Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

DETERMINANTS OF RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As research expenditures have risen and assources of research funding have changed, an increasedemphasis on research performance has developed in U.S.research universities. Although much of the historical debate has centered around the individualattributes of faculty, several recent studies have begunto focus on the effect of program or organizationalfactors as powerful attributes for enhancing suchproductivity. This paper extends the findings of these recentstudies by examining the relationship between academicresearch productivity and institutional factors from themost recent National Research Council data on the nation's research universities and theirprograms in the four broad fields of the biologicalsciences, engineering, the physical sciences andmathematics, and the social and behavioral sciences. Several findings are recommended forinstitutional policymakers.

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

  • Baird, L. L. (1986). What characterizes a productive research department? Research in Higher Education25(3), 211-225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, L. L. (1991). Publication productivity in doctoral research departments: Interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary factors. Research in Higher Education32(3): 303-318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J. G., and Seater, J. J. (1980). Publishing performance: Departmental and individual. Economic Inquiry16(4): 599-615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, R., and Blackburn, R. (1990). Changes in academic research performance over time: A study of institutional accumulative advantage. Research in Higher Education31(4): 327-345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, R. T., Behymer, C. E., and Hall, D. E. (1978). Research note: Correlates of faculty publications. Sociology of Education51(2): 132-141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M. and Bayer, A. E. (1986). Assessing faculty scholarly performance. In J. W. Creswell (ed.), Measuring Faculty Research Performance. New Directions for Institutional Research 50. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartter, A. M. (1966). An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S. M., and Lewis, D. R. (eds.) (1985). Faculty Vitality and Institutional Productivity: Critical Perspectives for Higher Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. T., Ehrenberg, R. G., Getz, M., and Siegfried, J. J. (1991). Economic Challenges in Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, E., Rhine, S. L. W., and Santos, M. C. (1989). Institutions of higher education as multiproduct firms: Economies of scale and scope. Review of Economics and Statistics71(2): 284-290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., and Cole, S. (1972). The Ortega Hypothesis. Science178 (October 27): 368-375.

  • Conrad, C. F., and Blackburn, R. (1985). Correlates of departmental quality in regional colleges and universities. American Educational Research Journal22(2): 279-295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, C. F., and Blackburn, R. T. (1986). Program quality in higher education: A review and critique of literature and research. In J. C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research(pp. 283-308). New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1985). Faculty Research Performance: Lessons from the Sciences and the Social Sciences. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1986). Measuring Faculty Research Performance. New Directions for Institutional Research 50. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crewe, I. (1988). Reputation, research and reality: The publication records of U.K. departments of politics, 1978–1984. Scientometrics14(3–4): 235-250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, D. E., and Karpf, R. (1981). Ranking academic departments: Empirical findings and a theoretical perspective. Research in Higher Education14(4): 305-320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G., and Hurst, P. J. (1996). The 1995 NRC ratings of doctoral programs: A hedonic model. Change(May/June): 46-50.

  • Fairweather, J. S. (1988). Reputational quality of academic programs: The institutional halo. Research in Higher Education28(4): 345-356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberger, M. L., Maher, B. A., and Flattau, P. E. (1995). Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, J., and Carstensen, F. V. (1992a). Academic research productivity, department size and organization: Further results, rejoinder. Economics of Education Review11(2): 169-171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, J., and Carstensen, F. V. (1992b). Academic research productivity, department size and organization: Further results, comment. Economics of Education Review, 11(2): 153-160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, J., Carstensen, F. V., Weiner, P., and Kane, S. (1986). Publication performance of fifty top economic departments: A per capita analysis. Economics of Education Review5(1): 83-86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, P. E., Marchand, J. R., and Thompson, R. (1982). Economics departmental rankings: Research incentives, constraints and efficiency. American Economic Review72(5): 1131-1141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunig, S. D. (1997). Research, reputation, and resources: The effect of research activity on perceptions of undergraduate education and institutional resource acquisition. Journal of Higher Education68(1): 17-52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom W. O. (1971). Inputs, outputs, and the prestige of university science departments. Sociology of Education44(4): 375-397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M. (1925). A Study of the Graduate Schools of America. Oxford, OH: Miami University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, E. P St. (1994). Prices, Productivity, and Investment: Assessing Financial Strategies in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3. Washington, DC: George Washington University and ASHE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnes, G. (1988a). Research performance indications in the university sector. Higher Education Quarterly42(1): 55-71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnes, G. (1988b). Determinants of research output in economic departments in British universities. Rsearch Policy17(3): 171-178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R., et al. (1995). Size versus performance in research. Australian Universities Review38(2): 60-64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L. V., Lindzey, G., and Coggeshall, P. E. (1982). An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States(5 volumes). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J. M., Meador, M., and Walters, S. J. K. (1988). Effects of departmental size and organization on the research productivity of academic economists. Economics of Education Review7(2): 251-255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J. M., Meador, M., and Walters, S. J. K. (1989). Academic research productivity, department size, and organization: Further results. Economics of Education Review8(24): 345-352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S. (1995). Are big university departments better than small ones? Higher Education30(3): 295-304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N. (1985). An evaluation of 50 “ranked” economics departments—by quantity and quality of faculty publication and graduate student productivity. Southern Economic Journal52(1): 216-240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. G., and Stephan, P. E. (1989). Age and research productivity of academic scientists. Research in Higher Education30(5): 531-549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. R., and Becker, W. E. (eds.) (1979). Academic Rewards in Higher Education. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. R., and Dundar, H. (1995). Economies of scale and scope in Turkish universities. Education Economics3(2): 133-157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodahl, J. B., and Gordon, G. (1972). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American Sociological Review37 (February): 57-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S. (1978). Productivity and academic positions in the scientific career. American Sociological Review43 (December): 889-908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, W. F., and Wilger, A. K. (1995). Improving productivity: What faculty think about it—and its effect on quality. Change27(4): 1-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meador, M., Walters, S. J. K., and Jordan, J. M. (1992). Academic research productivity. Economics of Education Review11(2): 161-167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J. E. (1994). Institutional and technical constraints on faculty gross productivity in American doctoral universities. Research in Higher Education35(5): 549-567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roose, K. K., and Anderson, C. J. (1970). A Rating of Graduate Programs. Washington, DC: The American Council on Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, J. P., and Meltzer, S. (1981). Research productivity, university revenue, and scholarly impact (citations) of 169 British, Canadian, and United States universities. Scientometrics3: 275-303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunier, M. E. (1985). Objective measures as predictors of reputational ratings. Research in Higher Education23(3): 227-244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, D. L. (1990). Is there a better way to measure quality of programs? Lyon, France: Unpublished paper presented at the 1990 Annual Conference of the European Association for Institutional Research.

  • Tan, D. L. (1992). A multivariate approach to the assessment of quality. Research in Higher Education33(2): 205-226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tautkoushian, R. K., Dundar, H., and Becker, W. E. (in press). The National Research Council graduate program ratings: What are they measuring? Review of Higher Education.

  • Tien, F. F., and Blackburn, R. T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity. Journal of Higher Education67(1): 2-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, D. S. (1986). Academic Quality Rankings of American Colleges and Universities. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. L., Blackburn, R. T., and Conrad, C. F. (1987). Research note: Dimensions of program quality in regional universities. American Educational Research Journal24(2): 319-323.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Halil Dundar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darrell R. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dundar, H., Lewis, D.R. DETERMINANTS OF RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Research in Higher Education 39, 607–631 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018705823763

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018705823763

Keywords

Search

Navigation