Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. Turkeli, The doctoral training environment and post-doctorate productivity among Turkish physicists,Science Studies, 3 (1973) 311–318.
I. Hirsch, W. Mitwitt, J. W. Oakes, Increasing the productivity of scientists,Harvard Business Review, 36 (1958) 66–76.
A. Roe, A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists,Psychological Monographs, 67 (1953) 2.
D. Crane, Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition,American Sociological Review 30 (1965) 699–713.
Y. P. Singh, S. N. Laharia, Interpersonal communication and scientific productivity,Interaction, 4 (1986) 27–32.
E. J. Zamaripa, A critical path analysis of scientific productivity,Mental Retardation, 31 (1993) 320–325.
J. E. Greene,100 Great Scientists, New York: Pocket Books, Simon and Schuster Inc., 1969.
J. Block,The Q-sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research, Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1961.
A. Ramesh Babu, Y. P. Singh, Pusa rank sheet for Q-sort technique,Indian Journal of Extension Education, 20 (1984) 52–57.
A. L. Comrey A first course in factor analysis, New York: Academic press, 1973.
T. F. Gieryn, R. P. Hirsh, Marginality and innovation in science,Social Studies of Science, 13 (1983) 87–106.
M. Helena Pycior, Reaping the benefits of collaboration while avoiding its pitfalls: Marie Curie's rise to scientific performance,Social Studies of Science, 23 (1993) 301–323.
S. K. De, Portrait of a scientist,Science Reporter, 9 (1972) 509–512.
Srichandra,Scientists: A socio-psychological study, New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., 1970.
F. Irvine, B. R. Martin, Basic research in the East and West: A comparison of the scientific performance of high-energy physics accelerators,Social studies of Science, 15 (1985) 293–341.
G. G. Harrison, D. G. Woodworth, Stylistic variations among professional research scientists,Journal of Psychology, 49 (1960) 87–98.
W. C. Waradanam, Self help for third world scientists,Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 33 (1977) 22–23.
J. P. Walsh, T. Bayma, Computer networks and scientific work,Social Studies of Science, 26 (1996) 661–703.
D. A. Blankinship, D. M. Ehlen, A general survey of obtaining participants' evaluations of professional development sessions,Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 29 (1997) 17–25.
J. Balderston, A performance and salary review system for scientists,Research Management, 7 (1964) 209–224.
J. A. Chambers, Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity,Psychological Monographs, 78 (1964) 1–20.
J. Faridi,The Hindustan Times-Sunday Magazine, New Delhi, 18 December, 1983, 1–2.
W. B. Carlson, M. E. Gorman, Understanding invention as a cognitive process: The case of Thomas Edison and early motion pictures (1888–91),Social Studies of Science, 20 (1990), 387–440.
M. L. Roonwal, The true scientist: Criteria of excellence,Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 32 (1979) 665–667.
R. A. Griggs, S. E. Ransdell, Scientists and the selection task,Social Studies of Science, 16 (1986) 319–330.
H. Zollinger, Logic or psychology of scientific discovery,Chemistry in Britain, 16 (1980) 257–258.
S. Schaffer, Scientific discoveries and the end of natural philosophy,Social Studies of Science, 16 (1986) 387–421.
B. K. Blaylock, An explanation of R&D decision processes through individual information processing prefereces,R&D Management, 13 (1983) 129–141.
T. J. Pinch, Opening black boxes: Science, technology, and society,Social Studies of Science, 22 (1992) 487–510.
A. R. Brown, Science and the creative imagination,Speculations in Science and Technology, 3 (1980) 563–572.
P. V. N. Rao,The Hindusthan Times, New Delhi, 23 July, 1993, 10.
M. E. Gorman, Mind in the world: Cognition and practice in the invention of the telephone,Social Studies of Science, 27 (1997) 583–624.
S. Helmreich, Recombination, rationality, reductionalism and romantic reactions: Culture, cumputers, and the genetic algorithm,Social Studies of Science, 28 (1998) 39–71.
R. D. Tweney, S. A. Yachanin, Can scientists rationally assess conditional inferences?Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985) 155–173.
M. Domsch, T. Gerpott, E. Joschum, Peer assessment in industrial R & D departments,R&D Management, 13 (1983) 143–154.
M. G. Russell, R. J. Saver, Creating administrative environments for interdisciplinary research,Society for Research Administrators Journal, 14 (1983) 21–30.
C. Loehle, A critical path analysis of scientific productivity,Journal of Creative Behaviour, 28 (1994) 33–47.
W. Dennis, Productivity among American psychologists,American Psychologist, 9 (1954) 191–194.
H. A. Zuckerman, Nobel Laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship,American Sociological Review, 32 (1967) 391–403.
A. R. Kidwai, Recruitment and training of scientific research personnel,Indian Journal of Public Administration, 15 (1969) 576–587.
G. Sonnert, What makes a good scientist?: Determinants of peer evaluation among biologists,Social Studies of Science, 25 (1995) 35–55.
P. E. Stephan, S. G. Levin Inequality in scientific performance: Adjustment for attribution and journal impact,Social Studies of Science, 21 (1991) 351–368.
T. S. Kuhn,The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1962.
P. Vinkler, Research contribution, authorship and team co-operativeness,Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 213–230.
G. M. Dobrov, R. R. Kocherovets, Scientific communication and scientists productivity,Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya Ser. 1, 11 (1979) 1–6.
C. Maguire, R. Kench, Sources of ideas for applied university research and their affect on the application of findings in Australian industry,Social Studies of Science, 14 (1984) 371–397.
L. Velho, J. Krige, Publication and citation practices of Brazilian agricultural scientists,Social Studies of Science, 14 (1984) 45–62.
G. Fourez, Scientific and technological literacy as a social practice,Social Studies of Science, 27 (1997) 903–936.
P. Katarina, Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists' productivity,Scientometrics, 36 (1996) 185–206.
P. Katarina, Eminent scientists' productivity: Scientific excellence and sociocognitive context,Revija Za Sociologiju, 27 (1996) 37–52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ramesh Babu, A., Singh, Y.P. Determinants of research productivity. Scientometrics 43, 309–329 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457402
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457402