Access
You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen Reader
This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.Age and Scientific Performance
Stephen Cole
American Journal of Sociology
Vol. 84, No. 4 (Jan., 1979), pp. 958-977
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778031
Page Count: 20
- Item Type
- Article
- Thumbnails
- References
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Abstract
The long-standing belief that age is negatively associated with scientific productivity and creativity is shown to be based upon incorrect analysis of data. Analysis of data from a cross-section of academic scientists in six different fields indicates that age has a slight curvilinear relationship with both quality and quantity of scientific output. These results are supported by an analysis of a cohort of mathematicians who received their Ph.D.'s between 1974 and 1950. There was no decline in the quality of work produced by these mathematicians as they progressed through their careers. Both the slight decrease in productivity over the age of 50 are explained by the operation of the scientific reward system. By encouraging those scientists who produce the most favorably received work and discouraging those who produce work that is not favorably received, the reward system works to reduce the number of scientists who are actively publishing. Those who continue to publish throughout their careers are a "residue" composed of the best members of their cohort. Increases in productivity through the thirties and into the forties are shown to be a result of command over the resources necessary to be highly productive. In the last part of the paper I examine the hypothesis that it should be easier for young scientists to make important discoveries in the more highly developed or codified sciences than in the less highly developed ones. The data do not support this hypothesis but, rather, suggest that scientists in all six fields are approximately equally likely to make important discoveries shortly after they receive their Ph.D.'s.
Page Thumbnails
-
958
-
959
-
960
-
961
-
962
-
963
-
964
-
965
-
966
-
967
-
968
-
969
-
970
-
971
-
972
-
973
-
974
-
975
-
976
-
977
American Journal of Sociology © 1979 The University of Chicago Press
