Describing and explaining research productivity

Abstract

Abstract. This article describes results from a study of academic productivity in Australian higher education. It estimates the output (in terms of quantity of publications) of individual staff and academic departments across different subject areas and types of institution. Concerning research productivity, Australian academics resemble their colleagues in other countries: the average is low, while the range of variation is high. Most papers are produced by few academic staff. Several potential correlates of productivity, including level of research activity, subject area, institutional type, gender, age, early interest in research, and satisfaction with the promotions system, are examined. A model linking departmental context to personal research performance through departmental and personal research activity is developed and tested. The results support the view that structural factors (such as how academic departments are managed and led) combine with personal variables (such as intrinsic interest in the subject matter of one's discipline) to determine levels of productivity. There is also evidence that research and teaching do not form a single dimension of academic performance.A defining characteristic of a university is its commitment to scholarly activities leading to the production of knowledge and ideas. Probably the most critical indicator of research productivity is publication. Widely regarded as the main source of esteem, as a requirement for individual promotion, as evidence of institutional excellence, and as a sine qua non for obtaining competitive research funds, publication is central to scholarly activity and recognition. Indeed, it can be argued that research work only becomes 'a work' in the academic world when it takes on the conventional, physical form of a published paper or its equivalent, and that the most fundamental social processes of science are the communication and exchange of research findings and results (Fox 1983). Consider the time and effort that leading universities expend in publicizing the quantity of their members' books and articles; the growing use of numbers of publications as an indicator of a department's performance; the chief topics of conversation on any tenure, appointments and promotions committee. In the culture of the university, it seems, academic distinction and publications go together.This article has two main objects. It estimates and reports the rate of productivity (as measured by scholarly publication) of Australian academics in the years 1985--1989. Secondly, it considers some factors that are associated with different levels of productivity in the Australian system. Both these objects relate to matters of pivotal importance in contemporary Australian and British higher education policies. These include a deep concern with the quality of higher education provision across the system, greater emphasis on the regular assessment of individual academics' proficiency, policies for linking resource allocation to research output using performance indicators, a...

Academic generations and academic work: patterns of attitudes, behaviors, and research productivity of Polish academics after 1989

“…The teaching and research time distribution and the academic role orientation are the two major predictors of research productivity (see Fox 1992;Cole and Cole 1973;Ramsden 1994). We have explored the generational differences in research productivity in Poland through a composite 'research productivity index' constructed for all age groups.…”

Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups

“…Frederiksen et al 2004;Mets and Galford 2009). Communication provides an intellectual stimulus (Pelz and Andrews 1966) and more communication results in better performance (Allen and Sloan 1970;Harris and Kaine, 1994;Kretschmer 1985;Ramsden 1994;Visart 1979). Research groups typically perform project-based work of a non-routine and complex nature.…”

“…The group leader plays a key role in motivation. He/she should show strong commitment and involvement with the groups' research, e.g., by showing interest, by contributing technical competence, and by participating in research (Andrews and Farris 1967), as a strong research orientation is beneficial for performance (Blackburn et al 1978;Fox 1992;Gottlieb and Keith 1997;Harris and Kaine 1994;Porter and Umbach 2001;Prpic 1996;Ramsden 1994;Shin and Cummings 2010). In the model, we include the following variables: time used for research, focus on maintaining scientific expertise, and commitment and involvement with the group's research.…”

“…Cherchye and Abeele 2005). Several studies show that moving to a more prestigious institution positively impacts individual research performance (Allison and Long 1990;Crane 1965;Keith and Babchuk 1998;Long 1978;Long et al 1979;Long and McGinnis 1981;Ramsden 1994;Reskin 1979). Additionally, within 3-6 years researchers conform to the context of the university, industry, or government sector to which they have moved, independent of initial productivity (Long and McGinnis 1981).…”

Research Productivity and Values

“…It is generally agreed that university knowledge creation, or research productivity, is a function of a complex array of antecedent factors (Dundar & Lewis, 1998;Erdogan & Bauer, 2005;Hara, Solomon, Kim & Sonnenwald, 2003;Laursen & Foss, 2003;Lucas, 2006;Morton & Beard, 2005;Rachal, Shelley & David, 2008;Ramsden, 1994;Rothausen-Vange, Marler & Wright, 2005;Rynes, Bartunek & Daft, 2001). …”