The various faces of scientific productivity: a contingency analysis

Abstract

We argue that the meaning of “scientific productivity” takes on various forms under different conditions. The methodology offered in this paper demonstrates that fluctuations in reliability coefficients (and possibly the validity of the construct) are associated with work context (academic vs. non-academic), individual attributes (young vs. veteran researchers), professional affiliation (scientists vs. engineers) and research characteristics (theoretical vs. experimental, externally vs. internally funded research). These results are of critical importance for the evaluation of scientific work, especially since they imply the existence of contexts in which several productivity indicators are invalid. The conceptual and the methodological implications of the results are discussed.