Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty
Research Output, Collaborations, and
Impact? Results from a National Study of
U.S. Research Universities
Michaela Curran, Quinn Bloom &
Steven Brint
Minerva
A Review of Science, Learning and
Policy
ISSN 0026-4695
Minerva
DOI 10.1007/s11024-020-09408-3
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Nature B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy
Minerva
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09408-3
Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output,
Collaborations, and Impact? Results from a National
Study of U.S. Research Universities
Michaela Curran1 · Quinn Bloom1 · Steven Brint1
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract For U.S. research universities, cluster hiring has become a popular
means to add faculty members in university-defined priority fields. The expectation
of advocates is that these faculty members will collaborate on high-impact research.
Utilizing a national sample of 168 cluster-hire faculty members from eight U.S.
research universities, we find statistically significant gains in research output, collaborations, and research impact from pre- to post-hire. However, these gains are
not distributed equally. Some output and impact measures show greater gains for
white and Asian researchers relative to under-represented minorities and for men
relative to women. Significant gains in research output are associated with fields like
advanced materials and health sciences for which generous external support is available. Significant research impact is associated with researchers located in wealthy,
prestigious universities. The findings indicate that cluster hiring is no cure-all for
fields that are disadvantaged in the competition for external funding or for non-elite
universities that are disadvantaged in the competition for prestige.
Keywords
Cluster hiring · Interdisciplinary initiatives · Research universities
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11024-020-09408-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* Steven Brint
brint@ucr.edu
1
Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside, 1108 Watkins Hall, Riverside,
CA 92521, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Author's personal copy
M. Curran et al.
Introduction
Over the last three decades, cluster hiring programs have become a popular means
for U.S. research universities to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and to align
research faculty with federal funding priorities (Sá 2008a). These initiatives are
typically based on the hiring of between three and eight faculty members into interdisciplinary teams, with the expectation that they will jointly pursue high-impact
research. The University of Wisconsin-Madison launched the first large-scale cluster
hiring program in the late 1990s (University of Wisconsin-Madison 2003). Since
that time, at least 84 U.S. universities have implemented cluster hiring programs of
varying size and scope (authors’ calculation).
Funding agencies and professional organizations now emphasize the value of
interdisciplinary collaborations in areas that require the skills and knowledge of
many different types of specialists. This trend has encouraged the growth of faculty
hiring programs that promote this style of collaboration, including cluster hiring initiatives (Bozeman and Boardman 2003; Corley et al. 2006; National Research Council 2015).1 The existing empirical research provides some support for the idea that
teams composed of specialists from different fields have greater potential for innovation. A key mechanism appears to be that these teams have greater access to diverse,
relevant knowledge. This expanded knowledge base can provide fertile ground for
innovation (Ruef 2002; Wuchty et al. 2007).
University administrators have lauded the capacity of cluster hiring initiatives to
meet the “grand challenges” facing the United States and the world, such as adapting
to climate change, mapping the brain, or ameliorating poverty (Hicks 2016). One
campus website proclaimed that interdisciplinary hiring “underscores our commitment to innovation in the pursuit of solutions to some of the world’s most pressing
problems” (Arizona State University 2019). Another university webpage states that
its cluster hiring program “echoes a nationwide movement through which universities are using their intellectual capital and research infrastructure to address 21stcentury grand challenges” (University of Tennessee Knoxville 2018). Similarly,
Lehigh University’s website proclaimed, “Together (cluster hire) scholars can provide the critical mass necessary to cross new frontiers in teaching and research while
addressing some of the world’s most pressing problems” (Lehigh University 2019)
and the University of Central Florida claimed that its cluster hire program “fosters
the development of strong, interdisciplinary team focused on solving today’s toughest scientific and societal challenges through teaching and research” (University of
Central Florida 2019).
1
The contemporary era of heightened interest in interdisciplinary organization dates to the mid-1980s
when Congress, and both the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health used
augmented budgetary appropriations to initiate large-scale center grants, as well as many smaller-scale
initiatives, such as NSF IGERTS (graduate student training grants). Although federal guidelines for
these centers did not explicitly require interdisciplinary teams, these teams were widely considered to
be important factors in successful applications (Bozeman and Boardman 2003; Brint 2005). At the state
level, interest in the capacity of universities to contribute to state economic development goals was also
heightened (Feldman et al. 2014).
13
Author's personal copy
Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output
Proponents of cluster hiring contrast it with the perceived narrowness of traditional, department-based hiring. They characterize departments as detached
“silos” that are not well adapted to the contemporary research environment, contending that departments lack the nimbleness to innovate quickly and therefore
slow the circulation of new perspectives and methods. They also cite a tendency
of departmental faculty to reproduce their existing subfields rather than thinking
creatively about the future (see, e.g., Association of American Universities 2005;
National Academies 2005).
Despite the optimistic appraisals of the potential of cluster hiring, empirical evidence is scant to support the benefits advocates claim for it. The existing research
has been based on work at a single (Dahlander and McFarland 2013) or pair of institutions (Sá 2008b) or as self-assessments by campus review committees (University
of Wisconsin-Madison 2003). These studies have identified examples of successful
collaborations, such as the agro-ecology (Patton 2015) and women’s health (Greenberger 2002) clusters at the University of Wisconsin-Madison but they lack a comparative perspective both in terms of type of cluster and variation in institutional
environment. One multi-site study exists, and it is based on interviews with administrators rather than a study of the experiences of faculty hired into clusters (Urban
Universities 2015). Because the existing research is limited in scope, a broader
investigation is required to evaluate the success of cluster hiring across demographic
groups, cluster fields, and institutional environments.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
In this paper, we investigate the research output, collaborations, and research impact
of cluster hire faculty at eight research university campuses as part of a U.S. national
study of cluster hiring. We investigate one baseline and one more challenging
question. The baseline question is whether the research output and collaborations
of cluster hire faculty increase after they are hired into clusters. The second, more
challenging question is whether researchers hired into clusters successfully pursue
“high-impact” research. The latter question is more challenging to answer because
no definitive criteria exist by which to identify “high-impact” research. In this paper
we consequently develop criteria for measuring “high-impact” research.
Specifically, we investigate the following four research questions:
(1) Does the research output and do the collaborations of faculty researchers increase
after their hire into clusters?
(2) Are increases in research output and collaborations concentrated in specific
demographic groups, cluster fields, and institutions?
(3) Are cluster hire faculty more likely to engage in high-impact research after their
hire into clusters?
(4) Are increased recognitions for research impact concentrated in specific clusters
by demographic groups, cluster fields, and institutions?
13
Author's personal copy
M. Curran et al.
We form our hypotheses on research output and collaborations from the optimistic expectations put forward by advocates of interdisciplinary research. We anticipate that the stimulation of new colleagues, the collaborative environment of clusters, and the advantages of recruitment into areas of institutional priority will, on
average, lead to improvements in the research output and increased collaborations of
faculty members hired into clusters.
H1: On average, faculty research output and collaboration will increase following
hiring into clusters.
H2: On average, faculty recognitions for high-impact research will increase following hiring into clusters.
Advocates suggest that the benefits of interdisciplinary organization are widespread rather than distributed. They argue that all faculty members, regardless of
rank or demographic characteristics, can benefit from the joining together of different specialists in the common pursuit of new knowledge (see, e.g., Crow and Dabars
2015; Klein 1990, 1996). We consequently also frame hypotheses regarding the distribution of outcomes from the optimistic expectations put forward by advocates of
interdisciplinary research.
H3: Increases in research output and collaborations will be proportional across
demographic groups and institutions.
H4: Increases in research impact will be proportional across demographic groups
and institutions.
We note that the latter two hypotheses are inconsistent with findings of researchers who have studied inequalities in the professorial work force. This literature suggests that white males tend to be over-represented in leading positions in scientific
disciplines, while women and minorities struggle to advance (Ceci and Williams
2011; Kao and Thompson 2013; Leslie et al. 2015). Moreover, some fields are better
supported by external funders than others. These fields include advanced materials,
big data, health sciences, neurosciences, and renewable energy sources (see Brint
2018: 214–226). Non-STEM fields have particular difficulty obtaining external
funding (ibid.) The literature also shows that institutional environment has important implications for faculty careers. The advantages of leading universities due to
resources, prestige, and peer stimulation are associated with both faculty productivity (Brint and Carr 2017) and career satisfactions (Clark 1987; Hermanowicz 1998).
Although we form hypotheses from the optimistic assessments of advocates, we
recognize the possibility that positive outcomes may be unequally distributed along
demographic, cluster field, and institutional lines.
Data and Methods
Sample
We identified universities that had participated in cluster hiring via a web crawler
that searched for higher education institutions in the United States whose websites
13
Author's personal copy
Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output
listed any of the following terms: “cluster hire,” “interdisciplinary cluster hire,”
“interdisciplinary hire,” “transdisciplinary hire,” or “thematic hire.” In addition, we
gathered the names of institutions from two other sources, Sá (2008a) and Urban
Universities (2015). Through these efforts, we identified 84 institutions that had
engaged in cluster hiring as of October 2017.
Bibliometric data are publicly available, but we also collected survey and interview data. We required institutional approval for collecting these latter types of data.
Accordingly, we contacted the chief academic officer (CAOs) of each of the 84 institutions, requesting their participation in the study. 32 of the CAOs agreed to allow
faculty members at their institutions to participate in the study. Private institutions
constituted 25% (21) of the 84 institutions identified as having engaged in cluster
hiring, but 19% (6) of those agreeing to participate in the study. We requested lists
of faculty members who were hired through interdisciplinary cluster initiatives from
the academic personnel offices of these 32 institutions. These requests yielded 509
names of individuals hired into clusters. We eliminated eight participating institutions whose cluster hiring programs were in their infancy. In addition, because we
intended to compare the experiences of faculty members hired into the same fields
at several different universities, we eliminated three universities whose cluster hiring
programs focused on fields that were not represented at other participating institutions. Thus, 21 universities out of the original 32 were included in our final tally of
participating institutions.
This study is based on a smaller subsample of individuals and institutions. To
ensure that results reflected only those who had established a research record prior
to their hiring into clusters, we selected a subsample of faculty members who were
active as researchers at least 5 years prior to their hire into a cluster and for at least
5 years at the institution where they were hired into a cluster. All analyses in this
paper are based on the individuals included in this subsample. The subsample
includes 168 faculty members from eight research universities, six public and two
private. We required that each cluster field and each institution have at least five
researchers represented in the subsample.2
Table 1 provides an overview of the cluster fields and institutions represented in
our subsample. The names of institutions are not reported so as to maintain confidentiality. Instead we group institutions by whether they are public or private-nonprofits and by whether they are members of the Association of American Universities (AAU) or not. The AAU is an association of the 60 leading American research
universities and includes also two Canadian member institutions. Table 1 confirms
that cluster hiring is most often utilized to add faculty members in areas that the federal government has identified as research priorities, such as advanced materials, big
2
Ideally, the study would have included a similar cohort of faculty members who were not part of cluster hires. We requested information from the participating universities on faculty members who were
near-matches to those in the sample but were hired through traditional departmental means. Some institutions were unable to identify near matches. The remaining institutions submitted only a few names for
matching. We conducted propensity score matching analyses, but could not find any faculty members at
the participating institutions who were close enough on all potentially relevant dimensions to conduct
comparative analyses of matched individuals.
13
Author's personal copy
M. Curran et al.
Table 1 Cluster themes
and types of institutions,
productivity sample
Freq.
Pct.
Cum. Pct.
A. Cluster type
Advanced materials
19
11.3
11.3
Big Data
34
20.2
31.6
Climate/sustainability
6
3.6
35.1
Genomics
4
2.4
37.5
28
16.7
54.2
Health sciences
Microbiology
3
1.8
56.0
Neuroscience
18
10.7
66.7
New approaches to arts
10
5.9
72.6
Race/ethnic studies
11
6.6
79.2
Renewable energy
33
19.6
98.8
1.2
100.00
Security
Total
2
168
100.00
AAU public research
68
40.5
40.5
Non-AAU public research
77
45.8
86.3
AAU private research
13
7.7
94.1
Non-AAU private research
10
6.0
100.00
168
100.00
B. Institution type
Total
data, health sciences, neuroscience, and renewable energy sources (see Brint 2018,
chap. 6). Both AAU public universities and non-AAU public universities are well
represented in the sample. The low representation of private universities is a limitation of the study.
Research Output and Collaboration Measures
To assess the influence of cluster hiring on faculty members’ research output and
collaborations, we collected data on all publications authored or co-authored by
respondents, the number of citations each paper had received through 2018 in Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, and the number of collaborators on each paper. For
book publication and book citations we used Google Scholar as our data source,
because books are not fully represented in the Web of Science.3 We also collected
data on the number of grants received each year and the size of these grants. We collected grant information through three methods: (1) by requesting data directly from
3
Google Scholar is more generous than Web of Science in citation counts because it includes a larger
source base and also includes citations from books. This would potentially introduce bias into the analysis. Because we do not analyze citation counts, we minimize the risk of bias with respect to citations.
However, book writers may have a smaller number of publications and fewer collaborators than those
who published only articles. This could bias statistics for book writers downward. Characteristics of the
sample limit the potential for bias; only 5% of the individuals in the sample published any books during
the period studied, and all of these individuals also published articles.
13
Author's personal copy
Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output
the Office of Research at each institution, (2) by gathering relevant grant information
from cluster hire faculty members’ curricula vitae, and (3) by inquiring directly to
cluster hire faculty members. We obtained complete grant information from 82 of
the 168 individuals whose careers spanned at least 5 years prior to and following
their hire into clusters.4 We included only externally-funded grants in these analyses.
Citation counts remain immature even 5 years after hire and citation trajectory
varies by discipline, journal, topic, and other factors (Baumgartner and Leydesdorff
2013; Bornmann et al. 2014). It remains beyond the capacity of bibliometric scholars to accurately project citation trajectories from immature data. Our research output and collaboration analyses consequently exclude citation counts and are based
on the following four measures: (1) publications per year, (2) grants per year, (3)
grant dollars per year, and (4) collaborators per paper.
As Table 2 indicates, most of the individuals in our subsample were productive, highly collaborative researchers prior to their hire into clusters. They averaged
nearly three publications per year and four co-authors per paper prior to being hired
into clusters. Individuals with grants data averaged one half grant per year prior to
hire, with an average grant value of approximately $280,000. Publications, numbers of co-authors, grant numbers and grant funding all increased on average after
respondents were hired into clusters. Mean number of publications per year jumped
to more than five, and co-authors per paper increased to nearly five. The average
number of grants per year nearly doubled to just under one per year, and average
grant amounts per year more than doubled to approximately $580,000, with a notably high standard deviation ($659,000).
Research Impact Measures
We categorized research impact using three measures:
(1) National-level awards are recognitions that researchers have made important
advances. We included election to one of the national academies (including the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Education,
the National Academy of Engineering, the National Academy of Medicine, and
the National Academy of Science); top national awards from professional associations, and, for younger scholars, NSF CAREER awards and Presidential Early
Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), the two highest forms
of recognition for early career scientists and engineers. We did not count disciplinary awards unless they were among the highest level awards the discipline
had to offer. We collected award data from respondents’ CVs, from their campus
websites, and from news sources discussing the researchers’ work.
(2) Grants from federal agencies for amounts of $2 million or more. Grants at this
level represent less than 1% of NSF and NIH awards (authors’ calculation from
4
We initially attempted to collect all grants data from institutions. We were able to obtain only a small
portion of the data from institutions. We subsequently contacted each person in the subsample three
times with requests to provide grants data.
13
Author's personal copy
M. Curran et al.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics
N
Mean
SD
A. Independent variables
Academic rank
168
2.5
1.34
AAU Ph. D. institution
167
0.68
0.47
Book authorship
167
0.05
0.23
Gender
168
0.72
0.45
Race/Ethnicity
168
1.43
Years since Ph. D.
165
18.8
10.3
0.63
B. Dependent variables
Change in publications per year
166
3.6
4.3
Change in grants per year
86
0.78
0.89
Change in grant dollar amount per
year (logged)
83
12.2
2.3
Change in collaborators per paper
165
3.6
4.3
Total research impact
168
0.76
1.2
Coding for variables is as follows: Academic rank: (1) Assistant professor, (2) Associate professor, (3) Full professor. AAU Ph.D. Institution: (0) non-AAU, (1) AAU. Book Authorship: (0) No books, (1)
Authored book(s). Gender: (0) Female, (1) Male. Race/Ethnicity: (1)
White, (2) Asian/Asian-American, (3) Under-represented minority
data provided by NSF and NIH). They are indicative of research programs of
unusual performance and promise and include all large-scale center and training
grants awarded by federal agencies. We collected grants data from respondents’
CVs and from federal grant registries that allow for online searches.
(3) “Other” recognitions indicating high-impact research. We used the “other”
codes primarily for press reports highlighting breakthrough research but also
for such indicators as ISI recognitions of “essential” and “top cited” researchers.
We also included a lead author of a report that formed the basis for the Paris climate accord, a researcher who had been recognized three times by his university
for “breakthroughs of the year,” researchers with five or more patents to their
names, founders of sizable spin-off firms, and directors of research centers with
budgets and endowments totally over $10 million. We collected these data from
respondents’ CVs, campus websites, and from news sources. A complete list of
the “other” recognitions we coded is included as Appendix Table 7.
Awards and recognitions meeting the criteria we have set for high impact are
comparatively rare events; fewer than 5% of the sample had received more than
one major award or recognition either prior to or after their hire into clusters.5 We
5
In general, it is not more difficult for scholars who have won awards for their research to win additional
awards; if, anything, the “Matthew Effect,” (the notion that small differences in perceived status tend to
result in benefits or disadvantages that subsequently lead to larger differences in status) (Merton 1968)
still pertains in science (Bol et al. 2018; Perc 2014).
13
Author's personal copy
Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output
consequently did not use numerical counts but only counted whether or not the
researcher had received a major award, very large grant, or “other” indicator of
prominence either before hire, after hire, or both before and after. We coded “1” for
awards and recognitions meeting these criteria and “0” when awards and recognitions were absent. Thus, we coded six possibilities for “1” counts: (1) major award(s)
prior to hire, (2) very large grant(s) prior to hire, (3) other significant recognition(s)
prior to hire, (4) major award(s) after hire, (5) very large grant(s) after hire, and (6)
other significant recognition(s) after hire.
The members of the subsample were less likely to have received recognition for
the impact of their work prior to their hiring into clusters than after their hiring into
clusters. Altogether, 14% of the individuals in the subsample had received any of the
recognitions we used to identify high impact research prior to their hire into clusters,
while 40% achieved such recognitions after their hire into clusters (see Table 2).
Independent Variable Measures
Gender, race/ethnicity, and rank are the demographic variables most often discussed
in the literature on the structure of inequality in academe (see Finkelstein et al.
2016: chaps. 8–9). Accordingly, we include gender, race/ethnicity, and academic
rank in regression models. Gender is coded 0 for female and 1 for male. Race/ethnicity is coded 1 for white, 2 for Asian/Asian-American, and 3 for under-represented
minorities. Academic rank is coded 1 for assistant professors, 2 for associate professors and 3 for full professors. We also measure whether members of the subsample received their doctorates from AAU or non-AAU institutions and the number of
years since they received their doctorates. Doctoral institution is a potentially relevant measure of academic status. Seniority, as measured by years since doctorate,
can lead to cumulative advantages for resource productive scientists (see Hermanowicz 1998). We control for those members of the sample who wrote books, because
of the potential negative effect of book publication on research output and number
of collaborators.
As Table 2 indicates, the subsample is composed primarily of men (72%) and
whites (64%). Asian and Asian American researchers represent 28% of the sample.
Under-represented minorities (African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans) represent just 8% of the subsample. The modal academic rank category was
full professor (43%). Associate professors constituted 23% of the subsample and
assistant professors 34%. Two-thirds of the members of the subsample obtained
their doctorates from AAU institutions. The mean number of years since completing
that doctorate was over 18, with a notably high standard deviation. Only 5% of the
individuals in the subsample had authored or co-authored books.
We include the following eight cluster fields in regressions: (1) advanced materials, (2) big data, (3) climate/sustainability, (4) health sciences, (5) neuroscience,
(6) new approaches to the arts, (7) race/ethnic studies, and (8) renewable energy,
with race/ethnic studies as the reference category. The best represented fields in the
subsample are big data (21%), renewable energy (21%), and health sciences (18%).
13
Author's personal copy
M. Curran et al.
They are followed by advanced materials (12%), neuroscience (11%), race/ethnic
studies (7%), new approaches to the arts (6%), and climate/sustainability (4%).
We include eight institutions in the regression models. These institutions include
two public AAU member institutions, four public non-AAU member institutions;
one private AAU member institution, and one private non-AAU member institution,
with one of the non-AAU public universities as the reference category. The subsample is composed primarily of faculty members from non-AAU public universities
(43%) and AAU public universities (41%). It includes 7% from the non-AAU private
university, and 9% from the AAU private university (see Table 2).
Methods
To evaluate H1 and H2, we tested whether or not there were significant differences
pre-hire to post-hire in research output, collaboration, and impact. We utilized t-tests
to examine these differences. To evaluate H3, we utilized linear regression analysis to measure the degree to which observed changes in research output and collaboration pre-hire to post-hire were associated, net of covariates, with researcher
demographic characteristics, cluster field, and institutional locations. We estimated
models based on researcher demographic characteristics and cluster field regressions
separately from those based on researcher demographic characteristics and institutional location. We opted to utilize separate regressions for these predictors to maximize the number of categories where the N is reasonable. We also sought to avoid
overfitting the models due to adding more predictors than warranted by our sample
size. To evaluate H4, we generated a count of our binary high-impact codes. This
count ranges from 0 (i.e., no high-impact research) to 6 (i.e., high-impact research in
all three categories, awards, grants, and other, both before and after hire). We opted
to utilize this count in our regressions because the difference models (pre-to-post
hire) lacked sufficient variation, as 68% of the sample had a score of zero on difference in research impact before to after cluster hire. When we investigated these
scores conditional on several of our variables of interest, including cluster theme
and institution, the lack of variation was even greater. Many of the categories of
these two variables lack sufficient variation in outcomes with which to reasonably
perform hypothesis testing. We utilized negative binomial regression, rather than
Poisson, because our outcome’s conditional variance exceeded its conditional mean
in many categories of our predictor variables (Long and Freese 2006). For all of
the regression analyses, we dropped any cluster field or institution that had an N of
fewer than five.
Supplemental Interviews
To supplement the statistical analyses we conducted interviews with 12 administrators at six of the subsample universities. These interviews lasted between 30 and
60 minutes and were conducted by the senior author. We draw on these interviews
to provide additional contextual information about the organization and outcomes
13
Author's personal copy
Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output
Table 3 T-tests of output and collaboration differences pre- to post-hire
Dependent variables
Pre-hire
Post-hire
Difference
Sig
Change in publications per year
2.8
5.3
2.5
***
Change in grants per year
0.48
0.90
0.42
***
Change in grant dollar amount per year
(logged)
Change in collaborators per paper
12.7
13.0
0.26
4.1
4.9
0.76
**
of cluster hiring at universities in the subsample. We also draw on interviews with
administrators from one institution not included in the subsample. These latter interviews were particularly relevant for understanding why less prestigious universities
may have difficulty mounting broadly successful cluster hiring programs (see Bloom
et al. 2019).
Results
Research Output and Collaborations
In Table 3, we report the results of the t-tests we used to identify significant differences in mean publications per year, mean number of external grants per year, mean
dollar amounts of external grants per year, and mean collaborators per paper prior to
and after hire into clusters.
These results, on balance, support H1. In three of the four areas of research output
and collaboration, we found a statistically significant positive gain post-hire. Gains
in publications per year were in the order of +2.6 publications after hire, while gains
in the number of grants per year were +0.42 grants after hire. We found average
gains of approximately $300,000 post-hire for grant dollar amounts. We also found
a small, but significant, boost (+0.76) in the number of collaborators per paper after
hire. For grant dollars per year (logged), we did not find significant differences preto post-hire.
In Table 4, we report the research output regressions for pre-hire/post-hire differences in the research output and collaboration with cluster field included in the
model as a predictor. The results show that researchers in fields that are well supported by external funders tend to receive larger boosts from joining clusters and
that men also benefit disproportionately in relation to obtaining grants. Increases in
collaboration were widespread across the subsample.
Column 1 provides the results for publications per year. Scholars working in the
areas of advanced materials, renewable energy, and health sciences showed significant gains in publications per year compared to those working in race/ethnic studies. In column 2, we report the results for change in number of grants per year from
pre-hire to post-hire. Here, we find additional evidence against H3 showing that the
gains of cluster hiring programs are not equally distributed. Men showed significant
gains in the number of grants per year. Column 3 provides results for grant dollar
13
Author's personal copy
M. Curran et al.
Table 4 Regressions of research productivity on cluster hire demographics and cluster fields
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Publications per year
Number of
grants per year
Grant dollars
(log) per year
Collaborators per
paper
Underrepresented minority
REF
REF
REF
REF
White
1.048
− 0.187
− 0.367
− 0.0501
(0.763)
(0.245)
(0.842)
(0.572)
0.121
− 0.591
− 1.206
0.982
(1.017)
(0.329)
(0.972)
(0.618)
− 0.252
0.539**
0.729
− 0.316
(0.608)
(0.161)
(0.704)
(0.779)
0.690
− 0.0203
0.493
− 0.0780
(0.587)
(0.173)
(0.666)
(0.634)
− 0.0425
− 0.00749
0.0491
0.0684
(0.0538)
(0.0116)
(0.0316)
(0.0378)
Asian/Asian-American
Male
AAU Ph. D. institution
Years since Ph. D. granted
Record has books
− 1.300
− 0.379
(0.661)
(0.704)
Assistant professor
REF
REF
REF
REF
Associate professor
− 0.00608
− 0.197
− 0.845
1.764
(0.742)
(0.269)
(0.806)
(1.011)
1.094
− 0.578
− 0.996
1.392
(1.407)
(0.402)
(0.777)
(1.089)
2.451*
0.0143
4.999
1.288
(1.108)
(0.409)
(2.666)
(0.911)
1.028
− 0.294
5.158
− 0.552
(0.875)
(0.400)
(2.676)
(0.688)
3.130
0.341
4.131
1.833
(1.876)
(0.673)
(3.321)
(0.965)
3.004***
0.316
5.995*
− 0.188
(0.861)
(0.332)
(2.555)
(0.692)
1.524
− 0.340
5.892*
1.860
(0.958)
(0.412)
(2.573)
(1.188)
− 0.692
0.155
1.654
− 0.602
(1.242)
(0.381)
(2.639)
(1.334)
Race/Ethnic studies
REF
REF
REF
REF
Renewable energy
2.123*
− 0.368
5.044
1.823
(0.944)
(0.454)
(2.711)
(1.049)
0.186
0.839
6.405*
− 2.092
(1.169)
(0.460)
(2.545)
(1.160)
Observations
148
76
77
152
R2
0.143
0.346
0.314
0.190
Professor
Advanced materials
Big Data
Climate/sustainability
Health sciences
Neuroscience
New approaches to arts
Constant
Robust standard errors in parentheses, *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
13
Author's personal copy
Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output
Table 5 T-tests of research
impact difference pre- to posthire
Dependent variables
Pre-hire
Post-hire
Difference
Sig
Any research impact
0.14
0.49
0.26
***
Award impact
0.07
0.26
0.19
***
Grant impact
0.08
0.23
0.15
***
Other impact
0.05
0.05
0.00
amounts per year. Faculty working in health-or medicine-related clusters and those
working in neuroscience showed significant gains in grant dollar amounts from preto post-hire, compared with those working in race/ethnic studies. Finally, Column 4
provides results for collaborators per paper. In this model, none of the coefficients
are statistically significant. In this case, we fail to reject the null hypothesis related
to H3.
We found only minor variation by institutions when we substituted institutional
location for cluster fields in regressions on the research output and collaboration
measures. In these regressions men continued to be disproportionately advantaged
in obtaining grants post-hire and again we found broadly distributed benefits for
increased collaborations.6
Research Impact
In Table 5, we report the results of t-tests we used to identify significant differences
in research impact pre- and post-hire. We observed statistically significant gains
in high-impact research post-hire, supporting H2. When we divided the impact
measures, we found statistically significant gains in two of the three measures: (1)
national awards and (2) grants of $2 million or more after hire.7
In Table 6, we present the results from the negative binomial regression of total
research impact, a combined measure, on researchers’ demographic characteristics.
We include institution as a predictor. We find that institutional environment is an
important factor in attracting and nurturing high-impact researchers. One institution – a wealthy, private AAU university – displayed a significant association with
total research impact net of covariates. In addition, two other institutions showed
sizable net associations with research impact, though one that did not quite reach
statistical significance at p < .05. The results also show a significant effect related to
years since Ph.D. was granted. White and Asian scholars also showed significantly
greater research impact in this model than underrepresented minorities. Together,
these results fail to support H4.
6
These regressions are available in the online supplementary material associated with this paper.
These included 35% of individuals in the subsample who had obtained major academic awards at any
time during their careers, 27% who had obtained grants of $2 million or more, and 7% who had other
recognitions for high-impact work. 19% of the subsample had obtained more than one of these three
forms of recognition and 4% had obtained all three forms of recognition.
7
13
Author's personal copy
M. Curran et al.
Table 6 Negative binomial
regression of research impact
on researchers’ demographic
characteristics and institutional
locations
(1)
Total research impact
Underrepresented minority
REF
White
2.149*
(0.782)
Asian/Asian-American
3.201**
(1.353)
Male
1.017
AAU Ph.D. institution
1.108
(0.198)
(0.168)
Years since Ph.D. granted
1.049***
(0.0119)
Record has books
0.262
Assistant professor
REF
(0.258)
Associate professor
0.949
(0.351)
Professor
1.112
(0.445)
Northeast public
REF
Southwest public
1.084
Southern public I
0.354
Southern public II
0.775
Northeast public AAU
1.555
Midwest private
1.246
West coast private AAU
4.154*
(0.611)
(0.260)
(0.566)
(0.759)
(0.624)
(2.298)
Midwest public AAU
1.280
(0.716)
Observations
149
Pseudo R2
0.189
Exponentiated coefficients; Robust standard errors in parentheses, *p
< 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Bivariate analyses help to bring out the extent to which high-impact researchers are concentrated at elite universities. They indicate that a sizable proportion
of the most eminent individuals are concentrated at four of the eight universities
represented in the subsample. Faculty members from these institutions comprised
13
Author's personal copy
Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output
58% of the subsample but 75% of those who met at least one of the criteria for high
impact. In each case, the proportion of high-impact researchers exceeded the proportion of faculty members in the subsample from these universities. As indicated in
the regression, the most prestigious private university in our sample was particularly
prominent, with nearly double the proportion of high-impact individuals as compared to its proportion in the subsample as a whole (8% of the sample but 14% who
met at least one criterion of research impact.) Our interview with the vice president
for research at the university indicated that cluster hiring was used there as a mechanism for recruiting very accomplished senior scholars. These exceptional individuals continued to make important contributions and to win prestigious awards following their appointments to positions at this prestigious private university. The other
three notable institutions included two AAU public universities, both well known
for research excellence, and one public university known as an up-and-coming
innovator.
We found a scattering of high-impact achievements among researchers at the
other institutions in our subsample. These included an important astrophysicist at
a public research university in the South; an acclaimed terrorism expert at another
public research university in the South; a well-recognized engineer working on solar
cell technology at a small public research university in the Northeast; and a computer security specialist at a private university in the Midwest. However, a larger
proportion of individuals at these non-core institutions failed to gain any marks of
high-impact distinction, according to our criteria. They constituted 42% of the sample but only 25% of the researchers with high-impact distinctions.
When we substituted cluster field for institution, the results were less conclusive
and weaker in explanatory power. Here too, years since Ph.D. was a significant predictor of research impact. No other demographic characteristics showed a statistically significant relationship with our research impact measure, and we found few
significant net associations for cluster fields.8
Discussion
Interdisciplinary cluster hiring initiatives have become popular in the United States
as a means to increase faculty output, collaborations, and research impact. Two
important purported benefits of such practices are that (1) they create the conditions
for stronger scholarly performance and more collaboration among those hired into
clusters and that (2) they are especially important for the production of high-impact
research that can help to solve the country’s most pressing social and economic
problems. In this paper, we subjected these claims to empirical scrutiny.
We found that cluster hiring is associated with significant gains, on average, in
faculty research output, collaborator numbers, and research impact from pre-hire
to post-hire. Faculty publications per year, number of grants per year, grant dollar
amount per year, and number of collaborators per paper all increased significantly
8
These regressions are available in the online supplementary material associated with this paper.
13
Author's personal copy
M. Curran et al.
(and in the case of publications and grant amounts also sizably) after hire for those
in our subsample. Increased productivity and impact during the course of the career
are not uncommon among professors working at research universities (Way et al.
2017). Nevertheless, the consistency and the size of the changes post-hire for members of this cluster hire subsample are impressive. Another finding supportive of
cluster hiring is the statistically similar, if modest, boost we found in collaborations
post-hire across demographic groups, cluster fields, and institutions.
On most measures of output and impact, we found that certain groups benefitted
more from being in a cluster. Men were more advantaged than women in obtaining
grants after being hired into clusters. Whites and Asians were more likely to achieve
markers of high-impact research than members of under-represented groups, and so
were more senior scholars. Researchers in fields that are well supported by external
funders showed stronger gains in publications and grant dollars post-hire. The fields
that most consistently rose to the top in this study are advanced materials, health
sciences, and neuroscience. Institutional location mattered more for research impact
than research output. Wealthy and prestigious institutions were more likely to recruit
and successfully nurture high-impact researchers.
The research suggests that faculty members in fields that face a resource rich
funding environment will tend to fare better than those in fields poorly supported by
external funders. We would characterize this finding as very nearly self-evident if
not for the expansive claims for across-the-board gains made by advocates of cluster hiring. These findings suggest that universities that have chosen the strategy of
employing cluster hiring broadly are in most cases trading off better targeted investments for the possibility of broader campus support.
Elite universities have multiple advantages for attracting and nurturing high-performing scholars, including those hired into clusters. Their ample resources, highexpectation cultures, and prestige make them attractive to talented faculty members
they are interested in recruiting and enhance the likelihood that those appointed will
continue to produce high-quality work (Brint et al. 2006). While other institutions
in our subsample hired a few scholars recognized for the quality and significance
of their work, they lack the resources and stature to hire and retain top researchers
across more than a few fields. Our findings illustrate the continuing relevance of the
“Matthew Effect” in science (Merton 1968).
Our interviews with administrators elicited some additional reasons why cluster hiring is unlikely to serve as a means to level the playing field among research
universities.9 One of the eight institutions represented in the subsample, the private
AAU research university, is wealthy enough to “buy the best” in areas it has chosen
to develop through cluster hiring. The hires are in the great majority of cases people who have already worked together and demonstrated a record of high-impact
research prior to their appointments. The university is able to attract these individuals by offering higher salaries and usually also better facilities and equipment than
were available to them at their previous institutions. A strong network of donors
9
In this section we draw selectively on interview data also used in Bloom et al. (2019).
13
Author's personal copy
Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output
helps to facilitate these relocations by providing funds for new centers and state-ofthe-art equipment.
Another of the eight universities, one of the AAU public research universities,
has perfected mechanisms for recruiting talented junior faculty members and placing them in situations that can enhance their productivity and impact. These tools
include recruitment of individuals who express an interest in collaborating with
existing cluster members, seed grants for collaborative proposals, funding for
seminars, explicit memoranda of understandings between organized research units
(ORUs) and departments about expectations, joint funding of lines by ORUs and
departments, and the purchase of expensive shared equipment as a locus for collaborative activity. Another high-performing university in the sample has built its clusters around veteran professors who know the university well and are highly regarded
by their colleagues. Many are center directors. These individuals form clusters by
recruiting junior faculty whose work is highly compatible with their ongoing activities and centers (see also Sá 2008b).
On the end of the spectrum, administrators at three of the eight institutions, and
a fourth institution we use here for illustrative purposes, said they employed none of
these mechanisms to encourage collaborations. Each of these four were non-AAU
public universities. For these institutions, the campus level planning was largely limited to identifying cluster topics, planning for facilities’ needs, and hiring individuals into clusters. The institutions seemed to lack the resources, and in some cases,
the administrative competence to make the most of the opportunities afforded by
cluster hiring.10 Faculty pushback occurred at each of these universities.
There were more losers than winners among the solicited proposals, which led
to a lot of disappointment…The deans felt that the clusters took funding from
their needs…They felt disenfranchised.
- Cluster lead, non-AAU public university
Instead of a deliberative process, we had a chaotic process in a rush to make
major investments after (the campus) had announced a major initiative to hire
hundreds of new faculty…Most of the hiring was to be done through clusters…. The deans eventually pushed back and got more control.
- Vice-chancellor for Research, non-AAU public university
I was surprised by the virulence of the opposition…If I were beginning all
over, I would work harder at communicating what this was and what this
wasn’t. I would try to dispel the mythology that developed…
- Provost, non-AAU public university
10
One vice-president for research said that as many as 75 newly recruited faculty at his institution did
not have labs available to them when they arrived on campus – or a timeline specifying when the labs
would be ready. This was an extreme case, but not the only one demonstrating a failure to match hiring
plans with facilities requirements.
13
Author's personal copy
M. Curran et al.
Opaque processes for choosing successful proposals, no planned features to
encourage collaboration, insufficient money to guarantee adequate facilities for
newly recruited faculty, and no metrics by which to evaluate their impact were common in these initiatives.
If we could start over, I would want a more transparent process to evaluate
proposals with metrics for assessment purposes. I would have gone more
slowly…. Because of a change in the budget model (that occurred simultaneously), the provost’s office did not know what commitments were being made
(by the colleges) for start-up packages, and we ended up overspending for
start-ups.
- Provost, non-AAU public university
We were going to launch into the third round of cluster hiring when the financial crisis hit. We had to give back $120 million to the state and that eroded
some of the existing allocated dollars…This led to a lot of disappointed people.
- Cluster lead, non-AAU public university
Several of these institutions also experienced disruptive leadership transitions. In
one case, a president committed to cluster hiring left and was replaced by a new
president with different priorities. In two other cases, provosts who led the initiatives
were replaced after faculty pushback led directly or indirectly to their departures.
New provosts scaled back the initiatives or ended them entirely.
In sum, we find evidence of increased output, broader collaboration, and more
frequently recognized impacts post-hire for a sample of individuals hired into clusters. These findings amply demonstrate the promise of cluster hiring. But the findings also point to an unacknowledged feature of cluster hiring, lost in the hyperbole
surrounding its presumed contributions – namely, that its benefits are unequally distributed across demographic categories and by field and institutional location. These
findings should serve as a particular caution to university administrators at non-elite
institutions who anticipate that large-scale cluster hiring initiatives can be used as a
means for vaulting their institutions above the competition.
Funding Funding was provided by National Science Foundation (Grant No. 1736146).
13
Author's personal copy
Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output
Appendix
Table 7 “Other” recognition
codes
Recognition type
Freq.
Director of institute with budget over $20m
3
Recognition as top-cited researcher
3
At least five patents
2
Founder of at least one business
2
Lead author on major international report
1
Founder of study resulting in hundreds of publications
1
Well known scholar with many media appearances
Total
1
13
References
Arizona State University. 2019. Applied structural discovery. https://biodesign.asu.edu/applied-structural
-discovery. Accessed 26 September 2019.
Association of American Universities (AAU). 2005. Report of the interdisciplinarity task force. Washington, DC: AAU. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505821.pdf. Accessed 27 September 2019.
Baumgartner, Susanne E., and Loet Leydesdorff. 2013. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) of
citations in scholarly literature: Dynamic qualities of ‘transient’ and ‘sticky knowledge claims’.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65: 797–811. https://doi.
org/10.1002/asi.23009.
Bloom, Quinn, Michaela Curran, and Steven Brint. 2019. Interdisciplinary cluster hiring in U.S.
research universities: More straw than bricks? Journal of Higher Education. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0021546.2019.1688615.
Bol, Thijs, Mathjis de Vaan, and Arnout van de Rijt. 2018. The Matthew effect in science funding.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 115: 4887–4890. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1719557115.
Bornmann, Lutz, Loet Leydesdorff, and Jian Wang. 2014. How to improve the prediction based on
citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date? Journal of Informetrics
8(1): 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.11.005.
Bozeman, Barry, and P. Craig Boardman. 2003. Managing the new multipurpose, multidiscipline university research centers: Institutional innovation in the academic community. Washington, DC:
IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Brint, Steven. 2005. Creating the future: ‘New directions’ in American research universities. Minerva
43(1): 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-004-6620-4.
Brint, Steven. 2018. Two cheers for higher education: Why American universities are stronger than
ever—And how to meet the challenges they face. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brint, Steven, and Cynthia E. Carr. 2017. The Scientific Research Output of U.S. Research Universities, 1980–2010: Continuing Dispersion, Increasing Concentration, or Stable Inequality? Minerva 55(4): 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9330-4.
Brint, Steven, Mark Riddle, and Robert A. Hanneman. 2006. Reference sets, identities, and aspirations in a complex organizational field: The case of American four-year colleges and universities.
Sociology of Education 79: 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070607900303.
Clark, Burton R. 1987. The Academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
13
Author's personal copy
M. Curran et al.
Ceci, Stephen J., and Wendy M. Williams. 2011. Understanding the current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 108: 3157–3162.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108.
Corley, Elizabeth, P. Craig Boardman, and Barry Bozeman. 2006. Design and the management of
multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies.
Research Policy 35(7): 975–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.05.003.
Crow, Michael M., and William B. Dabars. 2015. Designing the New American University. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dahlander, Linus, and Daniel A. McFarland. 2013. Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in
research collaborations over time. Administrative Science Quarterly 58(1): 69–110. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0001839212474272.
Feldman, Maryann P., Lauren Lanahan, and Iryna V. Lendel. 2014. Experiments in the laboratories of
democracy: State scientific capacity building. Economic Development Quarterly 28(2): 107–131.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242413490018.
Finkelstein, Martin J., Valerie Martin Conley, and Jack H. Schuster. 2016. The faculty factor: Reassessing the American Academy in a turbulent era. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Greenberger, Phyllis. 2002. News from the Society for Women’s Health Research: University of Wisconsin fosters interdisciplinary research on sex differences. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine 11(4): 339–340. https://doi.org/10.1089/152460902317585967.
Hermanowicz, Joseph C. 1998. The stars are not enough: Scientists—Their passions and professions.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hicks, Diana. 2016. Grand challenges in U.S. science policy attempt policy innovation. International
Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 11: 22–42.
Kao, Grace, and Jennifer S. Thompson. 2013. Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology 29: 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1146/annur
ev.soc.29.010202.100019.
Klein, Julie T. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, theory and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University
Press.
Klein, Julie T. 1996. Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Lehigh University. 2019. Cluster initiative. https://www.lehigh.edu/~inprv/initiatives/cluster.html.
Accessed 26 September 2019.
Leslie, Sarah-Jane, Andrei Cimpian, Meredith Meyer, and Edward Freeland. 2015. Expectations of
brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 377: 262–265. https
://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375.
Long, J. Scott, and Jeremy Freese. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables
Using Stata, 2nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810): 56–63. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine
(National Academies). 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11153.
National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Committee on the Science of Team Science, Nancy J. Cooke and M. L. Hilton, Editors. Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Patton, Carol. 2015. Cluster hiring: Fad or best practice? University Business. https://www.university
business.com/article/cluster-hiring-fad-or-best-practice/. Accessed 26 September 2019.
Perc, Matjaz. 2014. The Matthew effect in empirical data. Journal of the Royal Society Interface
11(98): 378. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0378.
Ruef, Martin. 2002. Strong ties, weak ties and islands: Structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3): 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1093/
icc/11.3.427.
Sá, Creso M. 2008a. ‘Interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. research universities. Higher Education
55(5): 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9073-5.
Sá, Creso M. 2008b. Strategic faculty hiring in two public research universities: Pursuing interdisciplinary connections. Tertiary Education and Management 14(4): 285–301. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13583880802481682/.
13
Author's personal copy
Does Cluster Hiring Enhance Faculty Research Output
Urban Universities for HEALTH (Urban Universities). 2015. Faculty cluster hiring for diversity and
institutional climate. Washington, DC: Urban Universities. http://urbanuniversitiesforhealth.org/
media/documents/Faculty_Cluster_Hiring_Repor t.pdf. Accessed 26 September 2019.
University of Central Florida. 2019. Faculty cluster initiative. https://www.ucf.edu/faculty/facultyresearch-clusters/. Accessed 26 September 2019.
University of Tennessee Knoxville. 2018. Update: Cluster Hires and Grand Challenges. https://provo
st.utk.edu/2018/02/update-cluster-hires-and-grand-challenges/. Accessed 27 September 2019.
University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2003. Report of the Provost’s Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to
Evaluate the Cluster Hiring Initiative University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison: Office of the
Provost. https://facstaff.provost.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/208/2017/05/ClusterReport20
03.pdf. Accessed 26 September 2019.
Way, Samuel F., Allison C. Morgan, Aaron Clauset, and Daniel B. Larremore. 2017. The misleading
narrative of the canonical faculty productivity trajectory. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas1702121114.
Wuchty, Stefan, Benjamin F. Jones, and Brian Uzzi. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in the
production of knowledge. Science 316(5827): 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
13