Organizational Design of Academic Laboratories and ...
Transcript of Organizational Design of Academic Laboratories and ...
Organizational Design of Academic Laboratories and Conflict of Production of Science vs. Scientists
MOTIVATION
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 2
University Lab: Basic Unit of Scientific Production
• Source of innovative ideas and creative people (research & education)
Management of Lab
• Typical Task Allocation in Lab – Lab head is the manager: planning,
fundraising, supervision.
– Members are workers: experiments, other laborious tasks.
→ Really productive?
• Challenge for lab heads – Simultaneously play the roles of
educator and research manager (PI) – Conflicting missions: research vs.
education (Fox, 1992)
→ Any way to resolve the conflict?
Lab Head
Members
M M M
(Students & postdocs)
LH
Laboratory
(Professor)
Objectives
• Study 1
– To investigate how task allocation between lab head and junior members (PD and students) affects lab productivity
• Study 2
– To investigate how lab heads are incentivized for training of junior members and how this affects their career
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 5
Sotaro Shibayama, Yasunori Baba, John P. Walsh
Research Policy 44(3): 610-622, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.003
Study 1: Organizational design of University laboratories: Task allocation and lab performance in Japanese bioscience laboratories
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 6
Prior Literature on Scientific Production
• Lab-level analyses limited. Mostly at individual, collaboration team, university, and country levels.
• A few ethnographies, general picture lacking (Latour & Woolgar 1979; Knorr-Cetina 1999, etc.)
• Stylized assumption, not scrutinized – Lab head = “manager” & Members = “worker”
(Knorr 1999; Delamont et al. 1997; etc.)
Objectives of Study 1
To investigate how task allocation between lab head and members (PD and students) affects scientific productivity
• To describe a broader picture of task allocation in life science labs with survey data
• Q1: Should members do only labor-intensive tasks? (or should be engaged also in more intellectual tasks?)
• Q2: Should lab heads concentrate on intellectual tasks? (or should engage in labor-intensive tasks as a player-manager?)
DATA & DESCRIPTION
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 9
Data
• Survey – 400 lab heads in life science in Japanese universities
• Basic biology, basic medicine, genome science
• Pharmaceutical, medicine, agriculture
– Response rate: 44% (= 400/900)
– May-July 2010
– Mail-based
• Bibliometric data – Publication data from Web of Science
• Pubs authored by respondents (= lab heads)
Task Allocation in 3 Phases
Planning
Execution
Writing
• Decide subjects • Build hypotheses • Plan execution
• Do experiment • Analyze data
• Write a paper for publication
LH
M
? + M
+ LH
vs. LH M
Survey Instrument
Lab heads Junior
researchers PhD
students
1: Choosing a subject 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
2: Formulating a hypothesis 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
3: Planning experiment 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
4: Doing experiment 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
5: Analyzing data 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
6: Writing papers 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
Q: Who plays what role in each task? (0: No role. 1: Supporting role. 2: Leading role)
Description
Pattern of Task Allocation
Planning Execution Writing
%Leading role
100
0
50
M LH M LH M LH
Stylized task allocation is observed with a considerable variation.
Pattern of Task Allocation
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 15
Description Planning Execution Writing %
Typical - 37%
Lab head's execution
- 35%
Member's full participation
- 14%
No division of labor
- 14%
M LH
LH LH M
LH M M
LH M LH M
IMPACT OF TASK ALLOCATION ON LAB PERFORMANCE
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 16
Task Characteristics in 3 Phases
Phase Characteristics of tasks (in Life Sciences) Comparative Advantage
Planning
• Processing external knowledge & internal knowledge, technical & theoretical knowledge
• Building strategies to win competition
Lab head > Members
Execution
• Time-consuming & labor-intensive • Handling living organisms • Researchers chained to lab • Requiring craft skills
Members > Lab head
Writing • Linking experimental result with theory • Coordinating results of many members • Communication w/ peer & editors
Lab head > Members
Contextual Contingency: Basic vs. Applied
Basic Applied
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s
• For general understanding of phenomena
• Unpredictable • Exploratory • General • Theoretical • Driven by curiosity • Serendipitous
• For consideration of practical use
• Predictable • Confirmatory • Specific • Practical • Driven by utility
Sub
fiel
ds • Basic biology • Basic medicine • Neuroscience • Genome science
• Agriculture • Pharmaceutical • Medicine
(Stokes 1997; Calvert 2004)
Contextual Contingency
Phase Comparative Advantage
Reasons to believe otherwise
Planning Lab head
> Members
•Engagement in planning stimulates intrinsic motivation (Hackman & Oldham 1976): “Execution tasks are too laborious. Members cannot go through it without strong intrinsic motivation.” •Plan changes frequently in exploratory research.
Execution Members
> Lab head
•Collocation & timely input for members (Teasley 2002). Frequent revision of experimental plan; communication with members in exploratory research. •Members overlook signs of serendipitous findings (Shimizu et al 2012; van Angel 1992; Barber and Fox, 1958)
Writing Lab head
> Members
•Writing is more like summarizing results in confirmatory research.
Hypotheses
Task allocation Basic Applied
Q1a: Members’ planning ++ +
Q2: Lab head’s execution ++ +/-
Q1b: Members’ vs. lab head’s writing
Lab head >>
Member
Lab head >
Member
Planning Execution Writing ln
(#P
ub
/#St
aff)
ln
(#C
ite/
#Sta
ff)
Basic Applied *LH: lab head, M: members
LH M LH M M LH M LH
Productive Task Allocation Differs between Basic Labs and Applied Labs
Planning Execution Writing
Co-planning Autonomy stimulates members’ intrinsic motivation and encourage their effort in later phases.
Co-execution Collocation for frequent discussion and technical catch-up is important for exploratory research.
Members’ execution Confirmatory research likely follows predetermined plans, not requiring adjustment.
Lab head’s writing Longer experience & holistic scientific perspective better serves theory-driven and exploratory work.
Members’ writing In applied research with practical & specific goals, a story of paper is likely predetermined and creative interpretation is limited.
Bas
ic L
ab
Ap
plie
d L
ab
Co-planning Autonomy stimulates members’ intrinsic motivation and encourage their effort in later phases.
M LH
M
LH M LH
M LH M LH
Summary
Q1: Should lab heads stay away from the bench?
– YES in applied labs.
– NO in basic labs. Lab heads should engage in execution for the benefit of collocation.
Q2: Should members do only labor-intensive tasks?
– NO in general. Engaging members in planning stimulates intrinsic motivation and productivity.
(Particularly for postdocs, but unclear for students)
Sotaro Shibayama
Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy Sep 17-19 2015 Atlanta
Study 2: Production of Science vs. Scientists: Case of Life Science Labs in Japan
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 24
Background
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 25
Source: Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., Yahia, M. 2011. The phd factory. Nature, 472: 276-279.
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 26
USA
Employment of PhDs (Japan)
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 27
Source: Nistep. 2009. Career trends survey of recent doctoral graduates, NISTEP REPORT, Vol. 126. Tokyo: NISTEP. Graduates of 2002-2006. All fields included. Employment immediately after graduation.
Conflict of research & education
28
“Students seriously trained as future scientists vs. exploited like factory workers” (from interview)
• As a researcher, lab heads need junior researchers as worker. – Driving policies to increase PhDs – But, that many PhDs may not be needed in academia. PhD’s skills
may not address industrial needs.
• As an educator, lab heads are expected to raise future scientists. – Effort for education may conflict with that for research. – Less valued under the “publish or perish” culture with strong
emphasis on short-term merit.
Prior Literature & Objective
Previous literature – Sociology of Science/Education (e.g., Fox 1992, Hackett 1990) – STS (e.g., Latour 1979) – Higher education (e.g., Marsh 2002) – Academic career (e.g., Long & Allison 1979)
Limitation: Conflict of research/training in lab context understudied, possibly due to poor data access
29
Research Questions • Q1: How are lab heads incentivized for training of PhD
students?
• Q2: How does that affect the outcome of training?
Training for Upstream Tasks (engagement in planning)
30
LH M + Lab performance
↑
LH
St
+ PD Lab performance
↑
LH + Lab performance ?
Pla
nn
ing
Exec
uti
on
W
riti
ng
Research Questions
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 31
Planning Execution
Factory-like Lab
S LH
Planning Execution
Training-oriented Lab
S LH S
Q1: Rationale for factory-like lab Is exploiting students like factory worker really productive?
Q2: Rationale for training-oriented lab Is there any way to incentivize LHs for serious training?
Q3: Outcome of training Are students exploited like factory worker less likely to find academic jobs?
Q3: Outcome of training Are students trained seriously more likely to find academic jobs?
Who decides PhD dissertation topic?
32 Source: Kato (2012). PhD graduates in 2002-2006 from Japanese universities.
42%
93%
DATA
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 33
Data collection
• For each LH, all PhD graduates in 2000-2010 are identified.
• For each PhD, their career and performance measured.
34
PhD DB
1,126 graduates in 2000-2010 under LH’s supervision
CV DB
Post-grad affiliation identified
Pub DB
12,000 pubs authored by the graduates
Questionnaire Conducted in 2010 200 LHs
Description: Task Allocation
Description: Students’ engagement in planning
0
.05
.1.1
5.2
.25
Fra
ctio
n
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Training of general skills
36 No engagement Full engagement
Correlation with attitude
37
0.17* (0.02)
-0.05 (0.47)
-0.03 (0.65)
-0.02 (0.81)
Lab head’s attitude on student training
Correlation with student’s planning
(p-value)
RESULT
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 38
11
.52
2.5
Pre
dic
tion
of #p
ub
-5 0 5 10#Years since graduation
Training given No training given
11.
52
2.5
Pred
ictio
n of
#pu
b
-5 0 5 10#Years since graduation
Training given No training given
Student’s #Pub 39
Pre grad Post grad 1
1.5
22
.5
Pre
dic
tion
of #p
ub
-5 0 5 10#Years since graduation
Training given No training givenNo engagement in planning
Full engagement in planning
How might LHs want to train students for planning tasks?
40
[Altruistic educator] Students should be trained for planning tasks unconditionally. • “Exactly because of their lack of skills, students need training.” • “A university is a place for education. Students’ benefit comes
first.”
[Egoistic educator] Students may be trained for planning tasks if direct return is expected. • “Trained students will become my follower, extend my
research, provide expertise through collaboration, and contribute to my reputation.”
Reciprocity in Academic Training
41
Lab
Train LH
S Labor
G
Graduated
Direct return (long-term) • Collaboration (coauthor) • Reputation gain (citation)
Altruism • Advancement of science • Contribution to society
%Reciprocal Publication
42
Interpretation
11/3/2015 Copyright (C) 2015 Sotaro Shibayama 43
Pre grad Post grad
Factory-like Lab Training-oriented Lab
Pre grad Post grad
10 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 20
Student’s & Prof’s
Prof’s 10 5 10 10 10 15
Cite Cite
10 15
Student’s (but not Prof’s)
Reliance on Reciprocal Pub
• Research orientation: Applied >> Basic
– Applied researchers demand more reciprocal pub.
– Greater spillover expected in basic research, limited spillover in applied research.
• Lab head’s generation: Young >> Old
– Younger LHs demand more reciprocal pub.
– Under stronger competitive pressure, they want to secure direct returns.
44
Training & Student’s Career
45
Student’s planning
%Reciprocal Pub
Faculty Postdoc PhD training
#Pub (pre-grad)
#Pub (post-grad)
(-)
(+)
Student’s Career
(+)
H1A
H1B
H2
H3: Lack of training produces technicians, who are unlikely to be employed, even though short-term productivity may be good.
H4: Excessive reciprocity leads to lack of originality and competition among lab-mates, hampering employment.
Employed as Postdoc
(+) H3
Employed as faculty
(-) H4
Summary
• Student’s engagement in planning is negatively associated with pre-grad productivity and is positively with post-grad productivity. →Lab heads are better off not giving training for planning tasks (H1A). This leads to production of technicians who are likely to drop out (H3).
• Student’s engagement in planning is positively associated with direct reciprocity. → Reciprocal publication provides incentive for training (H2), but it can compromise graduates’ long-term career prospect (H4).
• Positive association b/w planning and reciprocal pub is stronger in applied research and in younger generation. → Recent policies emphasizing applied research & competition can make lab heads want more reciprocal publications (H2’).
→ For sustainable development of science, longer-term incentive needs to be implemented.
46