[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-595349-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-595349-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","size-versus-performance-in-research","Size versus performance in research","","The document examines whether larger research groups and departments outperform smaller ones, highlighting that consensus is difficult despite obvious policy implications for allocating national research resources. It reviews disputed data and contested interpretations, noting a threshold effect in sciences and engineering at group sizes roughly between 5 and 12, after which economies of scale largely disappear. It emphasizes that group productivity, not per-capita productivity, and differing objectives require distinct performance measures, while debates continue around conflicting evaluations and methodologies.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/size-versus-performance-in-research/595349/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/size-versus-performance-in-research/595349.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Blitz","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":26},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What central question does the document address?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"It asks whether big research groups and departments perform better than smaller ones, and what that implies for how research resources should be allocated.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"What does the document say about the relationship between group size and research efficiency?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"In sciences and engineering it suggests a threshold effect, with inefficiencies below a group-size range of about 5–12, and no economies of scale beyond that except in exceptional cases.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"Why does the document argue that measuring performance is complex?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"It states that group productivity dynamics—not per-capita productivity—are critical in research, and that different measures are needed for research groups and universities with different objectives.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},595349,1792684803,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":26,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":96,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},24464137899374,"https://us-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","Size versus  \nRon Johnston ACIIC, University of Sydney Lyn Grigg  \nQUT  \nand  \nJohn Currie  \nACIIC, University of Sydney  \nperformance  \nin research  \nAbstract  \nArgument continues to rage about the question of whether big research groups and departments perform better than smaller groups, with obvious implications of the extent to which the national resources for research should flow to big groups, big departments and big universities.  \nYet for such an apparently simple question, it appears very difficult to get any consensus. Data and analysis are disputed, and interpretations hotly contested.  \nA recent NBEET-commissioned report provides some answers. It indicates that in the sciences and engineering thereis a threshold effect, varying in group size from 5-12, below which there are considerable inefficiencies. However beyond this size, other than in exceptional cases, there are no economies of scale.  \nIt also raises the issue that it is group productivity, rather than per capita productivity, which is critical in the social dynamics of research (though of course not in practice). Different measures of performance are required for research groups, and universities, with different objectives.  \nAt regular intervals there is an outburst of debate, usually marked by some acrimony, among the research community about the effects of size on research performance and output. The most recent occasion was the publication by Adey and Larkins (1994) of an evaluation of publication records of selected universities for the period 1990-92, in which it was claimed that for the fields of physics, chemistry and biological sciences,“quite clearly, a broad relationship between size of department and total publications is established”.  \nThis research was stimulated by an earlier study by Lowe (1993) based on 1990 data only, which found that “large research groups, large departments and large universities are not particularly productive by any quantitative measure of output or impact”. Adey and Larkins claimed the longer time-span of their study was the principal reason for reaching an opposite conclusion.  \nTheir findings were immediately challenged by academic staff of Wollongong University, whorecalculated the data to show that“small science departments are similarly productive to large science departments”(Anon, 1994) .  \nWhy is it that the issue generates so much heat? Why does there seem tobe so little consensus? And why are the data produced by one group so readily open to question and dispute? Is there no reliable evidence or analysis on which the relationships of performance to size can be based?  \nIt was in order to address these issues that NBEET commissioned a study of the effects of resource concentration on research performance (NBEET 1993) .  \nThe policy context of resource concentration  \nIn most industrial countries around the world, there has been a growing emphasis on the need to construct more explicit and deliberate policies for science. There are various reasons for this includingthe escalating costs of many areas of research, growing constraints on government spending, and political demands for greater accountabil-  \nity for all areas of public expenditure. The ultimate aim of these science policies has been to ensure that the limited resources which are available are used as effectively as possible. From this stems an interest in research performance, especially of groups of scientists, be they constituted in university departments, laboratories or institutes.  \nEvaluations of research performance, whether informal or formal, inevitably conclude that some scientific groups are more productive than others. This immediately raises the question of what accounts for performance differences. A wide range of possible determinants of group research performance have been proposed. These include the size of the groups, whether the research is closely linked to teaching, and the type of funding. However, as we shall see, the evid","cbCaisUuEHRYrHG5","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaisUuEHRYrHG5","pdf",29845,"English","# Abstract\n## Threshold effects and economies of scale\n## Debate over group size and performance\n## Policy context: resource concentration and selectivity","[{\"question\":\"What central question does the document address?\",\"answer\":\"It asks whether big research groups and departments perform better than smaller ones, and what that implies for how research resources should be allocated.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the document say about the relationship between group size and research efficiency?\",\"answer\":\"In sciences and engineering it suggests a threshold effect, with inefficiencies below a group-size range of about 5–12, and no economies of scale beyond that except in exceptional cases.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the document argue that measuring performance is complex?\",\"answer\":\"It states that group productivity dynamics—not per-capita productivity—are critical in research, and that different measures are needed for research groups and universities with different objectives.\"}]","Size versus performance in research | PDF",1792080964,13]