Based on an empirical study conducted among 250 academic scientists of India in chemi cal sciences and technology, this article is an attempt to map out only the objective aspects of the phenomenon under investigation, that is, quality research performance among sci entists. In the process, the article examines several hypotheses pertaining to the relation ship between quality research performance (dependent variable) and its empirical and objective predictors (independent variables). That apart, it also examines the well-known Ortega Hypothesis in the sociology of science. Derived from the body of published litera ture, the following is the set of independent variables being examined: (a) type of institu tion the scientist belonged to; (b) research environment at the centre/department; (c) reward system in science; (d) diversity in research activities; (e) motivation; (f) prestige of the graduate school attended; and (g) total quantity performance. All of the above inde pendent variables have been found to be causing significant variations in the dependent variable—quality research performance. Last, the verification of the Ortega Hypothesis brought in the apparently contradictory observation that many important contributions in science came from non-diligent, average scientists who even produce less in quantity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrol, D. (1999), 'Readjusting S&T Policy', in The Indian Economy 1998-99: An Alternative SurveyNew Delhi: Delhi Science Forum, pp. 183-90.
2.
Ahmed, R. and M. Rakesh (1991), Insight into Scientific Research in Indian Universities and & the Institutes of TechnologyNew Delhi: CSIR.
3.
Ahmed, Rais (1990), University Research: What is the Status?', 2001 , May, pp. 60-62.
4.
Amabile, TS (1990), 'Within You, Without You: The Social Psychology of Creativity and Beyond', in M.A. Runco and R.S. Albert, eds, Theories of Creativity.London: Sage Publications.
5.
Andrews, F.M. (1964), 'Scientific Performance as Related to Time Spent on Technical Work, Teaching or Administration', Administrative Science Quarterly, 9 (1), pp. 182-93.
6.
- ( 1965), Factors Affecting the Manifestation of Creative Ability by Scientists, Journal of Personality , 33 (1), pp. 140-52.
7.
Andrews, F.M. (1979), 'Motivation, Diversity and the Performance of Research Units', in F.M. Andrews, ed., Scientific Productivity.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and UNESCO.
8.
Arunachalam, S. (1999), 'Mapping Life Sciences Research in India: A Profile Based on BIOSIS 1992-1994', Current Science , 76 (9), pp. 1191-203.
9.
Bayer, A.E. and J. Folger (1966), 'Some Correlates of Citation Measures of Productivity in Science', Sociology of Education, 39, pp. 381-90.
10.
Ben-David, J. (1960), 'Rotes and Innovations in Medicine', American Journal of Sociology, 65 (6), pp. 557-668.
11.
Blau, P.M. and WR Scott (1962), Formal Organizations: A Comparative ApproachSan Francisco: Chandler.
12.
Blume, S.S. and R. Sinclair (1973), Research Environment and Performance in British University Chemistry, Science Policy Study Number 6. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
13.
Campbell, D.T. (1960), 'Blind Variation and Selective Retention in Creative Thought as in Other Knowledge Processes', Psychological Review, 67 (5), pp. 380-400.
14.
Chandra, Sree (1970), Scientists: A Social Psychological StudyNew Delhi: Oxford University Press and IBH Publishing Company.
15.
Clark, K.E. (1957), American Pyschologists: A Survey of a Growing ProfessionWashington DC: American Psychological Association.
16.
Cole, J.R. (1970), 'Patterns of Intellectual Influence in Scientific Research', Sociology of Education, 43, pp. 377-403.
17.
Cole, S. (1970), 'Professional Standing and Reception of Scientific Discoveries', American Journal of Sociology , 76 (2), pp. 286-306.
18.
Cole, S. and J.R. Cole (1967), 'Scientific Output and Recognition: A Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science', American Sociological Review, 32 (3), pp. 377-90.
19.
- ( 1968), 'Visibility and Structural Bases of Awareness of Scientific Research', American Sociological Review , 33 (3), pp. 397-413.
20.
Cotogrove, S. and S. Box (1970), Science, Industry and Society: Studies in the Sociology of ScienceLondon: Allen and Unwin.
21.
Crane, Diana (1965), 'Scientists at Major Minor Universities: Study of Productivity and Recognition',American Sociological Review, 30 (5), pp. 699-713.
22.
Dennis, Wayne (1954), 'The Bibliographies of Eminent Scientists', Scientific Monthly, 79 (September), pp. 180-83.
23.
Gaston, Jerry (1978), The Reward System in British and American ScienceNew York: John Wiley and Sons .
24.
Gilfillan, S.C. (1935), The Sociology of InventionChicago: Follett Publishing.
25.
Gordon, G. and S. Marquis (1966), 'Freedom, Visibility of Consequences and Scientific Innovation', American Journal of Sociology , 72 (1), pp. 195-202.
26.
Kornhouser, W. (1962), Scientists in Industry: Conflict and AccommodationBerkley: University of California Press.
27.
Krishna, VV (1987), 'Scientists in Laboratories: A Comparative Study on the Organisation and Goal Orientation of Scientists in CSIRO (Australia) and CSIR (India) Institutions'. Ph.D thesis, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
28.
- ( 1997), 'A Portrait of the Scientific Community in India: Historical Growth and Contemporary Problems', in J. Gaillard, V.V. Krishna and R. Waast, eds, Scientific Communities in the Developing World.New Delhi: Sage Publications .
29.
Krishna, V.V. (2001), 'Reflections on the Changing Status of Academic Science in India', International Social Science Journal (Special Issue: 'Sciences and Cultures'), 168 (forthcoming).
30.
Krohn, R.G. (1971), The Social Shaping of Science: Institutions, Ideology and Careers in ScienceWestport, Conneticut: Greenwood.
31.
Kumar, N. (1998), 'Technology Generation and Technology Transfers in the World Economy: Recent Trends and Implications for Developing Countries' , Science, Technology & Society, 3 (2), pp. 265-306.
32.
Lall, S. (1999), 'Emerging Patterns of Competitiveness in Manufactured Products: India in the Context of Asian NIES'. Discussion paper, Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, UK.
33.
Latour, Bruno (1987), Science in ActionBoston: Harvard University Press.
34.
Latour, Bruno and S. Woolgar (1979), Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific FactBeverly Hills: Sage Publications .
35.
Lehman, H.C. (1960), 'The Age Decrement in Outstanding Scientific Creativity' , American Psychologists, 15 (2), pp. 128-34.
36.
McClelland, D. (1963), 'The Calculated Risk: An Aspect of Scientific Performance', in C.W Taylor and E Barron, eds, Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development.New York : John Wiley and Sons.
37.
McPherson, J.H. (1963), 'A Proposal for Establishing Ultimate Criteria for Measuring Creative Output', in C.W Taylor and E Barron, eds, Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development.New York: John Wiley and Sons.
38.
Merton, R.K. (1968), 'Science and Democratic Social Structure', in R.K. Merton, ed., Social Theory and Social Structure.New York: Amerind Publishing.
39.
- ( 1973a), 'Singletons and Multiples in Science', in R.K. Merton, ed., Sociology of Science.Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
40.
- ( 1973b), 'Priority in Scientific Discoveries', in R.K. Merton, ed., Sociology of Science.Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
41.
Mulkay, M.J. (1969), 'Some Aspects of Cultural Growth in Natural Sciences' , Social Research, 31 (1), pp. 22-52.
42.
- ( 1972), The Social Processes of Innovation: A Study in Sociology of ScienceLondon: Macmillan.
43.
Nagpaul, P.S. (1995), Scientometric Profile of Academic Science in IndiaNew Delhi: NISTADS (sponsored by the Department of Science and Technology).
44.
Ortega, Y. and J. Gasset (1961), The Revolt of the MassesLondon : Unwin Books.
45.
Pelz, D.C. (1963), 'Relationship between Measures of Scientific Performance and Other Variables', in C.W Taylor and Frank Barron, eds, Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development.New York: John Wiley and Sons.
46.
- ( 1966), Scientists in Organizations: Productive Climates for R&DNew York: John Wiley and Sons.
47.
Pelz, D.C. and EM Andrews (1966), 'Diversity in R&D Tasks', International Science and Technology, 31, pp. 21-36.
48.
Price, D.K. (1965), The Scientific EstateCambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press.
49.
Rosenberg, N. (1990), 'Science and Technology Policy for the Asian NICs: Lessons from Economic History', in R.E. Evenson and G. Ranis, eds, Science and Technology Lessons for Development Policy.London: Intermediate Technology Publi cations .
50.
Salomon, J.J. (1968), 'A Review of the Seminar in OECD', in Problems of Science PolicyParis: OECD.
51.
Simon, H. (1967), 'Understanding Creativity', in C. Gowan, G.D. Demos and E.R Torance, eds, Creativity its Educational Implications.New York: John Wiley and Sons .
52.
Simonton, D.K. (1988), Scientific Genius: A Psychology of ScienceCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Skager, R.W., C.B. Schultz and S.P. Klein (1965), 'Quality and Quantity of Accomplishments as Measures of Creativity', Journal of Educational Psychology , 56, pp. 31-39.
54.
Storer, Norman W (1966), The Social System of ScienceNew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
55.
Taylor, D.W. (1963), 'Variables Related to Creativity and Productivity among Men in Two Research Laboratories', in C.W Taylor and F. Barron eds, Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development.New York: John Wiley and Sons.
56.
Zuckerman, H. (1967), 'Nobel Laureates in Science: Patterns of Productivity, Collaboration and Authorship', American Sociological Review , 32 (3), pp. 391-403.
