Motivational factors in departure of young scientists from Croatian science

Scientometrics

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 429-445

  Golub, Branka ^a  

^a Institute for Social Research Zagreb   (Croatia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039484749     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1014881231075     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. B. GOLUB, Croatian scientists' drain and its roots, International Migration, 34 (1996) 609-625.
2. 26
3. 32
4. Taking into consideration the type of institution, the subject's response at the faculties was proportional. Statistically significant differences were found in the number of subjects from (1) public institutes and (2) other institutions (Croatian Academy of Science and Art, State Hydrometeorological Institute, clinics, research departs in companies etc.). The first replied to the survey disproportionately more frequently and the second rather infrequently. It again happened, as previously noticed, that the more qualified researchers disproportionately more frequently respond to the mail survey than their colleagues without scientific (academic) degrees. Hence, the greater representation of Masters and Doctors of Science.
5. On the threshold of 1998/1999, research was carried out at the Institute for Social Research in Zagreb under the heading Young people 's system of values and social changes in Croatia. A division of emigrational readiness of 61.4% tested on a representative sample of Croatian youth numbering 1,700 subjects, appears somewhat to be as follows: for a longer period, but not permanently, 40.0% of young people would leave Croatia; with a suitable offer, 18.3% would leave permanently while 3.1% of young people would emigrate permanently should the opportunity present itself.
6. According to the statistics of the Croatian Employment Bureau, towards the end of September 1999, there were 327,000 people unemployed of whom 150,000 were young people (younger than 30 years) and a further 115,000 were between 30 to 40 years old. A year later (3.10.2000) the Prime Minister of Croatia announces in a TV interview that there are 370,000 unemployed and states that the number of unemployed is still rising.
7. Greater demand for highly educated individuals and experts in the natural sciences and in the technology and biomedicine.
8. A component model with units in diagonal matrix correlation is used. The factors are extracted to a number determined by Kaiser-Guttman criteria. The four extracted factors (then rotated in an orthogonal position towards the varimax criteria) account for a 55% common variance. From this, 23.8% of explained variance belong to the first factor, 13.9% to the second factor, 9.8% to the third and 7.5% to the fourth factor. The factorial matrix shows the following contents of individual factors: F1 - relation with superiors (0.763), relations with associates (0.744), autonomy in scientific/research activity (0.689), possibility for professionally (scientific) promotion (0.621), organisation of work in the institution (0.616), the demands of research work (0.521); F2 - standard of living (0.848), housing situation (0.773), salary (0.620); F3 - impact of science on social development (0.726), the social status of the scientists (0.620), the institutional system of science (0.586), organisation of work in the institution (0.412); F4 - level of democratisation in society (0.828), manner of transformation in economy and society (0.768).
9. A. H. MASLOW, Motivacija i ličnost (Motivation and the Personality), Nolit, Beograd, 1982.
10. E. OTEIZA, A differential push-pull approach, In: W. ADAMS (Ed.), The Brain Drain, MacMillan, New York/London 1968, pp. 120-134.
11. T. V. BUSSE, R. S. MANSFIELD, Selected personality traits and achievement in male scientists, The Journal of Psychology, 116 (1984) 117-131.
12. J. M. MAHONEY, Psychology of the scientists: an evaluative review, Social Studies of Science, 9 (1979) 349-375.
13. N. TOREN, Attitudes towards work: A comparison of Soviet and American immigrant scientists in Israel, Social Studies of Science, 13 (1983) 229-253.
14. A. GOLDBERG, R. KATS, Migration and research commitments: Long-term effects of national socialisation, International Migration, 22 (1984) 129-143.
15. The Brain Drain, Report of the Working Group on Migration, Committee on Manpower Resources for Science and Technology, London, 1968.
16. G. R. GONZALES, The migration of Latin American high-level manpower, International Labour Review, 98 (1968) 551-570.
17. D. L. MCKEE, Some specifics on the brain drain from the Andean region, International Migration, 21 (1983) 488-499.
18. D. L. MCKEE, Argentina and the brain drain: Some perspectives from expatriates in the United States, International Migration, 23 (1985) 453-459.
19. P. VISARIA, Determinante odliva mozgova (Determinants of the brain drain), Teme o iseljeništvu, 7 (1977) 17-38.
20. T. K. OOMMEN, India: Brain drain or the migration of talent? International Migration 27 (1989) 411-425.
21. M. S. ADISESHIAH, Brain drain from the Arab world, Unesco Features, Paris, 1970, pp. 7-11.
22. B. THOMAS,'Modern' migration, In: W. ADAMS (Ed.), The Brain Drain, MacMillan, New York/London, 1968, pp. 29-49.
23. 33
24. The basic population of research on the scientific productivity and the potential drain (at the Institute for Social Research of the University of Zagreb) was all the scientists (researchers) employed in the budgetary scientific and research institutions (faculties, institutes, and units) in Croatia.
25. Beta-index linked to foreign publications amounts to 0.121 (sig. 0.005) and along with impact on division of work within scientific institutions -0.106 (sig.0.014).
26. B. GOLUB, Potencijalni (profesionalni i vanjski) egzodus mladih znanstvenika (Potential (professional and external) exodus of young scientists), In: K. PRPIć (Ed.), U potrazi za akterima znanstvenog i tehnološkog razvoja (In: Search of Actors of Scientific and Technological Development), Institut za društena istraživanja, Zagreb, 2000.
27. V. A. MARKUSOVA, GILYAREVSKII, R. S., CHERNYI, A. I., GRIFFITH, B. C., Information behaviour of Russian scientists in the "Perestroika" period. Results of a questionnaire Study, Scientometrics, 37 (1996) 361-380.
28. S. EASTWOOD, DERISH, P. A., LEASH, E., ORDWAY, S. B., Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey, Science and Engineering Ethics, 2 (1996) 89-114.
29. S. HEMLIN, M. GUSTAFSSON, Research production in the arts and humanities. A questionnaire study of factors influencing research performance, Scientometrics, 37 (1996) 417-432.
30. S. KYVTK, Productivity differences, fields of learning and Lotka's Law, Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 205-214.
31. W. O. HAGSTROM, Competition in science, American Sociological Review, 39 (1974) 1-18.
32. K. PRPIĆ, Profesionalni i društveni položaj mladih istraživača (Professional and social status of young researchers), In: K. PRPIĆ (Ed.) U potrazi za akterima znanstvenog i tehnološkog razvoja (In: Search of Actors of Scientific and Technological Development), Institut za društvena istraživanja, Zagreb 2000.
33. B. GOLUB, Vanjske migracije znanstvenika (Foreign Migration of Scientists). (Doctoral thesis). Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, 1992.