Comparing Research Productivity Across Disciplines and Career Stages

In academia, productivity continues to be a major factor in decisions of salary raises as well as promotion. The current study thus examines and compares the research productivity of faculty members across disciplines and career stages. The research tests three life course theories (cumulative advantage, utility maximization theory and obsolescence theory) with data from eight disciplines (biology, computer sciences, mathematics/statistics, physical sciences, psychology, social sciences, engineering, and health fields). The data for this study are taken from the 2003 Survey of Doctorate Recipients. Unlike past studies, which solely use journal articles as a measure of research productivity, this study also takes into consideration publications in books and monographs. The study found that the majority of the research output (articles and books) produced in Health and Physical Sciences disciplines is by early and mid career faculty members, providing support for the obsolescence theory, which suggests that research performance declines as faculty members progress in their careers. Further, aging shifts the output mix more towards books for social scientists, making them the most productive group when books or monographs are taken as a measure of research productivity.