Explaining Heterogeneity in the Organization of Scientific Work

References

• Agrawal A, Goldfarb A, Teodoridis F (2016) Understanding the changing structure of scientific inquiry. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 8(1):100–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argote L (2012) Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge (Springer Science + Business Media, New York).Google Scholar
• Arora A, Belenzon S, Patacconi A (2015) Killing the golden goose? The decline of science in corporate R&D. NBER Working Paper No. 20902, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Azoulay P, Ding W, Stuart T (2009) The Impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output. J. Indust. Econom. 57(4):637–676.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azoulay P, Zivin JSG, Manso G (2011) Incentives and creativity: Evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND J. Econom. 42(3):527–554.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barley SR, Meyer GW, Gash DC (1988) Cultures of culture—Academics, practitioners and the pragmatics of normative control. Admin. Sci. Quart. 33(1):24–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becher T (1994) The significance of disciplinary differences. Stud. Higher Ed. 19(2):151–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bensman SJ (1982) Bibliometric laws and library usage as social phenomena. Library Res. 4(3):279–312.Google Scholar
• Bikard M, Murray F, Gans JS (2015) Exploring trade-offs in the organization of scientific work: Collaboration and scientific reward. Management Sci. 61(7):1473–1495.Link, Google Scholar
• Dasgupta P, David PA (1994) Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy 23(5):487–521.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diamond AM (2005) Measurement, incentives and constraints in Stigler’s economics of science. Eur. J. Hist. Econom. Thought 12(4):635–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fairweather JS (1993) Faculty reward structures—Toward institutional and professional homogenization. Res. Higher Ed. 34(5):603–623.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox MF (1983) Publication productivity among scientists—A critical review. Soc. Stud. Sci. 13(2):285–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox MF (2005) Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35(1):131–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox MF, Mohapatra S (2007) Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. J. Higher Ed. 78(5):542–571.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Furman JL, Murray F, Stern S (2012) Growing stem cells: The impact of federal funding policy on the U.S. scientific frontier. J. Policy Anal. Management 31(3):661–705.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC (1994) What if the academy actually mattered? Acad. Management Rev. 19(1):11–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hovey HA (1999) State spending for higher education in the next decade: The battle to sustain current support. Report, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education/State Policy Research, Inc., San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
• Huang M-h, Chang Y-w (2008) Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 59(11):1819–1828.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hur H, Ghaffarzadegan N, Hawley J (2015) Effects of government spending on research workforce development: Evidence from biomedical postdoctoral researchers. PLoS One 10(5):e0124928.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones BF (2009) The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder? Rev. Econom. Stud. 76(1):283–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kasten KL (1984) Tenure and merit pay as rewards for research, teaching, and service at a research university. J. Higher Ed. 55(4):500–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larson RC, Ghaffarzadegan N, Xue Y (2014) Too many PhD graduates or too few academic job openings: The basic reproductive number R0 in academia. Systems Res. Behav. Sci. 31(6):745–750.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li D, Agha L (2015) Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science 348(6233):434–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markides C (2007) In search of ambidextrous professors. Acad. Management J. 50(4):762–768.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McMillan GS, Narin F, Deeds DL (2000) An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: The case of biotechnology. Res. Policy 29(1):1–8.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson MS, Schapiro MO (1999) Tenure issues in higher education. J. Econom. Perspect. 13(1):85–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810):56–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1973) Storer NW, ed. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Merton RK, Zuckerman H (1973) Institutionalized patterns of evaluation in science. Storer NW, ed. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 461–496.Google Scholar
• Mintzberg H (2004) Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development (Financial Times Prentice Hall, London).Google Scholar
• Mokyr J (2002) The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Moses I (1990) Teaching, research and scholarship in different disciplines. Higher Ed. 19(3):351–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Narin F, Hamilton KS, Olivastro D (1997) The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Res. Policy 26(3):317–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (2015a) Federal funds for R&D survey data series. Accessed June 19, 2019, https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/ids/.Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation (2015b) Science and engineering doctorates. Accessed June 19, 2019, https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/ids/.Google Scholar
• Newman MEJ (2004) Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101(suppl. 1):5200–5205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J (1995) Mortality, reproducibility, and the persistence of styles of theory. Organ. Sci. 6(6):681–686.Link, Google Scholar
• Polanyi M (1962) The republic of science—Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1(1):54–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter SR, Toutkoushian RK (2006) Institutional research productivity and the connection to average student quality and overall reputation. Econom. Ed. Rev. 25(6):605–617.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romer PM (1990) Endogenous technological change. J. Political Econom. 98(5):S71–S102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenberg N (1974) Science, invention and economic growth. Econom. J. (London) 84(333):90–108.Google Scholar
• Scherer AG (1998) Pluralism and incommensurability in strategic management and organization theory: A problem in search of a solution. Organization 5(2):147–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephan P (2013) The endless frontier: Reaping what Bush sowed? NBER Working Paper No. 19687, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Stern S (2004) Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Sci. 50(6):835–853.Link, Google Scholar
• Strang D, Siler K (2015) Revising as reframing: Original submissions vs. published papers in Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005 to 2009. Sociol. Theory 33(1):71–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Summers D (2005) Prospects for the humanities as public research universities privatize their finances. Richardson M, eds. Tracking Changes in the Humanities: Essays on Finance and Education (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA), 47–79.Google Scholar
• Terlaak A, Gong Y (2008) Vicarious learning and inferential accuracy in adoption processes. Acad. Management Rev. 33(4):846–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tien FF (2007) To what degree does the promotion system reward faculty research productivity? British J. Sociol. Ed. 28(1):105–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vakili K, McGahan AM (2016) Healthcare’s grand challenge: Stimulating basic science on diseases that primarily afflict the poor. Acad. Management J. 59(6):1917–1939.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vakili K, McGahan AM, Rezaie R, Mitchell W, Daar AS (2015) Progress in human embryonic stem cell research in the United States between 2001 and 2010. PLoS One 10(3):e0120052.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Maanen J (1995) Style as theory. Organ. Sci. 6(1):133–143.Link, Google Scholar
• van Raan AFJ (1988) Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology (North-Holland, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
• Vermeulen F (2007) “I shall not remain insignificant”: Adding a second loop to matter more. Acad. Management J. 50(4):754–761.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar