Friday, January 24, 2014

Lab Meeting about Research Careers and Reputation

Posted by Anna Nordén

Hello everyone,
For the next meeting, I thought we could discuss research careers and reputation in science. The first short article is about how to build and maintain a scientific reputation with ten simple rules. The other one is a quantitative study about the difference between PhD students’ preferences for making a career in either academia or industry. I thought we could focus on their findings, that PhD students staying in academia have a stronger ‘taste for science’. 
Do you agree with the ten simple rules or are there more ‘rules’ that should have been included? What does it actually mean to have a stronger or weaker ‘taste for science’?

Tuesday 28/1 at 10:30 – 12 in Argumentet as usual and I will provide fika.

I’m looking forward to hear about your experiences and opinions on this topic!

By Philip E. Bourne, Virginia Barbour

By Michael Roacha, Henry Sauermann

Recent research on industrial and academic science draws on the notion that academically trained scientists have a strong “taste for science”. However, little attention has been paid to potential heterogeneity in researchers’ taste for science and to potential selection effects into careers in industry versus academia. Using survey data from over 400 science and engineering PhD students, we examine the extent to which PhD students’ taste for science (e.g., desire for independence, publishing, peer recognition, and interest in basic research) and other individual characteristics predict preferences for research careers in industry versus academia. Our results suggest that PhD students who prefer industrial employment show a weaker “taste for science”, a greater concern for salary and access to resources, and a stronger interest in downstream work compared to PhD students who prefer an academic career. Our findings have important implications for innovation research as well as for managers and policy makers.

No comments:

Post a Comment