Keywords
job satisfaction
motivation
resources
research efficiency
How to Cite
Abstract
International research laboratories represent a relatively new form for Russia of organizing the scientific community. They aim to attract leading international scientists as well as young scholars and thus to help increase national research capabilities. This paper analyses the efficiency of international labs in achieving these goals in terms of criteria that are intrinsic (number of publications, patents etc.) and perceived (job satisfaction). Motivation and involvement of employees as well as availability of resources are regarded as the main determinants of efficiency. Based on previous international and domestic studies in the field we build a conceptual model to estimate causal relations and correlations between these five variables. Our data source was the online survey of international scientific laboratories staff, which was conducted in April-June, 2012.
The paper first describes the sample characteristics, then carries out factor analysis of motivation resulting in a typology, and, finally, presents a structural equation modeling to test the conceptual framework of analysis.
Factor analysis reveals that four important groups of employee motives exist. Laboratory staff may be motivated (or unmotivated) by achievement in science, focus on careers abroad, practical-oriented material values and satisfaction with working conditions.
Using structural equation modeling authors provide empirical evidence for the hypothesis about relations between employee engagement and job satisfaction. The more employees are engaged in lab activities, the higher are job satisfaction and productivity level. However, the strength of these effects is relatively small. The assumption of a positive relationship between job satisfaction and available resources was also confirmed. Additionally, analysis showed that employee engagement has a positive effect on the achievement of both objective and subjective results.
References
Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., Caprasecca A. (2009) Allocative Efficiency in Public Research Funding: Can Bibliometrics Help?//Research Policy. Vol. 38. № 1. P. 206-215.
Adams J.D., Griliches Z. (1996) Research Productivity in a System of Universities. NBER Working Paper № 5833. Cambridge (MA): NBER. P. 1-28.
Auranen O., Nieminen M. (2010) University Research Funding and Publication Performance -An International Comparison//Research Policy. Vol. 39. № 6. Р. 822-834.
Auriol L. (2007) Labour Market Characteristics and International Mobility of Doctorate Holders: Results for Seven Countries. STI Working Paper 2007/2. Paris: OECD.
Auriol L. (2010) Careers of Doctorate Holders: Employment and Mobility Patterns. STI Working Paper 2010/4. Paris: OECD.
Bartelse J., van Vught F. (2007) Institutional Profiles: Towards a Typology of Higher Education Institutions//IAU Horizons. Vol. 13. № 2-3. Р. 9-11.
Bernardo A.B.I. (2003) Towards a Typology of Philippine Higher Education Institutions. Manila: Commission on Higher Education.
Brenner P.M. (1999) Motivating knowledge workers: The role of the workplace//Quality Progress. Vol. 32. № 1. P. 33-37.
Calinski R., Harabasz J. (1974) A dendrite method for cluster analysis//Communications in Statistics. № 3. P. 1-27.
Carayol N., Matt M. (2006) Individual and Collective Determinants of Academic Scientists' Productivity//Information Economics and Policy. Vol. 18. № 1. Р. 55-72.
Costas R., van Leeuwen T.N., Bordons M. (2010) A Bibliometric Classificatory Approach for the Study and Assessment of Research Performance at the Individual Level: The Effects of Age on Productivity and Impact//Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Vol. 61. № 8. P. 1564-1581.
Davidov E., Schmidt P., Schwartz S.H. (2008) Bringing values back in. The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries//Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 72. № 3. Р. 420-445.
Denton J.J., Tsai C.-Y., Cloud C. (1986) Productivity of Faculty in Higher Education Institutions//Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 37. № 5. Р. 12-16.
Drucker P. F. (1999) Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge//California Management Review. Vol. 41. № 2. P. 79-94.
Dunkin R. (2003). Motivating knowledge workers: Lessons to and from the corporate sector//Higher Education Management & Policy. Vol. 15. № 3. Р. 41-49.
Eash J. (1983) Educational Research Productivity of Institutions of Higher Education//American Educational Research Journal. Vol. 20. № 1. Р. 5-12.
Howells J., Ramlogan R., Cheng S-L. (2008) The Role, Context and Typology of Universities and Higher Education Institutions in Innovation Systems: A UK Perspective. MIoIR Discussion Paper. Manchester: University of Manchester.
Kahn W. (1990) Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work//The Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 33. № 4. Р. 692-724.
Levin S.G., Stephan P. (1998) Gender Differences in the Rewards to Publishing in Academe: Science in the 1970's//Sex Roles. Vol. 38. № 11-12. Р. 1049-1064.
McCormick C., Zhao C. (2005) Rethinking and Reframing the Carnegie Classification//Change (September-October). P. 51-57. Режим доступа: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/downloads/rethinking.pdf, дата обращения 18.05.2013.
Miller D.B. (1977) How to improve the performance and productivity of the knowledge worker//Organizational Dynamics. Vol. 5. № 3. Р. 62-80.
Muthén B.O. (2002) Beyond SEM. General latent variable modeling//Behaviormetrika. Vol. 29. № 1. Р. 81-117.
OECD (2006) OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2006. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2009) OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2013) Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD.
Scarbrough H. (1999) Knowledge as work: Conflicts in the management of knowledge workers//Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. Vol. 1. № 1. Р. 5-16.
Schmidt P., Herrmann J. (2011). Structural equation modelling//International encyclopedia of political science/Eds. B. Badie, D. Berg-Schlosser, L. Morlino. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. P. 2553-2558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412959636.n589
Schumacker R.E., Lomax R.G. (2010) A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. London: Routledge.
Wright S.S. (1921) Correlation and causation//Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol. 20. P. 557-585. Режим доступа: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/class/soc952/Wright/Wright_Correlation%20and%20Causation.pdf, дата обращения 23.07.2013.
Wuthnow R., Shrum W. (1983) Knowledge workers as a «new class»//Work & Occupations. Vol. 10. № 4. Р. 471-487.
Абанкина И.В., Алескеров Ф.Т., Белоусова В.Ю., Гохберг Л.М., Зиньковский К.В., Кисельгоф С.Г., Швыдун С.В. (2013a) Типология и анализ научно-образовательной результативности российских вузов//Форсайт. Т. 7. № 3 С. 48-62.
Абанкина И.В., Алескеров Ф.Т., Белоусова В.Ю., Зиньковский К.В., Петрущенко В.В. (2013б) Оценка результативности университетов с помощью оболочечного анализа данных//Вопросы образования. № 2. С. 5-38.
Андреева Т.Е. (2010) Особенности мотивации работников интеллектуального труда: первичные результаты исследования//Российский журнал менеджмента. Т. 8. № 2. С. 47-68.
Джейкоб Д., Ламари М. (2012) Детерминанты продуктивности научных исследований в сфере высшего образования: эмпирический анализ//Форсайт. Т. 6. № 3. С. 40-50.
Зубова Л.Г. (1998) Профессиональная деятельность российских ученых: ценности и мотивации//Вестник Российской академии наук. Т. 68. № 9. С. 775-789.
Росстат (2012a) Социальное положение и уровень жизни населения России -2012 г. Режим доступа: http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b12_44/Main.htm, дата обращения 16.09.2013.
Росстат (2012b) О дифференциации заработной платы по профессиональным группам. Режим доступа: http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/B12_04/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d06/3-plat.htm, дата обращения 16.09.2013.
Толстова Ю.Н. (1998) Измерение в социологии. М.: Инфра-М.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.