An Examination of Recent Hypotheses About Institutional Inbreeding

Institutional inbreeding has traditionally been viewed as a manifestation of academic particularism and parochialism. More recently, McGee and Berelson have hypothesized that, under certain circumstances, inbreeding may reflect patterns of recruitment and may aid a department's efforts to secure the services of noninbred scholars. This paper examines data for 1,165 .U.S. academic scientists in an attempt to test the hypotheses of McGee and Berelson. Small but consistently negative relationships between being inbred and measures of scholarly productivity are found; inbred scientists at high-prestige departments appear to be no more productive than scientists at departments of lesser eminence. In addition, evidence consistent with McGee's claim that inbred scientists are discriminated against in the allocation of departmental rewards is presented. Some implications of these results for the question of the nature and future of institutional inbreeding are suggested.

[1]  A. B. Hollingshead.  Ingroup Membership and Academic Selection , 1938 .

[2]  Lowell L. Hargens,et al.  Sponsored and Contest Mobility of American Academic Scientists , 1967 .

[3]  Theodore Caplow,et al.  The Academic Marketplace. , 1959 .

[4]  Allan M. Cartter,et al.  An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education , 1966 .

[5]  Stanley Lieberson,et al.  Texas Institutional Inbreeding Re-Examined , 1961, American Journal of Sociology.

[6]  Jacob Cohen.  Multiple regression as a general data-analytic system. , 1968 .

[7]  Harriet Zuckerman,et al.  Stratification in American Science , 1970 .

[8]  Marian Williams,et al.  Graduate Education in the United States , 1961 .

[9]  Walter Crosby Eells,et al.  The Effects of Inbreeding , 1935 .

[10]  Frank M. Andrews,et al.  Scientists in Organizations , 1968 .

[11]  Reece McGee.  The Function of Institutional Inbreeding , 1960, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  W. A. Kerr,et al.  Some correlates of technical and scientific productivity. , 1951, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[13]  J. R. Cole,et al.  Scientific output and recognition: a study in the operation of the reward system in science. , 1967, American sociological review.

[14]  W. Dennis,et al.  Age and productivity among scientists. , 1956, Science.

[15]  The Academic Man. , 1942 .

[16]  W. Dennis,et al.  Creative productivity between the ages of 20 and 80 years. , 1966, Journal of gerontology.

[17]  Floyd W. Reeves,et al.  The university faculty , 1933 .

[18]  Bernard Berelson,et al.  From Graduate Education in the United States , 1961 .

[19]  Lowell L. Hargens,et al.  Patterns of Mobility of New Ph.D.'s among American Academic Institutions. , 1969 .

[20]  W. Hagstrom.  Inputs, Outputs, and the Prestige of University Science Departments , 1971 .

[21]  John H. McNeely.  Faculty inbreeding in land-grant colleges and universities , 1932 .