Match!
Paula E. Stephan
Georgia State University
125Publications
36H-index
6,574Citations
Publications 125
Newest
Scholarly work seeking to understand academics’ commercial activities often draws on abstract notions of the institution of science and of the representative scientist. Few scholars have examined whether and how scientists’ motives to engage in commercial activities differ across fields. Similarly, efforts to understand academics’ choices have focused on three self-interested motives – recognition, challenge, and money – ignoring the potential role of the desire to have an impact on others. Usin...
#1Chiara Franzoni (Polytechnic University of Milan)H-Index: 15
#2Giuseppe Scellato (Polytechnic University of Turin)H-Index: 15
Last.Paula E. Stephan (GSU: Georgia State University)H-Index: 36
view all 3 authors...
We use survey data for 4336 scientific teams, located in 16 countries, where all members were working within a single lab, to test three context factors that potentially affect the capability of internationally mobile individuals to enhance the innovation performance of their research units. We formulate hypotheses on context factors rooted in the knowledge recombination and learning†by hiring theories. The results show that three context factors are positively associated with international mo...
#1Jian Wang (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)H-Index: 11
#2Reinhilde Veugelers (Bruegel)H-Index: 28
Last.Paula E. Stephan (GSU: Georgia State University)H-Index: 36
view all 3 authors...
Research which explores unchartered waters has a high potential for major impact but also carries a high uncertainty of having minimal impact. Such explorative research is often described as taking a novel approach. This study examines the complex relationship between pursuing a novel approach and impact. We measure novelty by examining the extent to which a published paper makes first time ever combinations of referenced journals, taking into account the difficulty of making such combinations. ...
#1Giuseppe Scellato (Polytechnic University of Turin)H-Index: 15
#2Chiara Franzoni (Polytechnic University of Milan)H-Index: 15
Last.Paula E. Stephan (GSU: Georgia State University)H-Index: 36
view all 3 authors...
Although scientists are highly internationally mobile, it is not always clear if mobility is beneficial, and if so, in what circumstances. Our GlobSci project, which surveyed 17,852 scientists working in 16 countries ([ 1 ][1]), allowed us to examine outcomes related to mobility across a wide array
#1Paula E. Stephan (UNITO: University of Turin)H-Index: 36
#2Chiara Franzoni (Polytechnic University of Milan)H-Index: 15
Last.Giuseppe Scellato (Polytechnic University of Turin)H-Index: 15
view all 3 authors...
We analyze the decisions of foreign-born PhD and postdoctoral trainees in four natural science fields to come to the United States vs. go to another country for training. Data are drawn from the GlobSci survey of research scientists in 16 countries. A major reason individuals report coming to train in the United States is the prestige of its programs and/or career prospects; perceived lifestyle in the United States is a major factor individuals report for training elsewhere. The availability of ...
#1Michele Pezzoni (Bocconi University)H-Index: 8
#2Jacques Mairesse (UM: Maastricht University)H-Index: 47
Last.Julia Lane (NYU: New York University)H-Index: 31
view all 4 authors...
We examine gender differences among the six PhD student cohorts 2004–2009 at the California Institute of Technology using a new dataset that includes information on trainees and their advisors and enables us to construct detailed measures of teams at the advisor level. We focus on the relationship between graduate student publications and: (1) their gender; (2) the gender of the advisor, (3) the gender pairing between the advisor and the student and (4) the gender composition of the team. We fin...
#1Paula E. StephanH-Index: 36
#2Sharon G. LevinH-Index: 15
inequality by a statistically significant amount. The conclusions persist when the analysis is restricted to only those scientists who publish, and suggest that prolific scientists have not gained their status by 'sharing' authorship, as is popularly imagined; neither have they traded quality for quantity by publishing in journals of lower impact. The data also allow for an examination of inequality by sector of employment. The analysis points to substantial differences in inequality between emp...
12345678910