The dynamism of the U.S. economy has been fueled with continued advances in basic and applied science, conducted within both academic and industry boundaries. Underlying these critical macro (institutional and national policy) level factors are individual decisions made by the scientists themselves, as they choose among careers options that relate to what they do: basic or applied science; and where they do it: academia or industry. An understanding of these micro level factors is necessary to formulate an individual career strategy, to strengthen the competitiveness of both firms and universities and to design sound economic policies
This proposal examines the micro factors related to scientific labor markets that influence institutional and policy issues. It is based on the premise that societal goals related to achieving an optimal level of basic and applied research can be best achieved by creating the appropriate incentive structure that provides for an optimal matching of scientists to careers in basic and/or applied science, within academic or industry settings. The research develops new theoretical models that build on matching, human capital and endogenous growth theory, and new empirical evidence using panel data on baccalaureate and doctoral graduates in science and engineering fields from Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT) developed by the NSF.
Intellectual merit: The research provides a new framework to identify roles of preference, ability, job characteristics, and institutional settings in career choices and the career trajectory of scientists by combining a matching model and a human capital model. The interaction of individual and institutional characteristics is explicitly entered into a model and empirically tested to understand its impacts on individual choices and performances as well as on the entire market or economy. The research also offers new perspectives and a new micro-foundation for endogenous economic growth models by emphasizing interactions and synergies between basic and applied science. In particular, the framework in the research helps identify sources of economic growth that the linear model has failed to recognize.
Broader impacts: The research informs existing and prospective scientists embarking on alternative careers and seeking collaborations with others or acquiring their own complementary skills. It informs universities and firms of sources of synergies between basic and applied science, and helps them design an incentive scheme and an institutional arrangement for attracting and retaining innovative personnel, as well as extracting the benefits of science.
The mainstream model of training and developing young scientists has contributed greatly to the improved well-being of society. Most graduate programs equip individuals with depth of knowledge within a focused area, and implicitly train them for a career in academia. As the demand for innovation from society accelerates and manifests itself in a host of career options for young scientists, there is a need for a renewed assessment of whether we in academia provide our students with complementary business and economics knowledge, skills and attitudes required for success. In this paper, we examine the potential career paths available to students after an advanced (e.g. PhD) degree and how the needs for these career paths are being satisfied by current academic programs. We hope to contribute to the dialogue regarding needed enhancements to advanced educational programs in the Sciences, by providing an overview of a few innovative program development initiatives at the University of Illinois. The various programs provide entrepreneurship and management literacy and experiential learning to graduate students, and are tailored to address the constraints on time and money that young scientists can devote to these programs. In addition, a substantial gender gap in earnings has been reported in both industrial and academic careers. However, which employment sector offers women scientists and engineers a higher likelihood of catching up with men’s earnings? We investigate this question by comparing the gender gap in earnings in the two sectors. Using NSF’s Surveys of Doctoral Recipients, which are updated biennially between 1993 and 2006, we found that while women with a Ph.D. in science and engineering fields are more likely than men to enter academic careers, paradoxically it is an industrial scientific career that offers more opportunities for women with Ph.D. to equalize their earnings with men. We investigate possible explanations for the finding, which include (i) sorting of male and female Ph.D. with different preference profiles into academia and industry, (ii) family status related factors such as dual careers and baby penalty, and (iii) institutional differences faced by men and women with a Ph.D.
