How success breeds success in the sciences

April 27, 2018 by Sam Zuckerman, University of California - Berkeley
Berkeley Haas Assistant Professor Mathijs De Vaan. Credit: UC Berkeley Haas

A small number of scientists stand at the top of their fields, commanding the lion's share of research funding, awards, citations, and prestigious academic appointments. But are they better and smarter than their peers? Or is this a classic example of success breeding success—a phenomenon known as the "Matthew effect"?

Mathijs De Vaan, an assistant professor in the Haas Management of Organizations Group, believes it's clearly the latter. In a paper published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "The Matthew Effect in Science Funding," De Vaan presents the results of a study of Dutch research grants that shows precisely how much of an advantage early achievement confers, and identifies the reasons behind the boost. De Vaan, who came to Haas in 2015 after earning a PhD in sociology from Columbia University, co-authored the paper with Thijs Bol of the University of Amsterdam and Arnout van de Rijt of Utrecht University.

"To those who have, more will be given"

The term "Matthew " was coined by sociologist Robert Merton in the 1960s to describe how eminent scientists get more recognition for their work than less-well-known researchers—the reference is to the New Testament parable that, to those who have, more will be given. Previous attempts to study this phenomenon have yielded inconclusive results, in part because it is hard to prove that differences in achievement don't reflect differences in work quality.

To get around the quality question, De Vaan and his co-authors took advantage of special features of the main science organization in the Netherlands, IRIS, which awards grants based on a point system. Everyone whose application scores above the point threshold gets money, while everyone below is left out. The authors zeroed in on researchers who came in just above and just below the funding threshold, assuming that, for practical purposes, their applications were equal in quality.

First off, they found the benefits of winning an early-career grant were enormous. Recent PhDs who scored just above the funding threshold later received more than twice as much research money as their counterparts who scored immediately below the threshold. The winners also had a 47 percent greater chance of eventually landing a full professorship. "Even though the differences between individuals were virtually zero, over time a giant gap in success became evident," De Vaan notes.

Status and participation

De Vaan says that two main mechanisms may explain the Matthew effect in . First, winners achieve status that can tilt the playing field in their direction when it comes to funding, awards, and job opportunities. The second is participation, meaning that successful applicants continue seeking grant money, while unsuccessful applicants often give up, withdrawing from future competition.

De Vaan and his coauthors argue that the Matthew effect erodes the quality of scientific research because projects tend to get funded based on an applicant's status, not merit. Groundbreaking work may not get done because the researchers are unknown or too discouraged to compete for funds. They recommend several reforms to the funding process, including limiting information grant application reviewers have about previous awards. They also suggest that rejected applicants learn their scores, which might encourage those just below the threshold to try again.

These findings may apply in many areas beyond science. For example, the Matthew effect may also widen a gulf between winning and losing entrepreneurs in the race for venture capital. Even the Academy Awards may favor big movie industry names over lesser-known talent. "There are a lot of social settings with large amounts of inequality, which could be ripe for the study of the Matthew effect," De Vaan stresses.

Explore further: Inequality in science funding

More information: Thijs Bol et al, The Matthew effect in science funding, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2018). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1719557115

Related Stories

Inequality in science funding

April 24, 2018

New research shows that winners of a large research grant programme in the Netherlands have a 2.5 times greater chance of obtaining a follow-up grant than nonwinners. The research, which focused on NWO Vidi Grants, was jointly ...

Race, not gender, is key factor in NIH awards

July 15, 2016

Race not gender appears to be the most significant factor influencing the award of a National Institutes of Health Research Project Grant, according to a new study led by a University of Kansas economist.

Recommended for you

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

julianpenrod
1 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2018
The "Matthew Effect", as stated, is dangerous. Among other things, it assumes that the processes indicated are a natural occurrence, based only on factors mentioned, rather than an arbitrary, driven system. Danger also comes from the suggested form of the "Matthew Effect" essentially endorsing such methods as seeing as connection between things, then deciding which facet one wants to believe causes the other.
Yes, those with a lot of power, money, influences, popularity, do keep getting more. But what causes that?
Is it because gains tend to attract more gains? That's a simplistic answer. It ignores the very real consideration, or deliberately avoids the real consideration, that those who have a lot have worked their way into a strata who all have a lot and act constantly to try to make sure only "the kind of crook they can work with" gets a great deal. The New World Order, those who never lose! Entry, for many, is simply by sex with the rich.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2018
One of the risks of being a theorist is hypothesizing in advance of the facts. It is unavoidable if one is to hypothesize. A lack of understanding of this dynamic is endemic among science conspiracy, errr, advocates. Of course, such individuals may wind up subscribing to things like urine therapy if they are not constrained by the facts.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.