sofs.org.ua › About us › Archive › 2021 › №1 (111) › 1.5

1.5

AN ASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL TRENDS IN THE FORMATION OF THE AGE STRUCTURE OF HUMANITARIAN RESEARCHERS OVER 100 YEARS

S.H. BOUBLYK
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8463-9981
Dobrov Institute for Scientific and Technological Potential and Science History Studies of the NAS of Ukraine

Nauka naukozn. 2021, 1(111): 44-62
https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2021.01.044

Section: Scientometrics
Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: The global trend of aging science being a topical and most controversial scientific issue today, its addressing is one of the science policy priorities in many countries. One way to solve the problem of aging science is to determine the balance of the age structure of active researchers in the context of the life cycle concept. This can be facilitated by identifying historical trends in the formation of the age structure of researchers, as well as the evolution of its structural elements over time. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to identify and evaluate historical trends in the formation of the age structure of humanities researchers over 100 years.

The purpose of the study is achieved by using the conceptual principles of the life cycle (aging of the individual and the processes of organizational growth and decline) of cohorts of researchers by year of birth, and the method of cohort analysis is applied to determine historical trends in the formation of the age structure of humanities researchers in 1909 and 2009, analyze the structure as the dynamics of change in the cohorts, and estimate the revealed basic tendencies.

To determine the age structures of active humanities researchers for 100 years, a statistical array of historiographical and bibliometric data on well-known and outstanding humanities researchers was formed. Historiographical and bibliometric data consist of information about the year of birth, beginning and end of scientific activity of researchers. In total, the statistical array of the study included historiographical and bibliometric data on 7,130 researchers from 145 countries, born in 1820—1995. To structure the data in time and perform the tasks of this study, all researchers were grouped into 5-year cohorts by year of birth.

It is concluded that the application of the conceptual principles of the life cycle of research activity and the method of cohort analysis allows to identify some historical trends in the age structure of humanities researchers, as well as to identify aspects of addressing the scientific problem of balancing this structure. It was found that events of global scales (world wars or the fourth information revolution) increased both the middle age and the significance of older age groups in the age structures of humanities researchers. The hypothesis was confirmed that the age structures of humanities researchers were institutional in nature, as the onset of disappearance of researchers’ cohorts (67±1 year) was almost unchanged for 100 years and corresponded to the official age limit for full-time positions in most leading countries. The increase in the researchers’ age in the context of the aging of science during 1909—2009 was due to the increased time for researchers’ education and for the maximization of researchers’ cohorts. This increase is offset by the decreased duration of their half-life, which is a sign of the balance of the life cycle of research activity of cohorts by year of birth.

Keywords: humanities researchers, age group, cohort by year of birth, cohort analysis, life cycle, age structure, research activity.

References

  1. Milojević, S., Radicchi, F., and Walsh, J.P. (2019). Changing demographics of scientific careers: The rise of the temporary workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(4), 1457—1457. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821743116
  2. Ghaffarzadegan, N., Xu, R. (2018). Late retirement, early careers, and the aging of U.S. science and engineering professors. PLoS ONE, 13(12). e0208411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208411
  3. Blau, D.M., Weinberg, B.A. (2017). Why the US science and engineering workforce is aging rapidly. PNAS, 114(15), 3879—3884. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611748114
  4. Zwick, T., Göbel, C., & Fries, J. (2013). Age-differentiated work systems enhance productivity and retention of old employees. Age-differentiated work systems. Berlin: Springer, 448, 25—44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35057-3_2
  5. Matthews, K.R.W, Calhoun, K.M, Lo, N., and Ho, V. (2011). The Aging of Biomedical Research in the United States. PLoS ONE, 6(12): e29738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029738
  6. Boublyk, S.G. (2005). The age factor in the research potential of R&D. Problems of science, 2, 9—15 [in Ukrainian].
  7. O’Rand, A.M., & Krecker, M.L. (1990). Concepts of the life cycle: Their history, meanings, and uses in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 241—262. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.001325
  8. Zhylinska, O. (2005). The age structure of research personnel: problems and objectives of the science and technology policy in Ukraine. Science and Science of Science, 3, 81—98 [in Ukrainian].
  9. Dezhina, I.G. (2008). The regulation of R&D in Russia. N.I. Ivanov (Ed.). Institute of the World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow: Magistr, 430 [in Russian].
  10. Vashulenko, О.S., Gryga, V.Yu., Egorov, І.Yu. (2010). Building up Development Scenarios for Scientific Personnel in Ukraine by Use of Statistical Models. Science and Science of Science, 1(67), 28—39 [in Ukrainian].
  11. Griga, V.Y., Vashulenko, O.S. (2013). Assessing the status of research staff in Ukraine: the age aspect. Science and Science of Science, 1(79), 38—46 [in Ukrainian].
  12. Popovych, A.S., Kostrytsa, O.P. (2016). The age structure of scientific personnel as a factor in the viability of the scientific system of Ukraine. Nauka innov., 12(2), 5—11. https://doi.org/10.15407/scin12.02.005
  13. Ushakova, S.E., Boychenko, T.A. (2018) The analysis of the dynamics of Russian researchers’ age structure. Science. Innovations. Education, 27(1), 5—25 [in Russian].
  14. Tereshchenko, O.V. (2009). Cohort analysis method in social research. Sociology: 4M, 29, 172—185 [in Russian].
  15. Bulkin, I.A. (2016). Evolution of the age structure of researchers in organizations of the NAS of Ukraine. Science and Science of Science, 4(94), 38—39 [in Russian].
  16. Popovych, A.S., Kostrytsa, O.P. (2017). Restoring the scientific potential of Ukrainian science: necessity and real prospects. Nauka innov., 13(4), 5—13. https://doi.org/10.15407/scin13.03.005 [in Ukrainian].
  17. Popovych, A.S., Kostrytsa, O.P. (2020). Aggravation of negative tendencies in the dynamics of R&D personnel in the NAS of Ukraine. Science and Science of Science, 1(107), 22—33. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2020.01.022 [in Ukrainian].
  18. Nauen, M.S. (2006). Heuristic capacities of the cohort analysis in sociology. PhD thesis. S.- Petersburg, 138 [in Russian].
  19. Bulkin, I.O. (2016). Peculiarities of the Age Structure of R&D Personnel in the NAS of Ukraine as the Leading Component in the National R&D System. Science and Science of Science, 2(92), 50—61 [in Ukrainian].
  20. Firebaugh, G. (1992). Where does social change come from? Estimating the relative contributions of individual change and population turnover. Population Research and Policy Review, 11, 1—20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136392
  21. Bell A. (2020). Age Period Cohort analysis: A review of what we should and shouldn’t do. Annals of Human Biology, 47(2), 208—217. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2019.1707872
  22. Nauen, M.S. (2006). The method of cohort analysis in sociology. Journal of sociology and social anthropology, 9(3), 137—144 [in Russian].
  23. Adams, J., Brückner, H., and Naslund, C. (2019). Who Counts as a Notable Sociologist on Wikipedia? Gender, Race, and the “Professor Test”. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 5, 1—14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118823946
  24. Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabasi, A.-L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science, 354(6312), aaf5239—aaf5239. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5239
  25. Lande, D.V., Andrushchenko, V.B., Balagura, I.V. (2017). Wiki-index of authors popularity. arXivpreprintarXiv:1702.04614.
  26. Radicchi, F. & Castellano, C. (2013). Analysis of bibliometric indicators for individual scholars in a large data set. Scientometrics, 97(3), 627—637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1027-3
  27. Bar-Ilan, J. (2014). Evaluating the individual researcher — adding an altmetric perspective. Research Trends, 37, 31—34. Retrieved from https://www.researchtrends.com/issue-37-june2014/evaluating-the-individual-researcher/ (last accessed: 25.05.2020).
  28. Costas, R., Nane, G.F., & Larivière, V. (2015). Is the Year of First Publication a Good Proxy of Scholars’ Academic Age? Proceedings from 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Infometrics Conference. (pp. 988—998). Istanbul.
  29. Pew Research Center, September, 2015. The Whys and Hows of Generations Research. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/09/03/the-whys-and-hows-of-generations-research/ (last accessed: 25.05.2020).
  30. Larson, R.C., & Diaz, M.G. (2012). Nonfixed Retirement Age for University Professors: Modeling Its Effects on New Faculty Hires. Service science, 4(1), 69—78. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.1120.0006
  31. Hanlon, S.M. (2019). Scientists who leave research to pursue other careers in science are still scientists. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 17624. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909427116
  32. Milner, B.Z. (2005). Theory of organization. 4th ed., revised and suppl. Moscow: Infra-M, 648 [in Russian].

Full Text (PDF)