Academic inbreeding and publication activities of Russian faculty

Abstract

The literature on the consequences of academic inbreeding shows ambiguous results: some papers show that inbreeding positively influences research productivity measured by the quantity and quality of publications, while others demonstrate the opposite effect. There are contradictory results both in the studies of different countries and within countries. This variety of results makes it impossible to transfer the findings from one academic system to another, and in Russia this problem has been underexplored. This paper focuses on the relationship between inbreeding and publication activity among Russian faculty. The research was conducted using the data from the 'Monitoring of educational markets and organizations' survey. The results show that there is no significant effect of academic inbreeding on publication productivity: no substantial and robust differences in publication activity between inbreds and noninbred have been found. The paper finishes with the discussion of possible explanations inherent in the Russian academic system.

Academic inbreeding in the Spanish public university system: a review of its institutional and context determinants (Endogamia en el sistema universitario público español: una revisión de sus determinantes institucionales y contextuales)

“…En cuanto a los estudios empíricos sobre endogamia, la revisión de la literatura muestra que la mayoría utilizan microdatos (información a nivel del Personal Docente e Investigador — PDI) normalmente obtenidos a través de encuestas. Estos estudios suelen centrarse o bien en la medición de la endogamia (Yuret, 2018), o bien en el análisis de sus consecuencias (por ejemplo Alipova & Lovakov, 2018; Horta, 2013; Lovakov et al, 2019; Tavares et al, 2019 para en análisis del efecto de la endogamia en la productividad investigadora; Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menendez, 2010; Mikhalkina et al, 2019 analizan la relación entre la endogamia y el desarrollo de la carrera académica y/o profesional), y/o en el análisis de las características del PDI endogámico y no endogámico (Kosmulski, 2015).…”

“…Our literature review on academic inbreeding shows that the majority of empirical studies use microdata (information at the level of academic staff) usually obtained via surveys. These studies tend to focus on either measuring inbreeding (Yuret, 2018) or analysing its consequences (such as Alipova & Lovakov, 2018; Horta, 2013; Lovakov et al, 2019; Tavares et al, 2019, which analyse the effect of academic inbreeding on research productivity; Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menendez, 2010; Mikhalkina et al, 2019, which analyse the relationship between inbreeding and the development of an academic and/or professional career) and/or on the characteristics of inbred and non-inbred staff (Kosmulski, 2015).…”

Academic Inbreeding: A Risk or Benefit for Universities?

“…According to a recent research done in Russia (Alipova & Lovakov, 2018) there is no significant effect of academic inbreeding on publication productivity: no substantial and robust differences in publication activity between inbreds and non-inbreds have been found.…”

How do university systems' features affect academic inbreeding? Career rules and language requirements in France, Germany, Italy and Spain

“…It has even been described as a practice that can 'ultimately place the university's legitimacy and social utility in jeopardy' (Horta et al, 2010, p. 426). From a scientific perspective, institutional inbreeding has been mainly constructed as a practice with a negative effect on productivity and innovation (e.g., Alipova & Lovakov, 2018;Arimoto, 2015;Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menéndez, 2010;Horta et al, 2010;Tavares et al, 2019). That is because inbred academics are less likely to exchange scholarly information outside local networks in their universities, which hampers the application of new theories and methods (see also Horta, 2013).…”