Edited by Dean Keith Simonton, University of California, Davis, CA, and accepted by the Editorial Board February 3, 2015 (received for review November 6, 2014)
Scientists’ productivity usually is measured with a single metric, such as number of articles published. Here, we study two dimensions of scientists’ knowledge contributions in 10-y publication records: their depth and their breadth. Study 1 shows that scientists view pursuing a deeper research project to be more attractive than pursuing a broader project; for example, scientists viewed broad projects as riskier and less important than deeper projects. Study 2 shows that scientists’ personal dispositions predict the aggregated depth vs. breadth of their published articles. Armed with such knowledge, scientists can strategically consider the desired nature of their research portfolios, criteria for choosing and designing research projects, how to compose research teams, and the inhibitors and facilitators of boundary-crossing research.
Scientific journal publications, and their contributions to knowledge, can be described by their depth (specialized, domain-specific knowledge extensions) and breadth (topical scope, including spanning multiple knowledge domains). Toward generating hypotheses about how scientists’ personal dispositions would uniquely predict deeper vs. broader contributions to the literature, we assumed that conducting broader studies is generally viewed as less attractive (e.g., riskier) than conducting deeper studies. Study 1 then supported our assumptions: the scientists surveyed considered a hypothetical broader study, compared with an otherwise-comparable deeper study, to be riskier, a less-significant opportunity, and of lower potential importance; they further reported being less likely to pursue it and, in a forced choice, most chose to work on the deeper study. In Study 2, questionnaire measures of medical researchers’ personal dispositions and 10 y of PubMed data indicating their publications’ topical coverage revealed how dispositions differentially predict depth vs. breadth. Competitiveness predicted depth positively, whereas conscientiousness predicted breadth negatively. Performance goal orientation predicted depth but not breadth, and learning goal orientation contrastingly predicted breadth but not depth. Openness to experience positively predicted both depth and breadth. Exploratory work behavior (the converse of applying and exploiting one’s current knowledge) predicted breadth positively and depth negatively. Thus, this research distinguishes depth and breadth of published knowledge contributions, and provides new insights into how scientists’ personal dispositions influence research processes and products.
Author contributions: T.S.B. and A.M.H. designed research; T.S.B. and A.M.H. performed research; A.M.H. analyzed data; and T.S.B. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. D.K.S. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1421286112/-/DCSupplemental.
