Becoming a Scientist: The Effects of Work-Group Size and Organizational Climate

Louis, Karen Seashore; Holdsworth, Janet M.; Anderson, Melissa S.; Campbell, Eric G.

doi:10.1080/00221546.2007.11772318

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To overcome the constraints of institutional funds, research groups increasingly try to acquire funding from a variety of external (and increasingly also international) sources (Geuna 2001). Yet, funding sources have different expectations from the work they fund and elicit different strategies from applicants: Competitive research council funding focuses on stimulating academic careers (Bornmann et al 2010;Hornbostel et al 2009;Van den Besselaar and Leydesdorff 2009), and industry funding aims at useful (applied) research results (Groot and García-Valderrama 2006;Gulbrandsen and Smeby 2005;Carayol 2003;Louis et al 2007). However, quite some studies did not find a relation between funding levels and performance (Carayol and Matt 2006;Cherchye and Abeele 2005;Groot and García-Valderrama 2006).…”

Section: Resource Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Verbree

Horlings

Groenewegen³

et al. 2014

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resource Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Verbree

Horlings

Groenewegen³

et al. 2014

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inspired by previous findings (e.g. Keith et al [13], Clemente [14], and Louis et al [15]) regarding the positive association between early and later career productivity, and by the realization among world leaders that economic competitiveness in the 21st century is highly dependent on having a STEMcompetent workforce, we examined factors relating to productivity in one stage of early career: doctoral training. We investigated the predictive efficacy of a set of DRE and a set of DMP-DRE as shaped by the sets of activities, expectations, and requirements that form the 'departmental culture,' and DMP as expressed in the specific activities, expectations, and exchanges between a mentor and a mentee-on three measures of research productivity [i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here, we provide a quantitative analysis of the main components of DMP and research productivity during graduate schooling. The importance of investigating the impact of mentoring practices in predoctoral productivity relates to the criticality of training doctoral students in the activities that go with scientific life and to previous findings that identify early career productivity as a strong predictor of later career productivity [13][14][15].…”

Section: Dmp and Research Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We are interested in DRE and in DMP that predict research productivity because previous studies [13][14][15] have shown that early career productivity-either during graduate school or during the first couple of years after obtaining a Ph.D.-is a strong predictor of later career productivity. While we know that early career productivity strongly predicts later career productivity, we still have a lack of understanding as to what factors contribute to early career productivity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research experiences and mentoring practices in selected east asian graduate programs: Predictors of research productivity among doctoral students in molecular biology

Ynalvez

Garza‐Gongora

Ynalvez

et al. 2014

Biochem Molecular Bio Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although doctoral mentors recognize the benefits of providing quality advisement and close guidance, those of sharing project management responsibilities with mentees are still not well recognized. We observed that mentees, who have the opportunity to co-manage projects, generate more written output. Here we examine the link between research productivity, doctoral mentoring practices (DMP), and doctoral research experiences (DRE) of mentees in programs in the non-West. Inspired by previous findings that early career productivity is a strong predictor of later productivity, we examine the research productivity of 210 molecular biology doctoral students in selected programs in Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. Using principal component (PC) analysis, we derive two sets of PCs: one set from 15 DMP and another set from 16 DRE items. We model research productivity using Poisson and negativebinomial regression models with these sets as predictors. Our findings suggest a need to re-think extant practices and to allocate resources toward professional career development in training future scientists. We contend that doctoral science training must not only be an occasion for future scientists to learn scientific and technical skills, but it must also be the opportunity to experience, to acquire, and to hone research management skills. V C 2014 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 42(4):305-322, 2014.

show abstract

“…Students whose interests do not align with those of a prestigious research institution may not strongly consider academic careers, especially if they have not been exposed to a wide range of institutional types. Second, research groups differ on a number of dimensions: size and composition (Crede & Borrego, 2012;Louis et al, 2007), faculty leadership styles (Pearson & Brew, 2002), and advisors' orientation and approach to research (Anderson & Louis, 1994;Reskin, 1979). Third, the group's orientation to research (i.e., experimental) may prime members toward particular kinds of careers, for example, research-related careers emphasizing hands-on and collaborative research.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Theory of Engineering Professorial Intentions: The Role of Research Group Experiences

Burt

2018

American Educational Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article advances the Theoretical Model of Engineering Professorial Intentions to explain why individuals do or do not choose to pursue faculty careers. A 13-month ethnographic study of members of a diverse chemical engineering research group was conducted. The resulting theoretical model accounts for six emergent components that contribute to members' identification with faculty careers: (1) social identities and personal factors; (2) sociocultural factors; (3) participation, interactions, and learning in research group experiences; (4) faculty prototype; (5) social comparisons; and (6) AbstractThis article advances the Theoretical Model of Engineering Professorial Intentions to explain why individuals do or not choose to pursue faculty careers. A thirteen-month ethnographic study of members of a diverse chemical engineering research group was conducted. The resulting theoretical model accounts for six emergent components that contribute to members' identification with faculty careers: 1) social identities and personal factors; 2) sociocultural factors; 3) participation, interactions, and learning in research group experiences; 4) faculty prototype; 5) social comparisons; and, 6) individual and institutional experiences. The article concludes with implications for further research and recommendations regarding mentoring and design of research group experiences that may promote greater interest in and identification with the professoriate.

show abstract

Becoming a Scientist: The Effects of Work-Group Size and Organizational Climate

Cited by 17 publications

References 56 publications

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

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

Research experiences and mentoring practices in selected east asian graduate programs: Predictors of research productivity among doctoral students in molecular biology

Toward a Theory of Engineering Professorial Intentions: The Role of Research Group Experiences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About