Research and Development Management Practices of Local Colleges in the Davao Region

Research and development (R&D) management is essential in strengthening institutional research productivity, governance, and sustainability among higher education institutions. Despite the growing emphasis on research as a driver of innovation and regional development, locally funded colleges continue to encounter challenges related to governance structures, resource allocation, faculty engagement, and policy implementation. This study explored the research and development management practices of local colleges in the Davao Region. Guided by Administrative Management Theory and contemporary management perspectives, the study employed a qualitative approach using a single instrumental case study design. Fourteen purposively selected participants, composed of research directors, program heads, and faculty researchers from six local colleges, participated in in-depth interviews. Data were analyzed through deductive and inductive thematic analysis. Findings revealed seven major themes that characterize R&D management practices among local colleges: Strategic Direction in Research and Development, Centralized Bureaucratic Research Governance Structure, Leadership-Driven Capacity Building System, Integrated Process Standardization in Research Governance, Compliance-Driven Policy Formulation, Performance Accountability Systems, and Multi-Source Resource Mobilization System for Sustainable Research Development. These themes demonstrate that effective research management is achieved through strategic planning, structured governance, leadership support, policy compliance, standardized procedures, accountability mechanisms, and diversified resource generation. The findings further indicate that institutional commitment, stakeholder collaboration, and continuous capacity-building initiatives are vital in fostering a sustainable research culture. The study concludes that strengthening research governance through integrated management systems contributes significantly to institutional effectiveness and research sustainability. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers, institutional leaders, and higher education stakeholders in developing policies and strategies that enhance research productivity and promote sustainable research development among local colleges.

Local Colleges, R&D Management, Davao Region, Research Culture

1. Abad-Segura, E., González-Zamar, M. D., Infante-Moro, J. C., & Ruipérez García, G. (2020). Sustainable management of digital transformation in higher education: Global research trends. Sustainability, 12(5), 2107. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adler, R. H. (2022). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Human Lactation, 38(4), 598-602. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Akkaş, H., & Meydan, C. H. (2024). Sampling methods in qualitative sampling in multicultural settings. In Principles of conducting qualitative research in multicultural settings (pp. 32-54). IGI Global. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alcazaren, H. K. G. (2021). A systematic review of Philippine research productivity: A Bourdieusian perspective. Philippine Social Science Journal, 4(4), 113-124. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Aldaba, F. T., Sescon, J. T., & Alconis, K. E. (2024). Strengthening CHED's developmental and regulatory capacity. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2018). Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of public administration research and theory, 28(1), 16-32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Areola, E. M. Q., Phd, H. S. G., Ilagan, J. C. P., & Perono, I. R. (2021). Distance Learning in Philippine Business Programs: An Action Research for The Delivery of Quality Education Towards Sustainable Community Development. Journal of Sustainable Community Development (JSCD), 3(1), 56-63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Arnado, A. (2018). “Sustainability assessment of the locally – funded higher education institutions”, International Journal of Development Research, 8, (03), 19710-19716 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Azman, N. A., Hamzah, M. I., Razak, K. A., & Zulkifli, H. (2024). Digital Competence among Islamic Teachers: A Pilot Study on Validity and Reliability. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 23(4), 51-62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bateman, T. S., Snell, S., & Konopaske, R. (2007). Management: Leading & collaborating in a competitive world. (No Title). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Baylan, S. L. (2023). A contextual analysis of the university research agenda of select teacher education institutions in the Philippines: policy implications and future directions. Asian Journal of University Education (AJUE), 19(3), 662-675. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bayudan-Dacuycuy, C., Flores, H., & Uy, A. O. (2024). Financial sustainability of higher education institutions in the Philippines: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Bertalanffy L. von. 1968. General System Theory. New York: Braziller. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Bingham, A.J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231183620 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Bingham, A.J., & Witkowsky, P. (2022). Deductive and inductive approaches to qualitative data analysis. In C. Vanover, P. Mihas, & J. Saldaña (Eds.), Analyzing and interpreting qualitative data: After the interview (pp. 133-146). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Brittain, S., Ibbett, H., de Lange, E., Dorward, L., Hoyte, S., Marino, A., ... & Lewis, J. (2020). Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people. Conservation Biology, 34(4), 925-933. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., ... & Zint, M. (2021). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustainability Science, 16, 13-29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Brunton, J., Farrell, O., Costello, E., Delaney, L., Foley, C., & Brown, M. (2019). Duelling identities in refugees learning through open, online higher education. Open Praxis, 11(4), 397. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.4.1018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Bunyi, G. (2013). The quest for quality education: the case of curriculum innovations in Kenya. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(7), 678-691. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-01-2013-0008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Burke Reifman, J., White, M., & Kalish, L. (2022). Students as Researchers and Participants: A Model of Iterative Member-Checking for Inclusive, Equity-Centered Assessment Research. Intersection: A Journal at the Intersection of Assessment and Learning, 3(1), n1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Cao, Y., Jiang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2023). A study on the content of integrity policies and research integrity management in Chinese universities. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.943228 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Chambers, D., Glasgow, R., & Stange, K. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-117 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Chankseliani, M., Qoraboyev, I., & Gimranova, D. (2021). Higher education contributing to local, national, and global development: new empirical and conceptual insights. Higher Education, 81(1), 109-127. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Cook, W. (2014). “Sign Here”. Plastic Surgical Nursing, 34(1), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1097/psn.0000000000000030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Cresswell, K., Sheikh, A., Franklin, B. D., Krasuska, M., The Nguyen, H., Hinder, S., ... & Williams, R. (2021). Interorganizational knowledge sharing to establish digital health learning ecosystems: qualitative evaluation of a national digital health transformation program in England. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(8), e23372. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Damschroder, L., Reardon, C., Widerquist, M., & Lowery, J. (2022). Conceptualizing outcomes for use with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): the CFIR Outcomes Addendum. Implementation Science, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01181-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Damschroder, L., Reardon, C., Widerquist, M., & Lowery, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Drake, S. and Yu, E. (2016). Using Biomedical Ethics Model to Explore Use of Postmortem Specimens in Tissue Research. Open Medicine Journal, 3(1), 234-237. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874220301603010234 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Dulog, S. M. (2024). The Challenges and Opportunities in Educational Administration: A Perspective from the Philippines. International Multidisciplinary Journal of Research for Innovation, Sustainability, and Excellence (IMJRISE), 1(3), 79-84. https://risejournals.org/index.php/imjrise/article/view/186 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ekoto, C., Zubkov, P., & Asok, G. (2022). Qualitative data collection. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in the asian context, 345-363. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Elizabeth, J., & Tumburku, W. G. Danjuma Mairo (2024). Mentorship and Professional Development of Young Academic Staff in Some Selected Universities in North-West, Nigeria. J Adv Educ Philos, 8(3), 156-167. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Elmaga, A. M. (2024, September). The Performance, Adaptability, and Stability of the Local Government Units on Government Energy Management Program Implementation. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1395, No. 1, p. 012041). IOP Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Fajilagmago, J., Garcia, J., Abante, M. V., & Vigonte, F. (2024). Barriers And Strategies Faced By The Indigenous People Mandatory Representatives (Ipmrs) In Translating Policy Recommendations Into Actionable Programs And Advocacy for The Mindoro Community. Available at SSRN 5015294. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Fayol, H. (1918). Notice sur les travaux scientifiques et techniques de M. Henri fayol. Paris: Gauthier Villars et Cie Éditeurs. Available at the website of the French national library: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Ferraris, A., Belyaeva, Z., & Bresciani, S. (2020). The role of universities in the Smart City innovation: Multistakeholder integration and engagement perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 119, 163-171. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, New York. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Fishering, R., Broeder, J., & Donze, A. (2016). A Qualitative Study. Advances in Neonatal Care, 16(1), 74-86. https://doi.org/10.1097/anc.0000000000000221 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Flores, H. P. (2025). Strengthening the financing of state universities and colleges: Challenges and opportunities. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Galang, A. D. (2021). Teachers’ critical reflections on the new normal Philippine education issues: Inputs on curriculum and instruction development. International Journal of Social Learning (IJSL), 1(3), 236-249. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Gamboa, A. G. (2022). Institutional Sustainability of Local Colleges and Universities (LCUs) In Region: An Evaluation. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research. 3(5), 842 – 864. doi: 10.11594/ijmaber.03.05.12 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Gammie, E., Hamilton, S., & Gilchrist, V. (2017). Focus group discussions. In The Routledge companion to qualitative accounting research methods (pp. 372-386). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Gayle, D. J., Tewarie, B., & White Jr, A. Q. (2011). Governance in the Twenty-first-century university: Approaches to effective leadership and strategic management: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (Vol. 14). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Gubert, E. (2025). Seeking long-term care in old age: overcoming the barriers within fragmented policy frameworks. Ageing and Society, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0144686x25000169 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher education, 39(1), 67-91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Gupta, J., Termeer, C., Klostermann, J., Meijerink, S., Van den Brink, M., Jong, P., ... & Bergsma, E. (2010). The adaptive capacity wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(6), 459-471. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Hammer, M. (2016). Informed Consent in the Changing Landscape of Research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 43(5), 558-560. https://doi.org/10.1188/16.onf.558-560 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study