IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v44y2015i8p1584-1600.html

The bureaucratization of science

Author

Listed:
  • Walsh, John P.
  • Lee, You-Na

Abstract

While science is traditionally treated as a distinct domain of work organization, increasingly science is organized around larger and larger work groups that resemble small firms, with knowledge as the product. The growth of organized science raises the question of whether we also see a bureaucratic structuring of scientific work groups as predicted by organization theory, with implications for the academic credit system and scientific labor markets. Building on organization theory, we examine the relation between project group size, technical environment, and bureaucratic structuring of scientific work. Using survey data on scientific projects, we find size predicts bureaucratic structuring, with declining marginal effects. We also find that interdisciplinarity and task interdependence have distinct effects on bureaucratic structuring. Finally, the relationship between size and some dimensions of bureaucratic structuring is contingent on levels of work group interdependence in the field. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for policy debates about authorship and scientific careers.

Suggested Citation

  • Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na, 2015. "The bureaucratization of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1584-1600.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:44:y:2015:i:8:p:1584-1600
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733315000700
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barry R. Armandi & Edgar W. Mills, 1982. "Organizational Size, Structure, and Efficiency: A Test of a Blau‐Hage Model," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 43-60, January.
    2. Adams, James D. & Black, Grant C. & Clemmons, J. Roger & Stephan, Paula E., 2005. "Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from U.S. universities, 1981-1999," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 259-285, April.
    3. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cinzia Daraio, 2005. "Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(1), pages 87-120, March.
    4. Nicolas Carayol & Mireille Matt, 2004. "Does research organization influence academic production ?," Post-Print hal-00279014, HAL.
    5. Colombo, Massimo G. & Grilli, Luca, 2005. "Founders' human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 795-816, August.
    6. Brady T. West & Patricia Berglund & Steven G. Heeringa, 2008. "A closer examination of subpopulation analysis of complex-sample survey data," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 8(4), pages 520-531, December.
    7. Per O. Seglen & Dag W. Aksnes, 2000. "Scientific Productivity and Group Size: A Bibliometric Analysis of Norwegian Microbiological Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 125-143, August.
    8. Baron, James N & Burton, M Diane & Hannan, Michael T, 1999. "Engineering Bureaucracy: The Genesis of Formal Policies, Positions, and Structures in High-Technology Firms," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 1-41, April.
    9. Gary S. Becker & Kevin M. Murphy, 1994. "The Division of Labor, Coordination Costs, and Knowledge," NBER Chapters, in: Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Third Edition, pages 299-322, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Hugo Horta & T Austin Lacy, 2011. "How does size matter for science? Exploring the effects of research unit size on academics' scientific productivity and information exchange behaviors," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(6), pages 449-460, July.
    11. Mary Frank Fox & Sushanta Mohapatra, 2007. "Social-Organizational Characteristics of Work and Publication Productivity among Academic Scientists in Doctoral-Granting Departments," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 78(5), pages 542-571, September.
    12. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2013. "Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 688-703.
    13. Jacques Mairesse & Laure Turner, 2006. "Measurement and Explanation of the Intensity of Co-publication in Scientific Research: An Analysis at the Laboratory Level," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli & Dominique Foray & Bronwyn H. Hall & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), New Frontiers in the Economics of Innovation and New Technology, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Juan D. Rogers, 2012. "Research centers as agents of change in the contemporary academic landscape: their role and impact in HBCU, EPSCoR, and Majority universities," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 15-32, March.
    15. Carayol, Nicolas & Matt, Mireille, 2004. "Does research organization influence academic production?: Laboratory level evidence from a large European university," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1081-1102, October.
    16. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.
    17. Jeremy P. Birnholtz, 2006. "What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(13), pages 1758-1770, November.
    18. Shibayama, Sotaro & Baba, Yasunori & Walsh, John P., 2015. "Organizational design of University laboratories: Task allocation and lab performance in Japanese bioscience laboratories," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 610-622.
    19. Gary S. Becker & Kevin M. Murphy, 1994. "The Division of Labor, Coordination Costs, and Knowledge," NBER Chapters, in: Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Third Edition, pages 299-322, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Bennet A. Zelner, 2009. "Using simulation to interpret results from logit, probit, and other nonlinear models," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(12), pages 1335-1348, December.
    21. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2020. "Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    2. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, January.
    3. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.
    4. Carolin Haeussler & Henry Sauermann, 2016. "The Division of Labor in Teams: A Conceptual Framework and Application to Collaborations in Science," NBER Working Papers 22241, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Tasso Brandt & Torben Schubert, 2014. "Is the university model an organizational necessity? Scale and agglomeration effects in science," Chapters, in: Andrea Bonaccorsi (ed.), Knowledge, Diversity and Performance in European Higher Education, chapter 8, pages iii-iii, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Tasso Brandt & Torben Schubert, 2013. "Is the university model an organizational necessity? Scale and agglomeration effects in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 541-565, February.
    7. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Luca Secondi & Enza Setteducati & Alessio Ancaiani, 2014. "Participation and commitment in third-party research funding: evidence from Italian Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 169-198, April.
    8. Slobodan Perović & Sandro Radovanović & Vlasta Sikimić & Andrea Berber, 2016. "Optimal research team composition: data envelopment analysis of Fermilab experiments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 83-111, July.
    9. Haeussler, Carolin & Jiang, Lin & Thursby, Jerry & Thursby, Marie, 2014. "Specific and general information sharing among competing academic researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 465-475.
    10. Murayama, Kota & Nirei, Makoto & Shimizu, Hiroshi, 2015. "Management of science, serendipity, and research performance: Evidence from a survey of scientists in Japan and the U.S," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 862-873.
    11. Hector Gonzalo Ordóñez‐Matamoros & Susan E. Cozzens & Margarita Garcia, 2010. "International Co‐Authorship and Research Team Performance in Colombia," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(4), pages 415-431, July.
    12. Brandt, Tasso & Schubert, Torben, 2012. "Is the University Model an Organizational Necessity? Scale and Agglomeration Effects in Science," Papers in Innovation Studies 2012/1, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    13. M. Teresa Antonio-García & Irene López-Navarro & Jesús Rey-Rocha, 2014. "Determinants of success for biomedical researchers: a perception-based study in a health science research environment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1747-1779, December.
    14. Rodrigo Costas & María Bordons, 2011. "Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 145-161, July.
    15. Shibayama, Sotaro, 2019. "Sustainable development of science and scientists: Academic training in life science labs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 676-692.
    16. Kim, Jinyoung, 2017. "Racing against Time in Research: A Study of the 1995 U.S. Patent Law Amendment," IZA Discussion Papers 10815, IZA Network @ LISER.
    17. Koehler, Maximilian & Sauermann, Henry, 2024. "Algorithmic management in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    18. Megan Lawrence & Christopher Poliquin, 2023. "The growth of hierarchy in organizations: Managing knowledge scope," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(13), pages 3155-3184, December.
    19. Chao Lu & Yingyi Zhang & Yong‐Yeol Ahn & Ying Ding & Chenwei Zhang & Dandan Ma, 2020. "Co‐contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(10), pages 1162-1178, October.
    20. Julia Melkers & Agrita Kiopa, 2010. "The Social Capital of Global Ties in Science: The Added Value of International Collaboration," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(4), pages 389-414, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:44:y:2015:i:8:p:1584-1600. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.