Concentration versus dispersion of research resources: a contribution to the debate

TL;DR

This paper demonstrates that research group size, rather than institutional prestige, primarily influences research quality, highlighting critical mass thresholds and emphasizing the importance of communication for enhancing research outcomes.

Contribution

It identifies critical mass thresholds in research groups and challenges the idea that larger institutions always produce better research quality.

Findings

Research quality depends mainly on group size, not institutional prestige.

Two critical mass points influence research effectiveness.

Enhanced communication within teams boosts research quality.

Abstract

Using the results of the UK's research assessment exercise, we show that the size or mass of research groups, rather than individual caliber or prestige of the institution, is the dominant factor which drives the quality of research teams. There are two critical masses in research: a lower one, below which teams are vulnerable and an upper one, above which average dependency of research quality on team size reduces. This leveling off refutes arguments which advocate ever increasing concentration of research support into a few large institutions. We also show that to increase research quality, policies which nourish two-way communication links between researchers are paramount.