Scientometrics

, Volume 108, Issue 1, pp 83–111 | Cite as

Optimal research team composition: data envelopment analysis of Fermilab experiments

  • Slobodan Perović
  • Sandro Radovanović
  • Vlasta Sikimić
  • Andrea Berber
Article

Abstract

We employ data envelopment analysis on a series of experiments performed in Fermilab, one of the major high-energy physics laboratories in the world, in order to test their efficiency (as measured by publication and citation rates) in terms of variations of team size, number of teams per experiment, and completion time. We present the results and analyze them, focusing in particular on inherent connections between quantitative team composition and diversity, and discuss them in relation to other factors contributing to scientific production in a wider sense. Our results concur with the results of other studies across the sciences showing that smaller research teams are more productive, and with the conjecture on curvilinear dependence of team size and efficiency.

Keywords

Social epistemology of science Team size Team diversity Data envelopment analysis High energy physics Fermilab 

References

  1. Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., Uddin, S., & Rasmussen, K. J. (2011). Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: Multi-levels and cross-time analysis. Scientometrics, 89(2), 687–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agasisti, T., & Johnes, G. (2015). Efficiency, costs, rankings and heterogeneity: The case of US higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrell, A., & Gustafson, R. (1996). Innovation and creativity in work groups. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 317–344). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, J. M., Himmelreich, J., & Thompson, C. (2015). Epistemic landscapes, optimal search, and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science, 82(3), 424–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrews, F. M. (Ed.). (1979). Scientific productivity: The effectiveness of research groups in six countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the demography of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben-Gal, I. (2005). Outlier detection. In O. Maimon & L. Rockach (Eds.), Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook: A complete guide for practitioners and researchers (pp. 131–146). Kluwer Academic Publishers/Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Boisot, M. (2011). Collisions and collaboration: The organization of learning in the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2005). Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Scientometrics, 63(1), 87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brinkman, P. T., & Leslie, L. L. (1986). Economies of scale in higher education: Sixty years of research. Review of Higher Education, 10(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  11. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel psychology, 46(4), 823–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33(8), 1081–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carillo, M. R., Papagni, E., & Sapio, A. (2013). Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian Research Assessment Exercise. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 47, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook, I., Grange, S., & Eyre-Walker, A. (2015). Research groups: How big should they be? PeerJ, 3, e989. doi:10.7717/peerj.989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2011). Handbook on data envelopment analysis (Vol. 164). New York: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Cvetkoska, V. (2011). Data envelopment analysis approach and its application in information and communication technologies. In M. Salampasis & A. Matopoulos (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on information and communication technologies for sustainable agri-production and environment (HAICTA 2011), Skiathos, pp. 421–430.Google Scholar
  19. Dokas, I., Giokas, D., & Tsamis, A. (2014). Liquidity efficiency in the Greek listed firms: A financial ratio based on data envelopment analysis. DEA window analysis approach for measuring the efficiency of Serbian Banks based on panel data. Management (1820–0222), (65).Google Scholar
  20. Emrouznejad, A., Banker, R., Lopes, A. L. M., & de Almeida, M. R. (2014). Data envelopment analysis in the public sector. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 48(1), 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fowler, J. H., & Aksnes, D. W. (2007). Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics, 72(3), 427–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franklin, A. (1990). Experiment, right or wrong. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galison, P., & Hevly, B. W. (1992). Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Garfield, E., Sher, I. H., & Torpie, R. J. (1964). The use of citation data in writing the history of science. Philadelphia: The Institute for Scientific Information.Google Scholar
  25. Greenberg, D. S. (1999). The politics of pure science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hackman, J. R., & Vidmar, N. (1970). Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions. Sociometry, 33, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. He, F., Xu, X., Chen, R., & Zhang, N. (2015). Sensitivity and stability analysis in DEA with bounded uncertainty. Optimization Letters, 10(4), 1–16.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Heilbron, J. L., & Seidel, R. W. (1989). Lawrence and his laboratory: A history of the Lawrence Berkeley laboratory (Vol. 1). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38(4), 610–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herman, A., Krige, J., Mersits, U., & Pestre, D. (1987). History of CERN, vol. 1. Launching the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Amsterdam/New York: North-Holland Physics Pub.Google Scholar
  31. Hoddeson, L. (1997). The rise of the standard model: A history of particle physics from 1964 to 1979. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoddeson, L., Kolb, A. W., & Westfall, C. (2008). Fermilab: Physics, the frontier, and megascience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Horta, H., & Lacy, T. A. (2011). How does size matter for science? Exploring the effects of research unit size on academics’ scientific productivity and information exchange behaviors. Science and Public Policy, 38(6), 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jackson, S. E. (1996). The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 53–76). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity or project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kimberly, J. R. (1981). Managerial innovation. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design: Adapting organizations to their environments (pp. 4–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Koetter, M., & Meesters, A. (2013). Effects of specification choices on efficiency in DEA and SFA. In Efficiency and productivity growth: Modelling in the financial services industry, pp. 215–236.Google Scholar
  40. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). New York: Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Google Scholar
  41. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hulls, B. M. (1986). Joint moderation of the relation between task complexity and job performance for engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kragh, H. (2002). Quantum generations: A history of physics in the twentieth century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Krige, J. (1993). Some socio-historical aspects of multinational collaborations in high-energy physics at CERN between 1975 and 1985. In Denationalizing science (pp. 233–262). Springer, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  44. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40, 342–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1984). CERN: Past performance and future prospects: I. CERN’s position in world high-energy physics. Research Policy, 13(4), 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1985). Basic research in the East and West: A comparison of the scientific performance of high-energy physics accelerators. Social Studies of Science, 15(2), 293–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Martz, W. B., Vogel, D. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Electronic meeting systems: Results from the field. Decision Support Systems, 8(2), 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Milojević, S. (2014). Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(11), 3984–3989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nieva, V. F., Fleishman, E. A., & Reick, A. (1985). Team dimensions: Their identity, their measurement, and their relationships (Research Note 85–12). Washington, DC: U. S. Army, Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  50. Olsen, D., & Simmons, A. (1996). The research versus teaching debate: Untangling the relationships. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1996(90), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. (2007). Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33(2), 196–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Page, S. E. (2007). Making the difference: Applying a logic of diversity. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Page, S. E. (2011). Diversity and Complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Perovic, S. (2011). Missing experimental challenges to the Standard Model of particle physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42(1), 32–42.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Poulton, B. C. (1995). Effective multidisciplinary teamwork in primary health care. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.Google Scholar
  56. Qurashi, M. (1991). Publication-rate and size of two prolific research groups in departments of inorganic chemistry at Dacca University (1944–1965) and Zoology at Karachi University (1966–84). Scientometrics, 20(1), 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scharf, A. (1989). How to change seven rowdy people. Industrial Management, 31, 20–22.Google Scholar
  58. Strevens, M. (2003). The role of the priority rule in science. Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Torrisi, B. (2014). A multidimensional approach to academic productivity. Scientometrics, 99(3), 755–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Valentin, F., Norm, M. T., & Alkaersig, L. (2016). Orientations and outcome of interdisciplinary research: The case of research behavior in translational medical science. Scientometrics, 106(1), 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van der Wal, R., Fischer, A., Marquiss, M., Redpath, S., & Wanless, S. (2009). Is bigger necessarily better for environmental research? Scientometrics, 78(2), 317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Von Tunzelmann, N., Ranga, M., Martin, B., & Geuna, A. (2003). The effects of size on research performance: A SPRU review. Brighton: SPRU.Google Scholar
  63. Wang, J., Thijs, B., & Glanzel, W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS One, 10(5), e0127298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weinberg, S. (2012). The crisis of big science. The New York Review of Books, 59(8). www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/05/10/crisis-big-science/. Accessed 10 May.
  65. Weisberg, M., & Muldoon, R. (2009). Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science, 76(2), 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. West, M., & Anderson, N. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 680–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Westfall, C. (1997). Science policy and the social structure of big laboratories, 1964–1979. In Hoddeson 1997.Google Scholar
  68. Wu, C. F. J. (1986). Jackknife, bootstrap and other resampling methods in regression analysis. The Annals of Statistics, 14, 1261–1295.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. Zollman, K. J. (2007). The communication structure of epistemic communities. Philosophy of Science, 74(5), 574–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zollman, K. J. (2010). The epistemic benefit of transient diversity. Erkenntnis, 72(1), 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Slobodan Perović
    • 1
  • Sandro Radovanović
    • 2
  • Vlasta Sikimić
    • 3
  • Andrea Berber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Faculty of Organizational SciencesUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Department of Formal LanguagesTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations