Managing research quality: Critical mass and optimal academic research group size

IMA Journal of Management Mathematics

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 195-207

  Kenna, R ^a   Berche, B ^b  

^a Faculty of Engineering and Computing   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUT JEAN LAMOUR   (France)

Author keywords

optimal size of research groups; research evaluation; research quality; Ringelmann effect; sociophysics

Indexed keywords

OPTIMIZATION; QUALITY CONTROL;

RESEARCH EVALUATION; RESEARCH GROUPS; RESEARCH QUALITY; RINGELMANN EFFECT; SOCIOPHYSICS;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84858679640     PISSN: 1471678X     EISSN: 14716798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/imaman/dpr021     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. EVIDENCE (2010) The Future of the UK University Research Base, Report for Universities UK. Available at http: //www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/ Documents/UUK-FutureOfResearch-LiteratureReview.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
2. GALAM S. (1996) When humans interact like atoms. Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual Action by Small Groups (E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis eds). New Jersey: Routledge, pp. 293-312.
3. GALAM S. & MOSCOVICI S. (1991) Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 21, 49-74. 1994
4. GROUP (2010) Enterprising Universities: Using the Research Base to Add Value to Business. Available at http://www.1994group.ac.uk/publications. Accessed December 2011.
5. GROYSBERG B. (2010) Chasing Stars: The Myth of Talent and the Portability of Performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. GUIMERÀ R., UZZI B., SPIRO J. & NUNES AMARAL L. A. (2005) Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308, 697-702.
7. HARRISON M. (2009) Does high quality research require critical mass? The Question of R&D Specialisation: Perspectives and Policy Implications (D. Pontikakis D. Kriakou & R. van Baval eds). Seville: European Commission: JRC Technical and Scientific Reports, pp. 57-59.
8. INGHAM A. G., LEVINGER G., GRAVES J. & PECKHAM V. (1974) The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. J. Exp. Psychol., 10, 371-384.
9. KENNA R. & BERCHE B. (2010) The extensive nature of group quality. Europhys. Lett., 90, 58002.
10. KENNA R. & BERCHE B. (2011) Critical mass and the dependency of research quality on group size. Scientometrics, 86, 527-540.
11. LEE K., BROWNSTEIN J. S., MILLS R. G. & KOHANE I. S. (2010) Does collocation inform the impact of collaboration? PLoS One, 5, e14279.
12. MERTON R. K. (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56-63.
13. MILLION+ (2010) A Postgraduate Strategy for Britain: Expanding Excellence Innovation and Opportunity. Available at http://www.millionplus.ac.uk/research/ index. Accessed December 2011.
14. PALLA G., BARAB'A SI A.-L. & VICSEK T. (2007) Quantifying social group evolution. Nature, 446, 664-667.
15. RINGELMANN M. (1913) Recherches sur les moteurs anim'es: Travails de l'homme. Annales de l'Institut National Agronomique, 2, 2-39.
16. RUSSELL GROUP OF UNIVERSITIES (2010) The Concentration of Research Funding in the UK: Driving Excellence and Competing Globally. Available at http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/uploads/Concentration-of-researchfunding. pdf. Accessed December 2011.
17. UNIVERSITIES UK (2010) The Future of Research. Available at http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/TheFutureOfResearch.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
18. UNIVERSITY ALLIANCE (2009) Concentration and Diversity: Understanding the Relationship between Excellence, Concentration and Critical Mass in UK Research. Available at http://www.university-alliance.ac.uk/research- publications.htm. Accessed December 2011.
19. VAN DER WAL R., FISCHER A., MARQUISS M., REDPATH S. & WANLESS S. (2009) Is bigger necessarily better for environmental research? Scientometrics, 78, 317-322.