurdle in research careers. The same was supported
by Billot, Jones & Banda (2013) and Pyhältö, Vekkaila & Keskinen (2012) that student’s
concerns should be voiced and addressed. Jancey & Burns (2013) emphasized to evaluate the
factors shaping the postgraduate’s pedagogical experience and their eventual impact on the
research outcomes.

Monitoring service experience is also helpful as it would reveal the service requirements and
improvement areas to mold the researcher’s experience as per the need. This way this study
would add to the scant service quality research for postgraduate education (Angell, Heffernan
& Megicks, 2008) which would specifically benefit Pakistan as there has not been any study
yet which discusses the service quality interaction in the research experience and the
supervision, infrastructural and cultural factors contributing and hampering it yet. Therefore

6
this study traces these factors as constituents of research experience of academic researchers
of the business schools of Pakistan so that their concerns can be voiced. Moreover, it would
add to the literature because very few studies have reported the discontent of students and the
emerging issues from the doctoral programs (Barnes & Randall, 2012).

Another important aspect of this study is that, it is particularly directed towards business
schools of Punjab only, since Barnes & Randall (2012) asserted that doctoral experience
varies with the disciplines. And nowadays the mushroom growth of business schools has
emerged at Pakistan (Zeeshan, Afridi & Khan, 2010) requires it to happen. Therefore, main
questions for this study are:

1. How does a research scholar perceive the role of supervision and infrastructure in
shaping a research experience conducive to research outcomes?
a) How does a research scholar perceive the role of supervision in shaping the
research experience conducive to research outcomes?
b) How does a research scholar perceive the role of infrastructure in shaping the
research experience conducive to research outcomes?
2. Does research culture mediate the execution of infrastructure and supervision services
in shaping the service quality of research experience?
3. What are the issues of infrastructure, culture and supervision that a particular
Pakistani student faces in Business Schools; and how does it affect research
outcomes?

This study aims at achieving the following objectives:

1. To posit the role of infrastructure and supervision as the key factors contributing to
quality of research service experience and its contribution to the research outcomes.
2. To identify the mediating role of research culture in the execution of infrastructure
and supervision services during a research service experience.
3. To explore the issues arising from infrastructure, culture and supervision which
worsen the research experience of the postgraduates and affect the research outcomes.

7
LITERATURE REVIEW

The research function of a university has become a leading determinant of the satisfaction
levels of its students (Grebennikov & Shah, 2007). And the dissatisfaction with the research
experience affects the researcher career plans (Harman, 2003) in the form of employment
pathway as a research career (Grebennikov & Shah, 2007). This attitude towards research
career, internationalization and interdisciplinary collaboration of research has challenged the
traditional master-apprentice relationship of doctoral phenomenon (Henri et al., 2007) which
was mostly linked to student-supervisor interaction, and it has now become linked to
numerous factors. This is the reason of the emerging debate about research experience
nowadays (Behzadi & Davarpanah, 2013).

Henri et al. (2007) figured out a need of the time to look at the process of researcher’s
training rather than mere evaluation of end product i.e. thesis. Mercer (2011) was of opinion
that students’ own interaction with the elements of the research process posits an experiential
role which plays a vital role in crafting their own PhD research developmental program. It
determines the strength of their career (Angel, Heffernan & Megicks, 2008) as it depicts their
probability of fitness into academia as teachers (Turner & McAlpine, 2011).

In reference to the research experience, Wright (2003) & Pitchforth et al. (2012) opined that
there exists a web of factors which contribute to the postgraduate students’ research
experience and completion rate. Oldfield and Baron (2000) found that business students’
experience with the complex nature of service quality is influenced by three dimensions on
which a student seeks satisfaction: 1) requisite elements (essential features needed to enable
students to fulfill their study obligations); 2) acceptable elements (desirable features but not
essential to students) and 3) functional elements (which are utilitarian in nature). Similarly
Pyhältö, Vekkaila & Keskinen (2012) asserted that the research experience has various
factors and challenges which arise from multiple sources.

In fact, the academic researchers being declared as the driver of the research intensive
institutes (Govendir et al., 2009) consider it the university’s responsibility to provide the best
academic, industry and service factors for a sound educational experience (Jancey & Burns,
2013). For this purpose, Prince, Felder & Brent (2007) referred to Boyers Comission report
(1998) to state the fact that research universities must be a place providing the environment,
resources, experience and capabilities so that learners become genuinely skilled and better off
themselves to take productive roles professionally. For the research endeavor, the training of

8
researchers leading to recognition, skill empowerment, satisfaction, publications and grants
(Hemmings, Hill & Sharp, 2013). A research scholar requires few factors in the research
environment which are essential to contributing quality in research; particularly being 1) the
physical environment (Billot, Jones & Banda, 2013) including the adequacy of research
funding, quality of infrastructure, ICT deployment in teaching and research, digital resource
of databases and repositories (Mutula, 2009b); 2) the research culture of the HE institute
including the developmental opportunities like networking in research community for skill
enhancement (Billot, Jones & Banda, 2013; Hemmings, Hill & Sharp, 2013), alliances with
national and international knowledge community (Mutula, 2009b) and support networks
(Mutula, 2009b; Hemmings, Hill & Sharp, 2013) including research mentors, models,
coaches, teams, research community and research colloquia (Hemmings, Hill & Sharp,
2013); and the most being, 3) student-supervisor relationship which plays a key role in
building a research culture and a student’s progress (Mercer, 2011; Billot, Jones & Banda,
2013). Also, the staff quality and the international faculty and student ratio (Mutula, 2009b)
are important factors shaping a novice researcher’s experience. In reference to the
significance of above factors, Pyhältö, Vekkaila & Keskinen (2012) emphasized that mainly
the student’s perception about their satisfaction with the resources, research process and
supervision is vital.

But this is also a fact that the research journey differs with individuals (Hemmings, Hill &
Sharp, 2013); but besides the personal problems of the researcher, the dissatisfaction with the
research experience and the research outcome is identified as the main cause of a researcher’s
failure (Buttery, Richter & Filho, 2005).

Zakri (2006) and Mutula (2009a) opined that the extent and nature of challenges in the
research process though vary among the developing and the developed countries of the
world; nonetheless they occur in three domains 1) “the research capacity”, 2) “research
utility” and 3) “research productivity”. While ‘research capacity’ is referred to the
accessibility of research facilities and professionals with research expertise; the ‘research
utility’ refers to the research agendas which yield to the outcomes which are worthy enough
to answer the questions of national developmental concerns; and ‘research productivity’
refers to the way the resources are optimized in carrying out a quality research and elevating
a university’s competence.

9
 1. ROLE OF SUPERVISION

Research is basically the joint production of supervisor and the research scholar (Waseem,
Mujtaba & Shakir, 2013) known as supervisee. Therefore, despite the due complexities and
immense role of supervisors, the strength of success of a research degree lies in the
supervisor-doctoral student relationship (Hill, 1999; Mainhard et al., 2009). Since this is a
one-on-one interaction established for the development of the academic researcher (Ismail &
Abiddin, 2009) thus the relationship (Grebennikov & Shah, 2007) of interaction of these
parties generates a service experience which is vital for the research outcome (Govender &
Ramroop, 2013).

As the supervisor makes a student walk through the steps of research paradigm right from
topic selection to the interpretation of findings (Lubbe et al., 2005) therefore a lot of factors
are of considerable importance in this relationship. Including the, 1) Style of supervision
(Buttery, Richter & Filho, 2005; Samani et al., 2012), 2) Competence of the supervisor
(Buttery, Richter & Filho, 2005) like networking in the industry (Samani et al., 2012), 3)
Supervision attributes (Buttery, Richter & Filho, 2005; Chiang, 2003), 4) The attitude of
supervision (Buttery, Richter & Filho, 2005; Chiang, 2003) work load balance, practices of
feedback, the ideology of professional development, student supportive services and advice
provided (Samani et al., 2012; Kimani, 2014), 5) Supervision skills (Chiang, 2003; Lee,
2007) and availability for interaction (Chiang, 2003; Kimani, 2014). In reference to this, a lot
of studies have appeared discussing the quality of supervision process (Kam, 1997; Lee,
2008; Krauss & Ismail, 2010; Kiley, 2011; Alam, Alam & Rasul, 2013; Holtman &
Mukwada, 2014).

In reference to the student’s perspective, Zuber-Skerrit & Roche (2004) enlisted that
students’ call a ‘supervisor’ to be effective who processes 1) ‘positive repute’, 2) ‘personal
style’, 3) ‘nurturing attitude’, 4) ‘knowledge and experience’ and 5) ‘possesses a strength to
communicate with the postgraduate student’. A student generally expects from a competent
supervisor to be available on time and give feedback on their research drafts (Sidhu et al.,
2014). Harman (2003) identified that frequency of interaction with the supervisors’ paves
horizon towards satisfaction. Due to the importance of this aspect, the student’s self-selection
for supervisors as per the commonality of topic between supervisor and the students (Ivens &
Rowley, 2005; Wadesango & Machingambi, 2011) always strengthens the interpersonal
relationships and generates satisfaction (Ivens & Rowley, 2005).

10
Alam, Alam & Rasul (2013) stated that nowadays the expectations about quality supervision
are escalating. Therefore, the effectiveness of supervision is a huge concern for students
(Rowley & Slack, 1998) since in the two way interaction i.e. student and the supervisor
(Stephens, 2014) they interact with each other’s ideologies, attitudes, competencies
(Govender & Ramroop, 2013) and compete with mutual expectations (Mainhard et al., 2009).

This has led to the affirmation that supervisor-supervisee relationship is integral to a student’s
overall research experience at a university (Grebennikov & Shah, 2007). Similarly,
Mcculloch (2010) stated that quality of supervision depicts the quality of research processes
and outcomes. Doctoral supervision is discussed to be critical and crucial (Lee, 2009) as it
has a complex role in research degree student satisfaction (Helfer & Drew, 2013; Harman,
2003). In reference to this, Govendir et al. (2009) also highlighted that the quality of faculty
and especially the quality of supervisors have a major role in strengthening the research
experience of students. With the due importance of effective and productive supervisory
relationship (Evans, 1997) the universities’ which effort in producing an in time quality
research are increasingly becoming conscious at monitoring researcher’s satisfaction with
their supervisory relationships (Kiley, 2011). Therefore the research experience with the
supervisors and the constraints faced during it are vital to the overall experience of a
researcher (Holtman & Mukwada, 2014).

1.1.SUPERVISION ISSUES

It is identified that ineffective supervisor qualities increase dissatisfaction with the

supervision experience (Harman, 2003). The major issues relevant to the supervisors
inadequate and ineffective performance are identified as: 1) the busy role of supervisor due to
high student ratio (Harman, 2003; Wadesango & Machingambi, 2011; Kimani, 2014), 2)
unavailability for interaction due to heavy workload (Harman, 2003; Latona and Browne,
2001 as cited in Kiley, 2011), 3) the quality less and inconsistent feedback and meetings
(Manathunga, 2005; Wadesango & Machingambi, 2011; Latona and Browne, 2001 as cited in
Kiley, 2011), 4) commitments with externally funded projects and demotivation (Wadesango
& Machingambi, 2011; Harman, 2003), 5) teaching-research unbalance (Harman, 2003), 6)
lack of interpersonal skills (Harman, 2003), 7) the conflicts and rigidity of supervisory panel
(Wadesango & Machingambi, 2011), 8) the miscommunication and disagreement regarding
research ideas (Manathunga, 2005; Wadesango & Machingambi, 2011), 9) lack of trust and
interest in student’s research (Manathunga, 2005; Helfer & Drew, 2013), 10) lack of support

11
to induce quality in dissertation (Mainhard et al., 2009), 11) incompatibility in the required
and perceived supervision style (Mainhard et al., 2009).

2. ROLE OF INFRASTRUCTURE

Research itself is not a trial and error process so it needs a through design and a proper
environment where a researcher could investigate his area of interest (Khan, 2006). Pyhältö,
Vekkaila & Keskinen (2012) was of view that doctoral students need an engaging
environment because their satisfaction and success lies in the ‘person-environment fit’. Hence
researcher’s perception about the availability of required resources during the research
service process is very important for their satisfaction.

Research funding in the form of research grants and investments predicts the viability and
worth of a scientific research produced (Jowkar, Didegah & Gazni, 2011) and hence helps in
student retention (Harman, 2003). In fact the financial resources drive the nature of research
and teaching process (Jabnoun, 2009). Highlighting another aspect, Vincent-Lancrin (2006)
asserted that for conducting the research the technological elements including ICT’s, cyber
infrastructure, internet and the accessibility of digital datasets have a major revolutionary
impact on the output, growth and internationalization of academic research. Adogbeji &
Akporhonor (2005) and Kruger (2010) elaborated that basically it is the cyber infrastructure
(internet, e-mails and other) which facilitates the access and visibility of research material,
allows the collaboration of world class researchers and delivers remotely accessible updated
data through online digital databases and repositories

Likewise, the availability of library services (books and journals) is a major quality
determinant among all the educational services which influences the students the most
(Tsinidou, Gerogiannis & Fitsilis, 2010). It is known as the intellectual capital of research
infrastructure (Research Information Network, 2010) because access to literature and
resource adequacy is the major factor determining the research productivity (Babu & Singh,
1998).

2.1. INFRASTRUCTURAL ISSUES

At higher education various structural issues exist which influence students (Wright &
Cochrane, 2000; Zineldin, Akdag & Vasicheva, 2011) and teachers both (Lodhi, 2012). The

12
most common structural constraint is the dearth of resources (Nadeem, 2011; Dilshad & Ali,
2010) in the form of infrastructure (Aadil et al, 2010) and specially the research facilities
(Iqbal, 2004; Malik, 2002; Memon, 2007; Khan, Shah & Azam, 2011). At Pakistan there are
no supportive facilities for carrying about a quality research (especially in private sector)
(Isani, 2001; Iqbal, 2004; Khan, 2006; Khan, Shah & Azam, 2011) or they are not of
international standard (Memon, 2007).

This problem is mainly due to funding crisis which is the major obstruction in academic
research at Pakistan (Isani, 2001; Malik, 2002; Iqbal, 2004; Memon, 2007; Khan, Shah &
Azam, 2011). These the reasons why the Pakistani university students are highly dissatisfied
with the educational services provided to them (Abbasi et al., 2011). Analyzing students’
perspective of a public university, Dilshad & Ali (2010) explored that the improper teaching
methodologies, scarcity of physical facilities and inadequate library resources are the greatest
source of dissatisfaction in students.

Khan, Shah & Azam (2011) and Khan (2006) criticized that researchers are offered no
funding for carrying out research and there is no remuneration over getting their efforts
published. This is largely because HEC is not helping financially (Waseem, Mujtaba and
Shakir, 2013).

Computer labs do not make the availability of required knowledge thus online access to
research journals is just like a dream (Nadeem, 2011). Whereas other physical facilities are
old and are either insufficient or quality inefficient; generating other structural issues
hindering a research’s execution; like internet speed, power outages, equipment shortages and
access issues due to which e-culture adaptation and efficiency is badly affected. Moreover,
frequent power outages even destroy the IT facilities (Ameen, 2007).

Briefing the ICT crisis, Ameen (2007) stated that most of the schools do not have ICT savvy
teachers, and they themselves are in the need of refresher courses, workshops and seminars.
Such weaknesses in infrastructure of educational institutes of Pakistan (Ullah, Ajmal &
Rahman, n.d.) are also observed in libraries. Libraries are right there but the material is
insufficient (Nadeem, 2011; Dilshad & Ali, 2010), either are unmaintained or have outdated
databases (Khan et al., 2011), or have old publications and mostly are opened at inconvenient
timings (Bakioğlu & Kurnaz, 2009). The greatest inconvenience faced by the research
scholars is that this facility is not provided at home (Waseem, Mujtaba and Shakir, 2013).

13
3. ROLE OF RESEARCH CULTURE

According to Govender & Ramroop (2012) the service delivery and service experience at a
postgraduate university is largely shaped by the service climate that exists over there. In fact,
it is the overall climate of an institute in which the roots of research are embedded.
Attributing the research climate to be the part of the research culture of an institute, Evans
(2009) defined research culture as ‘shared values, assumptions, beliefs, rituals and other
forms of behavior whose central focus is the acceptance and recognition of research practice
and output as valued, worthwhile and preeminent activity.’ While, Rahman (2013) discussed
research as a part of the greater whole ‘the organizational culture’.

‘Research culture’ is basically signified because it derives the research behaviors (Cheetham,
2007; Qureshi, Iqbal & Khan, 2008). Actually the research culture is a structure supporting
the learned behaviors of students and staff both. Therefore, being related with the human
behavior, activities and structure; culture basically has to be learned (Cheetham, 2007).

There are three main components which shape a student’s understanding about their place
and contribute to the research climate, including 1) student-supervisor relationship and 2)
physical environment and 3) developmental opportunities (Billot, Jones & Banda, 2013). Its
relevance with the physical environment includes university’s space for the academic
interactions. It helps in overcoming isolation of the researchers by providing them
developmental opportunities, including conferences, seminars, workshops, blogs and other
strategies (Billot, Jones & Banda, 2013). The environment also provides a lot of elements
which include the pedagogical resources, research funding, technical facilities, protocols and
policies and procedures practiced (Samani et al., 2012).

3.1. CULTURAL ISSUES

At Pakistan the cultural problems increase twofold because institutes have a strong teaching
culture rather than a research culture (Lodhi, 2012). Bakioğlu and Kurnaz (2009) identified
that nowadays the quality factor in academic research is being challenged mainly by the un-
established research culture due to which the resources are not channelized in the supportive
environment and the value of research output reduces.

Shah (2010) asserted that in Pakistan, the dearth of research culture and unreliable research
output has totally deprived the doctoral programs from the true aptitude towards research. As
a result, Waseem, Mujtaba & Shakir (2013) declared that ‘reinventing the wheel’ has become

14
common cultural practice of students, which has generated culture of compulsion for
research; mainly due to unguided attitude of supervisors towards guidance and topic
selection. In explanation to this, Nadeem (2011) added that this cultural atmosphere of
compulsion for students and teachers both to conduct research makes research a burdensome
activity. No one is intrigued by the inquiry process of research for finding solutions to
problems; therefore there is a practice of avoiding the efforts and repeating the topics. This is
the reason why their inquiry skills are not polished. Aslam (2011) was also of view that the
lack of proper research trainings is the major reason due to which the essence of research
culture abates.

4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Research
Supervision
Research
Research Research
Outcomes
Culture Experience

Research
Infrastructure

Fig 1b: The second order framework established for assessing postgraduate student’s research
service experience and their impact on research outcomes; observing supervision and
infrastructural services with the due effect of research culture as mediator (The core
dimensions extracted from the adapted 3P (presage-process-product) model of student
learning for postgraduate research programs (Trigwell & Dunbar-Goddet, 2005; Zeng,
Webster & Ginns, 2013)).

15
4.1.HYPOTHESES and PROPOSITIONS

H1: Supervision and infrastructure significantly impact the quality of research service
experience which further impacts the research outcomes.

H1a: Supervision significantly impacts the quality of research service experience.

H1b: The research infrastructure significantly impacts the quality of research service
experience.

H1c: The quality of research service experience impacts the research outcomes.

H2: The research culture has a mediating impact on the execution of infrastructure
and supervision services in shaping a quality research service experience as a
mediator.

H2a: The research culture mediates the practice of supervision in shaping the quality
of research service experience.

H2b: The research culture mediates the execution of infrastructure in shaping the
quality of research service experience.

Prop1: Ineffective supervision deteriorates the quality of research service experience

which affects research outcomes.

Prop2: Poor infrastructural facilities deteriorate the quality of research service

experience which affects research outcomes.

Prop3: Poor research culture affects the supervision practices which lead to low
quality research service experience which affects research outcomes.

Prop4: Poor research culture affects the functioning of infrastructure due to which it
fails to contribute to the quality of research service experience.

16
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5. Research Design

This research used a mixed method approach i.e. qualitative and quantitative both.
Quantitative methods were applied to address the causal part of the study discussing the
factors shaping the research experience and measured its impact on research outcomes
through the statistical software SPSS Version 20. While the exploratory part discussing the
issues of researchers was addressed through the qualitative methods. The cross-sectional
approach was adopted further for one-shot data collection.
5.1.Methodology for Quantitative Analysis

5.1.1. -Measurement of Variables

The table provided below illustrates the items of the variables along with their references.

Variables Number of items Adapted from study

Supervision 6 (Ginns et al., 2009)

Infrastructure 6 (Ginns et al., 2009)

Research Culture 7 (Ginns et al., 2009)

Research outcomes 10 (Ginns et al., 2009)

Service quality of research experience 7 (Govender & Ramroop, 2012)

TABLE 1: Number of Items According to Variables
5.1.2. Population

The population of this study comprises of business postgrads from the following universities:
NCBAE; NUML-MULTAN, COMSATS, LEADS UNIVERSITY LAHORE, IMPERIAL
BUSINESS SCHOOL.

5.1.3. Sample

The current study utilized convenience sampling technique to collect a sample size of 300
postgrads who passed out in the year 2013 and 2014.

17
5.2. Methodology For Qualitative Analysis

5.2.1. Sample Size- from the stated sample, 25 postgrads who had had completed research
in the year 2013 and 2014 were chosen, which according to the study of Thomson
(2011), is an average sample size of ‘experienced participants’ for conducting
qualitative analysis in the light of grounded theory.

5.2.2. Tool for Data Collection- Here semi-structured face-to-face interviewees were
conducted from the PhD researchers. It was a self-administered interview. The
interviewer biasness was intended to be avoided throughout the 45 minutes of
interviews.

5.2.3. Analysis- In order to prove the propositions (Prop1, Prop2, Prop3 and Prop4) the
analysis of interviews was done by using ‘Content Analysis’ approach. Content Analysis has
been supported by Zikmund (2003) as a sophisticated technique which effectively analyzes
interviewees by observing the content of the information and relevant communication.

18
 Data Analysis and Results
6.1. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

4.1.1. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Variable Items Cronbach alpha
1) Supervision 6 0.813
2) Infrastructure 6 0.852
3) Research Culture 7 0.894
4) Quality of service experience 7 0.827
5) Research outcomes (satisfaction and skill 10 0.878
development)
Cumulative Reliability 0.8528

As presented in the table, the total cronbach alpha value turns out to be 0.85 (rounded to two
decimal), which is acceptable as proposed by Sekaran (2003) that cronbach alpha value above
0.7 is desirable for the indication of strong consistency.

Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive Statistics
N Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Std. Statistic Std.
Error Error
quality of supervision 300
-.571 .226 .089 .449
services
quality of 300
-.204 .226 -.863 .449
infrastructural services
Quality of Research 300
-.177 .226 -.649 .449
Culture in the institute
Quality of service 300
-.116 .226 -.213 .449
experience
Outcomes of research
in the form
of 300
-.393 .226 -.092 .449
satisfaction and skill
development

Moderator1 300 .070 .226 -.752 .449

Moderator2 300 .399 .226 -.478 .449

19
 Valid N (listwise) 300

The normality test was performed using Skewness and kurtosis whose values were found
within ± 1.0 and ± 3.00 respectively; which showed that the data was normally distributed.

Correlation Analysis

Correlations
quality of quality of Quality of Quality of Outcomes
supervision infrastruct Research service of
services ural Culture in experienc research
services the e in the
institute form of
satisfactio
n and skill
developm
ent
quality of
Pearson
supervision 1 .575** .674** .734** .531**
Correlation
services
quality of
Pearson
infrastructural 1 .715** .655** .642**
Correlation
services
Quality of
Pearson
Research Culture 1 .736** .652**
Correlation
in the institute
Quality of service Pearson
1 .640**
experience Correlation
Outcomes of
research in the
Pearson
form of 1
Correlation
satisfaction and
skill development

20
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

REGRESSION ANALYSIS (H1a, H1b)

When linear regression was run to analyze the relationship of independent-dependent
variables, the following results were generated.

TABLE 2.

Regression Analysis of Supervision, Infrastructure and Quality of research Service

experience
Hypothesis IV-DV R R2 Sig. Standardized
No. coefficient
Beta
H1a Supervision- 0.734 0.539 0.000 0.734
Quality of
research Service
experience
H1b Infrastructure- 0.655 0.429 0.000 0.655
Quality of
research Service
experience

TABLE 8 INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES (IV-DV) REGRESSION

VALUES (H1C)

H1c Quality of 0.640 0.409 0.000 0.640

Service
experience-
Research
outcomes

INTERPRETATION
From the above table, for the interpretation of H1a, the correlation value β for supervision-
quality of service experience turned out to be simply strong 0.734. The R 2 value showed 54%
21
contribution of supervision to quality of research service experience. The p value of 0.000
showed that the model applied was statistically significant. Therefore H1a was accepted. For
H1b, the correlation value β for infrastructure-quality of service experience turned out to be
simply strong 0.66. The R2 value showed 43% contribution of infrastructure to quality of
research service experience. The p value of 0.000 showed that the model applied was
statistically significant. Thus H1b also gets accepted. For H1c, the correlation value β for
Quality of Service experience-Research outcomes turned out to be simply strong 0.640. The
R2 value showed 41% contribution of Quality of research Service experience to quality of
Research outcomes. The p value of 0.000 showed that the model applied was statistically
significant. Therefore H1c was also accepted.
The approval of H1a, H1b, and H1c showed that while supervision and infrastructure
collectively determine the quality of service experience; then the service experience obtained
shapes the research outcomes i.e. satisfaction and skill development.

4.1.2. MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR MEDIATION (H3a, H3b)

Mediation was run in four steps (as mentioned by Baron and Kenny (1986)) through
regression analysis; which generated four regression tables. In Step 1, the impact of
Supervision was observed on Quality of research service experience; in 2nd step,
Supervision’s impact was observed on Research culture; in the 3rd step, Research culture’s
impact was observed on Quality of research service experience; while in the 4 th step the
combined effect of Supervision and Research culture was observed on Quality of research
service experience.

The results of the regression analysis are reported in the following table.

Table 12: STEP-WISE MEDIATION TEST FOR RESEARCH CULTURE

Steps Model Un- S.E Stand. R2 Sig. Sobel’s

Stand Beta P-Value
B
Step 1 IV-DV 0.763 0.067 0.734 0.539 0.000

(Constant) 0.554 0.248

Step 2 IV-MV 0.787 0.082 0.674 0.454 0.000

22
Step 3 MV-DV 0.654 0.05 0.736 0.541 0.000

Step 4 IV-DV 0.454 0.079 0.437 0.646 0.000

MV-DV
0.393 0.068 0.441

Sobel 0.0000007
test

From the above table it is inferred from the values of R2 and ANOVA that a
significant relationship exists between all independent and dependent
variables.

 The results of the Step 1 showed from the value of R2 that supervision
significantly contributed to 54% in Quality of service experience with a highly
significance value of 0.000; which showed that model was a good fit. The beta
value of the Independent-dependent (supervision-quality of research service
experience) link was observed to be 0.734 which showed significant
relationship between the two.
 The Step2 R2 results revealed that supervision also significantly
contributed to 45% in the research culture with the same highly significance
value of 0.000 which defined that model was a good fit; here the beta value
was 0.674 which showed a significant relationship between the two.
 The R2 results of Step 3 depict that Research culture also significantly
contributed to 54% change in quality of service experience; here the
significance value again appeared to be 0.000 which showed the goodness of
model. While the beta value was 0.736 which showed a significant
relationship between the two.
 The Step4 when the regression analysis of independent-dependent
(supervision-quality of research service experience) link was done with the
due effect of mediator (research culture); the R2 results showed the combined
effect of Supervision and Research culture to contribute to 65% change in

23
 Quality of research service experience. The significance value of 0.000
showed that model was a good fit. However, the value of beta was observed to
reduce to 0.437. This lowering of beta value from the original independent-
dependent (supervision-quality of research service experience) value of 0.734
showed that independent variable’s (supervision) direct effect has been
reduced with the incorporation of mediator (Research culture).

Therefore the results of the analysis from Step-1, Step-2, Step-3 and Step-4
showed that the conditions to test the mediator’s impact at bivariate level
were met. Thus in order to validate the mediation ‘Online Sobel test’ was
done. The results approved the indirect effect of (IV-DV) Supervision on the
Quality of research experience with the partial impact of mediator. The results
of Sobel test generated p = 0.0000007 which because of being lower than 0.05
proved to be significant and hence partial mediation was confirmed.

FIG 2: SOBEL TEST OUTPUT TABLE (OBSERVING THE RESEARCH

CULTURE AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN SUPERVISION AND QUALITY
OF RESEARCH SERVICE EXPERIENCE)

Source: (http://www.quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm)

4.1.2.1. RESEARCH CULTURE AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN

INFRASTRUCTURE AND QUALITY OF RESEARCH SERVICE
EXPERIENCE
Mediation was run in four steps (as mentioned by Baron and Kenny (1986))
through regression analysis; which generated four regression tables. In Step 1, the impact of
Infrastructure was observed on Quality of research service experience; in 2nd step,
Infrastructure’s impact was observed on Research culture; in the 3rd step, Research culture’s
impact was observed on Quality of research service experience; while in the 4 th step the

24
combined effect of Infrastructure and Research culture was observed on Quality of research
service experience. The results of the regression analysis are reported in the given table.

TABLE 14 STEP-WISE MEDIATION TEST FOR RESEARCH CULTURE

Steps Model Un-Stand S.E Stand. R2 Sig. Sobel’s P-

B Beta Value
Step 1 IV-DV 0.562 0.061 0.655 0.429 0.000

(Constant) 1.455 0.212

Step 2 IV-MV 0.690 0.064 0.715 0.511 0.000

Step 3 MV-DV 0.654 0.057 0.736 0.541 0.000

Step 4 IV-DV 0.226 0.076 0.264 0.575 0.004

MV-DV
0.487 0.079 0.547 0.000

Sobel test 0.00000009

From the above table it is inferred from the values of R2 and ANOVA that a
significant relationship exists between all independent and dependent variables.

 The results of the Step 1 showed from the value of R2 that Infrastructure significantly
contributed to 43% in Quality of service experience with a highly significance value
of 0.000; which showed that model was a good fit. The beta value of the Independent-
dependent (supervision-quality of research service experience) link was observed to
be 0.655 which showed significant relationship between the two.
 The Step2 R2 results revealed that Infrastructure also significantly contributed to 51%
in the research culture with the same highly significance value of 0.000 which defined
that model was a good fit; here the beta value was 0.715 which showed a significant
relationship between the two.
 The R2 results of Step 3 depict that Research culture also significantly contributed to
54% change in quality of service experience; here the significance value again

25
 appeared to be 0.000 which showed the goodness of model. While the beta value was
0.736 which showed a significant relationship between the two.
 The Step4 when the regression analysis of independent-dependent (Infrastructure -
quality of research service experience) link was done with the due effect of mediator
(research culture); the R2 results showed the combined effect of Infrastructure and
Research culture to contribute to 58% change in Quality of research service
experience. The significance value of 0.004 showed that model was a good fit.
However, the value of beta was observed to reduce to 0.264. This lowering of beta
value from the original independent-dependent (Infrastructure-quality of research
service experience) value of 0.655 showed that independent variable’s (supervision)
direct effect has been reduced with the incorporation of mediator (Research culture).

Therefore the results of the analysis from Step-1, Step-2, Step-3 and Step-4 showed that
the conditions to test the mediator’s impact at bivariate level were met. Thus in order to
validate the mediation ‘Online Sobel test’ was done. The results approved the indirect
effect of (IV-DV) Infrastructure on the Quality of research experience with the partial
impact of mediator. The results of Sobel test generated p = 0.00000009 which because of
being lower than 0.05 proved to be significant and hence partial mediation was
confirmed.

FIG 3 SOBEL TEST OUTPUT TABLE (OBSERVING THE RESEARCH CULTURE AS A

MEDIATOR BETWEEN SUPERVISION AND QUALITY OF RESEARCH SERVICE
EXPERIENCE)

Source: (http://www.quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm)

4.2. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES

While conducting the interviews the anonymity of the interviewer’s university name was
maintained as per the agreed terms. Exploring the research service experience, each one of
the 25 interviewees was asked firstly about which factor they found annoying the most during

26
their research degree. Reasons of the quality less or un-scientific research were explored; also
the importance they assigned to those issues was judged. Each interviewed participant
highlighted his/her own particular concerns about supervision and infrastructural aspects
which have lowered their satisfaction level and prevented them from attaining skills. The
findings revealed the supervision and infrastructure are regarded as the crucial factors
shaping the research experience of academic researchers (25/25). Stating the overall
experience an interviewee expressed that:

“I have realized from my experience that learning research is a complete journey in which a
lot of things do not turn out as expected. A lot of times things are not appropriate, resources
are not enough, you have no coherence with your supervisor etc. So in order to survive, all
you have to do is to accept the situation and cope up with the least you have and by doing
most you could do on your own.” (16th Interviewee)

Another interviewee expressed his/her general opinion regarding the impact of these issues
as:

“In Pakistan, it is normally observed that the issues of supervision or infrastructure induce
demotivation in researchers, due to which the researcher’s goal deviates from learning skills
to mere degree completion. And this is the reason they fail to produce a quality scientific
research.” (8th Interviewee)

It was most particularly observed that quite a lot of the respondents (especially the ones of
private sector universities) were found concerned about their investment into the research
degrees. A respondent voiced that:

“My research experience was an expensive undertaking indeed. All I wanted was an enabling
learning environment and appropriate facilities. And I would say that I have been better off
than a lot of other researchers. I had a lot of facilities in my private (business) school which I
should appreciate; but a lot of times I questioned this to myself that was it worth the money I
paid, or even was it enough to meet my expectations? Certainly not!” (14th Interviewee)

Interestingly, it was observed that the interviewees of the public sector universities kept on
comparing their worst experiences assuming the private sector university students to be the
more privileged ones. However researchers from each sector highlighted their own concerns,
as disadvantaged class existed everywhere.

27
When asked about how they perceived the role of HEC in shaping their research experience;
students revealed their believe that HEC has played an authoritative role in incorporating
research as the essential aspect of university education, and quite often it is in the air that
HEC is paving pathways for researchers. But as a matter of fact, the respondents attributed
these efforts as a huge failure because they considered that HEC’s initiatives are not need
oriented and are directionless. 9 out of 25 interviewees doubted the role of HEC in regulating
the research mechanisms. An interviewee remarked that “Our concerns have never been
directly sought by HEC. Moreover I am not sure with what they deliver, since most of the
institutes are left unchecked by HEC.” (21st interviewee)

4.2.1. ISSUES WITH RESEARCH SUPERVISION

The first aspect discussed was to prove the first proposition, stated as:

Prop1: Ineffective supervision deteriorates the quality of research service

experience which affects the research outcomes.

It was analyzed that most commonly the interviewees were wary of few annoying
attributes of their supervisors, as 1) non-availability due to excessive workload of
students and teaching-research unbalance (9/25), 2) over-expectations of supervisors
about doing your work on your own (7/25), 3) inability to understand the student’s
difficulties (15/25), and 4) unconstructive feedback (12/25).

The question about the attitude of supervision was a complicated one in which no
particular criterion was observed to be demanded by researchers. A student from a
private sector university opined that:

“It varies from supervisor to supervisor. Their content of knowledge and demeanor
dictate how they act in various situations. One supervisor may be good at one aspect
while the other at the other one. However you have to clear this to yourself that the
power of attorney is with your supervisor. Endurance is the only key because s/he
could either make it or break it. At Pakistan, it is already an established norm that if
once you are allocated with a supervisor; you are supposed to endure with him/her”
(25th Interviewee)

28
The reason to this was given by another respondent that: “Switching to other
supervisor is usually impossible and daunting task especially at public sector
universities like mine. You do not have a choice mostly” (2nd Interviewee)

Another student from a public sector university explained that:

“Students never know about avoiding plagiarism, suitable research designs,

methodology and especially about the statistical software like SPSS and Eviews. My
supervisor just briefed the raw concepts and I had to cope up with understanding my
concepts from internet and You-tube videos” (17th Interviewee)

Recognizing topic selection as big deal an interviewee commented that: “Since my

supervisor was from an entirely different discipline so he could not help me with the
conceptual grounds of my research. Moreover, due to teaching-research unbalance
supervisor fails to deliver the promised services due to which I could never meet my
supervisor’s expectations since I did not know them” (12th interviewee)

When asked for the reason of feedback issues, another student expressed his idea as
follows:

Regarding feedback another interviewee stated: “My feedback was always given in
the stated time. But instead of providing me solutions, it always ended up with bigger
problems” (4th interviewee)

And there were a couple of interviewees from the private sector universities, who
echoed their feelings that there supervisor left in between for post-doc or switched to
a foreign university. Adjusting with the newly allocated supervisor was again a heck
of pressure they had faced.

4.2.2. ISSUES WITH RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE

The second aspect discussed was to prove the second proposition, stated as:

Prop2: Poor infrastructural facilities deteriorate the quality of research service

experience which affects research outcomes.

29
The discussion of the respondents revealed to the interviewer that most of the students
(11/25) consider dearth of research facilities a critical factor which is crucial for the
efficient and effective accomplishment of research.

According to interviewee’s opinion most important problem is the dearth of funding

(17/25). Since at Pakistan there is very nominal university-industry collaboration so
due to lack of industry and governmental funding they were bound to the basic
research; this way despite having good ideas for applied research they were unable to
execute it. In reference to this issue, another interviewee stated:

“Unfortunately I could not get selected into HEC’s scholarship program. Therefore,
doing it privately, a lot of times I thought about quitting as I could not manage with
the funds I had, and neither was there any institutional funding. Institutional funding
was limited to the scare university-industry projects and there was no practice of
funding for individual research projects.” (3rd Interviewee)

Secondly, the interviewees regarded Internet (23/25) as the must have prerequisite
element along with the wide access to authentic databases (25/25). It was observed
that interviewees thought that the greatest input into the research process is the
availability of research databases. The opinion they repeated the most was that non-
availability of research database and inaccessibility to digital library.

Another respondent from a private sector university mentioned the systematic flaw in
institute’s research administration; by telling that: “I could not apply for my VPN
code for research database within the stated time. Throughout my research tenure my
applications were not entertained and I had to collect my data from the friend’s code
which was pretty inconvenient.” (13th Interviewee)

Under the discussion head of infrastructure the next question examined was the
library issues. Students most often (22/25) highlighted that research being more of an
independent study; can be largely shaped by the help of libraries. While most of them
(14/25) complained that libraries had an inefficient role in providing them a peaceful
place, making the updated research resources available and helping at locating them.

In reference to the library issues a respondent highlighted that:

30
“My library could have been much effective if they brought the required databases
through database vendors. Quite a lot of time I waited for weeks to get the respective
research content. There was no help regarding this, this problem was convoluted
further by the absolutely nominal role of librarian in locating data and making it
available. However I think that the private sector librarians are generous enough to
help in making the data available as compared to the public sector universities.” (6th
Interviewee)

4.2.3. ISSUES WITH RESEARCH CULTURE AND RESPONDENT’S

PERCEPTION ABOUT ITS IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF SUPERVISION
SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURAL SERVICES
The third proposition and fourth proposition discussing the research culture were
formulated as:

Prop3: Poor research culture affects the supervision practices which lead to low
quality research service experience which affects the research outcomes.

Prop4: Poor research culture affects the functioning of infrastructure due to

which it fails to contribute to the quality of research service experience which
affects the research outcomes.

The discussions revealed the general fact by most of the respondents about the
uncooperative culture which did not facilitate the scientific research process. The
answers depicted that the concept of research training courses, seminars and
workshops has no sound establishment at Pakistani universities. Students don’t get a
chance for interaction in the research community; so getting aware of the research
norms and involving yourself in the prevalent culture is nearly impossible. And
gradually it happens that either you accomplish research and get integrated through
any channel; or you are casted out.

More than half of the respondents affirmed the role of culture in execution of
infrastructure and functioning of supervisor’s role. (17/25) attributed the
malfunctioning of infrastructure and supervisory role to non-existence of research
culture in the institute’s broader culture. The answer to questions about research

31
culture reflected a negative approach of students; as most of them (23/25) believed
that establishment of research culture is step ahead of us. At Pakistan still having
supervision and infrastructural services in the best working is yet enough to be done.
It is because of these cultural constraints that do not enable them to function properly.
In reference to this, an interviewee commented:

“If my supervisor was unavailable, I had to wait long. There was no one I knew
generous enough or even expert enough to guide me. Likewise, if my computer space
was occupied I had to wait again. Research culture is something way beyond us.
Believe you me!” (20th Interviewee)

Voicing the concerns, an interviewee commented that:

“There was no support or channel where I could go to voice my concerns such as

switching to other supervisor or locating the resources in the institute. The institute’s
culture was static. You had to accept it as it is. In fact the culture was rigid enough to
let me affirm the fact that I am stuck with my supervisor and I have to manage with
the little resources. I was told that any surfacing of my supervisory or infrastructural
concerns would only ruin my degree.” (19th Interviewee)

Another respondent complained that:

“I had never had a chance to be compelled by the overwhelming support in my

institute’s culture to present my work to conferences or seminars. It never motivated
me to do more research. I always felt isolated because there was only a feeling of
compulsion in general to do research for the haste of promotion or competition; which
obviously deprived all of my positive energy from me.” (5th Interviewee)

Realizing the importance of a research culture, an interviewee commented that:

“Had we been provided with a sound research culture which could provide solutions
to our queries; we could have addressed research ideas with novelty. Unfortunately,
you are completely at your own when you undertake research. The outmoded
infrastructure and unsuitable supervision is an indication of the wrecked research
culture at Pakistani universities.” (18th Interviewee)

32
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From the above results obtained through analysis of questionnaire and interview responses;
the answers for the research questions (RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3) were sorted out. On the bright
side it was seen that the target objectives were achieved. This chapter concludes the findings
of each research questions identified in the first chapter of this thesis.

TABLE 5: RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Code Research Questions

RQ1 How does a research scholar perceive the role of supervision and
infrastructure in shaping a research experience conducive to research
outcomes?
RQ2 Does a research culture mediate or moderate the execution of infrastructure
and supervision services in shaping the service quality of research
experience?

RQ3 What are the issues of infrastructure, culture and supervision that a
particular Pakistani student faces in Business Schools; and how does it
affect research outcomes?

5.1. CONCLUSIONS

The answer to RQ1 was obtained from the correlation analysis performed between the
identified group of IVs and DV. The correlational and regression values led to the acceptance
of the association between all IVs with DVs; which ultimately resulted into acceptance of
H1a, H1b, H1c.

33
TABLE 6: RESULTS OF HYPOTHESES

H1a Supervision significantly impacts the quality of research service Accepted

experience.
H1b The research infrastructure significantly impacts the quality of Accepted
research service experience.

H1c The quality of research service experience impacts the research Accepted
outcomes.
H2a The research culture mediates the practice of supervision in shaping Accepted
the quality of research service experience.

H2b The research culture mediates the execution of infrastructure in Accepted

shaping the quality of research service experience.

Prop1 Ineffective supervision deteriorates the quality of research service Accepted

experience which affects research outcomes.

Prop2 Poor infrastructural facilities deteriorate the quality of research Accepted

service experience which affects research outcomes.

Prop3 Poor research culture affects the supervision practices which lead to Accepted
low quality research service experience which affects research
outcomes.

Prop4 Poor research culture affects the functioning of infrastructure due to Accepted
which it fails to contribute to the quality of research service
experience.

Hence, with the approval of the above hypotheses; it was revealed that supervision and
research infrastructure play a vital role in shaping the research service experience worthy of
contributing to research outcomes, this was found to be same as that of findings of Bills
(2003), Behzadi & Davarpanah (2013) and another Pakistani study of Waseem, Mujtaba &

34
Shakir (2013). It also depicted that the better the service quality is delivered during a research
experience, the better you get the research outcomes in the form of researcher satisfaction and
skill development. Thus the support of H1a, H1b and H1c led to the support of the
established objective that infrastructure and supervision are the key factors contributing to
quality of research service experience; and this research experience ultimately contributes to
the research outcomes in the form of satisfaction and skill development. It has also led to the
acceptance of the established links in the frameworks which were extracted from the study of
Trigwell & Dunbar-Goddet (2005) and Zeng, Webster & Ginns (2013).

In fact this research endorses the view point of Ramaiyah et al. (2007) stating that student
should be attentively focused when it comes to determining the concept and dimensions of
service quality of higher education academic research. As, Govender & Ramroop (2011) and
Govender & Ramroop (2012) have already proved the significant link of service quality and
student satisfaction.

Exploring the answer to RQ2, in which the research culture was checked for its moderating or
mediating role in the execution of infrastructural and supervision activities, the following
results were revealed:

Also, the questionnaire results and interviews have supported its due presence as a mediator
because it is only a research culture which drives the infrastructure and supervision side by
side. The acceptance of H3a and H3b concludes that for a sound research experience the
presence of research climate is must have which would escalate the strength of the research
services and would deliver the required service experiences, this was also concluded by the
study of Cheetham (2007). While at Pakistan the situation is converse which indicates the
low priority an ‘academic research’ receives over teaching (Mahmood & Shafique, 2010).

The crucial importance of research culture establishment is also supported by Mangi, Soomro
& Ghumro (2011) that improvement in research and development by infrastructure and
university-industry collaboration is an opportunity to initiate quality processes at Pakistani
HEIs. In addition to this Rasul, Bukhsh & Akram (2010) also supported that with the
increasing exposure towards academic research the inculcation of research culture and
knowledge friendly linkage among university-industry and interuniversity for better utility of
higher education is very important.

35
The results for the RQ3 revealed the state of chaotic research experience due to crisis of
supervision, infrastructure and culture led to the acceptance of following propositions:

The student grievances portray that there are numerous flaws and hindrances left
unmonitored regarding research facilities, research culture and supervision. Among them
research funding crisis, research resources crisis regarding inaccessibility and unavailability
of libraries, librarians, databases and other ICTs are identified as the major obstruction. The
findings of this study support various other authors who have explored various infrastructural
challenges, and cultural crisis caused by various academic factors at Pakistan (Aziz et al,
2014; Bilal & Khan, 2012; Mukhtar, Islam, & Siengthai, 2012; Abbasi et al, 2011; Aadil,
Khan & Fahim, 2010; Dilshad & Ali, 2010; Haider, 2008; Memon, 2007).

Also, the supervision issues of workload imbalance of supervisors due to undefined student
teacher ratio, identified by Harman (2003), Wadesango & Machingambi (2011) and Kimani
(2014); unavailability for meetings and coordination identified by Harman (2003); feedback
issues regarding quality, consistency and frequency, identified by Manathunga (2005),
Wadesango & Machingambi (2011), and Kiley (2011); distracted attitude of supervisor due
to lack of interpersonal skills identified by Wadesango & Machingambi (2011) and Harman
(2003); teaching-research unbalance, identified by Harman (2003); supervisory panel issues,
identified by Wadesango & Machingambi (2011); unaligned frame of mind with the
supervisor, disagreement in the research area or the required supervision style and identified
by Manathunga (2005), Wadesango & Machingambi (2011) and Mainhard et al (2009) ; lack
of trust and support Manathunga (2005), Helfer & Drew (2013), Mainhard et al (2009), were
supported as the reason of the researcher’s dissatisfaction from supervision experiences.

Hence the findings closely support the research study of Welsh (1980) regarding the
problems an academic researcher encounters while conducting research. Specifically the
findings closely align with that of Waseem, Mujtaba & Shakir (2013), who revealed several
factors; indicating the evidence for non-supportive system of research in Pakistan which
result in delayed approvals to research proposals, thesis and reduce the motivation in
scholars. The lack of research policy and its documentation has destroyed the research
mechanism from topic selection to viva. The deteriorated system, culture, infrastructure and
supervision has deprived research from its core essence of innovation and knowledge
fabrication.

36
RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings of this research appeal for the institutes to have a look at the learning
experiences they create. This suggestion is aligned to the assertion of Govender & Ramroop
(2012) that mere collection of questionnaire responses from postgraduates is not enough,
unless they are utilized for developmental purposes like improvement in staff curriculum,
research climate development and improving satisfaction through research experience.
Therefore the call for action is not only for the business school leadership but also by HEC;
to devise actions to evaluate the research experience of researchers.

It is suggested for HEC to play its role in the implementation of quality criteria of HEC
through proper check and balance. This is because of the fact that Pakistani universities are
lagging far behind at implementing quality assurance procedures and activities (Bilal &
Khan, 2012); therefore the implementation and execution of the quality criteria specifically
for the research function of the institutes is important to be worked upon.

In reference to the same assertion, it is also specially recommended for the quality assurance
procedures of HEC to incorporate the need analysis of research scholars which would
generate their required satisfaction parameters. These factors must be made sure for their
implementation and later their contribution towards overall research experience and their
impact over research outcomes must be assessed. The importance of doing so is asserted by
Silva et al. (2012) that factors causing the satisfaction should be determined because they
serve as retention strategy, university recognition and a competitive strategy.

The issues faced by the academic researchers regarding research supervision, infrastructure
and culture also generate a call for action. Asserting higher education’s conflicts as
tremendous issues, Mukhtar, Islam & Siengthai (2012) stressed that the it is the need of the
time that dysfunctional conflicts of higher education in Pakistan must be resolved in order to
avoid there adverse effect on the overall quality of higher education. Also, Ameen (2007)
stated that at Pakistan, several quality issues arising from faculty, infrastructure, curriculum
and assessment exist, which ought to be resolved.

5.3. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The biggest limitation of this study is that it has put up the student’s voice while ignoring the
perspective of research supervisor’s, research institute’s opinion and research administrator’s.

37
Hence the scenario of research issues is not counter confirmed and is a one party perspective
only. Also the target sample of private and public sector does not portray the results sector
wise, which could be carried out separately to yield comparative analysis.

The study had other limitations as of Zeng, Webster & Ginns (2013) as the study was cross
sectional and it evaluated the perception of students who had had research experiences in the
year 2013 and 2014 only. Whereas as per the nature of the research area it is suggested that a
longitudinal research evaluating the research experiences during the degree tenure and
afterwards; would yield better evaluation and results so as to reveal the exact picture and
facilitate an in time appropriate action for improvement. This is also in the support of
Govender & Ramroop (2012) who advised for the better results and conclusion to conduct the
experience survey while the students are experiencing the research process during thesis
writing.

The research outcome of satisfaction is not measured by the ‘perception-expectation gap’

which is a usual tool to measure satisfaction. Hence the satisfaction is measured as the
general part of research outcomes along with the researcher’s skills. However, the questions
of skills were dependent on the researcher’s own understanding of their skills which could be
expanded to address their target skills categorically. So, through above limitations the span of
investigation is suggested to be expanded for future investigation.

38
1. Aadil, P. D. N., Khan, D. M. S., & Fahim, M. (2010, December). Assessing quality of
higher education in Pakistan, Paper presented at 3rd international conference on
assessing quality in higher education, Lahore, Pakistan.
2. Abbasi, M. N., Malik, A., Chaudhry, I. S., & Imdadullah, M. (2011). A study on student
satisfaction in Pakistani universities: The case of Bahauddin Zakariya University,
Pakistan. Asian Social Science, 7(7), 209-219.
3. Adogbeji, O. B., & Akporhonor, B. A. (2005). The Impact of ICT (Internet) on Research
and Studies: The Experience of Delta State University Students in Abraka, Nigeria.
Library Hi Tech News, 22(10), 17 – 21.
4. Ahmad, S. Z. (2014). Evaluating student satisfaction of quality at international branch
campuses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. doi:
10.1080/02602938.2014.925082
5. Alam, F., Alam, Q., & Rasul, M. G. (2013). A pilot study on postgraduate supervision.
5th BSME International Conference on Thermal Engineering (pp. 875-881). Elsevier Ltd.
6. Ali, A. K. (2012). Academic staff’s perceptions of characteristics of learning organization
in a higher learning institution. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(1),
55-82. doi: 10.1108/09513541211194383
7. Ameen, K. (2007). Issues of quality assurance (QA) in LIS higher education in Pakistan.
114 LIS education in developing countries, South Africa. Retrieved from
http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla73/index.htm
8. Angell, R.J., Heffernan, T.W. & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate
education. Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 16(3), 236-254.
9. Angell, R.J., Heffernan, T.W. & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate
education. Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 16(3), 236-254.
10. Arambewela, R., Hall, J. (2013). The international effects of the internal and external
university environment, and the influence of personal values, on satisfaction among
international postgraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 3(7), 972-988.

11. Arif, S., Ilyas, M. & Hameed, A. (2013). Student satisfaction and impact of leadership in
private universities. The TQM Journal, 25(4), 399 – 416.
12. Arif, S., Ilyas, M. & Hameed, A. (2013). Student satisfaction and impact of leadership in
private universities. The TQM Journal, 25(4), 399 – 416.

39
13. Asaduzzaman, Hossain, M., & Rahman, M. (2013). Service quality and student
satisfaction: A case study on private universities in Bangladesh. International Journal of
Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 1(3), 128-135.
14. Aslam, H. D. (2011). Performance evaluation of teachers in universities: Contemporary
issues and challenges. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 1(2), 11-31
15. Asmar, C. (1999). Is there a gendered agenda in academia? The research experience of
female and male PhD graduates in Australian universities. Higher Education, 38(3), 255-
273.
16. Azam, M.K.S. (2007) Quality assurance in higher education: initiatives in Pakistan, in
Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship, Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA
Annual Conference [CD-ROM], Adelaide, 8-11 July.
17. Babu, A. R., & Singh, Y. P. (1998). Determinants of research productivity.
Scientometrics, 43(3), 309-329.
18. Bakioglu, A. & Kurnaz, O. (2009). Quality criteria of research perceived by academics in
social sciences at higher education. US-China Education Review, 6(3), 1-13.
19. Bakioglu, A. & Kurnaz, O. (2009). Quality criteria of research perceived by academics in
social sciences at higher education. US-China Education Review, 6(3), 1-13.
20. Barnes, B., & Randall, J. (2012). Doctoral Student Satisfaction: An Examination of
Disciplinary, Enrollment, and Institutional Differences. Res High Educ, 53, 47-75. doi
10.1007/s11162-011-9225-4
21. Behzadi, H. & Davarpanah, M. R. (2013). Research experience of the PhD students in
Iran: a case study in Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education, 5(1), 17-31.

22. Behzadi, H. & Davarpanah, M. R. (2013). Research experience of the PhD students in
Iran: a case study in Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education, 5(1), 17-31.
23. Behzadi, H. & Davarpanah, M. R. (2013). Research experience of the PhD students in
Iran: a case study in Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education, 5(1), 17-31.
24. Billot, J., Jones, M., & Banda, M. (2013). Enhancing the postgraduate research culture
and community. 36th HERDSA Annual International Conference (pp. 48-57). Australia:
Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc.

40
25. Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.M. & Mohr, L.A. (1994). Critical service encounters: the
employee’s viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58, 95-106.
26. Buttery, E. A., Richter, E. M., & Filho, W. L. (2005). An overview of the elements that
influence efficiency in postgraduate supervisory practice arrangements. International
Journal of Educational Management, 19(1), 7-26. doi: 10.1108/09513540510574920
27. Cheetham, A. (2007). Growing a Research Culture (pp. 1-7). Australia: University of
Western Sydney.
28. Chiang, I. (2003). Learning experiences of doctoral students in UK universities.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(1/2), 4-32.
29. Dilshad, R. M., & Ali, D. A. (2010). ‘Students’ perceptions about the quality of higher
education-the case of a public university of Pakistan’, paper presented at 3rd international
conference on assessing quality in higher education, Lahore, Pakistan, 6th – 8th December,
pp.416-428.
30. Drennan, J. (2008). Postgraduate research experience questionnaires: reliability and factor
structure with master’s in nursing students. JAN Research Methodology, 487-498.
31. Evans, L. (2011). What Research Administrators Need to Know about Researcher
Development: Towards a New Conceptual Model. Journal of Research Administration,
42(1), 15-37.
32. Evans, T. (1997). Flexible doctoral research: emerging issues in Professional doctorate
programs. Studies in Continuing Education, 19(2), 174-182. doi:
10.1080/0158037970190207
33. Evans, T. (1997). Flexible doctoral research: emerging issues in Professional doctorate
programs. Studies in Continuing Education, 19(2), 174-182. doi:
10.1080/0158037970190207
34. Ezeokoli, R. N., & Ayodele, K. O. (2014). Dimensions of Service Quality Encountered
By Students on Sustainability of Higher Education in Nigeria. Developing Country
Studies, 4(6), 147-156.
35. Ezeokoli, R. N., & Ayodele, K. O. (2014). Dimensions of Service Quality Encountered
By Students on Sustainability of Higher Education in Nigeria. Developing Country
Studies, 4(6), 147-156.
36. Ezeokoli, R. N., & Ayodele, K. O. (2014). Dimensions of Service Quality Encountered
By Students on Sustainability of Higher Education in Nigeria. Developing Country
Studies, 4(6), 147-156.

41
37. Faganel, D. A. (2010). Quality perception gap inside the higher education institution.
International Journal of Academic Research, 2(1), 213-215. Retrieved from
www.ijar.lit.az
38. Fraser, K. (2005). Education and leadership in higher education: Developing an effective
institutional strategy. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
39. Govender, K., & Ramroop, S. (2012). The relationship among the postgraduate research
climate, service experience, quality and satisfaction. Ave African Journal of Business
Management, 6(30), 8917-8926.
40. Govender, K., & Ramroop, S. (2012). The relationship among the postgraduate research
climate, service experience, quality and satisfaction. Ave African Journal of Business
Management, 6(30), 8917-8926.

41. Govender, K., & Ramroop, S. (2013). Exploring Postgraduate Research Service Quality:
Comparing Supervisors’ and Students’ Perceptions. Alternation Special Edition, 8, 1023-
1757.
42. Govender, K., & Ramroop, S. (2013). Managing postgraduate research service quality:
Developing and assessing a conceptual model. South African Journal of Economic and
Management Sciences, 16(2). Retrieved January 1, 2014, from
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S2222-34362013000200004&script=sci_arttext
43. Govendir, M., Ginns, P., Symons, R. & Tammen, I. (2009). Improving the research
higher degree experience at the Faculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney,
in The Student Experience, Proceedings of the 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference,
Darwin, 6-9 July 2009: pp 163-172.
44. Grebennikov, L., & Mahsood, S. (2007). Enhancing the Research Student Experience at
University.
45. Grebennikov, L., & Mahsood, S. (2013a). Monitoring Trends in Student Satisfaction,
Tertiary Education and Management. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(4), 301-
322.
46. Hameed, A., & Amjad, S. (2011). Students' satisfaction in higher learning Institutions: A
case study of COMSATS Abbotabad, Pakistan. Iraninan Journal of Management Studies,
4(1), 63-77.

47. Harman, G. (2003). PhD student satisfaction with course experience and supervision in
two Australian Research-intensive Universities. Prometheus: Critical Studies in
Innovation, 21(3), 317-333.

42
48. Helfer & Drew (2013). A small-scale investigation into Engineering PhD student
satisfaction with supervision in an Australian university campus Proceedings of the 2013
AAEE Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, Copyright © Helfer and Drew,
2013
49. Hemmings, B., Hill, D., & Sharp, J. G. (2013). Critical interactions shaping early
academic career development in two higher education institutions. Issues in Educational
Research, 23(1), 35-51.
50. Henri, F., Bédard, F., Hagemeister, N., Lévesque, G., Kadri, B., & Lessard, L. (2007). E-
science, E-research and E-learning: New Perspectives for Graduate Studies. E-Learn
2007: “World Conference of E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, &
Higher Education", (pp. 944-949). Québec.
51. Hill, F. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student as
primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10-21.
52. Hill, R. (1999). Revisiting the term ‘research culture’. Paper presented at the The
HERDSA (Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia) Annual
International Conference.
53. Holtman, L. & Mukwada, G. (2014). Challenges confronting the quality of postgraduate
supervision and its effects on time-to-degree and throughput rates: A case of a South
African University. Mediterranean journal of social sciences, 5(6), 179-190.
54. Hunter, A.B., Laursen, S.L. and Seymour, E. (2006). Becoming a scientist: the role of
undergraduate research in students cognitive, personal, and professional development.
ERIC, available at: www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno (accessed
December 11, 2014).
55. Iqbal, A. (2004), “Problems and Prospects of Higher Education in Pakistan”, unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arid Agriculture, Pakistan, Rawalpindi.
56. Isani, U. A. (2002). Higher education in Pakistan. A historical futuristic perspective, PhD
thesis, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad.
57. Ismail, A. & Abiddin, N. Z. (2009). The importance of graduate student’s needs on
supervisory contribution in a Malaysian public university. The social sciences, 4(4), 355-
365.
58. Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of
supervision: Ph.D. students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5),
535-555, doi: 10.1080/03075070500249161

43
59. Jabnoun, N. (2009). Economic and cultural factors affecting university excellence.
Quality Assurance in Education, 7(4), 416-429.
60. Jabnoun, N. (2009). Economic and cultural factors affecting university excellence.
Quality Assurance in Education, 7(4), 416-429.
61. Jahangir, K. (2008), “Management of Higher Education Reforms in Pakistan: An
Implementation Perspective”. Printed at National University of Modern Languages Press,
Sector H-9, Islamabad, Pakistan.
62. Jancey, J., & Burns, S. (2013). Institutional factors and the postgraduate student
experience. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(3), 311-322.
63. Jancey, J., & Burns, S. (2013). Institutional factors and the postgraduate student
experience. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(3), 311-322.
64. Jowkar, A., Didegah, F., & Gazni, A. (2011). The effect of funding on academic research
impact: a case study of Iranian publications. Aslib Proceedings, 63(6). 593 – 602.
65. Kardash, C.M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: perceptions
of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92(1), 191-201.
66. Kayastha, A. (2011). A study of graduate student satisfaction towards service quality of
universities in Thailand. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/129561886/A-Study-
of-Graduate-Student-Satisfaction-Towards-Service-Quality-of-Universities-in-Thailand
67. Khan Hasan Jamshed (2006). Pakistan: A Global Guide to Management Education,
Global Foundation for Management Education. Retrieved.
Fromhttp://www.gfme.org/global_guide/pdf/161-166%20Pakistan.pdf
68. Khan, A., Shah, I. M., & Azam, K. (2011). Business education in Pakistan growth,
problems and prospects. Greener Journal of Business and management Studies, 1(1),
001-008. Retrieved from http://www.gJournals.org/
69. Kiley, M. (2011). Developments in research supervisor training: causes and responses.
Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 585-599, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2011.594595
70. Kimani, E. N. (2014). Challenges in quality control for postgraduate supervision.
International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 1(9), 63-70.
71. Krauss, S. E. & Ismail, I. A. (2010). PhD student’s experiences of thesis supervision in
Malaysia: Managing relationships in the midst of institutional change, The qualitative
report, 15(4), 802-822.

44
72. Krauss, S. E. & Ismail, I. A. (2010). PhD student’s experiences of thesis supervision in
Malaysia: Managing relationships in the midst of institutional change, The qualitative
report, 15(4), 802-822.
73. Latona, K. & Browne, M. (2001). Factors associated with completion of research higher
degrees. DETYA, Canberra.
74. Lee, A. (2007). Developing effective supervisors. South African Journal of Higher
Education, 21(4), 680-693.
75. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts held by supervisors of
doctoral research students. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281.
76. Lodhi, A. S. (2012). A pilot study of researching the research culture in Pakistani public
universities: the academics’ perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31,
473-479.
77. Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): first findings.
Cell Biology Education, 3(4), 270-277.
78. Lubbe, S., Worrall, L., & Klopper, R. (2005). Challenges in Postgraduate Research: How
Doctorates Come Off the Rails. Alternation, 12(1a), 241-262.
79. Mabrouk, P.A. and Peters, K. (2000), “Student perspectives on undergraduate research
(UR) experiences in chemistry and biology”, available at: www.ched-
ccce.org/confchem/2000/a/mabrouk/mabrouk.htm (accessed November 7, 2014).
80. Mainhard, T., Rijst, R. V. D., Tartwijk, J. V., & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the
supervisor-doctoral student relationship. Higher Edu, 58, 359-373. doi: 10.1007/S10734-
009-9199-8
81. Malik, S. (2002). Factors affecting the development of female higher education in
Pakistan. (PhD Thesis) University of Arid Agriculture. Rawalpindi
82. Manathunga, C. (2005). Early warning signs in postgraduate research education: a
different approach to ensuring timely completions. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2),
219-
83. Mangi, R. A., Soomro, H. J., & Ghumro, I. A. (2011). Strategic analysis of public sector
universities in Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business,
3(5), 656-668.
84. Mcculloch, A. (2010). Excellence in doctoral supervision: Competing models of what
constitutes good supervision. In: KILEY, M. (ed.) 2010 Quality in Postgraduate Research
Conference. Adelaide, Australia: The Centre for Educational Development and Academic
Methods, The Australian National University.
45
85. Memon, G. (2007). Education in Pakistan: The Key Issues, Problems and The New
Challenges. Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 3(1), 47-55.
86. Mercer, T., Kythreotis, A., Lambert, C., & Hughes, G. (2011). Student-led research
training within the PhD: “PhD experience” conferences. International Journal for
Researcher Development, 2(2), 152 – 166.
87. Merkel, C.A. (2001). Undergraduate research at six research universities: a pilot study for
the association of American universities, available at: http://ugr.tamu.edu/opportunities-
1/faculty/undergraduaterresearch.pdf (accessed November 8, 2014).
88. Merkel, C.A. (2001). Undergraduate research at six research universities: a pilot study for
the association of American universities, available at: http://ugr.tamu.edu/opportunities-
1/faculty/undergraduaterresearch.pdf (accessed November 8, 2014).
89. Mukhtar, U., Islam, Z., & Siengthai, S. (2012). Conflicts in higher education and
perceived quality of education: empirical evidence from Pakistan. Research in Higher
Education Journal.

90. Mukhtar, U., Islam, Z., & Siengthai, S. (2012). Conflicts in higher education and
perceived quality of education: empirical evidence from Pakistan. Research in Higher
Education Journal.
91. Mutula, S. (2011). Challenges of postgraduate research: Case of developing countries. SA
Jnl Libs & Info Sci, 77(1), 184-190. Retrieved from http://sajlis.journals.ac.za
92. Mutula, S. M. (2009a, September) ‘Challenges Of Postgraduate Research: Global
Context, African Perspectives’, Key Note Address Delivered at the University of
Zululand, 10th DLIS Annual Conference, from 9 - 10 September 2009
93. Mutula, S.M (2009b). Building Trust in Supervisor-Supervisee Relationship: Case Study
of East and Southern Africa. Paper Presented at the Progress in Library and Information
Science in Southern Africa (PROLISSA) Conference at the University of South Africa
(UNISA) on 4-6 March 2009
94. Nadeem, M. (2011). Re-searching research culture at higher education. Journal of
Research and Reflections in Education, 5(1), 41-52. Retrieved from
http://www.ue.edu.pk/jrre
95. Nelson, F. F. (2007). Perceptions of graduate students regarding the challenges of
conducting research in higher education (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from PROQUEST
database. (UMI No. 1444468)

46
96. Oldfield, B.M. & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality in a UK
university business and management faculty. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(2), 85-
95.
97. Petruzzellis, L., D’Uggento, A. M. & Romanazzi, S. (2006). Student Satisfaction and
Quality of Service in Italian Universities. Managing Service Quality, 16(4), 349-364.
98. Pitchforth, J., Beames, S., Thomas, A., Falk, C., Gasson, S., Thamrin, S. A. &
Mengersen, K. (2012). Factors affecting timely completion of a PhD: a complex systems
approach. Journal of the scholarship of teaching and learning, 12(4), 124-135.
99. Prince, M. J., Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty research improve
undergraduate teaching? An analysis of existing and potential synergies. Journal of
Engineering Education, 96(4), 283-294.
100. Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J. & Keskinen, J. (2012). Exploring the fit between
doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perception of resources and challenges vis-à-vis the
doctoral journey. Internal journal of doctoral studies, 7, 395-413.
101. Qureshi, T. M., Iqbal, J., & Khan, M. B. (2008). Information needs &
information seeking behavior of students in universities of Pakistan. Journal of Applied
Sciences Research, 4(1), 40-47.
102. Rana, S. (2009). Quality Management in Higher Education- A Perspective.
Proceedings 2nd CBRC, Lahore, Pakistan
103. Rezeanu, O. M. (2011). The implementation of quality management in higher
education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1046-1050. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.237
104. Rowley, J., & Slack, F. (1998). The First Postgraduate Experience Conference ‘97: a
personal perspective. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 22(3), 253-265. doi:
10.1080/0309877980220301
105. Sabri, D. (2011). What’s wrong with ‘the student experience’?. Discourse: Studies in
the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(5), 657-667.
106. Samania, S., Woodmanb, K., Trevelyana, J., Tajib, A., Narayanswamyc, R., Silvab,
P., & Yarlagaddab, P. (2012) Proceedings of the 2012 AAEE Conference, Melbourne,
Victoria, Copyright ©
107. Seymour, E., Hunter, A.B., Laursen, S.L. and Deantion, T. (2004). Establishing the
benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a
three-year study, Science Education, 88(4), 493-534.

47
108. Sidhu, G. K., Kaurb, S., Fooka, C. Y., & Yunusa, F. W. (2014). Postgraduate
supervision: Comparing student perspectives from Malaysia and the United Kingdom.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 151 – 159.
109. Swager, S.L. (1997), “Faculty/student interaction in an undergraduate research
program: task and interpersonal elements”, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
110. Trigwell, K., & Dunbar-Goddet, H. (2005). The research experience of
postgraduate research students at the University of Oxford. Oxford: Institute for the
Advancement of University Learning, University of Oxford.
111. Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, V., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). Evaluation of the factors that
determine quality in higher education: An empirical study. Quality Assurance in
Education, 18(3), 227-244.
112. Turner, G., & McAlpine, L. (2011). Doctoral experience as researcher preparation:
Activities, passion, status. International Journal for Researcher Development, 2(1), 46-
60.
113. Ullah, M. H., Ajmal, M. & Rahman, F. (2012). Analysis of quality indicator of higher
education in Pakistan.
114. Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2006). What is changing in academic research? Trends and
futures scenarios. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 1-27.
115. Wadesango, N. & Machingambi, S. (2011). Post Graduate Students’
Experiences with Research Supervisors. J Sociology Soc Anth, 2(1), 31-37.
116. Waseem, M. A., Mujtaba, B. G., & Shakir, H. (2013). Suggested mechanism for
producing quality research at higher educational institutes in Pakistan; System, structure,
culture and leadership issues. International Journal of Learning & Development, 3(1),
191-202.
117. Wilkins, S., & Balakrishnan, M. (2013). Assessing student satisfaction in
transnational higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(2),
143-156.
118. Wright, T. (2003). Postgraduate research students: people in context?. British Journal
of Guidance & Counselling, 31, 209-227.
119. Wright, T., & Cochrane, R. (2000). Factors Influencing Successful Submission of
PhD Theses. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 181-195. doi: 10.1080/713696139
120. Zakri, A.H. (2006). Research Universities in the 21st century: Global Challenges and
Local Implications. Global Keynote Scenario at the UNESCO Forum on Higher
48
 Education, Research and Knowledge: Colloquium on Research and Higher Education
Policy, November 29-December 1, 2006, Paris
121. Zeeshan, A., Afridi, T., & Sarfraz, M. K., A. (2010, December). Assessing
service quality in business schools: Implications for improvement, Paper presented at the
3rd international conference on assessing quality in higher education, Lahore – Pakistan.
122. Zeng, L. M., & Webster, B. J. & Ginns, P. (2013). Measuring the research experience
of research postgraduate students in Hong Kong. Higher Education Research &
Development, 32(4), 672-686. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2012.754410
123. Zeng, L.M. & Webster, B.J. (2010). Assessing the research experience of
postgraduate students at a Hong Kong university. In M. Devlin, J. Nagy and A.
Lichtenberg (Eds.) Research and Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Higher
Education, 33 (pp. 645–654). Melbourne, 6–9 July, 2010.
124. Zineldin, M., Camgoz, H., & Vasicheva, V. (2011). Assessing quality in higher
education: new criteria for evaluating student’s satisfaction. Quality in higher education,
17(2), 231-243.
125. Zuber-Skerrit, O and Roche, V. (2004). A constructivist model for evaluating
postgraduate supervision: a case study. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(2), 82-93.

49