Faculty research productivity studies typically focus on the scholarly performance of the individual researcher, although environmental and organizational conditions that are largely outside of the researcher’s control can significantly impact that performance. From an institutional effectiveness perspective, it is imperative for the higher education administrators and leaders who share the responsibility of managing and supporting their university’s research enterprise to understand how the institutional environment itself impacts the productivity of its research community. In this sequential mixed methods study, a quantitative framework was tested for assessing institutional effectiveness in research administration based on the assertion that this concept can be measured indirectly, at the departmental level, based on the calculation of a program’s residual scholarly output. This is the difference between the actual amount of scholarly output a program produces compared to the predicted amount of scholarly output that its resources suggest it is capable of producing. The assumption is that the institution’s effectiveness in supporting research is largely reflected by the extent to which a program over- or under-produces scholarship based on its level of resources. The residual scholarly output was calculated for each Ph.D.-granting biomedical engineering program in doctoral universities with a Carnegie classification of “highest research activity” for the period of 2014 through 2016. A sampling of those programs that achieved among the highest and lowest residual productivity levels then became the subject of a qualitative inquiry where researchers and administrators were interviewed with two goals in mind. The more ostensive goal was to reveal what factors, characteristics, resources, and conditions distinguish under- and over-producing programs for the purpose of informing best and worst practices in research administration. Equally important, the second goal was to determine if the quantitative framework was actually successful in distinguishing institutional effectiveness in supporting research. The study concludes that the quantitative framework proved to be a successful method for detecting institutional effectiveness in supporting research, and that the primary distinguishing characteristic between high and low-functioning environments was how well programs were able to reduce the general administrative burdens that researchers face, particularly in grant management and the operation of research laboratories.

The research productivity fellowship from CNPq is one of the most coveted scientific grants in Brazil. Although, it positively impacts the researcher's career and institution, the profile of this researchers is still unknown. This thesis presents the main bibliometric indicators related to the scientific judgment of PQ fellowships from the Coordination of the Research Program on Chemical Sciences and Geosciences (COCQG-CNPq). 1062 researchers from Chemistry and Geosciences had their profiles analyzed. The results from Chemistry and Geosciences show differences in the profiles of researchers from different subfields and specialties in the same main area, example H index in the specialties of chemistry and number of articles published in specialties of Geosciences. This results suggest that the bibliometric indicators analyzed in this study should be used with caution in the process of granting PQ fellowships since there are area, sub area and specialties specificities. This thesis to contribute to the scientific evaluation of researchers from exact sciences who long to become PQ fellows or to continue to be one of them. The study might also contribute to the improvement of the criteria established by the CNPq's Assessor Committees. / A bolsa de Produtividade em Pesquisa (PQ) é uma das modalidades de bolsa do CNPq mais cobiçadas pelos pesquisadores, pois o título confere um impacto positivo à vida acadêmica do pesquisador e da instituição a que está vinculado. Apesar do grande interesse nesta modalidade de bolsa, pouco se sabe sobre o perfil produtivo destes bolsistas PQ. O projeto de pesquisa apresentado nesta tese envolve os principais indicadores objetivos e quantitativos de produtividade científica relacionados nos critérios de julgamento das bolsas PQ das áreas da Coordenação do Programa de Pesquisa em Ciências Químicas e Geociências. Este universo se refere a 1062 bolsistas PQ das áreas de Química e Geociências. Os resultados obtidos nas áreas de Química e Geociências apresentam diferenças nos perfis de produtividade científica dos bolsistas PQ dentro das diferentes subáreas e especialidades das áreas estudadas, como o índice H nas especialidades da Química e o número de artigos publicados nas especialidades das Geociências. Estes resultados demonstram que os indicadores bibliométricos devem ser analisados com cautela nos processos de concessão de bolsas devido às especificidades das áreas, subáreas e especialidades. Esta tese se propõe a contribuir na avaliação da produtividade científica dos pesquisadores das áreas de Química e Geociências que almejam a ser contemplados com a bolsa PQ ou que pretendem continuar no sistema de bolsas do CNPq e também contribuir no aprimoramento dos critérios de julgamentos utilizados pelos Comitês de Assessoramento do CNPq.

Cette thèse rassemble principalement des contributions en économie de la science à laquelle les deux premières parties sont consacrées. La première teste l'importance des choix méthodologiques dans la mesure de la production scientifique et étudie les canaux de diffusion de la connaissance. La deuxième s'intéresse aux déterminants individuels et locaux de la productivité des chercheurs et au différentiel de promotion entre hommes et femmes sur le marché du travail académique. Sont établis les résultats suivants : les choix méthodologiques dans la mesure de la production scientifique n'affectent que très peu les classements des institutions de recherche. Les citations et les poids associés à la qualité des journaux mesurent globalement la même productivité de la recherche. La localisation des chercheurs a un impact sur leur productivité dans la mesure où certaines universités génèrent davantage d'externalités que d'autres. Ces externalités sont plus importantes là où les chercheurs sont homogènes en terme de performances, où la diversité thématique est grande, et dans une moindre mesure dans les grands centres de recherche, lorsqu'il y a plus de femmes, de chercheurs âgés, de stars et là où les chercheurs sont connectés à des co-auteurs à l'étranger. Si les femmes sont moins souvent Professeur des Universités (par opposition à Maître de Conférences) que les hommes, ce n'est ni parce qu'elles sont discriminées dans le processus de promotion, ni que le coût de promotion (mobilité) est plus important pour elles, ni qu'elles ont des préférences différentes concernant le salaire et le prestige des institutions dans lesquelles elles travaillent. / The core of this thesis lies in the field of economics of science to which the two first parts are devoted. The first part questions the impact of methodological choices in the measurement of research productivity and studies the channels of knowledge diffusion. The second part studies the impact on individual publication records of both individual and departments' characteristics and analyse the gender gap in occupations on the academic labour market. The main results are the following: methodological choices in the measurement of research productivity do not impact the estimated hierarchy of research institutions. Citations and journal quality weights measure the same dimension of publication productivity. Location matters in the academic research activity: some departments generate more externalities than others. Externalities are higher where academics are homogeneous in terms of publication performance and have diverse research fields, and, to a lower extent, if the department is large, with more women, older academics, stars and co-authors connection to foreign departments. If women are less likely to be full Professor (with respect to Assistant Professor) than men, this is neither because they are discriminated against in the promotion process, neither because the promotion cost (mobility) is higher for them, nor because they have different preferences for salaries versus department prestige. A possible, but not tested, explanation is that women self-select themselves by participating less in or exerting lower effort during the promotion process.