IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v30y2019i6p1125-1145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Heterogeneity in the Organization of Scientific Work

Author

Listed:
  • Hazhir Rahmandad

    (MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142)

  • Keyvan Vakili

    (London Business School, London NW1 4SA, United Kingdom)

Abstract

Prior studies of academic science have largely focused on researchers in life sciences or engineering. However, while academic researchers often work under similar institutions, norms, and incentives, they vary greatly in how they organize their research efforts across different scientific domains. This heterogeneity, in turn, has important implications for innovation policy, the relationship between industry and academia, the scientific labor market, and the perceived deficit in the relevance of social sciences and humanities research. To understand this heterogeneity, we model scientists as publication-maximizing agents, identifying two distinct organizational patterns that are optimal under different parameters. When the net productivity of research staff (e.g., PhD students and postdocs) is positive, the funded research model with an entrepreneurial scientist and a large team dominates. When the costs of research staff exceed their productivity benefits, the hands-on research approach is optimal. The model implies significant heterogeneity across the two modes of organizing in research funding, supply of scientific workforce, team size, publication output, and stratification patterns over time. Exploratory empirical analysis finds consistent patterns of time allocation and publication in a prior survey of faculty in U.S. universities. Using data from an original survey, we also find causal effects consistent with the model’s prediction on how negative shocks to research staff—due to visa or health problems, for example—differentially impact research output under the two modes of organization.

Suggested Citation

  • Hazhir Rahmandad & Keyvan Vakili, 2019. "Explaining Heterogeneity in the Organization of Scientific Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1125-1145, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:30:y:2019:i:6:p:1125-1145
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2019.1303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1303
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2019.1303?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    2. Michael S. McPherson & Morton Owen Schapiro, 1999. "Tenure Issues in Higher Education," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 85-98, Winter.
    3. Ajay Agrawal & Avi Goldfarb & Florenta Teodoridis, 2016. "Understanding the Changing Structure of Scientific Inquiry," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 100-128, January.
    4. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Richard C. Larson & Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Yi Xue, 2014. "Too Many PhD Graduates or Too Few Academic Job Openings: The Basic Reproductive Number R0 in Academia," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 745-750, November.
    7. Arthur Diamond, 2005. "Measurement, incentives and constraintsin Stigler's economics of science," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 635-661.
    8. Jeffrey L. Furman & Fiona Murray & Scott Stern, 2012. "Growing Stem Cells: The Impact of Federal Funding Policy on the U.S. Scientific Frontier," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 661-705, June.
    9. Paula Stephan, 2014. "The Endless Frontier: Reaping What Bush Sowed?," NBER Chapters, in: The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, pages 321-366, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Porter, Stephen R. & Toutkoushian, Robert K., 2006. "Institutional research productivity and the connection to average student quality and overall reputation," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 605-617, December.
    11. Scott Stern, 2004. "Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 835-853, June.
    12. Pierre Azoulay & Waverly Ding & Toby Stuart, 2009. "The Impact Of Academic Patenting On The Rate, Quality And Direction Of (Public) Research Output," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 637-676, December.
    13. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2015. "Killing the Golden Goose? The Decline of Science in Corporate R&D," NBER Working Papers 20902, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    15. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    16. Jeffrey Pfeffer, 1995. "Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of Styles of Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(6), pages 681-686, December.
    17. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1974. "Science, Invention and Economic Growth," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 84(333), pages 90-108, March.
    18. Hyungjo Hur & Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Joshua Hawley, 2015. "Effects of Government Spending on Research Workforce Development: Evidence from Biomedical Postdoctoral Researchers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    19. Michaël Bikard & Fiona Murray & Joshua S. Gans, 2015. "Exploring Trade-offs in the Organization of Scientific Work: Collaboration and Scientific Reward," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1473-1495, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jung-Kyu Jung & Jae Young Choi, 2022. "Choice and allocation characteristics of faculty time in Korea: effects of tenure, research performance, and external shock," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2847-2869, May.
    2. Xu, Ran & Baghaei Lakeh, Arash & Ghaffarzadegan, Navid, 2021. "Examining the characteristics of impactful research topics: A case of three decades of HIV-AIDS research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).

    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. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Lia Sheer, 2017. "Back to Basics: Why do Firms Invest in Research?," NBER Working Papers 23187, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Kyle Myers & Wei Yang Tham, 2023. "Money, Time, and Grant Design," Papers 2312.06479, arXiv.org.
    3. Michaël Bikard, 2018. "Made in Academia: The Effect of Institutional Origin on Inventors’ Attention to Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 818-836, October.
    4. David Grosse Kathoefer & Jens Leker, 2012. "Knowledge transfer in academia: an exploratory study on the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 658-675, October.
    5. Jeffrey L. Furman & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Automation, Research Technology, and Researchers’ Trajectories: Evidence from Computer Science and Electrical Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 330-354, March.
    6. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    7. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    8. Joshua S. Gans & Fiona Murray, 2014. "Credit History: The Changing Nature of Scientific Credit," NBER Chapters, in: The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, pages 107-131, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Richard T. Carson & Joshua Graff Zivin & Jordan J. Louviere & Sally Sadoff & Jeffrey G. Shrader, 2022. "The Risk of Caution: Evidence from an Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 9042-9060, December.
    10. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    11. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    12. Albert Banal-Estañol & Ines Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2016. "Key Success Drivers in Public Research Grants: Funding the Seeds of Radical Innovation in Academia?," CESifo Working Paper Series 5852, CESifo.
    13. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    14. Kanybek Nur-tegin & Sanjay Venugopalan & Jessica Young, 2020. "Teaching Load and Other Determinants of Research Output Among University Faculty," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 65(2), pages 300-311, October.
    15. ONISHI Koichiro & OWAN Hideo & NAGAOKA Sadao, 2015. "Monetary Incentives for Corporate Inventors: Intrinsic motivation, project selection and inventive performance," Discussion papers 15071, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    16. Jürgen Janger, 2015. "Business Science Links For a New Growth Path. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 107," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58413, Juni.
    17. Chai, Sen & Shih, Willy, 2016. "Bridging science and technology through academic–industry partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 148-158.
    18. Breschi, Stefano & Catalini, Christian, 2010. "Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 14-26, February.
    19. Frank Nagle & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Jack of all trades and master of knowledge: The role of diversification in new distant knowledge integration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 55-85, January.
    20. Davies, Benjamin & Gush, Jason & Hendy, Shaun C. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2022. "Research funding and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).

    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:inm:ororsc:v:30:y:2019:i:6:p:1125-1145. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.