An official website of the United States government
Abstract The production of research and faculty in the US higher education system is concentrated within a few institutions. Concentration of research and resources affects minoritized scholars and the topics with which they are disproportionately associated. This paper examines topical alignment between institutions and authors of varying intersectional identities, and the relationship between research topics and identities with institutional prestige and scientific impact. Our results show statistically significant differences between minoritized scholars and White men in citations and journal impact. The aggregate research profile of prestigious US universities is highly correlated with the research profile of White men, and negatively correlated with the research profile of minoritized women. Furthermore, authors affiliated with more prestigious institutions are associated with increasing inequalities in both citations and journal impact. These results suggest a relationship—which we coin as the Howard‐Harvard effect—in which the topical profile of minoritized scholars is further marginalized in prestigious institutions as compared to mission‐driven institutions. Academic institutions and funders should create policies to mitigate the systemic barriers that prevent the United States from achieving a fully robust scientific ecosystem.
more »
« less
Productivity, prominence, and the effects of academic environment
Faculty at prestigious institutions produce more scientific papers, receive more citations and scholarly awards, and are typically trained at more-prestigious institutions than faculty with less prestigious appointments. This imbalance is often attributed to a meritocratic system that sorts individuals into more-prestigious positions according to their reputation, past achievements, and potential for future scholarly impact. Here, we investigate the determinants of scholarly productivity and measure their dependence on past training and current work environments. To distinguish the effects of these environments, we apply a matched-pairs experimental design to career and productivity trajectories of 2,453 early-career faculty at all 205 PhD-granting computer science departments in the United States and Canada, who together account for over 200,000 publications and 7.4 million citations. Our results show that the prestige of faculty’s current work environment, not their training environment, drives their future scientific productivity, while current and past locations drive prominence. Furthermore, the characteristics of a work environment are more predictive of faculty productivity and impact than mechanisms representing preferential selection or retention of more-productive scholars by more-prestigious departments. These results identify an environmental mechanism for cumulative advantage, in which an individual’s past successes are “locked in” via placement into a more prestigious environment, which directly facilitates future success. The scientific productivity of early-career faculty is thus driven by where they work, rather than where they trained for their doctorate, indicating a limited role for doctoral prestige in predicting scientific contributions.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1803530
- PAR ID:
- 10111937
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Volume:
- 116
- Issue:
- 22
- ISSN:
- 0027-8424
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 10729 to 10733
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
In this essay, we share historical and structural components of mentoring within institutions of higher education and grapple with technical and moral obligations of support. We argue for more humanizing approaches that embed personal, social, and cultural aspects of mentoring, and seek to disrupt the purposes of mentoring, and for whom? Using a critical approach, we promote justice-oriented and equity-driven models of mentoring that account for excessive teaching loads and service commitments for faculty at minority-serving institutions and Black and Brown faculty at predominantly White institutions. Current promotion and tenure publish or perish models neglect the intellectual and scholarly contributions made through teaching and service and therefore hold the same level of expectations for engagement in and dissemination of research. We share our own stories as Faculty of Color navigating institutional structures during the promotion and tenure process, while also negotiating incongruent cultures of our personal and professional lives. Furthermore, we address the need for mentoring and networking within exclusionary spaces to support the productivity and critical research agendas of Black and Brown faculty that often challenge the white heteronormative cultures of our institutions, professional organizations, peer-reviewed journals, and prestigious funding mechanisms. Implications of this essay include an acknowledgment of oppressive systems that early-career Black and Brown faculty often navigate and a call for diverse mentoring programs and supports that conform with and validate our lives and needs. Furthermore, we provide recommendations on evidence-based resources and approaches that are available to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty and science educators.more » « less
-
Faculty at research institutions play a central role in advancing knowledge and careers, as well as promoting the well-being of students and colleagues in research environments. Mentorship from experienced peers has been touted as critical for enabling these myriad roles to allow faculty development, career progression, and satisfaction. However, there is little information available on who supports faculty and best ways to structure a faculty mentorship programme for early- and mid-career academics. In the interest of advocating for increased and enhanced faculty mentoring and mentoring programmes, we surveyed faculty around the world to gather data on whether and how they receive mentoring. We received responses from 457 early- and mid-career faculty and found that a substantial portion of respondents either reported having no mentor or a lack of a formal mentoring scheme. Qualitative responses on the quality of mentorship revealed that the most common complaints regarding mentorship included lack of mentor availability, unsatisfactory commitment to mentorship, and non-specific or non-actionable advice. On these suggestions, we identify a need for training for faculty mentors as well as strategies for individual mentors, departments, and institutions for funding and design of more intentional and supportive mentorship programmes for early- and mid-career faculty.more » « less
-
Research development professionals at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) used the Center for Advancing Research Impact in Society (ARIS) Broader Impacts (BI) Toolkit with early-career faculty preparing grant proposals for the National Science Foundation’s Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER). This prestigious career-development funding mechanism places unique emphasis on the integration of research and education, positioning awardees to enhance the impact of their research programs through education initiatives like curriculum development, outreach, and community engagement. However, many early-career faculty lack experience or training to develop robust education plans that are thoughtfully aligned with and responsive to their research. With the aim of developing practical ways to help faculty gain these skills, the study team used mixed methods to analyze the integration of research and education in CAREER proposals submitted by UNL faculty. These methods included using the ARIS BI Rubric to evaluate the proposals, convening two panel review discussions, and interviewing principal investigators about their ARIS BI Toolkit use and approach to research-education integration. Case study findings reveal that while effective and impactful integration can take many forms, early-career faculty and those who support them can utilize the ARIS BI Toolkit strategically to strengthen this aspect of grant proposals, positioning faculty to write well-integrated CAREER proposals and potentially contributing to long-term grant-writing and research program success.more » « less
-
Identifying the Most Cited Articles and Authors in Educational Psychology Journals from 1988 to 2023Abstract Over the past 30 years, several reviews have examined scholarly contributions of individual researchers and institutions in the field of educational psychology (Fong et al., Educational Psychology Review 34:2379–2403, 2022; Greenbaum et al., Educational Psychology Review 28:215–223, 2016; Hsieh et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 29:333–343, 2004; Jones et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 35:11–16, 2010; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 23:173–181, 1998; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 28:422– 430, 2003). However, no reviews have specifically examined scholarly impact as measured by citations since (Walberg, Current Contents 22:5–14, 1990) did so over 34 years ago. The present review focused on the period from 1988 to 2023, identifying the most cited articles and authors since Walberg’s study that focused on the period from 1966–1988. Whereas most of the previous reviews have been limited in terms of brief time periods (e.g., six years) and a small set of journals (e.g., five), our scope included 12 educational psychology journals across 36 years. The most cited article (over 9000 times) by (Ryan and Deci, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25:54–67, 2000) had more than twice as many citations as the second most cited article by (Pintrich and Groot, Journal of Educational Psychology 82:33–40, 1990). Most of the top 30 most cited articles, including four of the top five, addressed the topic of motivation. With regard to highly cited authors, the top five were John Sweller, Richard E. Mayer, Fred Paas, Richard M. Ryan, and Reinhard Pekrun. Several of the 30 most cited authors have never appeared in previous lists of most productive authors. Finally, keyword and cluster analyses revealed most popular topics and collaborative networks among many of the most cited authors that may partly explain their productivity. Examining article and author impact is an important complement to productivity when considering scholarly contributions to the field of educational psychology.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817431116
