I recently completed my dissertation of the same title. The evaluative purpose of the dissertation was twofold. The first was to determine if, as the title indicates, star academics garner increasing returns for the university they work at. The second was to determine what criteria helps academics in obtaining National Institute of Health (NIH) funds. NIH provides the largest amount of federal funding for scientific research. As a result, receipt of NIH funds makes a significant contribution to university revenue. Conventional wisdom and some supporting research indicate that star academics bring in substantial amounts of grant money. They also attract a higher quality of supporting academics and graduate students.
Based on this wisdom and research, universities actively recruit stars. The limited number of available stars means universities, particularly lower ranked universities, pay a premium to obtain them. The questions become: Is it worth it? Is there a risk? The answer to these questions indicate that even organizations which are not normally considered risk taking, such as universities, subject themselves to risk.
BACKGROUND
By way of back ground, the results are from and analysis of 24 universities that received NIH funds in 2008. The universities are ranked up to the top twenty in the receipt of NIH funds. Generally accepted performance measures of over 3,000 individual academics were also analyzed.
RESULTS
The results of a Tobit Regression indicate that just being classified as a highly cited academic does not guarantee the receipt of NIH funds. While total career citations, another conventional indicator of a star academic, do have a positive impact, it is not as great as a number of other individual performance indicators. The total number of articles published in the two years immediately preceding the receipt of NIH funds and accompanying citations, are particularly strong indicators. As is whether the academic has licensed a process or invention through the university, patented a process or invention, or been involved in the creation of a new company. Other positive contributors are whether the academic has a PhD and MD, there is a medical school attached to the university, and the field of study. For instance, those in basic sciences like Biology, Chemistry and Engineering tend to receive less than those in Neuroscience and Biochemistry. Being a full professor, as opposed to an Assistant or Associate professor, is also a positive contributor, although this may reflect more of a practice effect. Full professors, after all, have been around longer and consequently are more experienced – practiced – in applying for NIH funds.
IMPLICATIONS
The results indicate there is a risk in hiring an academic solely based the classification of a star, as this classification may rest on past, not current performance. This risk can be mitigated by looking at a broader range of measures. Most important are current publications, the field of study and the extent to which the academic is involved in converting the research into practical applications. While full professors obtain larger amounts of NIH funds, looking at those Assistant and Associate Professors who exhibit strong performance in this broader range of characteristics may garner greater long term levels of return than the star. To use the baseball analogy I used in the dissertation, it is the difference between the home run hitter and the money ball player. The home run hitter may excite the crowd. The money ball player, with consistent doubles and triples, brings in the money and helps in the long run win the game.
Bio:
James Kline is a senior member of the American Society. He has over ten year’s supervisory and managerial experience. He has consulted on economic, quality and workforce development issues for the state and local government and non-profit organizations. He has also published numerous articles related to quality in government.