Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing research productivity of returnee-PhDs in science, engineering, and the social sciences

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Comparing research output of foreign-trained doctorates (returnee PhDs) with those trained in the home country allows us to test effects of scientists’ mobility on research productivity, and informs policies aimed towards incentivizing return of foreign-trained scientists. This study compared research output of returnee PhDs in three fields that vary in resource-dependency (social sciences, sciences, and engineering), factoring in seniority and gender. Scientometric analysis (n = 1056) compared research outputs of returnee PhDs & home-PhDs (h-Index and citations) at three levels of seniority (assistant, associate, professor) in the three fields. The comparison suggests that on average (independent of field), research output of returnee PhDs does not exceed that of home-PhDs, however, returnee PhD research output compared to that of home-PhDs in the sciences is substantially low compared to the difference in output observed in the social sciences and engineering fields. In sciences field, returnee PhDs’ output is lower than that of home-PhD at all three academic positions, whereas in the engineering field, returnee PhDs at the starting and senior-most positions show greater research productivity than home-PhDs. In social sciences, returnee PhDs’ research output exceeds that of home-PhDs only at the senior most position. Regarding gender, the analysis shows that research output of female returnee PhDs in the engineering field, in spite of them being small in number, is higher than that of male returnee PhDs. Implications of these insights are discussed to inform policies aimed toward incentivizing return of foreign PhDs to developing countries.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2011). Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones? Scientometrics, 88(3), 915–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aslanbeigui, N., & Montecinos, V. (1998). Foreign students in US doctoral programs. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Haim, G., & Wilkes, J. M. (1989). A cognitive interpretation of the marginality and underrepresentation of women in science. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(4), 371–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bøgelund, P., & de Graaff, E. (2015). The road to become a legitimate scholar: A case study of international PhD students in science and engineering. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 519–532. http://ijds.org/Volume10/IJDSv10p519-533Bogelund2013.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2016.

  • Borjas, G. J. (2006). Immigration in high-skill labor markets: The impact of foreign students on the earnings of doctorates (Vol. 12085). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brodin, E. M. (2016). Critical and creative thinking nexus: Learning experiences of doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 41, 971–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekharan, S., & Nersessian, N. J. (2015). Building cognition: The construction of computational representations for scientific discovery. Cognitive Science, 39(8), 1727–1763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle. Advances in motivation and achievement. Women in Science. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowley, S. J. (2015). How peer-review constrains cognition: On the frontline in the knowledge sector. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1706. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, K. (2001). What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. Designing for science: Implications from Everyday, Classroom, and Professional Settings, 115–140.

  • Elsevier, B. V. (2012). International comparative performance of India’s scientific research. India: Report commissioned by the Department of Science and Technology (DST).

  • Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, K. J., & Milbourne, R. (2006). Is it harder to soar with eagles when you work with turkeys? Australian Economic Papers, 45, 362–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2012). Foreign-born scientists: Mobility patterns for 16 countries. Nature Biotechnology, 30(12), 1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1970). Citation indexing for studying science. Nature, 227(5259), 669–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., Moore, J. L., & Smith, D. R. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99–167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, L. W., & Simon, H. A. (1967). Process models and stochastic theories of simple concept formation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 4(2), 246–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, B. M., Kumar, S., & Aggarwal, B. S. (1999). A comparision of productivity of male and female scientists of CSIR. Scientometrics, 45(2), 269–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (1990). Cognitive processes in creativity. (Paper No. 18). University of California Berkeley.

  • Heitor, M., Horta, H., & Mendonça, J. (2014). Developing human capital and research capacity: Science policies promoting brain gain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 6–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilmer, C., & Hilmer, M. (2010). Are there gender differences in the job mobility patterns of academic economists? The American Economic Review, 100(2), 353–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, D. R., Lempert, R. O., & Nisbett, R. E. (1988). The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. American Psychologist, 43(6), 431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lum, K. (2015). Operationalizing the highly skilled diasporic transnational family: China and India’s transnational governance strategies. Diaspora Studies, 8(1), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, V., & Smyth, R. (2013). Are more senior academics really more research productive than junior academics? Evidence from Australian law schools. Scientometrics, 96(2), 411–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowbray, S., & Halse, C. (2010). The purpose of the PhD: Theorising the skills acquired by students. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6), 653–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). “It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize”: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nethsinghe, R., & Southcott, J. (2015). A juggling act: Supervisor/candidate partnership in a doctoral thesis by publication. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pande, P., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2017). Representational competence: Towards a distributed and embodied cognition account. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. (2007). Redefining the doctorate. York: Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28, 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the emergence of abstract scientific concepts. Learning and Instruction, 12, 285–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahoo, B. K., Singh, R., Mishra, B., & Sankaran, K. (2017). Research productivity in management schools of India during 1968-2015: A directional benefit-of-doubt model analysis. Omega, 66, 118–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1977). Scientific discovery and the psychology of problem solving. In Models of discovery (pp. 286–303). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Travis, G. D. L., & Collins, H. M. (1991). New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(3), 322–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., & Sandström, U. (2015). Defining the role of cognitive distance in the peer review process with an explorative study of a grant scheme in infection biology. Research Evaluation, 24(3), 271–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J. (2013). Searching for ‘doctorateness’. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1490–1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. M. (1968). Public knowledge: An Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humanities and Social Science, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New Delhi, 110016, India

    Varsha Singh

Authors
  1. Varsha Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Varsha Singh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, V. Comparing research productivity of returnee-PhDs in science, engineering, and the social sciences. Scientometrics 115, 1241–1252 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2706-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2706-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation