Determinants of research productivity

Earlier researchers like Turkeli, suggested that ‘the factors which determine the productivity of scientists are admittedly complex and perhaps not amenable to real scientific analysis′. The present investigation was designed with the sole purpose of confronting such a complex problem. Nearly 200 variables influencing research productivity were collected through relevant literature, analysis of biographies of great scientists, and discussion with eminent scientists. Finally, through a critical examination, 80 variables were selected for the use of Q-sort technique. The sample for the study consisted of a cross section of scientists ranging from Fellows of Indian National Science Academy to young agricultural scientists. Mailed questionnaires and personal interview methods were used for collecting data. Out of a total of 912 respondents, reply was obtained from 325. On the basis of Q-sorted data, 26 variables were selected for further analysis and they were subjected to principal component factor analysis. The results indicated eleven factors affecting research productivity of scientists. They were: persistence, resource adequacy, access to literature, initiative, intelligence, creativity, learning capability, stimulative leadership, concern for advancement, external orientation, and professional commitment.

[1]  T. Gieryn,et al.  Marginality and Innovation in Science , 1983 .

[2]  H Prydz,et al.  Portrait of a scientist. , 1992, Thrombosis research.

[3]  E. P. Winkofsky,et al.  An explanation of R&D decision processes through individual information processing preferences , 1983 .

[4]  Jack Balderston.  A Performance and Salary Review System for Scientists , 1964 .

[5]  Wayne Dennis,et al.  Productivity among American psychologists. , 1954 .

[6]  David A. Blankinship,et al.  A General Survey for Obtaining Participants' Evaluations of Professional Development Sessions. , 1997 .

[7]  S Helmreich.  Recombination, Rationality, Reductionism and Romantic Reactions: , 1998, Social studies of science.

[8]  H. Pycior,et al.  Reaping the Benefits of Collaboration While Avoiding its Pitfalls: Marie Curie's Rise to Scientific Prominence , 1993, Social studies of science.

[9]  H. Zuckerman.  Nobel laureates in science: patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. , 1967, American sociological review.

[10]  E J Zamarripa,et al.  Research productivity: a definition. , 1993, Mental retardation.

[11]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Inequality in Scientific Performance: Adjustment for Attribution and Journal Impact , 1991 .

[12]  Michael E. Gorman,et al.  Mind in the World: Cognition and Practice in the Invention of the Telephone , 1997 .

[13]  B. Price.  A First Course in Factor Analysis , 1993 .

[14]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  Basic Research in the East and West: A Comparison of the Scientific Performance of High-Energy Physics Accelerators , 1985 .

[15]  Martha G. Russell,et al.  Creating Administrative Environments for Interdisciplinary Research. , 1983 .

[16]  Craig Loehle.  A Critical Path Analysis of Scientific Productivity. , 1994 .

[17]  A. C. Waters,et al.  Portrait of a scientist - James Gilluly , 1969 .

[18]  M. W. C. Dharma-wardana.  Self-Help for Third World Scientists. , 1977 .

[19]  Gillian Crampton Smith.  Computer-related design at the Royal College of Art: 1997 graduation projects , 1997, INTR.

[20]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Computer Networks and Scientific Work , 1996 .

[21]  Katarina Prpić.  Produktivnost istaknutih znanstvenika: znanstvena vrsnost i socio-kognitivni kontekst , 1996 .

[22]  Harrison G. Gough,et al.  Stylistic Variations Among Professional Research Scientists , 1960 .

[23]  A. R. Kidwai.  Recruitment and Training of Scientific Personnel , 1969 .

[24]  Michael E. Gorman,et al.  Understanding Invention as a Cognitive Process: The Case of Thomas Edison and Early Motion Pictures, 1888-91 , 1990 .

[25]  G. Sonnert.  What Makes a Good Scientist?: Determinants of Peer Evaluation among Biologists , 1995 .

[26]  Arif Turkeli.  The Doctoral Training Environment and Post-Doctorate Productivity Among Turkish Physicists , 1973 .

[27]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[28]  Ryan D. Tweney,et al.  Can Scientists Rationally Assess Conditional Inferences? , 1985 .

[29]  Simon Schaffer,et al.  Scientific Discoveries and the End of Natural Philosophy , 1986 .

[30]  Gérard Fourez,et al.  Scientific and Technological Literacy as a Social Practice , 1997 .

[31]  Jack Block,et al.  The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research , 1964 .

[32]  Léa Velho,et al.  Publication and Citation Practices of Brazilian Agricultural Scientists , 1984 .

[33]  Katarina Prpic,et al.  Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists' productivity , 2005, Scientometrics.

[34]  Carmel Maguire,et al.  Sources of Ideas for Applied University Research, and their Effect on the Application of Findings in Australian Industry , 1984 .

[35]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness , 2005, Scientometrics.

[36]  Sarah Ellen Ransdell,et al.  Scientists and the Selection Task , 1986 .

[37]  J. Chambers,et al.  Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity. , 1964 .

[38]  Trevor Pinch,et al.  Opening Black Boxes: Science, Technology and Society , 1992 .

[39]  D. Crane.  Scientists at major and minor universities: a study of productivity and recognition. , 1965, American sociological review.

[40]  Anne Roe,et al.  A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists. , 1953 .

[41]  T. J. Gerpott,et al.  Peer assessment in industrial R&D departments , 1983 .