Dataset Information

National culture as a correlate of research impact and productivity.

ABSTRACT: National culture has been overlooked in discussions related to research productivity and impact owing to individual, socio-political structure, and economic factors. This study shows the relationships between the dimensions of cultural value orientation of the nation and research performance indicators. More than 60 countries were included and Pearson correlation analysis was employed. The variables were taken from Geert Hofstede and Scimago Journal & Country Rank worksheets. This study found that (1) Individualism has significant correlations with the majority of the indicators; (2) Power distance and indulgence correlate with a country's research impact in the form of citation per document; (3) Masculinity, long term orientation, and uncertainty avoidance do not correlate with the indicators. Owing to the fact that the national culture is relatively enduring, countries need to measure their elasticity of hopes and action plans in an effort to boost research productivity and impact, by integrating the national culture in the estimate.

SUBMITTER: Abraham J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7029754 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

National culture as a correlate of research impact and productivity.

Abraham Juneman J

F1000Research 20190228

National culture has been overlooked in discussions related to research productivity and impact owing to individual, socio-political structure, and economic factors. This study shows the relationships between the dimensions of cultural value orientation of the nation and research performance indicators. More than 60 countries were included and Pearson correlation analysis was employed. The variables were taken from Geert Hofstede and Scimago Journal & Country Rank worksheets. This study found th ...[more]

PMID: 32117564

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany studies find that female faculty in academic medicine, science, and engineering experience adverse workplace climates. This study longitudinally investigates whether department climate is associated with future research productivity and whether the associations are stronger for female than male faculty.MethodTwo waves of a faculty climate survey, institutional grant records, and publication records were collected for 789 faculties in academic medicine, science, and engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2000 and 2010. Research productivity was measured as Number of Publications and Number of Grants awarded, and department climate was measured with scales for professional interactions, department decision-making practices, climate for underrepresented groups, and work/life balance. Ordinary least squares and negative binomial regression methods were used to assess gender differences in productivity, influences of department climate on productivity, and gender differences in effects of climate on productivity.ResultsFemale faculty published fewer articles and were awarded fewer grants in the baseline period, but their productivity did not differ from male faculty on these measures in subsequent years. Number of Publications was positively affected by professional interactions, but negatively affected by positive work/life balance. Number of Grants awarded was positively affected by climate for underrepresented groups. These main effects did not differ by gender; however, some three-way interactions illuminated how different aspects of department climate affected productivity differently for men and women in specific situations.ConclusionsIn perhaps the first study to assess the longitudinal impact of department climate on faculty research productivity, positive department climate is associated with significantly greater productivity for all faculty-women and men. However, some positive aspects of climate (specifically, work/life balance) may be associated with lower productivity for some female faculty at specific career periods. These findings suggest that departments that wish to increase grants and publications would be wise to foster a positive workplace climate.

Project description:PurposeThis study examines physical and occupational therapy faculty across Canada, using bibliometrics and federal funding as indicators of academic impact, and considers the validity of various bibliometric indices.MethodsFaculty members were identified and their rank, professional designation, and department obtained from faculty Web sites. Bibliometric indicators were determined using Publish or Perish software. An independent author (not a faculty member) inspected the data to remove any incorrectly attributed publications. The h-index, citation years, g-index, and total number of citations for each faculty member were retrieved. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) funding database was used to determine the amount of research funding provided to each faculty member as a principal investigator (PI) and his or her total CIHR funding received. Mean faculty indicators by university, rank, gender, and profession were determined. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect differences by rank and gender, and measures of association (Pearson correlation coefficients and multiple regression) were used to identify factors that affected h-index and PI funding received.ResultsA total of 347 physical and occupational therapy faculty were identified. The median h-index was 5 (inter-quartile range [IQR] 2-8) for assistant professors, 11 (IQR 7-15) for associate professors, and 18 (IQR 12-26) for full professors. ANOVA indicated no significant differences between male and female faculty in terms of h-index or funding received. Regression analysis indicated that 58% of h-index variance could be explained by gender (p=0.039), appointment within a department that provides a (rehabilitation science) PhD programme (p<0.001), rank (p<0.001), CIHR PI funding (p=0.001), or total CIHR funding (p<0.001). Significant predictors of the amount of CIHR funding received as a PI included h-index (p<0.001) and total number of citations (p=0.023), which together explained 27% of the variation in funding received.ConclusionThe h-index, although not without flaws, provides a useful metric that indicates that physical and occupational faculty in Canada are productive scientists having a measurable impact and that this impact increases with rank and greater funding.

Dataset Information

National culture as a correlate of research impact and productivity.

Publications

National culture as a correlate of research impact and productivity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets