Skip to main content

Academic outcomes among principal investigators, co-principal investigators, and non-PI researchers

The Journal of Technology Transfer volume 39, pages 111–133 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Faculty at research universities are evaluated on a number of productivity measures including their ability to conduct research, teach, and engage in service. Research outcomes include publishing research results and acquiring grants and contracts to conduct additional research. While it is assumed that researchers who are awarded grants are more likely to publish research results, there is little research investigating the ways in which grants affect outcomes or how principal investigators differ from researchers who do not hold research grants or those who are co-principal investigators. This research seeks to understand if principal investigators are more or less productive than co-principal investigators and those who do not have grants, and if so, what explains that variation in productivity. It also examines whether women PIs are more or less productive than men PIs. This research uses longitudinal data drawn from an NSF funded survey of academic scientists in Carnegie-designated Research I universities in six fields: biology, chemistry, computer science, earth and atmospheric sciences, electrical engineering, and physics. From this national random sample of men and women scientists and engineers we investigate whether there is variation in the production of outcomes (e.g. publications, teaching, and training graduate students) among PIs, co-PIs, and other researchers. Findings show that productivity and outcomes vary significantly for PIs, co-PIs and by sex.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Notes

  1. The Carnegie Classification distinguishes the 4,400 degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States based on research and degree granting activities. This sample draws from the previous classification which defined Research I universities as granting more than 50 doctoral degrees each year, giving high priority to research, and receiving more than $40 million dollars in federal support annually. As of 2005, the Carnegie Classification has been revised and doctorate-granting universities are now defined as awarding at least 20 doctoral degrees per year and are described as RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity) (n = 96); RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity) (n = 103); and DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities (n = 84). The universities used in this sample would now be categorized as RU/VH Research Universities (very high research activity) and RU/H Research Universities (high research activity). (Sources: 2005 Carnegie Classification; National Center for Educations Statistics, IPEDS Fall Enrollment 2004; http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=805; http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about/sub.asp?key=18&subkey=405#1.2).

  2. Although each of these measures capture rank and seniority and would be expected to be related to age, a multicollinearity test indicates that measures of rank, time since PhD, and age are not multicollinear.

References

  • The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) (2009). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. 6th edition. AAPOR.

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Pugini, F. (2008). The measurement of Italian universities’ research productivity by a non parametric-bibliometric methodology. Scientometrics, 76, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • August, L., & Waltman, J. (2004). Culture, climate, and contribution: Career satisfaction among female faculty. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, O., & Cummings, W. (2000). Academe’s glass ceiling: Societal, professional/organizational and institutional barriers to the career advancement of academe women. Comparative Education Review, 44(4), 493–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W. E, Jr. (1975). The university professor as a utility maximizer and a producer of learning, research and income. Journal of Human Resources, 10, 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrens, Teresa R., & Gray, Denis O. (2000). Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on the climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcomes. Research Policy, 30(2), 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, R. J., & Blackburn, R. T. (1990). Changes in academic research performance over time: A study of institutional accumulative advantage. Research in Higher Education, 31(4), 327–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent development in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1996). Faculty at work. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, R. T., Behymer, C. E., & Hall, D. E. (1978). Research note: Correlates of faculty publications. Sociology of Education, 51(2).

  • Bozeman, Barry, & Corley, Elizabeth. (2004). ‘Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital’. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, P. L., Friedman, R. H., Moskowitz, M. A., & Kazis, L. E. (1993). Comparing the status of women and men in academic medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 119(9), 908–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colbeck, C. L. (1998). Merging in a seamless blend: How faculty integrate teaching and research. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 647–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1984). The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication on men and women scientists. In P. Maehr & M. W. Steinkamp (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 217–256). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

  • Coser, L., & Coser, R. (1974). Greedy institutions. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creamer, E. (1999). Knowledge production, publication productivity, and intimate academic partnerships. Journal of Higher Education, 70(May/June), 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creamer, E., & McGuire, S. P. (1998). Applying the cumulative advantage perspective to scholarly writers in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 22(1), 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1985). Faculty research performance: Lessons from the sciences and the social sciences. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1985. ERIC Publications. Washington, DC: National Inst. of Education (ED).

  • Dierdorff, E. C., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Consensus in work role requirements: The influence of discrete occupational context on role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1228–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 607–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekzkowitz, H., Kemelgore, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Faia, M. A. (1980). Teaching, research and role theory. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 448, 36–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for institutional policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 26–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fields, K. L., & Price, A. R. (1993). Problems in research integrity arising from misconceptions about the ownership of research. Academic Medicine, 68(9), S60–S64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (1992a). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65, 93–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (1992b). Research productivity and environmental context. In T. G. Whiston & R. L. Geiger (Eds.), Research and higher education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, E. J. (1990). Science as a vocation in the 1990s: The changing organizational culture of academic science. The Journal of Higher Education, 61(3), 241–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Q., & Gill, T. G. (2000). IS faculty research productivity: Influential factors and implications. Information Resources Management Journal, 13(2), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. Scott, & McGinnis, Robert. (1981). Organizational context and scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 46(4), 422–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain. American Sociological Review, 42, 921–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, Goran. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). Priorities in scientific discovery. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. E., & Rebne, D. S. (1995). The nonlinear effects of teaching and consulting on academic research productivity. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 29(1), 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morahan, P. S., & Feetwood, J. (2008). The double helix of activity and scholarship: Building a medical education career with limited resources. Medical Education, 42, 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSF (National Science Foundation) (2010). Proposal and award policies and procedures guide. NSF 11-1, OMB Control Number 3145-0058, http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/nsf11_1.pdf. Accessed on March 31, 2011.

  • Olson, D., Maple, S. A., & Stage, F. K. (1995). Women and minority faculty job satisfaction: Professional role interests, professional satisfactions, and institutional fit. Journal of Higher Education, 66(3), 267–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, C. (2010). Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39(5), 613–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, Derek. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prpic, Katarina. (2002). Gender and productivity differentials in science. Scientometrics, 55(1), 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28(2), 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reskin, B. (1978). Scientific productivity, sex, and location in the institution of science. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1235–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romainville, M. (1996). Teaching and research at university: A difficult pairing. Higher Education Management, 8, 135–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheid, D. C., Hamm, R. M., & Crawford, S. A. (2002). Measuring academic production. Family Medicine, 34(1), 34–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Science Foundation. 2009. Proposal award policies and procedures guide October 2008. NSF 09-1, OMB Control Number: 3145-0058. Part I—Proposal preparation and submission guidelines GPG at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_1/gpg091print.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2011.

  • Wood, F. (1990). Factors influencing research performance of university academic staff. Higher Education, 19(1), 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H., Cole, J., & Bruer, J. (1991). The outer circle: Women in the scientific community. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Data analyzed in this paper were collected under the auspices of the 2005–2009 project, “Women in Science and Engineering: Network Access, Participation, and Career Outcomes,” (NETWISE 2006) a project funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant # REC-0529642).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago, 412 S. Peoria St M/C278, Chicago, IL, 60607, USA

    Mary K. Feeney & Eric W. Welch

Authors
  1. Mary K. Feeney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric W. Welch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary K. Feeney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feeney, M.K., Welch, E.W. Academic outcomes among principal investigators, co-principal investigators, and non-PI researchers. J Technol Transf 39, 111–133 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9272-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9272-9

Keywords

  • Principal Investigators
  • Co-Principal Investigators
  • Academic outcomes
  • Universities
  • Academic productivity
  • Publications

JEL Classification

  • O30
  • O32
  • I23
  • O34
  • O38