IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/23019.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Federal Funding of Doctoral Recipients: Results from new Linked Survey and Transaction Data

Author

Listed:
  • Wan-Ying Chang
  • Wei Cheng
  • Julia Lane
  • Bruce Weinberg

Abstract

Funding of research is critically important because it affects the flow of new, doctorally qualified scientists into the workforce. This paper provides new insights into how survey data can be combined with administrative records to examine the ways in which funding affects workforce decisions. We show that NSF supports more graduate students per dollar spent than other federal agencies. Not surprisingly, NIH heavily supports biology, health, and psychology PhDs, while NSF heavily supports PhDs in engineering, the physical sciences, mathematics, and computer science. Federal funding overall and by agency is related to who does research – a larger share of doctoral recipients supported by NIH are women (50%), African American (2.6%) and Hispanic (4.2%), compared to NSF, the Department of Defense (DOD) or the Department of Energy (DOE). Finally, federal funding is highly correlated with the pipeline of researchers going into different fields, particularly R&D fields, and the decision to pursue postdoctoral fellowships.

Suggested Citation

  • Wan-Ying Chang & Wei Cheng & Julia Lane & Bruce Weinberg, 2017. "Federal Funding of Doctoral Recipients: Results from new Linked Survey and Transaction Data," NBER Working Papers 23019, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:23019
    Note: ED LS PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23019.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lane, Julia I. & Owen-Smith, Jason & Rosen, Rebecca F. & Weinberg, Bruce A., 2015. "New linked data on research investments: Scientific workforce, productivity, and public value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1659-1671.
    2. Mark A. Largent & Julia I. Lane, 2012. "STAR METRICS and the Science of Science Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(3), pages 431-438, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Crown & Alessandra Faggian, 2019. "Naturalization and the productivity of foreign-born doctorates," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 533-556, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erjia Yan & Chaojiang Wu & Min Song, 2018. "The funding factor: a cross-disciplinary examination of the association between research funding and citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 369-384, April.
    2. Cinzia Daraio, 2017. "A framework for the Assessment of Research and its impacts," DIAG Technical Reports 2017-04, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    3. Chang, Wan-Ying & Cheng, Wei & Lane, Julia & Weinberg, Bruce, 2019. "Federal funding of doctoral recipients: What can be learned from linked data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1487-1492.
    4. Michele Pezzoni & Jacques Mairesse & Paula Stephan & Julia Lane, 2016. "Gender and the Publication Output of Graduate Students: A Case Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    5. Lane, Julia & Schwarz, Lou, 2012. "Creating New Administrative Data to Describe the Scientific Workforce: The STAR METRICS Program," IZA Discussion Papers 6600, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Olena Leonchuk & Denis O. Gray, 2019. "Scientific and technological (human) social capital formation and Industry–University Cooperative Research Centers: a quasi-experimental evaluation of graduate student outcomes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1638-1664, October.
    7. Glennon, Britta & Lane, Julia & Sodhi, Ridhima, 2018. "Money for Something: The Links between Research Funding and Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11711, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Stephane Lhuillery & Julio Raffo & Intan Hamdan-Livramento, 2016. "Measuring creativity: Learning from innovation measurement," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 31, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    9. Funk, Russell J. & Glennon, Britta & Lane, Julia & Murciano-Goroff, Raviv & Ross, Matthew B., 2019. "Money for Something: Braided Funding and the Structure and Output of Research Groups," IZA Discussion Papers 12762, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Yu, Yan & Ibarra, Julio E. & Kumar, Kuldeep & Chergarova, Vasilka, 2021. "Coevolution of cyberinfrastructure development and scientific progress," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    11. Nathan Goldschlag & Ron Jarmin & Julia Lane & Nikolas Zolas, 2019. "Research Experience as Human Capital in New Business Outcomes," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 229-254, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Wang, Jian & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2018. "Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1070-1083.
    13. Nathan Goldschlag & Julia Lane & Bruce A. Weinberg & Nikolas Zolas, 2019. "Proximity and economic activity: An analysis of vendor‐university transactions," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 163-182, January.
    14. Jason Coupet & Yuhao Ba, 2022. "Benchmarking university technology transfer performance with external research funding: a stochastic frontier analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 605-620, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:23019. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.