New research led by the University of Kansas shows larger team sizes in academic disciplines can hinder career prospects for early-career scientists, calling for a reevaluation of team structures and funding policies.
New research suggests that while teamwork is celebrated in arenas like the Paris Olympics, it may be less beneficial for early-career scientists aiming for academic success. The study, led by Donna Ginther, the Roy A. Roberts Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Kansas, reveals that larger team sizes in academic disciplines can adversely impact young scientists’ career prospects.
“We found that if your team size in your discipline is large, your prospects for an academic career go down,” said Ginther in a news release.
The study, published in Nature Biotechnology, indicates that fields with larger average team sizes tend to offer fewer career opportunities for those finishing their doctorates.
As Ginther explained, the number of authors on academic papers has significantly increased over time.
“In econ, when I graduated, there were single-author papers. Now it’s often three to five — so it’s essentially doubled. In science fields in particular, it’s grown a lot,” she added.
The research, a collaborative effort with Mabel Andalón, Catherine de Fontenay and Kwanghui Lim from the University of Melbourne, employs data from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients and ISI Web of Science. By using a regression analysis on career outcomes, the team could account for variations in young scientists’ characteristics, such as the prestige of their doctoral institutions.
“The questions we asked were if the average team size gets larger, what does it affect? Then how does it affect your career?” Ginther addeds, noting that larger teams create unclear individual contributions.
This “noisy” signal of scientific ability can hinder job prospects and funding opportunities for researchers.
Ginther’s co-authors developed a theoretical model elucidating this phenomenon. Larger teams make it difficult to discern individual contributions, impacting career progression for early-career scientists.
“All of the phenomena we’re seeing about the length of time it takes from the time you get your Ph.D., until you get your first academic job, until you get your first R01 — that can be explained by this growth in team size,” she added.
During a six-month sabbatical in Australia, Ginther collaborated with her colleagues at the University of Melbourne to produce this groundbreaking work. Her extensive research on early-career scientists offers critical insights into the complexities of academic teamwork.
“Teamwork is something you must be able to navigate,” said Ginther, who is also the director of the Institute for Policy & Social Research at KU, an interdisciplinary center focused on funded social and behavioral sciences research.
Ginther believes these findings could have broader applications beyond academia.
“I’d be very curious to look at the military because you always operate in teams. How does the size of your team or the composition of your team affect your career?” she said.
The study ultimately suggests that having more smaller teams might be beneficial for both scientific discovery and career outcomes.
“To the extent we can make more groups of scientists that are smaller, this could lead to a policy change that is supported by our work,” Ginther added.
The findings suggest a need for policy reforms that could reshape the future landscape of academic research, fostering environments where smaller, more defined teams work efficiently without compromising early-career scientists’ futures.