Philosophy

Josette Daemen* What (If Anything) Can Justify Basic Income Experiments? Balancing Costs and Benefits in Terms of Justice https://doi.org/10.1515/bis-2021-0024 Received June 11, 2021; accepted June 11, 2021 Abstract: The central thesis of this essay is that basic income experiments are justified if their expected benefits in terms of justice exceed their expected costs in terms of justice. The benefits are a function of basic income's effect on the level of justice attained in the context in which it is implemented, and the experiment's impact on future policy-making. The costs comprise the sacrifices made as a result of the experiment's interventional character, as well as the study's opportunity costs. In light of the proposed standard of justification for basic income experiments, the factors that play a role in it, and theway these interactwith one another, this essay provides some practical recommendations for researchers hoping to conduct such an experiment. Keywords: basic income experiments, justice, cost-benefit analysis, evidencebased policy 1 Introduction Twenty-five years have now passed since Van Parijs (1995) asked a question that would gain wide fame in the world of political philosophy: "what (if anything) can justify capitalism?" The answer he gave to this question, however, would become famous even beyond the political philosophy community: the institution of an unconditional basic income (UBI).1 The idea has been around for longer, but over the past quarter of a century the interest in UBI has surged to unprecedented levels both among academics and the wider public. *Corresponding author: Josette Daemen, Institute of Political Science, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333 AK Leiden, The Netherlands, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com 1 The terms "basic income", "unconditional basic income", and "UBI" are used interchangeably throughout this text. They are taken to cover any scheme in which periodic cash payments are delivered to all universally and unconditionally, so without a means-test or work-requirement. Basic Income Stud 2021; 16(1): 11–25 Open Access.© 2021 Josette Daemen, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Looking at the extensive theoretical literature on UBI, one could say that most contributions revolve around the question: "what (if anything) can justify basic income?" In answering this question, both positively and negatively, political philosophers have considered UBI in light of a wide range of different values: freedom, equality, reciprocity, and democracy, to name only a few. However interesting and important it is to analyse the connection between these concepts and the idea of UBI in theory, any philosopher truly committed to these ideals should also be curious to find out whether implementing UBI would actually contribute to their realisation in practice. But the rub is that we are currently still lacking real-world examples of fully developed basic income schemes that could show us to what extent the policy delivers on its high promises (De Wispelaere, 2016). The obvious solution would be to set up basic income experiments designed so as to yield the data necessary for testing the hypotheses thatwe are interested in. However, such an experimental approach invites yet another question to be phrased in familiar terms: "what (if anything) can justify basic income experiments?" It is to this question that this essay proposes an answer. This answer will be a simple one: basic income experiments are justified if their expected benefits exceed their expected costs, whereby both are to be measured in terms of justice. The next section defends this proposal and expresses it in the form of a mathematical inequality. The four sections thereafter zoom in on each of the factors in the inequality and put forward suggestions for setting up UBI experiments in such a way that the standard proposed here is most likely to be met. The section that follows introduces and rebuts two criticisms of this paper's proposal, before the final section concludes. 2 Justifying Basic Income Experiments The first thing to get straight when exploring the question what can justify basic income experiments, is what the word "justify" in this phrase actually refers to. At the most general level, to justify something is simply to give or to constitute a good reason for something. Crucially, the nature of the thing that is to be justified determines what counts as a good reason. If that thing is, say, the habit of keeping milk in the fridge, then a good reason could consist in past experiences with milk going badwhenkept outside the fridge; if that thing is the choice for a certain lover, then a good reason could be howwonderful that personmakes one feel. If the thing to be justified, however, is the decision to conduct a basic income experiment, I argue that a good reason cannot be any type of reason, but must be a reason of justice. This is because of the particular character of UBI on the one hand, and of UBI experiments on the other. Some elaboration is due. 12 J.A.M. Daemen Let me start with UBI itself. Basic income is generally thought of as a policy that has the potential to make society more just. Justice must thereby be understood broadly. As the justificatory standard proposed in this paper is supposed to be helpful to researchers regardless of which particular conception of justice they hold, I will not provide a precise definition of the term here. Rather I treat justice as a heading under which we can bring a wide range of different values and principles, which many people feel to resonate with their deepest moral intuitions, but which different people may still work out in different ways: from liberty to equal treatment, from democracy to priority for the worst-off. As we will see, many thinkers have argued that basic income promotes ideals such as these. I take it that these arguments for UBI can only be vindicated or rejected once the policy has been tried out in practice. Political philosophers can have all kinds of ideas about what wouldmake society (more) just, but ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Borrowing a concept invented by Fung (2007), I say that we should find out whether the strongest theories of basic income are in pragmatic equilibrium, that is, whether the consequences of the institution they prescribe actually advance the values upon which the case for this arrangement was built. This brings me to UBI experiments. In order to discover whether basic income would indeed improve society's level of justice, a logical stepwould be to test it out in practice. Some have pleaded for conducting basic income experiments in laboratory settings (Noguera & De Wispelaere, 2009). Although such experiments might indeed yield important behavioural insights, I think they would be less suitable for uncovering the impact of UBI in terms of grand values such as freedom, equality, or democracy. In order to find an answer to the question whether basic incomewould really bring society any closer to such ideals, it wouldmake sense to carry out a basic income experiment not in a laboratory but in a real-world setting. Ideally, such an experiment would involve an intervention in the context of an actually existing (micro-)societywhereby people are actually suppliedwith a basic income for some time. The interventional character of aUBI experiment like this, however, raises issues of justice of its own. Is it morally defensible to provide what seems to be a beneficial test treatment to some but not to others? To make people participate in a study without their consent? To run the risk of them getting accustomed to a benefit that they later again have to live without?2 Not to mention the amount of money to be spentonUBIexperiments,which couldprobably beused tofight injustice in farmore direct ways than through policy research. 2 I borrowed these examples from the website of UBIEXP: https://ubiexperiments.weebly.com/ aims-of-the-project.html. What (If Anything) Can Justify Basic Income Experiments? 13 Given that justice forms such an important component of both the potential benefits of UBI and the costs that can accompany UBI experiments, I contend that conducting basic income experiments is justified if there are good reasons of justice for doing so. This does not yet tell us, however, what counts as a good reason of justice. I take the consequentialist view that there is a good reason of justice for an action if it is expected to have a positive net effect by the metric of justice. My central claim is thus that basic income experiments are justified if their expected benefits (B) in terms of justice outweigh their expected costs (C) in terms of justice. In its most general form, this standard of justification can be expressed as the inequality B > C. This proposal can be seen as an application of White's (2009) well-known balance of fairness argument for UBI (pp. 4–6) to the case of UBI experiments. White's argument is meant as a rebuttal of one classic objection to the idea of an unconditional basic income: that such an income violates reciprocity because it is also paid to those who simply choose not to make any productive contribution to society. White's response is that even if basic income does have costs in terms of fairness because it violates reciprocity in this way, it also has benefits in terms of fairness because it protects people againstmarket vulnerability. On balance,White suggests, basic income will simply prevent more injustice than it might create. In this paper, I take the standard that White applies to UBI – its benefits in terms of justice should outweigh its costs in terms of justice – and apply it to basic income experiments. Let me now work out the B > C standard for UBI experiments in more detail. What would the benefits and costs in question consist in? Starting on the benefitside, the expected benefits of a basic income experiment B are determined by two factors. Firstly, the expected effect of the unconditional basic income on the level of justice attained in the context in which the policy is implemented. Let me bring this factor under the heading of Bubi – in its simple form referring to the benefits in the context of the experiment, and when supplemented with an apostrophe referring to those in other contexts than the one of the experiment. Secondly, the expected potential of the experiment to encourage power-holders to implement the policy in these other contexts – I call this Pexp. We could say that the total expected benefits of a basic income experiment by the metric of justice, then, are formed by the justice UBI is thought to create directly, that is, among the participants who receive it in the experiment situation; plus the justice the experiment is thought to bring about indirectly, that is, by affecting the likelihood that the policy is introduced and thus improves the level of justice in real-world situations. In formulaform: B = Bubi + Pexp × Bubi′. Moving over to the cost-side, the expected costs of a basic income experiment C are made up of two major components. Firstly, remember the concerns that can 14 J.A.M. Daemen come attached with the experimental intervention: handing out cash to one part of the population but not the other, subjecting people to a study without their consent, and giving them a benefit that they might get used to but that will be withdrawn later, all seem to involve some kind of injustice – let me put these costs under the heading of Cint. Secondly, given that the resources devoted to an experiment cannot be spent on remedying glaring injustices that can be observed around the world, such a study obviously comes with opportunity costs in terms of justice as well – I refer to these as Copp. The total expected costs of a basic income experiment by the metric of justice can thus simply be expressed as follows: C = Cint + Copp. The justificatory standard for basic income experiments proposed here can now be presented as the inequality: Bubi + Pexp × Bubi′ > Cint + Copp. Some readers might not find this mathematical language to make for a very inspiring approach. When asking what (if anything) can justify UBI experiments, shouldn't we be talking about the promises and pitfalls of basic income, the questions that still lie before us about this policy, and the way experiments should be designed? Of coursewe should, andwewill. Rather than calling for us to take up our calculators, themathematical sentence given here just serves as a starting point for figuring out under what circumstances basic income experiments are justified: it directs us to the factors that are important in this regard, and clarifies in what relation they stand to one another. Below I will thus elaborate each of these factors, explaining what determines their respective values, but without specifying how to express these numerically. Instead, I will be making suggestions about how researchers wanting to set up a basic income experiment may design it in such a way that it stands the most chance of meeting the standard for its justification. 3 Benefits of Basic Income (Bubi) Let me start with the factor Bubi, the effect that the institution of basic income is expected to have on the level of justice attained in the situation in which the policy is implemented. In other words, we are interested in howmuchmore just a society will become as a result of the introduction of UBI. This effect factors into the expected benefits of basic income experiments twice: as a direct benefit in the experiment situation (Bubi), and as an indirect benefit if basic income is later introduced also in real-world situations (Bubi′). The expectation about UBI's effect on a society's level of justice – that is, the value of Bubi(′)– will vary with the philosophical viewpoint adopted and the specific version of the basic income scheme established. Let me explain. What (If Anything) Can Justify Basic Income Experiments? 15 As was pointed out in the introduction, political philosophers have over time evaluated UBI in terms of a wide range of values that can be considered crucial components of justice. I highlight just a sample of these accounts here. Many of them approach the idea of basic income from the ideal of freedom. Each thereby defines both the policy and the value at hand in its own particular way. Van Parijs (1995) proposes a UBI that grants people the greatest possible opportunity to do whatever they might want to do, which he presents as a core component of "realfreedom-for-all" (p. 27). Widerquis (2013) advocates a UBI that provides people the effective power to accept or refuse active cooperationwithwilling others, which he claims to be necessary for ensuring "freedom as effective control self-ownership" (p. 15). And Raventós (2007) and Casassas (2007) consider a UBI granting people material independence, which they believe could promote the republican ideal of freedom as non-domination. Other accounts examine the idea of UBI in light of the value of equality. Again, what kind of basic income scheme is envisaged and what form of equality is considered differs per account. Van Parijs's (1995) UBI, which redistributes opportunities over the members of society, has been said to fit the luck egalitarian ideal of equality of fortune (as criticised by Anderson, 1999). At the same time, Van Donselaar (2008) claims that Van Parijs's UBI, to which people are entitled regardless of their willingness to work, goes against the luck egalitarian position that people should bear the consequences of their voluntary choices. Birnbaum (2012) makes a relational egalitarian case for UBI, arguing that basic income enables people to exercise their basic liberties and gives them access to the bases of self-respect, which in turn forms a key requirement for the realisation of equality of status. Finally, Robeyns (2000) and Fitzpatrick (1999) consider UBI in light of the ideal of gender equality, both highlighting positive as well as negative effects that the policy could have on the position of women. Surveying all of these arguments, it appears that they can be divided into three categories. Firstly, those inwhichUBI is presented as away to really fulfill a certain ideal (in the accounts considered above, this would be some form of freedom or equality). Secondly, those in which UBI is instead found to clash with such an ideal. And thirdly, those that acknowledge there to be both upsides and downsides to UBI in terms of one or more ideals, and then make up the balance between the two – which is also White's (2009) approach in the balance of fairness argument mentioned previously. All in all, it seems that there exist various lines of argument leading to the conclusion that UBI would have a positive net effect in terms of justice – just like there are different avenues leading to the opposite conclusion. Importantly, what argument can convincingly be made depends partly on the specifics of the UBI scheme at issue. Consider Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend program, a unique example of a real-world basic income scheme (Widerquist & 16 J.A.M. Daemen Howard, 2012, p. 3). In recent years, this program entitled each Alaskan to about $1000 to $1500 annually. One might persuasively argue that this policy realises at least one aspect of equality of resources. This is in fact the thought behind the Alaska program: the payment gives all citizens an equal share of the returns on the state's oil revenues. But it is not plausible that a basic incomeof that amount grants people something as substantive as equality of status. To put it crudely: instituting a yearly gift of one or two thousand dollars per person is not going to turn your society into a community of equals. Thus we can see that whether and how far basic income can promote a certain ideal is affected by the height of the payment. The same applies to other details of the program. Think of the spreading of payments over time: a big yearly summight give recipients more freedom than a small monthly award. Or eligibility criteria: a basic income for householdsmight result in different gender dynamics than an individual allowance. In general, we can say that the effects of UBI by the metric of justice will vary with the particulars of the scheme at issue. This is one of the reasons why it may sometimes be necessary to distinguish between the benefits that UBI is expected to yield in the context of the experiment – Bubi – and the benefits that it is expected to generate later in some real-word context–Bubi′. If the basic income scheme to be tested out in the experiment and the scheme that power-holders might get inspired to implement in the real world are expected to be of the same kind, and if the experimental context and the real-world context are reasonably comparable to one another, then we can assume these benefits to be more or less equal. If, however, the specifics of these schemes are expected to be quite different, or if these contexts vary a lot when it comes to factors such as culture or demographics, then these benefits – and hence the values of Bubi and Bubi′ – may come apart as well. I will return to this issue in the next section. To wrap up, the expected net contribution of a UBI policy to the level of justice reached in the (micro-)society in which it is implemented – that is, the value of Bubi(′) – depends on two things. Firstly, it will be higher or lower, positive or negative, depending on the theoretical perspective adopted. Secondly, it will vary with the specifics of the scheme implemented. Researchers hoping to set up a basic income experiment, then, will generally want to go for a version of the scheme that can be expected to contribute substantially to the realisation of the values that they take justice to consist in. 4 Benefits of Basic Income Studies (Pexp × Bubi′) Now let me move on to the factor Pexp, the expected potential of a basic income experiment to encourage power-holders to actually implement the policy later. What (If Anything) Can Justify Basic Income Experiments? 17 Where the previous section dealt with the benefits of UBI itself, the current one is concerned with the benefits of the UBI study. This shifts the focus entirely to the indirect benefits to be expected from experimental basic income research. These are determined by the impact an experiment is expected to have on the inclination of those in power to implement UBI in real-world situations, and the expected effect such an implementation of UBI would have on the level of justice attained in these situations – that is, the expected indirect benefits of an experimental basic income study by the metric of justice are constituted by Pexp × Bubi′. As we just learnt, Bubi′ varies with the philosophical viewpoint taken and the specifics of the basic income scheme implemented. The value of Pexp, on the other hand, depends primarily on the questions the study asks, the scientific quality of the study, and the connection between science and politics. Let me address each of these matters in turn. The first of the things determining the impact of any research project is the choice for a certain set of research questions. UBI is a fascinating topic aboutwhich various interesting questions can be asked. In the previous section, we already learnt that political philosophers have raised and resolved many theoretical puzzles about the relationship between basic income and a number of important values. Furthermore, economists and other empirical researchers have made significant progress in exploring the practice of basic income, whereby some have indeed used experimental methods or data (see, for example, Davala, Jhabvala, Standing, & Kapoor Mehta, 2015; Forget, 2011; Haushofer & Shapiro, 2016). Those hoping to do UBI research with true impact would be wise to have a good look at what we already know about basic income from these studies, and think hard about which gaps in knowledge it would be most essential to fill. As mentioned previously, I think there lies a particularly pressing task for UBI researchers to find out if the theories that present basic income as a key to liberty, equality, fairness, etcetera stand the test of pragmatic equilibrium. Does UBI really contribute to the realisation of ideals such as these? For example, considering the freedom-focused accounts of basic income mentioned earlier, it may be investigated whether the introduction of UBI does indeed make people experience more freedom to pursue the life options of their choice. Or, in light of relational egalitarian arguments for basic income, it could be examined if UBI actually encourages people to see and treat one another as equals. I already suggested that the most logical route to finding answers to questions such as these would be to carry out field experiments: experiments whereby UBI is introduced in an actually existing (micro-)society. Once the choice for an experimental study has been made, the next factor determining its potential to influence future policy-making is the degree towhich it meets the standards for good scientific research. The higher the study's scientific 18 J.A.M. Daemen quality, the greater this potential. After all, it is generally the scientific quality of a study that determines its impact in the world of academia, and it is often the scholarly commendation for a study that determines its influence in the real world. Now, in the case of an experimental UBI study, making sure that it meets the standards for good scientific research might require some tough decisions, which will be flagged up in the next two sections. The last determinant of a study's impact on real-world policies is the relationship between science and politics. For this relationship to be a fruitful one, two conditions are important. Firstly, scholars have to communicate their findings in a way that enlightens the public discussion (Widerquist, 2018). Secondly, powerholders have to be responsive to scientific evidence in policy-making. This last point is tricky. On the one hand, there is reason for researchers planning to conduct UBI experiments to be hopeful about the potential for their studies to influence real-world policies: policy-making on the basis of evidence from experiments seems to be on the rise (Cartwright & Hardie, 2012). On the other hand, scholars should take seriously the possibility that their data will be instrumentalised by those in power to serve their own political agenda. It is not unimaginable, for example, that researchers find that one type of UBI scheme has a positive effect in terms of justice, and power-holders then ride thewave of this success to implement a different kind of basic income scheme that does not enhance justice. If researchers have reason to expect such a scenario to unfold, then the values of Pexp and Bubi may be high, but Bubi′may be so low (possibly even below zero) that the justifiability of the experiment is seriously compromised. One final and related point to note is that a basic income experiment may not only inspire power-holders to embrace UBI in some form or the other, but it may just aswell push themaway from the idea. Indeed, if an experiment reveals that the policy actually has an undesirable impact, then it would in fact be a good thing if the study put people off from the plan. Importantly, researchersmay anticipate this before the start of their experiment as well, which would in turn have consequences for the way in which they would fill in the mathematical sentence that is supposed to help them determine if their study is justified. Those with pessimistic expectations about UBI would probably fill in a negative value not only for Bubi(′) but also for Pexp. I will come back to this possibility in the penultimate section. We can now draw a couple of conclusions about the expected impact of experimental basic income studies. Given the increasing reliance on experimental evidence in real-world policy-making, the absolute value of Pexp – that is, the expected potential of a basic income experiment to induce power-holders to implement UBI in real-world situations – is likely to surpass zero. This value can further be boosted if researchers aim at answering the most pressing question in the basic income debate at themoment –which I have argued to bewhether UBI in What (If Anything) Can Justify Basic Income Experiments? 19 practice promotes the values upon which the case for UBI in theory rests. Furthermore, when moving on, it is important to keep in mind that the absolute value of Pexp falls rapidly as the scientific quality of a study is compromised. When we remember that, in order to calculate the expected indirect benefits of an experimental basic income study by the metric of justice, Bubi′ needs to be multiplied by Pexp, it becomes clear what a pity that would be. 5 Experimental Intervention and Its Costs (Cint) Now that we have an impression of the benefits that are expected to comewith UBI experiments, let us move over to the cost side. Part of the costs that basic income experiments can cause by the metric of justice originate from the interventional character of such studies. The size of this cost component – that is, the value of Cint – is determined by the sacrifices researchers can expect to make in terms of justice when they subject real people in a real society to a real UBI policy, even if it is only for the sake of a test. Let me illustrate. Imagine a study in which a group of researchers randomly singles out from a certain society one sample of people who are made to participate in a UBI experiment for a substantial period of time. From the viewpoint of justice, such a procedure can be viewed as problematic in a number of ways. Firstly, it seems unfair that some people get a benefit and others do not for reasons that do not track their personal needs and are beyond their own control. Secondly, one can wonder if it is legitimate to subject people to an experiment without their consent. This could be deemed especially objectionable in light of a third point: those receiving an unconditional allowance during the experiment might over time come to rely on the income stream, and experience the eventual ending of the experiment as a harm to their interests.3 Researchers could, of course, take steps to design their experiment in such a way that these injustices would bemitigated. Theymight select participants on the basis of their personal need or special merit, to create some form of fairness in the selection of UBI recipients. They might also ask people for their explicit consent before subjecting them to the experiment, so as to avoid the charge of illegitimacy. And they might go for a shorter test period, in order to prevent recipients from getting used to a benefit that they will lose again later. However, there is a significant downside to measures such as these: they could come at the cost of the scientific quality of the study. In order to prevent selection bias and safeguard the 3 I repeat that the source of these examples is https://ubiexperiments.weebly.com/aims-of-theproject.html. 20 J.A.M. Daemen external validity of the research findings, for example, itmay be important to select participants, or communities of participants, in random fashion (see Standing, 2012, pp. 138–140 for some thoughts on this). And in order to gain proper insight into the workings and effects of the policy and secure the reliability of the observations, it would bewise to opt for a longer test period. Thus, researchers can face a dilemma between avoiding the injustices that can accompany their experimental intervention, and meeting the highest standards for good scientific research. Now remember from the previous section that the scientific quality of a UBI experiment is an important determinant of its impact on future policy-making. Thuswe can see that efforts tomitigate the injustices the experimental intervention is expected to create, by compromising the degree to which the study meets the standards for good scientific research, could in fact undermine its function as a basis for policy-making in the future. In other words, attempts to curtail the value of Cint might simultaneously squeeze the value of Pexp. Researchers who wish to conduct justifiable UBI experiments should try to strike the right balance between both factors. 6 Opportunity Costs of Basic Income Experiments (Copp) The second component of the costs in terms of justice expected to come attached with basic income experiments, and the last factor in the inequality representing the justificatory standard for these experiments, concerns the opportunity costs of these experiments. The amount of the costs in question– that is, the value of Copp – is equal to the amount of injustice that could have beenwiped off the surface of the Earth had the resources devoted to the experiment been spent on fighting wrongs other than people not receiving a UBI. Let me elaborate on this point briefly. Research projects generally cost money, time, and effort. This also applies to basic income experiments. In fact, as they typically involve paying people significant sums of cash, UBI experiments can be expected to require relatively high expenses. Asmoney, time, and effort can only be spent once, if these resources are devoted to UBI experiments, it means that they are not spent on remedying some obvious injustices that can be observed around theworld – say, sweatshop labour, female genital mutilation, and persecution of religious minorities. The increase in the overall level of justice that could be achieved if resources were directed at fighting such wrongs instead of conducting a UBI experiment make up the experiment's opportunity costs by the metric of justice. What (If Anything) Can Justify Basic Income Experiments? 21 Of course, the higher the expenses of a basic income experiment, the higher the opportunity costs in question. Researchers could thus reduce opportunity costs by cutting back on their spending for the experiment. This could be done, for example, by decreasing the number of peoplewho receive aUBI, or by lowering the sum of the UBI they receive. However, just like the measures discussed in the previous section, efforts to cut down expenses could (paradoxically) come at a cost. For in order to test whether UBI makes a real contribution to the realisation of the values it is supposed to promote, the payment must be set at a certain level. And in order to generate enough data for drawing reliable conclusions about the effects of UBI, it has to be tested out on a sufficiently large body of participants. Again, researchers might face a dilemma: lowering the experiment's opportunity costs in terms of justice, versus going for a higherUBI andmore participants,which could make the study provide better insight into the policy's real potential for promoting justice. Once more, researchers hoping to conduct a UBI experiment must find the right equilibrium between different factors. This time, the choice is between cutting back on the expected opportunity costs of the experiment in terms of justice, and increasing the expected effect of the policy on the level of justice in the context in which it is implemented, as well as the potential of the experiment to affect future policy-making for real-world contexts. In other words, there is a trade-off between curtailing the value of Copp on the one hand, and boosting that of Bubi(′) and Pexp on the other. Again, there is a balance to be struck. 7 Criticisms This essay startedoutwith the thesis that basic incomeexperiments are justified if their expected benefits by the metric of justice exceed their expected costs by the metric of justice. In the form of a mathematical inequality: Bubi + Pexp × Bubi′ > Cint + Copp. After that, we zoomed in on the factors that make up the benefits and costs in question. Respectively: the expected effect of UBI on the level of justice attained in the context where the policy is implemented (Bubi(′)), the expected potential of the experiment to encourage power-holders to implement the policy in other contexts too (Pexp), costs in terms of justice that can be expected to come attached with the interventional character of the experiment (Cint), and expected opportunity-costs by the metric of justice (Copp). Now, zooming out again, new critical questions about the general approach taken here might be raised. Let me discuss two. The first question considers the consistency of my claims. On the one hand, I put the expected effect of UBI on the level of justice achieved in the context in which it is implemented (Bubi(′)) on the benefit-side, and call it a "B" (from 22 J.A.M. Daemen "benefit"), not a "C" (from "cost"). On the other hand, my discussion of the test of pragmatic equilibrium suggests that we cannot know for sure whether a policy actually does promote a certain value (possibly justice, or a value that can be seen as a part of justice) until it has been tried out in practice. Don't I, then, assume something – namely, that basic income contributes to justice – that still has to be established? Let me start by acknowledging that the exact effects of UBI, by various metrics including that of justice, are still unsure. This is why I refer to the expected effect of basic income in the standard I propose, and this iswhy I claim that it is important to subject the theoretical arguments for basic income to the test of pragmatic equilibrium. I do believe that it makes more sense to conduct a UBI experiment if the expectation is that UBI would have a positive effect in terms of justice. Nonetheless, if basic income is expected to have a negative effect on the level of justice attained in the context inwhich it is implemented,my proposal perfectly allows for filling in a negative value for Bubi(′). Note that, in this case, a UBI experiment that asks the right questions and is properly conducted would likely make powerholders less rather than more inclined to introduce UBI in the real world, resulting in a negative value ofPexp. Interestingly, a basic income experiment could then still be justified: if the expectation is that the study will play a crucial role in preventing those in power from making the huge mistake of implementing this putatively unjust policy (that is, multiplying the negative values of Pexp andBubi′ yields a high positive value), then the injustice occurring in the (micro-)society of basic income recipients in the experiment (Bubi) and the injustice related to the experimental intervention (Cint) and opportunity costs (Copp) might indeed be offset. The second critical questionmyproposalmay give rise to concerns its practical use. The impressionmight be that, in order to applymy standard of justification for basic income experiments, one needs to quantify in absolute numbers both expected effects in terms of justice (Bubi(′), Cint, and Copp) and expected impact (Pexp), whereas actually these things do not take numerical values, or, at any rate, it is impossible for human beings to establish these values. Doesn't this show, then, that my standard is of no practical use whatsoever? Letme first of all agree that, at least in practice, the factors inmymathematical sentence cannot be quantified in absolute numbers. I do, however, think it possible to tell whether the values these factors take are positive or negative, and high or low compared to one another. Let me borrow Sen's mountain metaphor (Sen, 2009, p. 102) and say that people should be able to tell the difference between Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount McKinley, even if they do not know their peak heights in meters. Similarly, I believe that people should be able to compare the expected opportunity costs and costs related to the interventional character of UBI experiments on the one hand, and their direct and indirect benefits on the other, What (If Anything) Can Justify Basic Income Experiments? 23 simply by using their intuitions about justice. Therefore, anyone willing to engage in some serious moral reflection should be able to get some wiser about the question whether basic income experiments are justified – or whether a particular basic income experiment is justified – by using the standard proposed here. Finally, even if that exercise still turns out to be unfeasible, at the very least this paper shows which are the core factors determining whether UBI experiments are justified, how they interact with one another, and what researchers might do to influence their value and make the experiment they are planning more justifiable. 8 Conclusion So, what (if anything) can justify basic income experiments? I have suggested that basic income experiments are justified if their expected benefits exceed their expected costs, both measured in terms of justice. What does this mean for researchers hoping to carry out a UBI experiment? I have recommended that those who want to make their experiment pass the threshold for justification, firstly, opt for a version of the basic income likely to contribute substantially to the realisation of the values they associate with the term "justice". Secondly, they are advised to ask the questions that need answeringmost, that is, questions about the pragmatic equilibrium of the strongest theories of UBI. Lastly, although it might be tempting to try and set up the study in such a way as to minimise injustices related to the experimental intervention and the opportunity costs of the project, they should be careful not to undermine the potential of the experiment to inspire future policies, or the benefitswithwhich basic income is hoped to come attached in the first place. Let me end by encouraging researchers to take the costs that do inevitably accompany UBI experiments not as a reason not to conduct them at all, but indeed as an incentive to make them worth it. For it would be a shame never to find out if basic income canmake true in practice the promises of justice so many have made in theory. References Anderson, E. (1999). What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109(2), 287–337. Birnbaum, S. (2012). Basic income reconsidered: Social justice, liberalism, and the Demands of equality. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Casassas, D. (2007). Basic income and the republican ideal: Rethinkingmaterial independence in contemporary societies. Basic Income Studies, 2(2), 1–7. Article 9. 24 J.A.M. Daemen Davala, S., Jhabvala, R., Standing, G., & Kapoor Mehta, S. (2015). Basic income: A transformative policy for India. London: Bloomsbury. De Wispelaere, J. (2016). Basic income in our time: Improving political prospects through policy learning? Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 617–634. Fitzpatrick, T. (1999). Freedom and security: An introduction to the basic income debate. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Forget, E. L. (2011). The town with No poverty: The health effects of a Canadian guaranteed annual income field experiment. Canadian Public Policy, 37(3), 283–305. Fung, A. (2007). Democratic theory and political science: A pragmatic method of constructive engagement. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 443–458. Haushofer, J., & Shapiro, J. (2016). The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor: Experimental evidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4), 1973–2042. Noguera, J. A., & De Wispelaere, J. (2009). A plea for the use of laboratory experiments in basic income research. Basic Income Studies, 1(2), 1–8. Raventós, D. (2007). Basic income: The material conditions of freedom ( J. Wark (trans.)). Pluto Press. Robeyns, I. (2000). Hush money or emancipation fee? A gender analysis of basic income. In Van der Veen, R., & De Groot, L. (Eds.), Basic income on the agenda: Policy objectives and political chances (pp. 121–136). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Penguin Books. Standing, G. (2012). Basic incomepilot schemes: Seventeendesign and evaluation imperatives. In Jacobi, D., & Strengniann-Kuhn,W. (Eds.),Wege zumGrundeinkommen (pp. 133–152). Berlin: Bildungswerk Berlin der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. Van Donselaar, G. (2008). The Right to exploit: Parasitism, scarcity, basic income. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Parijs, P. (1995). Real Freedom for all: What (if anything) can justify capitalism?Oxford: Oxford University Press. White, S. (2009). Reconsidering the exploitationobjection to basic income.Basic IncomeStudies, 1(2), 1–17. Article 4. Widerquist, K. (2013). Independence, propertylessness, and basic income: A theory of freedom as the power to say no. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Widerquist, K. (2018). A critical analysis of basic income experiments for researchers, policymakers, and citizens. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Widerquist, K., & Howard, M. W. (2012). Introduction: Success in Alaska. In Widerquist, K., & Howard,M.W. (Eds.), Alaska's permanent fund dividend: Examining its suitability as amodel (pp. 3–11). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. What (If Anything) Can Justify Basic Income Experiments?


Philosophy

Journal of World Englishes and Educational Practices (JWEEP) ISSN: 2707-7586 DOI: 10.32996/jweep Website: https://al-kindipublisher.com/index.php/jweep/index 1 Research Capability of Teachers: Its Correlates, Determinants and Implications for Continuing Professional Development Manuel E. Caingcoy Bukidnon State University, Philippines Corresponding Author: Manuel E. Caingcoy, Email: firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Received: September 21, 2020 Accepted: October 10, 2020 Volume: 2 Issue: 5 DOI: 10.32996/jweep.2020.2.5.1 Recently, research capability has received an overwhelming and remarkable interest among academics and practitioners. This is timely since the Department of Education had institutionalized research and encouraged teachers to engage in it to support evidence-based practice, decision-making, policy, and program development. On these premises, a study was carried out to assess the research capability of public teachers in Malaybalay City, determine its correlates and determinants. It utilized descriptive, correlational, and explanatory designs. It administered survey questionnaires to 92 participants. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The results revealed that teachers were slightly capable of conducting research and having neutral attitudes toward it, motivated to write research, had a high level of difficulties in research processes, and moderately capable of action planning. They also show evidence of potential in mentoring. Further, mentoring and action planning skills, motivation to write research, attitudes toward research, and the number of studies completed by teachers were the correlates of their research capability at different magnitudes of the relationship. Notably, the research capability of teachers had a low, negative but significant relationship with their age and accumulated years of service. Thus, this capability deteriorates as they age and accumulate years of service. The motivation to write research, the number of studies completed, and age were the determinants of research capability. It was concluded that research capability can be determined and predicted by how motivated teachers are to write research, how productive they are in research, and how young they are when they engage in this rigorous endeavor. The study identified and recommended topics for continuing professional development. KEYWORDS Attitudes, motivation, mentoring skills, action planning skills, years of service, research processes, age, research productivity 1. Introduction 1 Lately, research capability has received an overwhelming and remarkable interest from numerous academics in tourism and hospitality management (Abarquez et al., 2013), nursing (Li et al., 2019), dentistry (Manongsong et al.,2018), business entrepreneurship and accountancy (Narag, et al., 2016), maritime (Formeloza et al., 2013), higher education in general (Salom, 2013; De la Cruz, 2016; Kho et al., 2017; Salem et al., 2016; Enero et al., 2017), and basic education (Pati, 2014; Abarro et al., 2016; Wong, 2019; Ulla et al., 2017; Udompong et al., 2014). This indicates that there are more experts and professionals now than before who recognized its significance in improving practice. Henceforth, its importance is beyond determining what one knows and can do in research. Published by Al-KindiCenter for Research and Development. Copyright (c) the author(s). This is an open access article under CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Research Capability of Teachers: Its Correlates, Determinants and Implications for Continuing Professional Development 2 Research capability refers to one's facility to undertake high-quality studies (Salom, 2013). Ismail et al. (2012) theorized it as an "ability to carry out data collection involving planning and selecting appropriate data collection tools or instruments, identifying an appropriate method for interpreting and manipulating data and applying an appropriate statistical tool for [the] test of significance besides understanding" (p. 245). Such capability may develop over time, through experience (Manongsong et al., 2018) continuing and relevant capacity-building activities. Also, it requires a consistent application of the acquired knowledge and skills to produce research output and innovation. Advancing it takes a lot of consideration in individuals like their motivation to get involved in it, the attitudes toward it, and other skills necessary for undertaking the systematic and tedious process of research. As a construct, research capability may connote differently as actions, activities or series of training conducted to capacitate aspiring or seasoned researchers (Mani et al., 2010). On the other hand, it may indicate otherwise as skill, ability, literacy or competency to conduct research. The latter is the outcome of the former, which is the process of acquiring knowledge, skills, attitudes, scientific literacy, capacity, and competency in conducting research. Holt et al. (2011) conjectured that there has been confusion between these terms, competency, or capability. To compare, "capability describes the ability of an organization or unit. Competence describes the ability of an individual to do something" (Holt et al., 2011, p. 5). Even so, it was admitted that these terms have inherently very close to each other. This is why studies tend to use them interchangeably. In a causal model, scientific literacy and research competency were taken separately (Udompong et al., 2014). There have been numerous studies on research capability (Abarro et al., 2016; Abarquez et al., 2013; Basilio et al., 2019; De la Cruz, 2016; Formeloza et al., 2013; Gomez et al., 2013; Ismail et al., 2012; Kho et al., 2017; Macabago, 2017), and research skills (Basilio et al., 2019). Others have focused on research competence (Manongsong et al., 2018; Gomez et al., 2013; Formeloza et al., 2013; Davidson et al., 2015; Udompong, et al., 2014), and research literacy (Udompong, et al., 2014). It was found that teacher-researchers are competent with conceptual skills, while they are moderately competent in computational and technical skills (De la Cruz, 2016). Abarquez et al., (2013) reported that the Tourism and Hospitality Management faculty was competent in the technical aspects of conducting research. Public Secondary and Elementary school teachers were moderately capable of writing a research proposal and publishable paper, while they are not skillful enough in conducting classroom-based research (Abarro et al., 2016). However, public teachers perceived a moderate level of difficulty in some aspect of action research, such as statistics, data organization, literature searching, and writing reports (Morales et al., 2016). Narag et al. (2016) revealed that Business Entrepreneurship and Accountancy faculty were very equipped in terms of knowledge and technical aspects of research capability. Master teachers have fair skills in designing the experimental study, selecting and developing research instruments, choosing appropriate statistical tools, and preparing manuscripts for publication (Basilio et al., 2019). Lastly, Macabago (2017) found public elementary teachers were in doubt with their capability to write research. Previous correlational studies have found significant relationships among research time, teamwork, leadership support, training opportunities, and the research capability of nurses (Li et al., 2019); between the employment status and research capabilities of Business Entrepreneurship and Accountancy faculty (Narag et al., 2016); between attitudes toward research, in particular, its motivational factor and the research competence of Dentistry faculty (Manongsong et al., 2018), among the usefulness of research to the profession, research anxiety, positive attitudes toward research, research relevance to life, research difficulty, knowledge of research, mentoring, financial assistance, research facilities and resource materials, research incentives, and rewards with the research capability of Master Teachers (Wong, 2019), and research capabilities and motivation of public elementary teachers (Macabago, 2017). In explanatory studies, the perception of Indonesian foreign teachers was influenced by their capability to conduct action and classroom research in which 7.45% variance of the former can be explained by the latter (Pati, 2014); the training attended related to research, attitudes toward research, and knowledge about research can predict the research capability of Mater Teachers in which 66% variance of their research capability can be explained by these combined independent variables (Wong, 2019). To date, this is the only available study that estimated variances of these variables on research capability. And so, there is a need to extend this trajectory of investigation. The Department of Education (2015) began institutionalizing research through DO No. 13, s. 2015, which established a systematic development policy process and promoted an evidence-based policy formulation backed by research. Through DO No. 43, s. 2015 and DO No. 4, s. 2016, financial support to researchers was provided and the guidelines on the use of Basic Education Research Fund were set, respectively (DepEd, 2015, 2016). In the same year, another policy (DO No. 39, s. 2016) JWEEP 2(5):01-11 3 was issued that laid down the research agenda so that research of teachers would be aligned to priorities (DepEd, 2016). Lastly, an issuance was released (DO No. 16, s. 2017) to give guidance on the management of research affairs at all levels (DepEd, 2017). Thus, DepEd has been trying to push teachers to engage in research. However, public school teachers need to develop and enhance the research capabilities that would enable them to produce research outputs. But they cannot do it by themselves and the agency and its partners shall work together to enable teachers to acquire and develop knowledge, skills, values, positive attitudes, which can add value to every researcher. It is then they can fully embrace the policies. On this premise, a study was carried out to assess the research capability of teachers and determine its correlates and determinants. It would also identify prospects for the professional development of teachers. For these, the results of this assessment can be made bases on the development of an intervention. 2. Methodology Descriptive-correlational and predictive methods were employed by using researcher-made and adapted survey questionnaires administered to 92 teachers. These questionnaires included the 12-item capability to conduct research, 9-item attitudes toward research, 14-item motivation to write research adapted from Macabago, (2017), 11-item on difficulty and non-difficulty in the research processes by Morales et al. (2016), 9-item on action planning skills, and the 5-item mentoring skills based on literature. Both the adapted and researcher-made questionnaires were subjected to content and face validation by the two experts and experienced professors and one Senior Education Program Specialist in Research and Planning at the division of Malaybalay City. The actual instrument has preliminary information on teachers' profiles. The data were gathered by observing the protocols or asking permission from authorities and by seeing consent from participants. Regarding research capability, participants had responses ranging from very capable (5) to not capable at all (1). On attitudes toward research and motivation to write, they had these choices ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). For the different research processes, they chose from a very high level of difficulty (5) to no difficulty at all (1). All of these constitute the adapted survey questionnaires. The research-made questionnaire was subjected to content and face validity. This is on action planning and mentoring skills. For the former, participants responded between very capable of planning (5) to not capable at all (1), for the latter they chose from very true to me (5) to not true to me at all (1). The mean and the standard deviation were employed in drawing descriptive information. Pearson product-moment correlation was used in associating variables to determine the correlates of their research capability. Multiple regression and the stepwise method were utilized to determine the determinants of public teachers' research capability. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Capability to Conduct Research As has been argued, research capability is essential in completing a research output. Teachers must have the facility to undertake high-quality inquiry (Salom, 2013). The overall response of the 92 participants showed that they were slightly capable of conducting research. These suggest that there is a need to enhance the capabilities of these teachers especially on the conceptualization and processes of action research including time management. Financial resources can be addressed if the training is provided unto them for free. They need to be provided with resources for writing like internet connections, books, journals, and samples of action research that may help them in the process. Also, teachers indicated a fair level of competence in conducting research (Alumbro et al., 2015), designing an experimental study, selecting and developing research instruments, choosing appropriate statistical tools, and preparing manuscripts for publication (Basilio et al., 2019). Table 1. Capability of Teachers to Conduct Research ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Indicators Mean SD Qualitative Description ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 My school head and my co-teachers support and encourage me to conduct action research. 3.82 1.02 Capable 2 My workload is not that constricted. 3.08 1.20 Undecided 3 I have access to internet, books and sample action research. 3.10 1.15 Undecided 4 Action research requires me little physical effort 2.89 1.24 Undecided 5 We have a culture of action research in our school. 3.01 1.15 Undecided 6 I have resource persons to refer to and will provide me professional assistance to conduct 2.75 1.31 Undecided action research. 7 I have training/s with the concept and process of action research. 2.28 1.13 Slightly Capable 8 I have sufficient time [to conduct action research]. 2.20 1.09 Slightly Capable Research Capability of Teachers: Its Correlates, Determinants and Implications for Continuing Professional Development 4 9 I have enough resources to finance this undertaking. 2.08 1.00 Slightly Capable 10 I can easily finish a study. 1.97 .90 Slightly Capable 11 I have completed an action research. 1.63 .93 Not capable 12 I am conducting action research every year. 1.55 .92 Not capable Overall Mean 2.53 .79 Slightly Capable ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Conversely, empirical evidence revealed that teacher-researchers are competent with conceptual skills (De la Cruz, 2016), and on technical aspects of conducting research (Abarquez et al., 2013). On the positive side, faculty was very equipped with the knowledge and technical aspects of research capability (Narag et al., 2016), competent to conduct research (Tan, 2012), and has a high level of research capability (Enero et al., 2017) and high level of competence in different research tasks (Cuntapay et al., 2014). As expected, Dapiawen (2017) reported that graduate school faculty had an expert level of knowledge on the parts of research papers and had a high capability of accomplishing different research activities. Indicators 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, they were undecided, while indicators 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 teachers were slightly capable. In one indicator, they admitted they were capable to conduct research. This is on support and encouragement from their school heads and co-teachers. To some extent, the results in these indicators support earlier findings that revealed public secondary and elementary school teachers were moderately capable (Cagaanan et al., 2018) in writing a research proposal and publishable paper (Abarro et al., 2016), and computational and technical skills (De la Cruz, 2016). It can be gleaned that in two indicators teachers admitted they were not capable of conducting research. These are on being able to complete a study and conduct research every year. The results somehow affirmed previous findings that claimed teachers are not skillful in conducting classroom research (Abarro et al., 2016). More precisely, the results corroborate with the previous report that public elementary teachers were in doubt with their capability to write a research (Macabago, 2017). 3.2. Attitudes toward Research Table 2 shows public school teachers' attitudes toward research. As can be seen, they agreed on the first three indicators. These are on the usefulness of action research to teaching, its benefits, and for considering it as indispensable in the profession. Positive attitudes are indicated for disagreeing that action research is stressful and difficult. However, they are undecided in another four indicators. These are on their interest and anxiety as well as on whether or not they love and enjoy doing action research. As a whole, they are undecided with their attitudes toward research. This may indicate neutrality or disinterest. Thus, they may have misconceptions about the value and importance of doing research. The results suggest that there is a need to provide teachers with training that informed them properly about research and can eventually enhance their attitudes toward research, and these misconceptions would be eradicated. Table 2. Attitudes toward Research ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Indicators Mean SD Qualitative Description ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Action research is useful for my teaching. 3.85 1.18 Agree 2 I will benefit from conducting action research. 3.82 1.15 Agree 3 Action research is indispensable in my professional training. 3.70 1.07 Agree 4 To conduct action research is stressful. 2.42 1.16 Disagree 5 Action research is difficult to conduct. 2.46 1.09 Disagree 6 I have an interest to conducting action research. 3.29 1.20 Undecided 7 Action research makes me anxious. 2.73 1.09 Undecided 8 I love to conduct action research. 2.82 1.16 Undecided 9 I enjoy [conducting an] action research. 2.68 1.06 Undecided Overall Mean 3.08 .69 Undecided ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ On the contrary, Morales et al. (2016) indicated that teachers have positive views towards action research that can help them develop student learning and promote lifelong learning. Younger teachers demonstrate more sensitivity towards educational research than those who have been teaching five years and above (Akcoltekin et al., 2017), and teaching personnel has highly developed and sustainable attitudes toward research (Pamatmat, 2016). The teacher-respondents had a positive attitude toward doing research and its benefits in their teaching (Ulla et al., 2017). Kho et al. (2017) made known that lecturers can JWEEP 2(5):01-11 5 distinguish different parts of action research and were able to cite the authors appropriately. Pati (2014) disclosed that teachers had a high perception in researching terms of image, but in terms of time, cost, technicality, and efforts, their attitudes-based perception got low. Basilio et al. (2019) also revealed that master teachers have high regard for the value of researching to become better educators. As claimed further, efforts, time, and resources in learning research findings are essential elements in developing positive attitudes toward research. 3.3. Motivation to Write Research Table 3 presents the motivation of public-school teachers. In general, they agreed on most indicators of motivation to write research. These are on what research can do to their promotion, teaching efficiency, socialization, outranking other applicants in the promotion, commitment towards it, publication productivity, passion to discover for new knowledge, and their empowerment. These indicators are composed of internal and external dimensions. For these reasons, they agreed that they were motivated to write research. However, they indicated undecided in four indicators that most of their co-teachers have conducted or have plans to conduct research, on participation and recognition during research congress, the financial benefit of the research, and to show unto co-teachers that research is not difficult. This means that many teachers do not have an interest in conducting research. Although their overall motivation seems to be positive, yet they still need training in this aspect to enhance their motivation to write research. Table 3. Motivation to Write Research __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Indicators Mean SD Qualitative Description __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Action research enhances my chance for career promotion. 4.11 .82 Agree 2. Action research enhances my teaching efficiency. 3.87 .98 Agree 3. My school head expects me to come up with action research by the end of the year 3.82 .96 Agree 4. I would like to interact with other teacher-researchers. 3.89 .87 Agree 5. [Conducting] action research allows me to outrank other applicants [for promotion]. 2.42 1.01 Agree 6. Most of my co-teachers have conducted or planned to conduct action research. 3.23 .99 Undecided 7. My school head will recognize my commitment to [do] action research. 3.77 .92 Agree 8. I would like to publish action research findings to research journals. 3.60 1.10 Agree 9. I find action research as an interesting and meaningful educational practice. 3.58 1.05 Agree 10. I would like to participate and be recognized in the research congress. 3.39 1.06 Undecided 11. Action research allows me to come out financially ahead. 3.27 .97 Undecided 12. I would like to demonstrate to my peers that the conduct of action research is not 3.12 .95 Undecided that difficult. 13. I have a passion for the discovery of new knowledge. 3.73 .91 Agree 14. I feel empowered when I investigate and take actions to classroom problems. 3.55 .95 Agree Overall Mean 3.61 .69 Agree __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In Akcoltekin et al. (2017), female teachers showed greater interest in educational research than their counterparts. The faculty were highly motivated in terms of fringe benefits and opportunities to grow professionally (Tan, 2012). This literature was supported by this assertion that faculty showed fair and positive interest toward research, and this interest becomes low when researching without funds or research assistance (Alumbro et al., 2015). In a university setting, the utilization of research, personal satisfaction, expanding network, research capability program, and support of the administration were the top five factors of teachers' motivation to conduct research (Narbarte et al., 2018). College of Arts and Sciences faculty were found motivated by the research capability building seminars and workshops (Cuntapay et al., 2014). 3.4. Difficulty and Non-Difficulty in Research Processes Table 4 presents the difficulty and non-difficulties of public-school teachers in different research processes. Explicitly, these teachers perceived a high level of difficulty in research processes. The top four most difficult processes are analyzing qualitative data, followed by organizing and writing the findings, analyzing quantitative data, and making a relevant presentation and writing an article for publication. The results indicate that there is a need for training that can enhance teachers' skills in these processes in writing research. These processes should be the focus and emphasis on continuing professional development activities. The present results are somehow true in the findings of mixed-method research by Morales et al. (2016), who Research Capability of Teachers: Its Correlates, Determinants and Implications for Continuing Professional Development 6 reported that public teachers perceived a moderate level of difficulty on certain aspects of action research. The difficulties of the participants in different research processes need more attention and immediate actions. This is due to the limited opportunities for training in the locale. A study was confirmed for its claim that graduate students have much difficulty in conceptualizing research problems and titles, looking for and reviewing related literature and studies, determining appropriate statistical tools, gathering the data, and analyzing and interpreting the data (Ocbian et al., 2015). A more recent study revealed that junior high school teachers have difficulties in conducting action research, particularly in literature search, presentation of results, the publication of results, and data collection (Tindowen et al., 2019). Table 4. Difficulty and Non-Difficulty in Research Processes ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Indicators Mean SD Qualitative Description _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Identifying issues and problems to be investigated by action research. 3.47 .95 High level of difficulty 2. Searching for relevant literature on my chosen topic for research. 3.48 .93 High level of difficulty 3. Developing the processes of how to do research and collective evidence 3.58 .92 High level of difficulty of research. 4. Analyzing quantitative data. 3.62 .92 High level of difficulty 5. Analyzing qualitative data. 3.64 .96 High level of difficulty 6. Organizing and writing the findings 3.63 1.00 High level of difficulty 7. Making a relevant presentation on my project and write an article for publication. 3.62 .97 High level of difficulty 8. Using technology in literature search. 3.42 1.04 High level of difficulty 9. Using technology in data presentation. 3.45 1.08 High level of difficulty 10. Using technology in statistical analysis. 3.59 1.03 High level of difficulty 11. Using technology in bibliographical entries. 3.44 1.09 High level of difficulty Overall Mean 3.41 .40 High level of difficulty _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.5. Action Planning Skills The action planning skills of the public-school teachers are shown in Table 5. It can be noticed that they find themselves moderately cable of action planning across all indicators. These results indicate somehow the need to improve teachers' actionplanning skills. This is so because the said skill is vital in making action research wherein an action plan is one of the vital components of this type of research. No literature supports these results. Table 5. Action Planning Skills __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Indicators Mean SD Qualitative Description __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Set the overall goal of the intervention plan based on the identified classroom 3.29 .89 Moderately capable needs/issues/problems/gaps. 2. Formulate clear, specific, measurable, doable and aligned objectives to the goal. 3.21 .94 Moderately capable 3. Create strategies and schedule activities that would achieve the goals and objectives 3.25 1.00 Moderately capable using a Gantt chart. 4. Identify the materials and resources to use. 3.19 .97 Moderately capable 5. Prepare the monitoring tools. 3.03 1.04 Moderately capable 6. Monitor the activities using the data gathering tools and methods. 2.98 1.01 Moderately capable 7. Evaluate the intervention plan based on the gathered information in the 2.97 1.06 Moderately capable implementation and monitoring. 8. Extract new information from the gathered data. 3.09 1.05 Moderately capable 9. Examine/reflect whether or not the intervention plan improves the practice 3.05 1.04 Moderately capable of your profession. Overall Mean 2.74 .27 Moderately capable _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ JWEEP 2(5):01-11 7 3.6. Mentoring Skills Table 6 shows the mentoring skills of public-school teachers. As can be seen, they responded somewhat true to me in all indicators. This simply means that they have the potential to mentor others to conduct research. These skills are developing in them. However, these skills still need improvement by providing them with relevant capacity-building programs and activities. The study by Tan (2011) discovered that mentoring requires synchronization of the steps to complete the study of the mentee, symbiotic nurturing and learning, and synergetic celebration of the outputs and outcomes of their collaboration. Its success lies in proper time management, quality attributes and attitudes of both mentors and mentees, and the appropriate manner of undertaking research. On the other hand, Mohan (2010) found out instances of misunderstanding between the mentor and mentee, and most of the mentees were not inclined to do collaborative research, and some mentees dropped out. Besides, Soriano (2018) made know that advisers or mentees were evaluated by advisees or mentees as skilled in terms of intellectual growth and development, research conduct, professional career and development, academic guidance, skills development, and personal communication, while they were highly skilled in research ethics. Table 6. Mentoring Skills ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Indicators Mean SD Qualitative Description ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. I like to take the lead in improving our productivity in research. 3.21 .92 Somewhat true to me 2. I like other teachers to learn from my experience, training and knowledge 3.17 1.04 Somewhat true to me of research. 3. I have the passion to teach, mentor, and guide others to complete a study. 3.16 1.10 Somewhat true to me 4. I want to help the school and our school head to produce a study every year. 3.29 .96 Somewhat true to me 5. I am willing to help other teachers acquire the research skills, knowledge, 3.23 .99 Somewhat true to me , and development of the positive attitudes toward inquiry and innovation. Over-all Mean 3.21 .92 Somewhat true to me ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.7. Correlates of Research Capability Table 7 presents the results of associating the research capability of public-school teachers to their attitudes toward research, motivation to write research, difficulty, and non-difficulty in different research processes, mentoring and action planning skills, age, years of service, and the number of studies completed. As revealed, the research capability of teachers has a moderate, positive, and significant relationship with their mentoring skills (r=.542, p<0.05) and motivation to write research (r=.569, p<0.05), respectively. Wong (2019) reported a significant relationship between research mentoring and the research capability of master teachers. The present study affirms Macabago (2017) whose study found a positive and significant relationship between elementary teachers' research capabilities and motivation to write research. Table 7. Correlates of Research Capability ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Variables Research Capability coefficient sig. Remarks ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mentoring skills .542** .000 significant Action planning skills .291** .005 significant Difficulty/non-difficulty in Research Processes .130 .297 not significant Attitudes toward Research .473** .000 significant Motivation to Write Research .569** .000 significant Age -.383** .001 significant Years of Service -.377** .001 significant Number of studies completed .350** .001 significant _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Notes: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Coefficients: .90 to 1.00 (−.90 to −1.00) Very high positive (negative) correlation; .70 to .90 (−.70 to −.90) High positive (negative) correlation; .50 to .70 (−.50 to −.70) Moderate positive (negative) correlation; .30 to .50 (−.30 to −.50) Low positive (negative) correlation; and .00 to .30 (.00 to −.30) negligible correlation There was a low, positive, and significant relationship with attitudes toward research (r=.473, p<0.05) and the number of studies completed (r=.350, p<0.05), singly. The results confirm the previous findings that there was a positive and significant Research Capability of Teachers: Its Correlates, Determinants and Implications for Continuing Professional Development 8 relationship between the research competence of the faculty and their attitudes (motivation) toward research (Manongsong et al., 2018; Wong, 2019). Moreover, there was a low, negative, and significant relationship between age (r=-.383, p<0.05) and the years of service (r=-.377, p<0.05). Lastly, a negligible, positive and significant relationship occurred between their research capability and the action planning skills (r=.291, p<0.05). The results further show that there was no significant relationship between the teachers' research capability and the difficulty or non-difficulty of the research processes. This is contradictory to the research findings of the previous study (Wong, 2019). 3.8. Determinants of Research Capability Tables 8 and 9 display the ANOVA and regression analysis results of the three models. F stat (model 1) = 23.777, p<.05 revealed that the first model of research capability is statistically significant. Using the stepwise method of regression, this model identified one determinant variable, the motivation of teachers to write research. The regression analysis further revealed that the motivation to write can explain variance in the outcome variable at 28 percent. This means that for every unit of increase in research capability of public-school teachers, this is the variance that can be attributed to teachers' motivation to write research. Nevertheless, research capability does not have a significant beta weight as a constant in the regression equation. This analysis yielded the equation model of Y (research capability) = .051 + .692 (motivation to write research) + .65335 (standard error). Table 8. ANOVA Results ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Models Sources Sum of Square df Mean Square F sig. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Regression 10.150 1 10.150 23.777 .000 Residual 26.039 61 .427 Total 36.189 62 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Regression 14.091 2 7.045 19.129 .000 Residual 22.098 60 .368 Total 36.189 62 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Regression 15.713 3 5.238 15.092 .000 Residual 20.476 59 .347 Total 36.189 62 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ F stat (2) = 19.129, p<.05 unveiled that the second model of research capability is also statistically significant. This model has two determinant variables: the motivation to write research, and the number of studies completed by teachers. Both were found statistically significant determinants of research capability. When combined, they can explain a 38.9% variance in the outcome variable. This would suggest that for every unit increase in the research capability of teachers, this is the portion that can be ascribed to teachers' motivation and the number of studies completed. Moreover, the number of completed studies is concrete evidence that teachers possess the capability. This regression analysis generated the equation model of Y (Research capability) = .335 + .594 (Motivation to write research) + .526(Number of studies completed) + .60688 (Standard Error). The third model of research capability was found to be statistically significant (F=15.092, 3, p<.05). This model has three determinant variables: motivation to write research, the number of studies completed, and the age of the teachers. This model has the highest determination coefficient of 43.4 percent. This implies that these three determinant variables can explain 43.4% variance in teachers' research capability. However, age can negatively impact teachers' research capability, as evidenced by the beta coefficient. This can be explained in two ways. One, the result would indicate that as the teachers get older, the less likely they become capable to write research. This is the case since many participants aged 35 and above were graduates from the old curriculum which did not offer research subjects in their program in college. Second, this result may be true as the teachers increase their age, the less capable they become because research has a rigor that demands more time, energy, and effort. Therefore, it is an advantage when teachers engage in research when they are still young. It goes to say that older teachers are of a disadvantage when it comes to research capability. Thus, it is wise to invest so much for capability building among the younger teachers. This analysis produced the equation model of Y (Research capability) = 1.473 + .475 (Motivation to write research) + .575 (Number of studies completed) -.018 (Age) + .58911 (Standard Error). Comparing the three models, research capability as a function of motivation to write research, age, and the number of studies completed is more robust. JWEEP 2(5):01-11 9 Table 9. Determinants of Research Capability ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Models Variables Unstandardized Standard Sig. Coefficient Error ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Research Capability .052 .516 .920 Motivation to Write Research .692 .142 .000 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Research Capability .335 .487 .495 Motivation to Write Research .594 .135 .000 Number of Studies Completed .526 .161 .002 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 Research Capability 1.473 .708 .042 Motivation to Write Research .475 .142 .001 Number of Studies completed .575 .158 .001 Age -.018 .008 .035 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Notes: Model 1: R=.530, R2=.280(28%); Model 2: R=.624 R2=.389(38.9%); Mode 3: R=.659, R2=.434(43.4%) Wong's (2019) findings revealed that the research capability of teachers can be explained by training attended related to research, attitudes toward research, and the knowledge about research at 66 percent variance. The knowledge about research can largely explain the research capability (.58), followed by attitudes toward research (.20), and by training attended (.10). Whereas, Pati (2014) revealed that Indonesian foreign teachers' perceptions of research were influenced by their capability to conduct action and classroom research. This means that an increase, improvement, or changes in their perception toward research, 7.455 of which can be accounted for their capability to conduct action research. In this case, research capability was an independent variable. A cross-sectional study also reported that the research capability of nurses was influenced by research time, teamwork, leadership support, and retraining opportunities (Li et al., 2019). Besides, the research capability of the faculty was influenced by teachers' motivation to conduct research (Tan, 2012). Years ago, regression analysis found that research capability was influenced by attitudes and personal interest in research, educational attainment, leadership skills in research (admin), research facilities, length of service, and research training (Fetalver, 2010). However, the determination coefficient was not reported and the nature of the influence of each variable or in combination, whether it was a negative or positive effect. 4. Conclusion The number of studies completed, the motivation to write research, and age determined the public-school teachers' research capability. Thus, it is important to note that the best indicator and the most concrete manifestation that teachers are capable of doing research is the research output itself or sometimes called research productivity. This means that the more studies teachers have completed, the more capable they become in engaging in this rigorous endeavor. Also, age is detrimental to teachers' research capability. It is better to expose teachers in research when they are still very young and prioritize them for continuing professional development. Moreover, it is vital also to enhance teachers' their motivation to write a research. Based on the descriptive results, it was concluded that public school teachers have training needs in all areas covered in the assessment. However, the Continuing Professional Development through Extension Services of the Bukidnon State University may emphasize the different processes of research, attitudes toward research, the motivation to write research, and most especially on the capability to conduct research. The in-charge or coordinators of research programs in public schools or at the division level need to consider these areas so that they can ensure increased productivity and their programs are cost-effective. The intervention project they would design and implement must target the key points articulated in this paper. Acknowledgement Special thanks are due to the officials, school administrators, and teachers of the Malaybalay City Division for the support and constant partnership. The same gratitude is due to the officials of the extension unit, Bukidnon State University, for their leadership and guidance. Research Capability of Teachers: Its Correlates, Determinants and Implications for Continuing Professional Development 10 References [1] Abarquez, R. R. & Palbaca, J. A. (2013). Research Capabilities of International Tourism and Hospitality Management Faculty Members. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(1), 46-55. https://bit.ly/2UNyUP2 [2] Abarro, J. O. & Mariño, W. P. (2016). Research Capabilities of Public Secondary and Elementary School Teachers in the Division of Antipolo City. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 6(6), 407-410. https://bit.ly/3bF9DNJ [3] Akcoltekin, A., Engin, A. O. & Sevgin, H. (2017). Attitudes of High School Teachers to Education Research using Classification Tree Method. Eurasian Journal of Education Research, 68, 19-47. https://bit.ly/3bC1Z6T [4] Alhija, F. M. N. & Majdob, A. (2017). Predictors of Teacher Educators' Research Productivity. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (11), 34-51. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2LZ1RVk [5] Alumbro, E. C., Cuadra, L. J., & Sapan, M. J. M. (2015). Recognizing Research Competence and Interest as Basis for Faculty Development Initiatives. JPAIR Institutional Research Journal, 5(1), 21-32. https://bit.ly/2yvYoJb [6] Basilio, M. B., & Bueno, D. C. (2019). Research Skills and Attitudes of Master Teachers in a Division Towards Capability Training. 19th CEBU Philippine International Conference on Economics, Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. [7] Cagaanan, J. C. A., & Gosadan, B. D. (2018). Research Competency among Elementary School Teachers: An evaluative assessment for School-Based Action Research (SBAR). JPAIR Institutional Research Journal, 11(1), https://bit.ly/2V5soDo [8] Cuntapay, M. C., Garay, G., & &Viloria, P. F. (2014). Needs Assessment of Teacher's Research Capability. College of Arts and Sciences Research Journal, 5(1), https://bit.ly/2yyMQoB [9] De la Cruz, J. L. (2016). The Research Capability of Ilocos Sur Polytechnic State College: A Basis for A Capability Enhancement Program. International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research, 5(7), 39-45. https://bit.ly/2yAEnkU [10] Dapiawen, A. A. (2017). Correlates of level of knowledge and research capability of the Graduate School faculty. UB Research Journal, XLI(2). https://bit.ly/2XmSa9a [11] Davidson, Z. E., & Palermo, C. (2015). Developing Research Competence in Undergraduate Students through Hands on Learning. Journal of Biomedical Education, 1-9. https://bit.ly/2UwomEY [12] Department of Education. (2015). DepEd order No. 13, s. 2015: Establishment of a Policy Development Process at the Department of Education. DepEd. https://bit.ly/2y5nPB4 [13] Department of Education. (2016). DepEd Order No. 39, s. 2016: Adoption of Basic Education Research Agenda. DepEd. https://bit.ly/2RHoG2b [14] Department of Education. (2017). DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017: Research Management Guidelines. DepEd. https://bit.ly/3aWfoH6 [15] Department of Education. (2015). DepEd Order No. 43, s. 2015: Revised Guidelines for the Basic Research Fund. DepEd. https://bit.ly/39WuBXo [16] Department of Education. (2016). DepEd Order No. 4, s. 2016: Amendment to DepEd No. 43, s. 2015: Revised Guidelines for the Basic Research Fund. DepEd. https://bit.ly/3eeBo22 [17] Enero, A. J. P. & Limjuco, R. P. (2017). Determinants of Research Publication Productivity among Faculty of Education Institutions in Region XI: Basis for Institutional Research Program Enhancement. International Journal of Education Research for Higher Learning, 23(2), 21-53. [18] Fetalver, M. A. (2010). Selected Predictors of Research Capability in Terms of Research Management and Research Process in State Higher Education Institutions in Region IV. Research Journal College of Engineering, 3(1). https://bit.ly/39yzs0G [19] Formeloza, R., & Pateña, A. D. (2013). Research Capability of the Maritime Faculty Members and Senior Students in Lyceum International Maritime Academy. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 3(9), 275-288. https://bit.ly/2wFDCXf [20] Gomez, M. J. S., & Panaligan, C. (2013). Level of Research Competencies and Satisfaction of the Faculty Members from the College of Criminology. Asian Academic Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (14), 269-280. https://bit.ly/3bDy91V [21] Holt, J., & Perry, S. A. (2011). Ä Pragmatic guide to Competency: Tools, Frameworks and Assessments. British Informatics Society Ltd. https://bit.ly/34aElvS [22] Ismail, R., & Meerah, S. M. T. (2012). Evaluating the Research Competencies of Doctoral Students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 244 – 247. https://bit.ly/341RYNV [23] Kho, M. G.W. & Ling, Y. L. (2017). A Study of Perception and Capability to Undertake Action Research Among Lecturers at a Polytechnic in Sarawak. Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, 2 (4), 41-46. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2O99ivV [24] Li, X. D., Chen, H. J., Wang, L., Kong, X. Y., & Ying, J. (2019). Scientific Research Capability and Continuing Education Needs for Nurses with Master's Degree in China. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 50(2), 61-68. [25] Macabago, S. M. (2017). Teachers' Motivation, Attitude, Perceived Capability, and Difficulty to Conduct Action Research: A Basis for Intervention Plan for Public Elementary School Teachers (unpublished thesis). Malaybalay City, Bukidnon: Bukidnon State University. [26] Mani, M. C., Fetalvero, E. G., Foja, L. G., & Formento, A, F. (2010). Research Capability Building-A Strategy to Promote Research Culture in SUCs and Countryside Development: The Romblom State College Experience. PHILARM Journal, 7(1), 147-165. https://bit.ly/2WVDA8g [27] Manongsong, M. J. G. & Panopio, E. (2018). Dentistry Faculty Members' Research Competencies and Attitude towards Research Engagement. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 5(3), 13-19. https://bit.ly/3dIaAXn [28] Mohan, V. V. (2010). Mentoring Doctoral Students in a Developing Society. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 7, 249-264. https://bit.ly/2w2yY55 JWEEP 2(5):01-11 11 [29] Morales, M. P. E., Abulon, E. L. R., Soriano, P. R., David, A. P., Hermosisima, M. V. C. & Gerundio, M. G. (2016). Examining teachers' conception of and needs on action research. Issues in Educational Research, 26(3), 464-489. https://bit.ly/2UQWsm3 [30] Narag, E. R., Gannaban, M. V. C. & Agustin, C. (2016). Research Capabilities of the Faculty Members of CBEA of Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 5(2), 10-16. https://bit.ly/343ZlnO [31] Narbarte, M. P., & Balila, J. S. (2018). Research Involvement, Motivation, and University Initiatives as Agents for Enhancing Research Culture and Quality. Catalyst, 17, 68-78. https://bit.ly/2x7sRx8 [32] Ocbian, M. M., & Gamba, M. P. (2015). SSC Graduate Students' Difficulties in Doing Research. JPAIR Institutional Research Journal, 5(1), 49-64. https://bit.ly/2xV6Ml9 [33] Pamatmat, F. V. (2016). Research Attitudes of Teaching Personnel in one Philippine State University: Basis for Development and Sustainability towards Excellence. Research Journal of Language, Literature and Humanities, 3(3), 12-17. https://bit.ly/3bKIYiF [34] Pati, P. (2014). Indonesian Foreign School Teachers' Perception and Capability to Undertake Classroom Action Research: Basis for Capability Building Program. IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education, 4(1), 67-89. https://bit.ly/2ykUbIe [35] Salem, M. A., Shawtari, F., Shamsudin, M. F., Hussain, H. B. I. & Hizam, S. M. (2016). Research Capability, Job Satisfaction, and a Multiple Approach of Competitiveness: A Conceptual Framework for University Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2JXHp4L [36] Salom, M. D. (2013). Research Capability of the Faculty Members of DMMMSU MID Campus. E-International Scientific Research Journal, 5(2), 45-55. [37] Soriano, H. A. S. (2018). Examining Thesis Advisers' Profile and their Undergraduate Research Mentoring Capabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 5(3), 1-12. https://bit.ly/3byZClk [38] Tan, E. (2011). "It takes two to tango:" The language of research mentoring. The Asian Journal of Educational Research and Synergy, 3(1). https://bit.ly/2UIBruX [39] Tan, R. (2012). Motivation and Research Capability of the University of Cebu Faculty. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 8. ProQuest. [40] Tindowen, D. J., Guzman, J., & Macanang, D. (2019). Teachers' Conception and Difficulties in Doing Action Research. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(8), 1787-1794. https://bit.ly/2RoDen3 [41] Udompong, L., Traiwichitkhun, D., & Wongwanich, S. (2014). Causal Model of Research Competency via Scientific Literacy of Teacher and Student. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1581 – 1586. https://bit.ly/2WYNHZP [42] Ulla, M. B., Barrera, K. B., & Acompanado, M. M. (2017). Philippine Classroom Teachers as Researchers: Teachers' Perceptions, Motivations, and Challenges. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(11). http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol [43] Wong, A. M. (2019). Driving Forces of Master Teachers' Research Capability: Towards Building a Research Culture in the Division of Romblon, Philippines. International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications, 3(7), 92-97. https://bit.ly/39tzE