Scientometrics

, Volume 86, Issue 2, pp 527–540 | Cite as

Critical mass and the dependency of research quality on group size

Article

Abstract

Academic research groups are treated as complex systems and their cooperative behaviour is analysed from a mathematical and statistical viewpoint. Contrary to the naive expectation that the quality of a research group is simply given by the mean calibre of its individual scientists, we show that intra-group interactions play a dominant role. Our model manifests phenomena akin to phase transitions which are brought about by these interactions, and which facilitate the quantification of the notion of critical mass for research groups. We present these critical masses for many academic areas. A consequence of our analysis is that overall research performance of a given discipline is improved by supporting medium-sized groups over large ones, while small groups must strive to achieve critical mass.

Keywords

Critical mass in research Research quality Research policy Research assessment exercise Agence d’évaluation de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur Research excellence framework Research funding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Neville Hunt for inspiring discussions as well as for help with the statistical analyses. We also thank Arnaldo Donoso, Christian von Ferber, Housh Mashhoudy and Andrew Snowdon for comments and discussions, as well as Claude Lecomte, Scientific Delegate at the AERES, for discussions on the work of that agency.

References

  1. Biely, C., Hanel, R., & Thurner, S. (2009). Socio-economical dynamics as a solvable spin system on co-evolving networks. European Physical Journal B, 67, 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bittner, E., Nußbaumer A., & Janke, W. (2007). Self-affirmation model for football goal distributions. Europhysics Letters, 78, 58002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dorogovtsev, S. N., & Mendes, J. F. F. (2003). Evolution of networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Galam, S. (2004). Sociophysics: A personal testimony. Physica A, 336, 49–55.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Harrison, M. (2009). Does high quality research require critical mass?. In D. Pontikakis, D. Kriakou, & R. van Baval (Eds.), The Question of R&D specialisation: Perspectives and policy implications (pp. 57–59). European Commission: JRC Technical and Scientific Reports.Google Scholar
  6. Kenna, R., & Berche, B. (2010). The extensive nature of group quality. Europhysics Letters. doi:10.1209/0295-5075/90/58002.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430, 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kondrat, G., & Sznajd-Weron, K. (2010). Spontaneous reorientations in a model of opinion dynamics with anticonformists. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 21, 559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nußbaumer, A., Janke, W., & Weigel, M. (2009). Football fever: Goal distributions and non-Gaussian statistics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 67, 459.Google Scholar
  10. Parisi, G. (1999). Complex systems: A physicist’s viewpoint. Physica A, 263, 557–564.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied Mathematics Research CentreCoventry UniversityCoventryEngland, UK
  2. 2.Statistical Physics Group, Institut Jean LamourCNRS—Nancy Université—UPVMVandoeuvre les Nancy CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations