This paper presents new evidence on research and teaching productivity
in universities using a panel of 102 top U.S. schools during 1981-1999.
Faculty employment grows at 0.6 percent per year, compared with growth
of 4.9 percent in industrial researchers. Productivity growth per
researcher is 1.4-6.7 percent and is higher in private universities.
Productivity growth per teacher is 0.8-1.1 percent and is higher in
public universities. Growth in research productivity within
universities exceeds overall growth, because the research share grows
in universities where productivity growth is less. This finding
suggests that allocative efficiency of U.S. higher education declined
during the late 20th century. R&D stock, endowment, and post-docs
increase research productivity in universities, the effect of
nonfederal R&D is less, and the returns to research are
diminishing. Since the nonfederal R&D share grows and is higher in
public schools, this may explain the rising inefficiency. Decreasing
returns in research but not teaching suggest that most differences in
university size are due to teaching.
Here is the full paper. Here is a non-gated version.
I take "the returns to research are diminishing" to be the fundamental point. The authors also find that private universities are about twice as research productive as public universities, and that private universities have a higher rate of research productivity growth. Public universities have superior teaching productivity.
The point about diminishing returns to research fits with my impression of changes in research over the last 25 and a bit years. So the conclusion does not surprise me. It would be interesting to know if the diminishing returns are concentrated in a few fields. My expectation would be health sciences, one of the more heavily funded areas, would show significant problems.
I do not think the diminishing returns are unavoidable. Based on my impression from health sciences a major factor has been the emergence of a strong feeling that the major questions have been identified and articulated. The resulting belief is that the important research directions have been identified and it is simply a matter of pouring money into these areas to arrive at all the important answers. The concentration of funding into limited areas results in the diminishing returns.
The reasons for the strength of this belief are unclear, but one significant factor may the aging of the research faculty as the baby boom generation ages. Many of the senior positions are dominated by people in their 50′s and 60′s and this may have engendered a rigidity in outlook. There are other reasons I can think of to do with the enormous amount growth in funding with little oversight and the hype for possible benefits (again largely in health science research) that may have undermined the flexibility and originality of research done.
I suspect this will change with time. Several factors suggest that the first tides of change have started. The growth in quantitative approaches to biology suggests that the older views will marginalized sooner rather than later and the openness that results shou,d allow new fields to emerge. Presumably, this will improve the research in the fields.
The paper measures the number of papers and number of citations as
the output. But there is no attempt to show the value of the output.
Thus it is based on the critical assumption that all papers or citations
are equal. This is the same as assuming that the value of a steering wheel
and an engine block are the same in the production of an automobile.
Garbage in garbage out.
Comments on this entry are closed.