IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0326331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Invitation appeals and STEM academic scientists research participation: Findings from six survey experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Tipeng Chen
  • Timothy P Johnson
  • Jinghuan Ma
  • Ashlee Frandell
  • Lesley Michalegko
  • Eric W Welch

Abstract

Survey research is a primary method used to investigate the opinions, perceptions and behaviors of academic scientists. However, little is known about the most successful appeal strategies for eliciting survey participation from these busy, highly educated professionals. Drawing on leverage-salience theory, this study examines the impacts of two sets of invitation appeals—information and representation appeals—on survey response rates among academic scientists in four STEM fields employed at U.S. R1 universities. Findings from six randomized experiments show that the effectiveness of both sets of invitation appeals is mixed and context-dependent, varying based on the polarization and relevance of survey topics, STEM academic scientists’ career stage, and their prior interactions with survey administrators. Specifically, self-representation appeals are most effective for polarized topics when recipients have low community affiliation. Less detailed information appeals are more successful when asking about low relevance topics, particularly for recipients with greater demands on their time, while more detailed information is effective for highly relevant and polarized topics. Additionally, invitations containing more detailed information are effective for first-time recipients in survey panels. This complexity reinforces the importance of designing effective outreach strategies to account for survey topics and recipient characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Tipeng Chen & Timothy P Johnson & Jinghuan Ma & Ashlee Frandell & Lesley Michalegko & Eric W Welch, 2025. "Invitation appeals and STEM academic scientists research participation: Findings from six survey experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(6), pages 1-24, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0326331
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0326331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0326331
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0326331&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0326331?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. Mary K Feeney & Margarita Bernal & Lauren Bowman, 2014. "Enabling work? Family-friendly policies and academic productivity for men and women scientists," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(6), pages 750-764.
    2. Bozeman, Barry & Corley, Elizabeth, 2004. "Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 599-616, May.
    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. Mattia Caldarulo & Jared Olsen & Ashlee Frandell & Shaika Islam & Timothy P Johnson & Mary K Feeney & Lesley Michalegko & Eric W Welch, 2022. "COVID-19 and gender inequity in science: Consistent harm over time," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(7), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Lu, Wei & Ren, Yan & Huang, Yong & Bu, Yi & Zhang, Yuehan, 2021. "Scientific collaboration and career stages: An ego-centric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    3. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & María Bordons, 2019. "What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 805-825, May.
    4. Jan Resenga Maluleka & Omwoyo Bosire Onyancha & Isola Ajiferuke, 2016. "Factors influencing research collaboration in LIS schools in South Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 337-355, May.
    5. Malte Hückstädt, 2022. "Coopetition between frenemies–interrelations and effects of seven collaboration problems in research clusters," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5191-5224, September.
    6. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2012. "Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2206-2222, November.
    7. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.
    8. Christopher S. Hayter, 2016. "A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: the role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 633-656, October.
    9. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    10. Y Samuel Wang & Carole J Lee & Jevin D West & Carl T Bergstrom & Elena A Erosheva, 2023. "Gender-based homophily in collaborations across a heterogeneous scholarly landscape," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(4), pages 1-21, April.
    11. Malte Hückstädt, 2023. "Ten reasons why research collaborations succeed—a random forest approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1923-1950, March.
    12. Wright, Mike & Clarysse, Bart & Lockett, Andy & Knockaert, Mirjam, 2008. "Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1205-1223, September.
    13. Barry Bozeman & Monica Gaughan & Jan Youtie & Catherine P. Slade & Heather Rimes, 2016. "Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 226-244.
    14. Md. Abdur Rahman Forhad & Gazi Mahabubul Alam & Mamunur Rashid & Afruza Haque & Md. Sawgat Khan, 2022. "Sustainable Development in Higher Engineering Education: A Comparative Study between Private and Public Polytechnics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-17, July.
    15. Tang, Kun & Li, Baiyang & Zhu, Qiyu & Ma, Lecun, 2024. "Disruptive content, cross agglomeration interaction, and agglomeration replacement: Does cohesion foster strength?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    16. Waleed M. Sweileh & Sa’ed H. Zyoud & Suleiman Al-Khalil & Samah W. Al-Jabi & Ansam F. Sawalha, 2014. "Assessing the Scientific Research Productivity of the Palestinian Higher Education Institutions," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(3), pages 21582440145, July.
    17. Jung, Jiwon & Bozeman, Barry & Gaughan, Monica, 2017. "Impact of research collaboration cosmopolitanism on job satisfaction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1863-1872.
    18. Ho Fai Chan & Ali Sina Önder & Benno Torgler, 2015. "Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2215-2235, December.
    19. Li, Feng & Miao, Yajun & Yang, Chenchen, 2015. "How do alumni faculty behave in research collaboration? An analysis of Chang Jiang Scholars in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 438-450.
    20. Benedetto Torrisi, 2014. "A multidimensional approach to academic productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 755-783, June.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0326331. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.