GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING THE RESEARCH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION: GAP ANALYSIS FOR THE SYNTHESIS OF POLICY ISSUES-A CASE STUDY OF THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, KASETSART UNIVERSITY

Abstract

This research aimed to 1) Analyze the gaps between stakeholders’ expectations and satisfaction with the research management system of the Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University; 2) Synthesize policy issues for developing the system; and 3) Present a framework for developing research management systems in higher education institutions. This was a quantitative cross-sectional survey. The sample comprised 343 people: 120 academic staff members, drawn from the entire population; 191 users of research outputs; and 32 external research funding sources. The latter two groups were selected purposively. The research instruments were three five-point rating-scale questionnaires with open-ended questions. Data were collected online from November 2025 to March 2026 and analyzed using percentages, means, gap analysis (a positive value indicates that expectations were higher than satisfaction; a negative value indicates that satisfaction was higher than expectations), and content analysis. The findings showed that 1) The average item-level gaps for academic staff (upstream), users of research outputs (midstream), and external research funding sources (downstream) were 0.06, 0.23, and 0.58, respectively, tending to increase with distance from the faculty’s internal research process. The largest gaps for the respective groups concerned internal research funding and support for dissemination (0.13), finding and accessing research outputs (0.37), and the completeness and accuracy of research reports (1.43); 2) Eight policy areas were identified, ranging from policy formulation, funding and resources, and researchers’ capabilities to collaborative networks and stakeholder participation; and 3) A framework was developed linking upstream, midstream, and downstream gap levels to the eight policy areas and policy recommendations for three phases: the initial phase, the implementation phase, and the continuing phase. Higher education institutions with similar contexts can adapt this framework for use.