The research productivity of new Brazilian PhDs in management

Abstract

Purpose Doctoral programs are primarily intended to train new professors and researchers to take positions requiring research competency. This paper aims to observe the scientific production of 734 Brazilian new PhDs in management and the possible link between the scientific output of the graduates and doctoral program rank. Design/methodology/approach Methodologically, the authors built a database collecting the journal publications of the first six years after doctoral degree of all PhDs in management graduated by Brazilian doctoral programs during the period of 1998-2008. The authors use cluster and descriptive analysis to explore PhD publication. Findings Results show a great disparity of productivity, where 10 per cent of all new PhDs account for most of the Brazilian research productivity, while most of the PhDs have a very low performance – and that the CAPES (the Brazilian institutional system) qualification of doctoral programs is not a good predictor of the performance of the future graduates. Results are discussed to understand this productivity gap among researchers in a context of a developing country where support institutions are working to improve quantity and quality of publication. Practical implications The results are useful for recruiters that need to decide between hiring new PhDs with low productivity graduated from high-ranked programs or new PhDs with high productivity from programs with more modest ranking. At least in part, the authors’ results question the real impact that the doctoral program’s prestige has on the performance of its graduates. Social implications There are implications for the future candidates to a management PhD program, for the Directors of these programs and for the institutional agencies that regulate and promote science and that establish the prevailing rules and norms that researchers and institutions follow. Originality/value The results are adamant in pointing out that there is a small group of highly productive new PhDs – that the authors called “stars”. Generally speaking, they may find these “star” new PhDs in several doctoral programs. They have also found that some of the new PhDs have a relatively higher level of international papers published, but not necessarily a larger volume of publications. Meanwhile, most PhDs present a very low level of performance. This has important contributions to the way they perceive the doctoral education in management, especially in Ibero-America, revealing insights about the quality of PhDs and PhD courses.

Publishing in co-authorship: A comparison of the motivations between more and less prolific Management scholars in Brazil

“…However, we also found remarkable differences among more and less prolific scholars regarding co-authorships. For instance, the more prolific researchers have an added "burden" of helping doctoral students to launch their careers (Falaster, Ferreira & Serra, 2016) and get those publications needed for a job position or through tenure. Conversely, less prolific researchers use their co-authorship as a means to learn and absorb from more experienced scholars their knowledge, both theoretical and the more tacit knowledge on how to navigate the editorial process and handle reviewers (HUDSON, 1996;GOFFMAN;WARREN, 1980;LEE;BOZEMAN, 2005;ENGLISH, 2006).…”

“…Notably, the motivational profiles in co-authorships are different for more and Serra, 2016). In contrast, a number of other aspects tend to be less relevant such as "To gain experience in writing articles" (-0.44), possibly because they are already experienced writers, "increase discipline" (-0.27), "increase personal learning" (-0.25)…”

Replicar, publicar e perecer

“…A publicação dos formados da pós-graduação, a participação em grupos de pesquisa e a internacionalização do programa também são critérios relevantes na classificação da CAPES (Belintani Shigaki & Patrus, 2012). Ainda assim, a produtividade dos alunos de pós-graduação no Brasil é concentrada em 10 por cento dos doutores recentes, e são esses os mais propensos a conseguir um emprego internacional (Falaster et al, 2016).…”

Coautoria em Administração no Brasil: Pressões, Complementaridades e Produtividade

“…Esse aumento da produção com conjunto pode estar ligado às mudanças institucionais realizadas pela CAPES, que passaram a exigir um foco adicional dos pesquisados na publicação em revistas revisadas por pares (Shigaki e Patrus, 2013). O maior foco das instituições de incentivo e regulamentação da pesquisa científica no Brasil na produção científica tem como ponto positivo um efetivo aumento na produção geral (Falaster et al, 2016), porém, essas mudanças podem também trazer riscos como o fim da solidariedade entre pares, visto que acabam por se tornarem concorrentes pelas publicações (Patrus et al, 2015).…”