Bibliometric studies often measure and compare scholarly performance, but they rarely investigate why universities, departments, and research groups do have different performance. In this paper we try to explain differences in scholarly performance of research groups in terms of organizational variables. In order to do this, we extensively review the relevant literature, and develop a model using two theoretical approaches. A multivariate analysis shows which of the independent variables do play a role in the various scholarly performance dimensions. The study shows what organizational strategies may help in optimizing performance in various dimensions. Implications are discussed.

This paper answers five questions about the societal impact of research. Firstly, we examine the opinions of research group leaders about the increased emphasis on societal impact, i.e. does it influence their research agenda, communication with stakeholders, and knowledge dissemination to stakeholders? Furthermore, we investigate the quality of their societal output. We also study whether the societal and scholarly productivity of academic groups are positively or negatively related. In addition, we investigate which managerial and organisational factors (e.g. experience of the principal investigator, group size and funding) influence societal output. Finally, we show for one case (virology) that societal impact is also visible through indirect links. Our study shows that research group leaders have a slightly positive attitude towards the increased emphasis on the societal impact of research. The study also indicates a wide variety of societal-oriented output. Furthermore, the societal and scientific productivity of academic groups are unrelated, suggesting that stimulating social relevance requires specific organisational and contextual interventions.

No abstract

No abstract