Maryam A. Andalib

Bio: Maryam A. Andalib is an academic researcher from Virginia Tech. The author has contributed to research in topics: Social psychology (sociology) & Queue. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 45 citations.

The Postdoc Queue: A Labour Force in Waiting

Abstract: Postdoctoral fellows (postdocs) comprise a large sector of the US scientific workforce. A substantial majority of postdocs are in a holding pattern, seeking tenure‐track assistant professorships. We model the postdoc population as a labour force in waiting—in queue. Postdocs enter the queue as they start their first postdoctoral appointment, and they leave in one of two ways: (i) obtaining the ‘queue service’ desired by the majority of postdocs, that is, an assistant professorship, or (2) reneging from the queue and seeking other positions. Using recent data from the US Survey of Doctorate Recipients, we show that the postdoc queue is one of those rare queueing systems where most of the queuers eventually renege rather than receive service. We find that only about 17% of postdocs ultimately land tenure‐track positions. The mean time in queue (postdoc career length) is 2.9 years, with significant variations across disciplines. We discuss policy implications. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Recent trends in the U.S. Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (BSSR) workforce.

Abstract: The National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supported this work (Grant 2U01GM094141-05).

Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields

Abstract: Accumulated evidence identifies discernible gender gaps across many dimensions of professional academic careers including salaries, publication rates, journal placement, career progress, and academic service. Recent work in political science also reveals gender gaps in citations, with articles written by men citing work by other male scholars more often than work by female scholars. This study estimates the gender gap in citations across political science subfields and across methodological subfields within political science, sociology, and economics. The research design captures variance across research areas in terms of the underlying distribution of female scholars. We expect that subfields within political science and social science disciplines with more women will have smaller gender citation gaps, a reduction of the “Matthew effect” where men’s research is viewed as the most central and important in a field. However, gender citation gaps may persist if a “Matilda effect” occurs whereby women’s research is viewed as less important or their ideas are attributed to male scholars, even as a field becomes more diverse. Analysing all articles published from 2007–2016 in several journals, we find that female scholars are significantly more likely than mixed gender or male author teams to cite research by their female peers, but that these citation rates vary depending on the overall distribution of women in their field. More gender diverse subfields and disciplines produce smaller gender citation gaps, consistent with a reduction in the “Matthew effect”. However, we also observe undercitation of work by women, even in journals that publish mostly female authors. While improvements in gender diversity in academia increase the visibility and impact of scholarly work by women, implicit biases in citation practices in the social sciences persist.

How Economics Shapes Science

Abstract: What does money have to do with science? Plenty more than lab gadgets and grants, it turns out. Paula Stephan’s book How Economics Shapes Science examines how economics informs the structure of techno-scientific inquiry, and in turn, how basic research impacts the U.S. economy. Her book traces the contours of the economics of science, paying particular attention to the costs of research as they relate to grants, equipment, faculty salaries, and the research and development (R&D) workforce, as well as the ‘‘incentives’’ for both researchers (their pay, promotion, and non-monetary rewards) and research-intensive universities. Given that the United States spends $55 billion a year on R&D (about $170 per citizen), Stephan’s underlying theoretical question is, are research funds from federal grants, internal university funding, and industry support allocated effectively? She speculates that the United States has not yet reached the point of diminishing returns on R&D investment and so should invest at higher rates and in a more diverse set of research ventures. How Economics Shapes Science is lush with descriptive information about historical trends in the employment of research personnel, federal grant allocation patterns, university-level practices of technology transfer and patenting, and the economics of lab equipment and space. The author herself notes the primarily descriptive nature of this work. As such, the book is an excellent primer on the economic aspects of natural and life sciences, as well as on the institutional structures of research more broadly. Stephan’s compilation of statistical trends on the financial dimensions of R&D—both from her own analysis and those of others—is the chief contribution of this book. The book’s other success is the provocative issues it raises about the ubiquitous role of money in the techno-science research enterprise. First, Stephan illustrates that the funding structure matters a great deal to the dayto-day production of science (e.g., whether male or female mice are used, whether postdoctoral researchers or graduate students are hired) and the pace of publication. The current funding environment in the United States, she argues, also leads researchers to avoid risky, uncertain research questions in favor of incremental ‘‘sure bets.’’ This is particularly characteristic of researchers funded by soft money. Furthermore, Stephan asks whether the increased opportunities for faculty to earn money through start-up companies, consulting, and patenting influence the sorts of research puzzles they pursue and how they disseminate findings. She illustrates that monetization is tightly linked with industry-driven questions, and faculty who engage with such questions are more likely than their peers to face restrictive publication arrangements or intellectual property protections. Stephan also raises novel concerns over the monopolies that research equipment manufacturers have over equipment markets, such as Illumina’s two-thirds share of the gene sequencer market. Finally, Stephan seriously examines the role of international populations in U.S. R&D—a role that the popular media often construes as an omen that the United States is losing its competitive edge in science and engineering. Over 60 percent of postdoctoral researchers in the United States are temporary residents and 48 percent of science and engineering PhDs from U.S. institutions are awarded to foreign-born students. Examining historical data on education and employment, however, Stephan concludes there is no evidence that foreign students displace U.S. citizens in PhD programs, postdocs, or tenure-track faculty positions. Rather, foreignborn scientists and engineers, as in many other industries, make up the reserve workforce required to navigate the fits and starts of federal research funding. These insights, while useful, are often interwoven with strong generalizations and misguided assumptions. In Chapter One, Stephan argues that government-funded research is ‘‘highly functional’’ because it produces a ‘‘public good’’ of scientific 424 Reviews

The Postdoc Queue: A Labour Force in Waiting

Abstract: Postdoctoral fellows (postdocs) comprise a large sector of the US scientific workforce. A substantial majority of postdocs are in a holding pattern, seeking tenure‐track assistant professorships. We model the postdoc population as a labour force in waiting—in queue. Postdocs enter the queue as they start their first postdoctoral appointment, and they leave in one of two ways: (i) obtaining the ‘queue service’ desired by the majority of postdocs, that is, an assistant professorship, or (2) reneging from the queue and seeking other positions. Using recent data from the US Survey of Doctorate Recipients, we show that the postdoc queue is one of those rare queueing systems where most of the queuers eventually renege rather than receive service. We find that only about 17% of postdocs ultimately land tenure‐track positions. The mean time in queue (postdoc career length) is 2.9 years, with significant variations across disciplines. We discuss policy implications. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A survey-based analysis of the academic job market

Abstract: Many postdoctoral researchers apply for faculty positions knowing relatively little about the hiring process or what is needed to secure a job offer. To address this lack of knowledge about the hiring process we conducted a survey of applicants for faculty positions: the survey ran between May 2018 and May 2019, and received 317 responses. We analyzed the responses to explore the interplay between various scholarly metrics and hiring outcomes. We concluded that, above a certain threshold, the benchmarks traditionally used to measure research success - including funding, number of publications or journals published in - were unable to completely differentiate applicants with and without job offers. Respondents also reported that the hiring process was unnecessarily stressful, time-consuming, and lacking in feedback, irrespective of outcome. Our findings suggest that there is considerable scope to improve the transparency of the hiring process.

Depression as a systemic syndrome: mapping the feedback loops of major depressive disorder

Abstract: Background Depression is a complex public health problem with considerable variation in treatment response. The systemic complexity of depression, or the feedback processes among diverse drivers of the disorder, contribute to the persistence of depression. This paper extends prior attempts to understand the complex causal feedback mechanisms that underlie depression by presenting the first broad boundary causal loop diagram of depression dynamics. Method We applied qualitative system dynamics methods to map the broad feedback mechanisms of depression. We used a structured approach to identify candidate causal mechanisms of depression in the literature. We assessed the strength of empirical support for each mechanism and prioritized those with support from validation studies. Through an iterative process, we synthesized the empirical literature and created a conceptual model of major depressive disorder. Results The literature review and synthesis resulted in the development of the first causal loop diagram of reinforcing feedback processes of depression. It proposes candidate drivers of illness, or inertial factors, and their temporal functioning, as well as the interactions among drivers of depression. The final causal loop diagram defines 13 key reinforcing feedback loops that involve nine candidate drivers of depression. Conclusions Future research is needed to expand upon this initial model of depression dynamics. Quantitative extensions may result in a better understanding of the systemic syndrome of depression and contribute to personalized methods of evaluation, prevention and intervention.