Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants of research productivity

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. Turkeli, The doctoral training environment and post-doctorate productivity among Turkish physicists,Science Studies, 3 (1973) 311–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. I. Hirsch, W. Mitwitt, J. W. Oakes, Increasing the productivity of scientists,Harvard Business Review, 36 (1958) 66–76.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Roe, A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists,Psychological Monographs, 67 (1953) 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. D. Crane, Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition,American Sociological Review 30 (1965) 699–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Y. P. Singh, S. N. Laharia, Interpersonal communication and scientific productivity,Interaction, 4 (1986) 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  6. E. J. Zamaripa, A critical path analysis of scientific productivity,Mental Retardation, 31 (1993) 320–325.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. E. Greene,100 Great Scientists, New York: Pocket Books, Simon and Schuster Inc., 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Block,The Q-sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research, Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1961.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. A. Ramesh Babu, Y. P. Singh, Pusa rank sheet for Q-sort technique,Indian Journal of Extension Education, 20 (1984) 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. L. Comrey A first course in factor analysis, New York: Academic press, 1973.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. T. F. Gieryn, R. P. Hirsh, Marginality and innovation in science,Social Studies of Science, 13 (1983) 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. S. K. De, Portrait of a scientist,Science Reporter, 9 (1972) 509–512.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Srichandra,Scientists: A socio-psychological study, New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. G. G. Harrison, D. G. Woodworth, Stylistic variations among professional research scientists,Journal of Psychology, 49 (1960) 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. W. C. Waradanam, Self help for third world scientists,Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 33 (1977) 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. P. Walsh, T. Bayma, Computer networks and scientific work,Social Studies of Science, 26 (1996) 661–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. Balderston, A performance and salary review system for scientists,Research Management, 7 (1964) 209–224.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. A. Chambers, Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity,Psychological Monographs, 78 (1964) 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. J. Faridi,The Hindustan Times-Sunday Magazine, New Delhi, 18 December, 1983, 1–2.

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. M. L. Roonwal, The true scientist: Criteria of excellence,Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 32 (1979) 665–667.

    Google Scholar 

  25. R. A. Griggs, S. E. Ransdell, Scientists and the selection task,Social Studies of Science, 16 (1986) 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. H. Zollinger, Logic or psychology of scientific discovery,Chemistry in Britain, 16 (1980) 257–258.

    Google Scholar 

  27. S. Schaffer, Scientific discoveries and the end of natural philosophy,Social Studies of Science, 16 (1986) 387–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. B. K. Blaylock, An explanation of R&D decision processes through individual information processing prefereces,R&D Management, 13 (1983) 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. T. J. Pinch, Opening black boxes: Science, technology, and society,Social Studies of Science, 22 (1992) 487–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. A. R. Brown, Science and the creative imagination,Speculations in Science and Technology, 3 (1980) 563–572.

    Google Scholar 

  31. P. V. N. Rao,The Hindusthan Times, New Delhi, 23 July, 1993, 10.

  32. M. E. Gorman, Mind in the world: Cognition and practice in the invention of the telephone,Social Studies of Science, 27 (1997) 583–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. S. Helmreich, Recombination, rationality, reductionalism and romantic reactions: Culture, cumputers, and the genetic algorithm,Social Studies of Science, 28 (1998) 39–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. R. D. Tweney, S. A. Yachanin, Can scientists rationally assess conditional inferences?Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985) 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. M. Domsch, T. Gerpott, E. Joschum, Peer assessment in industrial R & D departments,R&D Management, 13 (1983) 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. M. G. Russell, R. J. Saver, Creating administrative environments for interdisciplinary research,Society for Research Administrators Journal, 14 (1983) 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  37. C. Loehle, A critical path analysis of scientific productivity,Journal of Creative Behaviour, 28 (1994) 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. W. Dennis, Productivity among American psychologists,American Psychologist, 9 (1954) 191–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. H. A. Zuckerman, Nobel Laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship,American Sociological Review, 32 (1967) 391–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. A. R. Kidwai, Recruitment and training of scientific research personnel,Indian Journal of Public Administration, 15 (1969) 576–587.

    Google Scholar 

  41. G. Sonnert, What makes a good scientist?: Determinants of peer evaluation among biologists,Social Studies of Science, 25 (1995) 35–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. P. E. Stephan, S. G. Levin Inequality in scientific performance: Adjustment for attribution and journal impact,Social Studies of Science, 21 (1991) 351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. T. S. Kuhn,The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  44. P. Vinkler, Research contribution, authorship and team co-operativeness,Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 213–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. G. M. Dobrov, R. R. Kocherovets, Scientific communication and scientists productivity,Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya Ser. 1, 11 (1979) 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. L. Velho, J. Krige, Publication and citation practices of Brazilian agricultural scientists,Social Studies of Science, 14 (1984) 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. G. Fourez, Scientific and technological literacy as a social practice,Social Studies of Science, 27 (1997) 903–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. P. Katarina, Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists' productivity,Scientometrics, 36 (1996) 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. P. Katarina, Eminent scientists' productivity: Scientific excellence and sociocognitive context,Revija Za Sociologiju, 27 (1996) 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agricultural Management Unit, Division of Agricultural Extension, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, 110012, New Delhi, India

    A. Ramesh Babu & Y. P. Singh

Authors
  1. A. Ramesh Babu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y. P. Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramesh Babu, A., Singh, Y.P. Determinants of research productivity. Scientometrics 43, 309–329 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457402

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457402

Keywords

Search

Navigation