Academic inbreeding and choice of strategic research approaches

Abstract

Academic inbreeding is a phenomenon that has been studied mostly from the standpoint of its association with research productivity. The focus has been on knowledge creation outputs and outcomes, while little to no attention has been given to the association of academic inbreeding with knowledge creation strategies and processes in academia. This article focusses on the latter, confirming that academic inbreeding is detrimental to the research aspirations, innovativeness, risk-taking, and multidisciplinarity engagement of academics' research agendas, as predicted by literature. These findings, based on a sample of more than 7000 academics from all fields of knowledge, working in more than 140 countries, do not find a greater influence of the PhD mentor on the strategic research agendas of homegrown academics as the literature would expect. The findings also underline critical differences between homegrown academics and silver-corded academics, stressing that the latter category of academics should not be considered as part of the academic inbreeding process (which concept rests on immobility), but rather understood as a category of limited institutional mobility that deserves further study.

Academic Inbreeding: A Risk or Benefit for Universities?

“…On the other hand, most academicians note that academic inbreeding has negative consequences and therefore, it poses a lot of risks on universities (Macfarlane & Jefferson, 2021;de la Torre, Perez-Esparrels, & Romero-Madrid, 2021;Horta, Meoli, & Santos, 2021;Tavares, Sin, &Lanca, 2019). In this context, firstly, the participants of this sample consider that academic inbreeding blunts scientific creativity, lowers scientific production, diminishes knowledge sharing, and reduces the mobility of faculty members.…”

“…In this sense, according to Morichika and Shibayama (2015) it may blunt scientific creativity, lower scientific production, diminish knowledge sharing, and reduce the mobility of faculty members. It is supported by many empirical researches that candidates who are later employed as faculty members at a university in which they studied have less scientific production (Banks, 2006;Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menéndez, 2010;Hargens & Farr, 1973;Horta, Veloso, & Grediaga, 2013;İnanç & Tuncer, 2011;Morichika & Shibayama, 2015;Yudkevich, 2015;Horta, Meoli, & Santos, 2021). Hence, Mishra andSmyth (2012) andShapira, Rogers andSenker (2009) emphasizes that the mobility of faculty members between institutions or countries improves creativity in terms of research.…”

“…Academic inbreeding, therefore, can lead the faculty to maintain their own research and teaching culture without allowing diversity. According to Horta, Meoli and Santos (2021) homegrown academics research agendas are not designed with the potential to lead to scientific discovery (and research breakthroughs, which involves a greater risk-taking attitude) as the ones of mobile academics. The research agendas of homegrown academics are also less ambitious.…”

New perspectives and analytical approaches to better understand academic inbreeding

“…His study underlines the dependence that academic inbreeds have on the characteristics of senior academics within the same institution, suggesting intellectual dependence. Horta et al (2021) use a worldwide sample of academics from all fields of knowledge to compare the research agendas of academic inbreeds with that of non-academic inbreeds. They find that the research agendas of inbred academics are less ambitious, innovative, risk-taking and multidisciplinary.…”

“…For example, one paper in the special issue recommends the use of the term "homegrown academic" rather than "inbred academic" to lower the discriminatory value of the latter term: being called inbred is unpleasant and it is unnecessary to derogatorily name those who were essentially in the right time and place to become "homegrown academics" (Horta et al, 2021). The practice is problematic, and the focus should be on it, not on labelling and discrimination, which may not help mitigating it.…”