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


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


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.003



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


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


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


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


Background


Source: Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., Yahia, M. 2011. The phd factory. Nature, 472: 276-279.


USA

Employment of PhDs (Japan)


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


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


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

.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


Training given No training given

Student’s #Pub 39

Pre grad Post grad 1

1.5

22

.5

Pre

dic

tion

of #p

ub


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


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

organizational design of academic laboratories and

Documents