4.7 Review

Managing individual research productivity in academic organizations: A review of the evidence and a path forward

期刊

RESEARCH POLICY
卷 51, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104448

关键词

Research productivity; Higher education; Research institutions; Evidence-based management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper reviews empirical evidence on the drivers of research productivity that can be actively managed by organizations and policymakers. It suggests future research directions to create a deeper understanding of how organizations, funding bodies, and government agencies can influence individual scientific performance.
The management of research productivity is central to university governance and drives a broad range of decisions, including those on hiring, promotion and funding allocation. Policymakers and academic leaders responsible for improving their institutions' research performance need an evidence-based understanding of the organizational factors that can be managed in pursuit of better publication outcomes. Our paper reviews the empirical evidence on the drivers of research productivity that can be actively managed by organizations and policymakers. Such drivers include organizational structures, research culture, features of task environment for academic work, and resource allocation. To advance the state of science in research productivity literature, we then analyze assumptions and highlight mechanisms that need to be explored in order to improve theoretical and methodological state of the field. We suggest directions for future research with the aim to create a deeper and more cohesive body of knowledge on how organizations, funding bodies, and government agencies can influence scientific performance at the individual level. To advance the practice of research management, we offer a rigorous synthesis of existing empirical evidence that can help academic leaders in supporting and developing faculty research productivity within their institutions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据