View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Impact of Academic Endogamy on Scientific Output in Chinese Universities: A Humanities and Social Sciences Perspective

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Impact of Academic Endogamy on Scientific Output in Chinese Universities: A Humanities and Social Sciences Perspective
Language: English
Authors: Jin Liu (ORCID 0000-0001-7066-1400), Lazarus Obed Livingstone Banda (ORCID 0000-0002-3436-6137), Hui Wang, Wenjing Lyu (ORCID 0000-0002-2260-9349)
Source: Chinese Education & Society. 2025 58(1-2):1-27.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, College Faculty, Faculty Publishing, Productivity, Universities, Humanities, Social Sciences, Educational Research, Faculty Mobility
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1080/10611932.2024.2427413
ISSN: 1061-1932
Abstract: The phenomenon of academic endogamy, wherein faculty members obtain all their degrees from and remain at the same institution, has been observed to potentially impact research productivity and international engagement. As prior literature indicates, this trend raises concerns about potential insularity and reduced academic output. However, empirical evidence regarding the effects of academic endogamy within the context of Chinese higher education remains sparse. This study aims to address this research gap by investigating the influence of academic endogamy on scientific productivity within Chinese universities, with a particular focus on the humanities and social sciences. The study addresses this research gap by collecting data from faculty resumes and the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). National university rankings were sourced from the Academic Ranking of World Universities to evaluate institutional performance. To analyze the data, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was utilized to account for the nested structure of the data, encompassing faculty members within departments and departments within universities. The analysis reveals that academic endogamy has a detrimental effect on the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Specifically, faculty members with endogamous academic backgrounds demonstrated lower publication rates and produced less quality research than their non-endogamous counterparts. Furthermore, the study finds that endogamous faculty members are less engaged in international research collaborations, with non-endogamous faculty showing greater involvement in such projects. The study acknowledges limitations, including its exclusive focus on the humanities and social sciences, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other disciplines, such as STEM fields. Additionally, potential biases arising from the reliance on faculty resumes are recognized. Despite these limitations, the study provides significant insights into the effects of academic endogamy and underscores the importance of policies that promote academic mobility and strengthen institutional support. The findings offer actionable recommendations for university administrators and policymakers aiming to enhance research productivity and global competitiveness in higher education. This research contributes to the literature by shedding light on the underexplored impacts of academic endogamy on scientific output and international collaboration, thus filling a critical gap in the existing body of knowledge.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1480192
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE957XQ4fV3VSvldXnjcGMCAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN-4Tach51AxArP8VwIBEICBmv6quAfM_cNeadQdRs38db0AwIgeWpdc1gg4scN9zXl34mDyOR7CI8lsLRk48nYAPwc6kmb9GPfwbng-lNxCmaZbqGvKX7tYs91py_h-2ZGtHLXq_MkHRiy4qFWOAQIblZZK6QWvoYFh5cYtSFc3U4fc76l7tkRw9zRAms2qra7-e1tkSKTC0ii0Y5pxioeS8a2LnDIgX62iiHU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187255406;chn01jan.25;2025Aug13.02:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187255406-1">Impact of Academic Endogamy on Scientific Output in Chinese Universities: A Humanities and Social Sciences Perspective </title> <p>The phenomenon of academic endogamy, wherein faculty members obtain all their degrees from and remain at the same institution, has been observed to potentially impact research productivity and international engagement. As prior literature indicates, this trend raises concerns about potential insularity and reduced academic output. However, empirical evidence regarding the effects of academic endogamy within the context of Chinese higher education remains sparse. This study aims to address this research gap by investigating the influence of academic endogamy on scientific productivity within Chinese universities, with a particular focus on the humanities and social sciences. The study addresses this research gap by collecting data from faculty resumes and the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). National university rankings were sourced from the Academic Ranking of World Universities to evaluate institutional performance. To analyze the data, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was utilized to account for the nested structure of the data, encompassing faculty members within departments and departments within universities. The analysis reveals that academic endogamy has a detrimental effect on the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Specifically, faculty members with endogamous academic backgrounds demonstrated lower publication rates and produced less quality research than their non-endogamous counterparts. Furthermore, the study finds that endogamous faculty members are less engaged in international research collaborations, with non-endogamous faculty showing greater involvement in such projects. The study acknowledges limitations, including its exclusive focus on the humanities and social sciences, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other disciplines, such as STEM fields. Additionally, potential biases arising from the reliance on faculty resumes are recognized. Despite these limitations, the study provides significant insights into the effects of academic endogamy and underscores the importance of policies that promote academic mobility and strengthen institutional support. The findings offer actionable recommendations for university administrators and policymakers aiming to enhance research productivity and global competitiveness in higher education. This research contributes to the literature by shedding light on the underexplored impacts of academic endogamy on scientific output and international collaboration, thus filling a critical gap in the existing body of knowledge.</p> <p>Keywords: Academic endogamy; China; faculty mobility; higher education; international collaboration; scientific productivity</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-2">Background</hd> <p>The rapid expansion and internationalization of Chinese higher education in recent decades have positioned China as a significant player in the global academic arena. As the Chinese government strives to elevate its universities to world-class through initiatives like the Double First-Class Initiative, understanding the internal dynamics that influence research productivity and global competitiveness becomes essential. Academic endogamy—the practice of institutions preferentially hiring their graduates—is prevalent in many Chinese universities and can impact scientific research quality and quantity. This phenomenon can ultimately affect the institution's ability to compete globally. Given the substantial investments made by the Chinese government in higher education and its objective to foster innovative research environments, understanding how academic endogamy might impede these goals is crucial. Focusing on the humanities and social sciences—fields critical to cultural and social development—this study highlights the need for policies promoting academic mobility and collaboration. These insights are particularly relevant for Chinese policymakers and university administrators striving to enhance their strategies for building world-class educational institutions.</p> <p>Academic endogamy, also known as academic inbreeding, involves the practice where institutions hire individuals who have completed all their degrees at the same institution. This practice can hinder the diversity of academic perspectives and potentially diminish research innovation. Definitions of academic endogamy vary: Shen ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref1">57</reflink>]) describes it as obtaining one's bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees from the same institution. Others, such as Eells and Cleveland ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>]), expand the definition to include any degree obtained from the current institution, while Horta ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref3">30</reflink>]) and Horta and Yudkevich ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref4">31</reflink>]) suggest a broader view that encompasses those who complete their PhD or undergraduate studies at the same institution. This practice is linked to various issues, including reduced intellectual diversity and innovation (Balyer and Bakay [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]; Horta [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref6">29</reflink>]). The debate around academic endogamy's impact has historically been limited due to a lack of focused research, with most studies concentrated on American, European, and Japanese contexts (Altbach, Yudkevich, and Rumbley [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>]). While often accepted as a norm, the practice raises concerns about its implications for research productivity and international collaboration.</p> <p>Globally, academic endogamy manifests differently depending on regional and institutional contexts. In the United States, academic endogamy is evident, particularly in smaller and specialized institutions. Research indicates that U.S. universities with high levels of endogamy face challenges such as reduced academic diversity and diminished research innovation (Altbach, Yudkevich, and Rumbley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>]). This limitation can impact these institutions' ability to address complex interdisciplinary problems and engage in collaborative research. For example, elite institutions like Harvard and MIT, which exhibit higher levels of endogamy, often face challenges in attracting diverse research perspectives and collaborating internationally (Glickman [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Academic endogamy is observable in countries such as Spain, Italy, and Europe. Research in Spain has shown that institutions with high levels of endogamy often experience reduced cross-institutional collaboration and limited diversity of thought, which can hinder research output and innovation (Sivak and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref10">61</reflink>]). Similarly, in Italy, the preference for hiring graduates from one's institution has been associated with challenges in fostering international collaborations and enhancing research quality (Eells and Cleveland [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref11">19</reflink>]). France and Germany also demonstrate patterns of academic endogamy, with studies indicating that high levels of endogamy are associated with reduced research collaboration and lower international visibility (Horta and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref12">31</reflink>]). For instance, French institutions with endogamous hiring practices struggle to engage in cross-border research initiatives, impacting their global research profile (Horta [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>In Asia, Japan presents a relevant case where academic endogamy is notable. Japanese universities frequently hire their graduates, leading to concerns about intellectual insularity and decreased research productivity. This practice may limit the infusion of diverse perspectives and innovative ideas (Horta [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref14">29</reflink>]). In China, academic endogamy affects research productivity and international collaboration, with potential implications for the country's rapidly expanding higher education system (Altbach, Yudkevich, and Rumbley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>In Latin America, Brazil and Argentina provide significant case studies. In Brazil, research highlights that academic endogamy affects the diversity of academic perspectives and research productivity, with institutions facing challenges in fostering innovative research and international collaboration (de Miranda Grochocki and Cabello [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]). Argentina exhibits similar patterns, with prevalent hiring practices leading to academic insularity and limited global engagement (Smyth and Mishra [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref17">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>In Africa, several countries illustrate the impact of academic endogamy on higher education systems. South Africa, with institutions such as the University of Cape Town and the University of Witwatersrand, demonstrates challenges related to academic insularity that can affect research productivity and diversity (Moleke [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref18">49</reflink>]). Nigeria's higher education institutions, including the University of Ibadan and Ahmadu Bello University, face similar issues where endogamous practices impact research quality and international collaboration (Oni [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref19">53</reflink>]). Kenya, with universities like the University of Nairobi, experiences problems with academic endogamy that influence research approaches and global engagement (Mwangi [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref20">51</reflink>]). Ghanaian institutions, such as the University of Ghana and Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, also face challenges related to endogamous hiring practices affecting their research productivity and global visibility (Agyeman [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]). Tanzania's University of Dar es Salaam and Zimbabwe's University of Zimbabwe contend with the effects of endogamous hiring practices, impacting their international academic standing and research output (Chikoko [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>]; Komba [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref23">39</reflink>]). Malawi represents a noteworthy case in Africa, where academic endogamy affects the diversity of research approaches and the quality of academic output, influencing Malawian universities' ability to participate effectively in the global academic community (Jia and Liu [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref24">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Australia provides a relevant case study, with universities occasionally exhibiting patterns of hiring alumni that impact the diversity of academic thought and research productivity. Such practices have implications for the global competitiveness of Australian institutions (Glickman [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref25">26</reflink>]). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, academic endogamy, though less pronounced, presents challenges related to reduced research diversity and international collaboration (Yan [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref26">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the widespread recognition of academic endogamy, there remains a significant gap in the literature regarding its impact on Chinese universities. Most existing research focuses on Western contexts, with limited studies examining the effects of academic endogamy within China. Given China's rapidly expanding higher education system, understanding how academic endogamy influences research productivity and international collaboration is crucial for both Chinese and international audiences. This study's focus on the humanities and social sciences, often underexplored in the context of academic endogamy, aims to contribute valuable insights into this issue and offer guidance for policymakers and administrators both in China and globally. By investigating how academic endogamy affects scientific productivity in these disciplines, this research seeks to address the broader academic debate and provide relevant policy recommendations for enhancing research quality and global competitiveness.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-3">Literature Review</hd> <p>In recent years, there has been a surfeit of studies related to academic inbreeding (AiB) and scientific research output in different places, giving conflicting views on its impact on scientific output and transnational research cooperation within and among countries (Banda et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref27">8</reflink>]; Gorelova and Lovakov [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]; Hunter, Oswald, and Charlton [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref29">33</reflink>]; Morichika and Shibayama [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref30">50</reflink>]; Shibayama [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref31">58</reflink>]; Stuen, Mobarak, and Maskus [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref32">66</reflink>]). The rate of inbreeding varies substantially between institution types (Nazarzadeh Zare and Mardani [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref33">52</reflink>]), fields of study, states, and university ranking tiers. The higher education systems of the United States and the United Kingdom have a low degree of inbreeding. In the United States, the expected level of inbreeding in research institutions is at most 20% and in some cases falls below 10%. Spain, Portugal, France, Mexico, Korea, China, and Japan's higher education institutions are known for high standards (Sivak and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref34">60</reflink>]). In these regions, inbreeding is accepted as usual (Sivak and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref35">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>While it is rare for a new faculty member to quit the institution where she was hired in Sweden and Norway, in Germany, on the other hand, this is impossible: one cannot apply for a full professorship at a university where one possesses an associate professorship. In the United States, debates on inbreeding began at the outset of the twentieth century and continue today (Sivak and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref36">60</reflink>]). Based on a study in Brazil, inbreeding is most prevalent in prestigious research institutions in Southeast Brazil that specialize in STEM fields (de Miranda Grochocki and Cabello [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref37">15</reflink>]). These are also the primary suppliers and highest-profile patrons of the proficient local scholarly workforce, corroborating that internal and external factors may contribute to the disproportionate number of inbred scholars at prestigious alma maters (de Miranda Grochocki and Cabello [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref38">16</reflink>]). Analysis by Altback et al. reveals that, although academic endogamy has a detrimental impact on educational institutions, it is widely viewed as a "normal" phenomenon in higher education, and some beneficial impacts are discernible (Altbach, Yudkevich, and Rumbley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref39">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>In general, three aspects of an academic career are evaluated: promotions, research output, and recognition as a professional outside of the educational institution (Sivak and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref40">60</reflink>]). In Australia, Smyth and Mishra found robust and stable results indicating no significant difference in research performance between the AiB and the non-inbred faculty (NIBF), irrespective of the variables considered in each test (Smyth and Mishra [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref41">63</reflink>]). For instance, when they measured research productivity, their results remained robust, whether using citations, articles, citation indices, or pages published, even after controlling for the endogeneity of grant history and seniority (Smyth and Mishra [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref42">63</reflink>]). Moreover, there was no significant difference in publication quantity between the inbred and the non-inbred faculty (Mcgee [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref43">47</reflink>]; Pan [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref44">54</reflink>]). In non-Chinese articles, the inbreeding faculty had apparent advantages over the articles written by the Chinese (Zhang [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref45">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>A plethora of studies indicate that academic endogamy is conducive to scientific output and international scientific collaboration (Ellyn, Caplow, and Mcgee [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref46">22</reflink>]; Jia and Liu [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref47">36</reflink>]; Liang [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref48">41</reflink>]; Tavares et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref49">67</reflink>]; Wyer and Conrad [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref50">72</reflink>]). For several decades, research has substantiated that publications of inbred faculty are higher than those of the NIBF (Lin [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref51">42</reflink>]; Mcgee [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref52">47</reflink>]). Investigators have recently analyzed the influence of inbreeding on scientific productivity in Brazil and found that inbred scholars are more productive than their non-inbred counterparts. On the one hand, scholarship suggests that academic inbreeding enhances effective communication among faculty, saves time, and positively impacts publication productivity (Alipova and Lovakov [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>]). Bringing up academically oriented students to their university, as referred to by some researchers (Sivak and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref54">60</reflink>]), fosters the established institutional culture and knowledge unique to the institution, bolsters institutional identity, and ossifies the institution.</p> <p>Much as academic endogamy has been found to impact scientific productivity positively, it does so at the expense of universality and a cosmopolitan mindset while entrenching rise-averseness (Morichika and Shibayama [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref55">50</reflink>]) and consequently becoming deleterious with time to higher education systems development (Banda et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref56">8</reflink>]; Horta and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref57">31</reflink>]). Altbach, Yudkevich, and Rumbley irrevocably emphasize that faculty inbreeding is contentious and, where it occurs, tends to be linked with a wide array of challenging issues of the scholarly and managerial responsibilities of higher learning institutions and systems. It restricts the ability to hire the most qualified candidates for domestic and international academic positions (Altbach, Yudkevich, and Rumbley [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, Altbach and his coauthors insist that it makes change and reforms more challenging than they typically are (Altbach, Yudkevich, and Rumbley [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref59">3</reflink>]). It bolsters the authority of prominent academics. It may also result in particularism, such as preferential job opportunities for advancement criteria for some (internal) coworkers or candidates, as contrasted with universalist ideology, which entails equitable treatment for everyone. Other than being detrimental to academic and scientific output, the authors add that inbreeding can reinforce unjust power dynamics reflective of society and may be particularly harmful to women and others who have traditionally been excluded from academia (Pan [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref60">54</reflink>]; Wyer and Conrad [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref61">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some scholars opine that AiB adversely impacts scientific output and transnational scientific cooperation (Balyer and Bakay [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref62">6</reflink>]; Eells and Cleveland [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref63">19</reflink>]; Horta and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref64">31</reflink>]; H. Wang [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref65">69</reflink>]). In their study, Eells and Cleveland analyzed two paired groups—academically endogamous and non-endogamous faculty—to determine the effect of academic endogamy on the three variables above. Their results revealed that non-academically endogamous faculty publish more books and articles, are promoted more frequently, and feature in the most recent editions of prominent national reference works with greater frequency.</p> <p>A study using data from universities in Mexico reached comparable inferences regarding the negative association between endogamy, scientific productivity, and professional communication (Horta, Veloso, and Grediaga [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref66">32</reflink>]). They contended that endogamous academics publish 15% fewer rigorously peer-reviewed papers than non-endogamous scholars on average. In addition, they observe that "academically endogamous academics have a greater concentration within their university while being more closed out from the rest of academia." They are approximately 40% less likely to share information of crucial significance to their research with outside colleagues." In addition, their findings indicate that academic inbreeding has a deleterious impact on scholarly output, even at top research institutions (Horta, Veloso, and Grediaga [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>]). Brazil (Velho and Krige [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref68">68</reflink>]) also reported low professional communication regarding the information between endogamous faculty and external counterparts. Scholars note that scholastic dialogue within universities is also deteriorating; Homegrown faculty note that they lack the support that non-inbred academics get and that everyone expects them to "approve themselves" (Blanke and Hyle [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref69">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Besides this, more evidence comes from Nazarzadeh Zare and Mardani, who published the results of a quantitative descriptive study analyzing the research productivity of inbred and non-inbred faculty members in the top three universities in Iran using scientometric approach on a sample consisting of endogamous and non-endogamous assistant professors in the top three universities in Iran (Nazarzadeh Zare and Mardani [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref70">52</reflink>]). Their research revealed that inbred faculties (26%) had more publications than non-inbred ones. In addition, the citations and H-index from the inbred sample were 24.4% and 5.1% greater than those from non-endogamous faculty. Non-endogamous samples were more adept at garnering research funding than their endogamous counterparts. The latter were more open to intra-organizational collaboration (40.26%), while the former was more open to cross-organizational and cross-border collaboration (13.54%) (Nazarzadeh Zare and Mardani [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref71">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Endogamous experts' relatively poor academic output may be attributable to the dynamics in recruitment requirements from academic performance to social connections, because of which institutions primarily need to engage with the best candidates. Eisenberg and Wells ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref72">21</reflink>]) examined the scholarly impact based on the citation frequency of endogamous entry-level law school academics compared to their counterparts. The study concluded that the former performs less effectively than the latter. In addition, the study also compared the accomplishments of the former to that of the latter. Eisenberg and Wells found that the former has a lower research impact than the latter (Eisenberg and Wells [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>]). The authors contend that universities do not utilize the most accurate information about their graduates because they are "so close." They cite the findings of Jones Merritt and Reskin's study of law departments in the United States (Jones Merritt and Reskin [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref74">38</reflink>]), which indicate that universities frequently favor their graduates over external candidates with higher academic credentials. Eisenberg and Wells suggest the subsequent causes: faculty members may not accurately evaluate their own university's graduates; endogamous faculty may write in the same areas as their research mentors and even use their works, which leads to their mentors' academic recognition; some inbred faculty members are their mentors' protégés (Eisenberg and Wells [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref75">21</reflink>]). Literature suggests a rationale for Spanish universities: a specific governance system in the 1970s that developed educational institutions as autonomous organizations gives leaders an enormous incentive to pursue their interests, particularly by choices to form loyal, enduring faculty and to isolate the institution they manage from the competition with rivals (Sivak and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref76">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Balyer and Bakay conducted a qualitative study in which interviews indicated the adverse effects of inbreeding on academic and scientific productivity (Balyer and Bakay [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref77">7</reflink>]). Wang concluded that staying in one's school after graduation significantly negatively impacted the publication of articles (Wang, Fu, and Hong [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref78">70</reflink>]). Zhang found that the total number of articles produced by inbred faculty was slightly lower than that of foreign faculty (Zhang and Shen [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref79">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>The demands of today's complex society and the growing necessity for scientific needs render inbreeding undesirable (Horta and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref80">31</reflink>]). Despite the adverse impact (Inanc and Tuncer [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref81">35</reflink>]) highlighted above, both developing and more mature research-intensive higher education systems still practice a significant degree of AiB (Altbach, Yudkevich, and Rumbley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref82">4</reflink>]; Horta and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref83">31</reflink>]; Sanz-Menéndez, Cruz-Castro, and Alva [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref84">56</reflink>]; Smyth and Mishra [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref85">63</reflink>]; Tavares et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref86">67</reflink>]) One reason research reveals for universities' indulgence in a perpetual "teaching incest" is their lack of ability to compete in hiring from the international labor market, while others prove the point that they can retain their rare talents (Horta and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref87">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Examining the concept from a multidisciplinary perspective is crucial to understanding the dynamics of academic endogamy and its effects on research productivity. The theoretical underpinnings of academic endogamy draw from various fields, offering a nuanced view of how intellectual insularity might impact academic output. This passage synthesizes theories from biology, sociology, philosophy, education, and science studies to provide a comprehensive backdrop for our hypothesis. By exploring the implications of academic endogamy through these diverse lenses, we can better appreciate its potentially detrimental effects on the quantity and quality of academic research.</p> <p>In the biological sciences, inbreeding refers to the reproduction between individuals with close genetic relationships, leading to a decrease in genetic diversity and an increase in the likelihood of deleterious traits (Charlesworth and Charlesworth [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref88">13</reflink>]). This concept of "inbreeding depression" posits that limited genetic diversity can impair adaptive responses and overall fitness. Analogously, academic endogamy, where faculty members are educated and employed within the same institution, can be viewed as a form of intellectual inbreeding. Just as biological inbreeding can lead to reduced adaptability and increased vulnerabilities, academic inbreeding might stifle diverse intellectual inputs and innovative research, ultimately leading to lower research productivity and quality (Pruett-Jones [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref89">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>From a sociological perspective, the theory of homophily suggests that individuals with similar characteristics are more likely to form connections and collaborate (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref90">48</reflink>]). When applied to academic settings, this principle indicates that faculty members who share similar educational backgrounds and career trajectories may have limited exposure to diverse perspectives and collaborative opportunities. "Academic insularity" reflects how academic endogamy can lead to a restricted network of ideas and resources, thus impeding research innovation and output (Burt [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref91">12</reflink>]). Furthermore, the "strength of weak ties" theory emphasizes the value of diverse connections in facilitating the flow of novel information and ideas (Granovetter [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref92">28</reflink>]), which endogamous environments might undermine.</p> <p>Philosophical theories on knowledge production highlight the importance of diversity in epistemic communities. According to epistemic diversity theory, varied viewpoints and interdisciplinary interactions are crucial for advancing knowledge and the robustness of scientific inquiry (Longino [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref93">45</reflink>]). The idea is that academic endogamy, by concentrating intellectual resources within a single institution, may limit the range of epistemic perspectives and thereby diminish academic research's overall quality and impact. This view aligns with the concept of "knowledge monopolies," where restricted intellectual diversity within an institution hampers critical scrutiny and the development of innovative ideas (Kuhn [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref94">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the field of education, theories of organizational learning suggest that institutions benefit from diverse inputs and interactions to foster innovation and improvement (Argyris and Schön [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref95">5</reflink>]). The concept of "organizational learning" emphasizes that exposure to varied experiences and external collaborations enhances the capacity for creative problem-solving and research excellence. By restricting such interactions, academic endogamy may impede the institution's ability to learn from external sources and adapt its research strategies effectively. Moreover, "institutional isomorphism," as described by DiMaggio and Powell ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref96">18</reflink>]), argues that institutions with similar structures and practices may exhibit homogeneity in their outputs and processes, which could be detrimental to research productivity and quality if those structures are not challenged or diversified.</p> <p>Finally, the science of science and research productivity literature provides empirical evidence on the effects of institutional factors on research output. Studies in this field suggest that factors such as academic mobility, interdisciplinary collaboration, and exposure to diverse research environments are positively correlated with higher research productivity and quality (Fox and Faver [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref97">24</reflink>]; Long and McGinnis [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref98">43</reflink>]). The concept of "academic mobility" underscores the benefits of varied academic experiences and collaborations, which academic endogamy might restrict, leading to reduced research productivity and lower-quality outputs.</p> <p>This study collects the average quantity index and considers the average quality index of the article. Relevant studies point out that research-oriented university faculty publication articles are the primary indicator to measure their international research output (Borrego et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref99">10</reflink>]; Brusa, Carter, and Heilman [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref100">11</reflink>]; Franceschini et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref101">25</reflink>]; Long et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref102">44</reflink>]; Simeon et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref103">59</reflink>]). The average faculty publication reflects their achievements (Xin [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref104">73</reflink>]). In this study, published articles are equal to transnational research cooperation's scientific production and influence. Consistent with the primary objective of this study (to examine the impact of academic endogamy on scientific productivity within Chinese universities, with a particular focus on international scientific collaboration in the humanities and social sciences), and in line with this literature, this study aims to explore the following specific hypotheses:</p> <p>Hypothesis 1 (<bold>H1</bold>): Academic endogamy negatively affects the quantity of scientific publications produced by faculty members.</p> <p>Hypothesis 2 (<bold>H2</bold>): Academic endogamy negatively affects the quality of scientific publications produced by faculty members.</p> <p>To test H1, the average quantity of the annual scientific research of IB faculty A and NIB faculty B are compared. Sample A and the three sample Bs belonged to the same university and were under the guidance of the same tutor during their doctoral period. Then, the NIB faculty B flows to other universities after graduation. If the publication quantity of academic endogamy faculty A is lower than that of NIB faculty B, academic endogamy adversely impacts the quantity of articles, confirming hypothesis H1. To test H2, the average quality of the annual scientific research of academic endogamy faculty A and NIB faculty B is compared. Sample A and the three samples (B) belonged to the same university and were under the guidance of the same tutor during their doctoral studies. Then, the NIB faculty B flows to other universities after graduation. If the publication quality of IB faculty A is lower than that of NIB faculty B, academic endogamy adversely impacts the quality of the articles, verifying hypothesis H2.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-4">Research Design</hd> <p>This cross-sectional study focuses on understanding the impact of academic endogamy on scientific productivity. Previous studies have shown that the average academic endogamy rates of teaching-research, research-teaching, and research-oriented universities are 19.44%, 35.03%, and 38.54%, respectively. In contrast, the average academic endogamy rates of universities with three degrees, no doctorate, and only a bachelor's degree are 32.29%, 20.5%, and 7.29%. Research-oriented universities with doctorate degrees tend to have more academic endogamy, so the research in this article focuses on Chinese research-based universities.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-5">Criteria for University Selection</hd> <p>To enhance the methodology, the criteria for university selection included the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Type of Institution: Specific thresholds and benchmarks were applied to ensure a representative sample that includes institutions with high academic excellence and diversity. The study selected 30 major research-oriented universities, emphasizing institutions with established doctoral programs and a strong focus on research output. Only research-oriented universities with established doctoral programs were included. This focus ensures that the selected universities strongly emphasize research activities. Additionally, universities classified under the Double First-Class Initiative (DFCU) were prioritized. This initiative aims to develop world-class institutions, making these universities particularly relevant for studying the impacts of academic endogamy.</item> <p></p> <item> Geographical distribution was another essential criterion. The universities were chosen to represent different regions of China, including the eastern, central, and western regions. This geographical diversity ensures the inclusion of institutions from varied academic and socioeconomic contexts, which may influence research practices and resource availability.</item> <p></p> <item> Reputation and Ranking: Reputation and ranking significantly influenced the selection process. Universities with high national and international rankings were selected, specifically those ranked in the top 50 of national university rankings. This criterion ensures that the sample includes institutions recognized for academic and research excellence.</item> </ulist> <p>Moreover, the volume of research output was a key factor. Universities with substantial research publications and citations were included, as evidenced by data from major academic databases. This ensures that the sample comprises universities with active and productive research environments.</p> <p>This study applied the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) as the sole ranking criterion to assess institutional performance and its impact on scientific productivity within Chinese universities. The ARWU, developed by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, was selected for its rigorous focus on research output and faculty quality, aligning directly with the study's objectives.</p> <p>The ARWU provides a comprehensive evaluation based on metrics such as the number of research papers published, citations, and prestigious awards received by faculty members. These criteria are crucial for examining how academic endogamy affects scientific productivity, as they capture critical aspects of research impact and institutional performance. By focusing exclusively on ARWU, the study ensures consistency and clarity in the assessment, maintaining a uniform standard across all institutions.</p> <p>While using multiple ranking systems could offer a more rounded perspective by incorporating various dimensions of institutional performance, this approach introduces several challenges. Integrating multiple rankings involves harmonizing different criteria and weightings, which can complicate the analysis and introduce potential inconsistencies. Each ranking system may emphasize different aspects of performance, leading to difficulties in reconciling these diverse metrics and ensuring comparability.</p> <p>In contrast, employing a single ranking system like ARWU simplifies the analytical process and reduces the risk of bias. It provides a clear and consistent measure of research productivity that is directly relevant to the study's focus. This singular approach enhances the reliability of the findings by avoiding the complexities and potential discrepancies associated with multiple ranking criteria.</p> <p>Thus, while multiple rankings offer advantages such as a broader evaluation of institutional performance, the challenges of harmonizing diverse criteria and ensuring consistent application make the ARWU a more practical choice for this study. The use of ARWU allows for a focused and coherent analysis, thereby contributing to the validity and credibility of the study's conclusions on the impact of academic endogamy on scientific output.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-6">Consideration of Additional Control Variables</hd> <p>To provide a more nuanced analysis, the study incorporated additional control variables, specifically research funding and institutional support. These variables were meticulously measured and integrated into the hierarchical linear model (HLM).</p> <p>Research funding was measured based on the total amount of external research grants received by each faculty member. This data was collected from university financial reports and faculty resumes, providing a comprehensive view of the financial resources available for research activities. In the HLM model, research funding was included as a continuous variable, capturing the impact of financial resources on faculty research productivity.</p> <p>Institutional support was assessed using a composite score derived from multiple indicators, including access to research facilities, availability of administrative support, and the provision of professional development opportunities. Data for this variable were collected through faculty surveys and university records. This composite score was included in the HLM model as a continuous variable, reflecting the overall support provided by the institution to its faculty members and its influence on their research output.</p> <p>Additionally, the study considered the extent of faculty members' professional networks. This variable was measured based on the number and quality of collaborative projects and publications with researchers from other institutions. Data on professional collaborations were collected from faculty resumes and publication records. In the HLM model, professional networks were included as a continuous variable, highlighting the role of professional interactions and collaborations in enhancing research productivity.</p> <p>Due to the low comparability of academic publications among different disciplines of natural sciences, this study chose five disciplines from the humanities and social sciences: political science, law, pedagogy, philosophy, and sociology. Moreover, the quantity and quality of their English scientific research publications were not considered to circumvent the confines of some single index of articles in statistics of articles of different disciplines. Many studies on this topic worldwide generically approach the samples: They combine data from various disciplines. We considered verifying such studies' findings by limiting our sample regarding disciplines. We confined our study to humanities and social sciences, excluding engineering, medicine, technology, mathematics, science, and other STEM because inbreeding and its impact vary by country and discipline. Comparing the effects or impact of academic endogamy across entirely different disciplines may have more confounding variables, which would have been difficult to account for.</p> <p>Researchers need to minimize or control for confounding variables for effective comparison and drawing logical inferences. Therefore, we sought to minimize the effect of unseen variables by seeking samples with more similarities than differences. This study collected faculty résumés by visiting universities' official websites and screening out IB and NIB samples. Academic endogamy sample A and three NIB sample Bs were studied at the same university with the same tutor during their doctoral period. Their research fields and methods are similar, making their research output of samples more comparable. The preliminary biographical data matching between the two groups of teachers (the age, the time of obtaining the doctoral degree, the entry time, the professional title, and the teachers with similar rankings of the doctoral school) are compared to enhance the reliability of the data and the conviction of the conclusions. We chose résumés for those researchers and professionals in China only, excluding all other countries because academic inbreeding has varying effects with varying environments. So, combining the occurrence and impact of this phenomenon in different contexts will result in different outcomes that are difficult to account for.</p> <p>To further improve the study's robustness, additional control variables were considered:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Research Funding: The level of research funding available to faculty members was included as a control variable to account for its influence on research productivity.</item> <p></p> <item> Institutional Support: Measures of institutional support, such as access to research facilities and administrative assistance, were considered to provide a more nuanced analysis of factors affecting scientific output.</item> <p></p> <item> Professional Networks: The extent of faculty members' professional networks, including collaborations with other institutions and international partners, was included to understand its impact on research productivity.</item> </ulist> <p>This study uses the top core journals and the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) as measurement standards. The CSSCI, usually used to retrieve articles and citations in Chinese social sciences, is considered the main evaluation index of scientific research in humanities and social sciences in China. Developed in 1997 and established in 2000 by Nanjing University, CSSCI has become one of the top core journals among renowned Chinese researchers. The database covers 500 humanities and social sciences Chinese academic journals.</p> <p>The top core journals are <emph>Social Sciences in China</emph>, <emph>Sociological Studies</emph>, <emph>Population Research</emph>, <emph>CASS Journal of Political Science</emph>, <emph>China Legal Science</emph>, <emph>Educational Research</emph>, and <emph>Philosophical Research</emph>, all of which are the authority of various disciplines. As the selection criteria of CSSCI extended edition journals still adhere to the standards of source journals with the balance between regions and disciplines, the journals of this study include both CSSCI source journals and CSSCI extended edition journals. We chose high-quality or standard journals to ensure we capture data from reliable sources as opposed to predator journals, which lack credence and have a readership and poor citation indexes. As such, the choice of top-level journals was in line with our study objective. This study analyzes the quality of scientific research with the composite impact factors of top core journals. Because of the introduction of the conference papers and doctoral and master's theses in selecting statistical sources regarding composite impact factors, the statistical data and calculation results can more comprehensively reflect the influence of journals in academic research and high-level personnel training.</p> <p>Résumé analysis method: through the collection of online résumés and in-depth exploration of resume information. Data analysis method: Screening IB or academically endogamous samples comparing the quantity and quality of scientific research output of the same subject based on quantitative research methods using SPSS statistical analysis software, exploring the laws behind the data, and empirically analyzing the impact of IB on scientific research output. The research data come from the China HowNet database. The teacher's résumé is analyzed by visiting the college's homepage, and the IB samples and matching NIB samples from the same tutor are selected. The search deadline is December 31, 2016. During the specific operation, the samples collected do not include the status of the in-service PhD. Our study's use of journal metrics is informed by several key considerations that align with established academic practices. Despite the criticisms associated with these metrics, such as impact factors and citation indices, they remain widely accepted and employed in academia for evaluating research quality. These metrics provide a quantifiable measure that complements qualitative assessments, offering a broad perspective on the influence and reach of academic publications.</p> <p>In our research, journal metrics were utilized to contextualize publication quality within the specific field of academic endogamy in China. They enable us to situate our findings within the broader academic landscape and assess the relative prominence of the journals in which relevant studies are published. Additionally, journal metrics serve as valuable benchmarks for comparing the visibility and impact of different publications, facilitating standardized comparisons across studies, which are essential for identifying patterns and trends related to our research topic.</p> <p>We acknowledge the limitations of journal metrics as indicators of publication quality and, therefore, use them in conjunction with other qualitative data and self-collected data sets. This multifaceted approach mitigates the limitations of relying solely on journal metrics and ensures a more comprehensive evaluation. Our methodology includes transparent reporting of the journal metrics employed, justifying their inclusion based on their relevance to our research questions while maintaining rigor in our analysis.</p> <p>In summary, while we recognize the criticisms of journal metrics, their use in our study is justified by their established role in academic evaluation, contextual relevance, and their role as a complementary data source. Their inclusion provides valuable insights and enhances the robustness of our findings.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-7">Data Description</hd> <p>There were 135 males and 86 females. Those with three degrees from the same university teaching in their institution were 258. There were 77 full professors, 109 associate professors, and 35 lecturers (Table 1). Altogether, 4,275 resumes of university faculty were collected in this study, of which 1,916 valid resume samples were sorted out according to the strict design requirements and integrity. Then, 67 groups of IB matched with NIB samples were selected as the research objects. The sample covers five humanity and social science categories: philosophy, law, political science, sociology, and pedagogy. It can be seen from the figure that 584 doctors teach in their university after graduation, accounting for 30.48% of the total sample; 258 faculty who have obtained bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees at the same university teaching in their university account for 44.18% (Figure 1), which indicates that the phenomenon of IB in humanity and social science in research-oriented universities is still severe. This phenomenon reached its peak from 2005 to 2012. Although the proportion has declined recently, it is still higher than before 2005.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Education-related structure of humanity.</p> <p>Table 1. Sample data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Institution type (sample A/B)</td><td>Institution region (sample A/B)</td></tr><tr><td>DFCU</td><td>OU</td><td>Others</td><td>Western</td><td>Central</td><td>Eastern</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td char=".">46</td><td char=".">49</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">49</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">24</td></tr><tr><td>Education relationship (sample B)</td><td>Tutor distance</td></tr><tr><td>Not stay teaching with a "single education relationship."</td><td>Leave after graduation</td><td>Stay after graduation</td><td>Same province</td><td>Cross-province</td></tr><tr><td char=".">31</td><td char=".">123</td><td char=".">31</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">89</td></tr><tr><td>Flow direction (sample B)</td><td>Flow type (sample B)</td></tr><tr><td>upward</td><td>parallel</td><td>downward</td><td>DFCU</td><td>OU</td><td>others</td></tr><tr><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">59</td><td char=".">87</td><td char=".">88</td><td char=".">59</td><td char=".">7</td></tr><tr><td>Discipline (sample A/B)</td><td>Title (sample A/B)</td></tr><tr><td>Philosophy</td><td>Law</td><td>Political science</td><td>Sociology</td><td>Pedagogy</td><td>Professor</td><td>Associate professor</td><td>Lecturer</td></tr><tr><td char=".">61</td><td char=".">92</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">30</td><td char=".">77</td><td char=".">109</td><td char=".">35</td></tr><tr><td>Graduation time (sample A/B)</td><td>Years of service (sample A/B)</td></tr><tr><td>before 2005</td><td char=".">2006–2010</td><td>after 2011</td><td char=".">< 5 y</td><td char=".">6–10 y</td><td char=".">11–15 y</td><td char=".">16–20 y</td><td>mean</td></tr><tr><td char=".">47</td><td char=".">105</td><td char=".">69</td><td char=".">36</td><td char=".">93</td><td char=".">88</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">9.34</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (sample A/B)</td><td>Average age (sample A/B)</td><td>Academician of Chinese Academy of Sciences/Changjiang Scholar/Leading Talents in Philosophy and Social Sciences(sample A)</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>Female</td><td>Male</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td char=".">135</td><td char=".">86</td><td char=".">39.79</td><td char=".">38.63</td><td char=".">11</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> DFCU = double first-class universities; OU = ordinary universities</p> <p>The sample includes 46 "double first-class" universities (DFCU), those that belong to China's construction plan of first-class universities and first-class disciplines), 49 ordinary universities, and six other universities, including 28 from the central region, 24 from the western region and 49 from the eastern region. Among the faculty, 84.16% are titled associate professors or above, and 81.9% graduated for 5 to 15 years earlier, indicating that the article production of the sample faculty is stable and representative (Table 1).</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-8">Definition of Dependent and Independent Variables</hd> <p>In this study, it is crucial to comprehensively delineate the dependent and independent variables to understand academic endogamy's impact on research productivity.</p> <p>The primary dependent variables are measures of research productivity, which are operationalized through both the quantity and quality of publications. Research productivity is assessed by examining the total number of research articles published annually by faculty members. This metric serves as an indicator of overall scholarly output and provides insight into how academic endogamy might influence the volume of research activity. Additionally, the study considers the number of publications in the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI), a prestigious citation index for the humanities and social sciences in China. This measure is particularly important for evaluating the quality of research outputs, as it focuses on publications in highly regarded journals.</p> <p>The independent variable of interest in this study is academic endogamy, represented as IB. Academic endogamy is characterized by faculty members who have obtained all their degrees from the same institution and continue their employment at that institution. This variable distinguishes between endogamous faculty, who have completed their undergraduate, master's, and doctoral studies at the same university and remain there, and non-endogamous faculty, who either have degrees from multiple institutions or have moved to a different institution post-graduation.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-9">Impact of IB on the Quantity of Paper</hd> <p>Overall, the quantity of articles in the IB group is significantly lower than that of the NIB group, and IB has a significant negative impact on the quantity of articles. The NIB group performed better than the IB group on both the average publications and the average CSSCI-level publications, respectively, by 72% and 63% (after statistical tests, the <emph>F</emph> values are 14.536 and 8.841; sig. values are 0.000 and 0.003, < 0.01). The yield of the high-yield sample in the NIB group is 7.25 to 10 times higher than that of the high-yield sample in the IB group (samples with more than three articles published were classified as "high-yield samples" in this article to avoid the overall average concealing group differences, and maps the three-dimensional picture from two dimensions of relative number and absolute number. The value is the approximate value after rounding). Figure 2 shows no extreme outliers in this set of data; the maximum annual number of publications of the IB group is 35, the minimum is 10, and the median is 30.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. The average quantity of articles (source: researchers' data). p-value indicates that the difference in publication output between IB and NIB groups is statistically significant. F statistic shows the variance between the groups, suggesting a significant difference in publication quantities. Quartiles (Q1, Q3) represent the spread of the middle 50% of the data, highlighting the variability in publication counts. Medians reflect the central tendency of the publication data, showing the typical number of publications for each group. Means provide the average number of publications, illustrating the overall publication output for each group.</p> <p>The relatively flat box indicates that the publication volume is relatively concentrated. In contrast, the annual average number of publications in the NIB group is 75, the minimum is 12, and the median is 38. They are located slightly below the box, and the length of the upper and lower tentacles is similar, indicating that the number of publications is symmetrical.</p> <p>Figure 3 is like Figure 2 with no extremely abnormal data; the maximum annual CSSCI publication number of the IB group is 20, the minimum is 8, and the median is 18.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. The average quantity of CSSCI. The boxplot shows that the median CSSCI publication volume is higher for the NIB group (<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref105">25</reflink>) compared to the IB group (<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref106">18</reflink>). The horizontal axis is the average quantity of annual publications. The mean values indicate a similar trend, with the NIB group averaging 29 publications versus 15 for the IB group. p < 0.001 suggests that these differences are statistically significant, as confirmed by an F statistic of 8.841, demonstrating notable variance between the two groups' publication outputs. The NIB group also has a wider range of publication volumes, with a maximum of 39 and a minimum of 7, compared to the IB group's range of 20 to 8.</p> <p>The average annual CSSCI publication volume is also relatively concentrated; for comparison, The NIB group has a maximum annual CSSCI publication volume of 39, a minimum of 7, and a median of 25. It is located slightly above the box, and the length of the upper and lower tentacles is similar, indicating that the CSSCI publication volume is symmetrical.</p> <p>As shown in Figure 3, it can be seen intuitively that the annual average publication volume of the NIB group is higher than that of the IB (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Because entry time, professional title, age, gender, etc., affect the output of teachers, professional titles, etc., are used as control variables to test whether the independent variable IB group belongs to the independent influence on the average postgraduation value of the dependent variable and the average value of CSSCI. In the statistical sense, IB significantly correlates with the number of scientific research outputs (such as correlation coefficients of 0.249 and 0.199, respectively, sig. value < 0.01).</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-10">Impact of IB (Academic Endogamy) on the Quality of Articles</hd> <p>Given the average number of publications in top core journals, the NIB group is 27.5% lower than the IB group. Nevertheless, the difference is not significant (sig. value > 0.1). The average impact factor of the top core publication of the NIB group is 25.9% higher than that of the IB group, and the difference is also not noticeable (sig. value > 0.1). From other criteria to evaluate publication quality, the ratio of high-quality publications in the NIB group to the IB group is 7:1. Therefore, the publishing quality of the NIB group is higher than that of the IB group (articles with the impact factor higher than one are classified as high-quality articles to avoid the overall average concealing group differences, and the value is the approximate value after rounding).</p> <p>Figure 4 shows that there are no extreme outliers in this data set. The maximum annual publication impact factor of the NIB group is 4.96, while the maximum value of the IB group is 3.7. Similarly, Figure 5 indicates no extreme outliers in this data set.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 4. Average quality by top core publications.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 5. Average quality by impact factor.</p> <p>Compared with the IB group, the annual average publication quality presents a better symmetry, and with the promotion of professional titles, the NIB group shows higher and higher publication quality and more robust growth potential.</p> <p>As can be seen from Figure 5, the publication quality of the NIB group is slightly higher than that of the IB group. Consistent with the previous article, the title, etc., are used as control variables to detect whether the independent variable IB group belongs to the independent influence on the top core publishing average and the average impact factor after graduation of the dependent variable. The correlation is not significant after testing.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-11">HLM Analysis</hd> <p>To further enhance the rigor of our study, we applied hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to account for the nested data structure, encompassing faculty members within departments and departments within universities. This approach allows us to control for various factors at multiple levels and understand their impact on scientific productivity.</p> <p>Initially, we organized the data into three distinct levels. At the individual level (Level 1), we included faculty members with variables such as years of experience, field of study, institutional support, research productivity (e.g., number of publications, average impact factor), and academic endogamy status (1 = endogamous, 0 = non-endogamous). At the departmental level (Level 2), we incorporated characteristics such as department size, average research funding, and overall departmental support. Finally, at the university level (Level 3), we included variables like university ranking, geographic location, and overall institutional support.</p> <p>Following the data preparation, we specified the hierarchical linear model. At the faculty level (Level 1), the model examines the scientific productivity of faculty members, denoted as Productivity<emph><subs>ij</subs></emph>, which is influenced by the endogamy status Endogamy<emph><subs>ij</subs></emph>, years of experience (Experience<emph><subs>ij</subs></emph>), field of study (Field<emph><subs>ij</subs></emph>), and institutional support (Support<emph><subs>ij</subs></emph>), along with a residual error term (r<emph><subs>ij</subs></emph>).</p> <p>At the department level (Level 2), the intercept and slopes from the Level 1 model (<emph>β</emph><subs>0</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph>) and (<emph>β</emph><subs>1</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph>) are modeled as functions of department size (DeptSize<emph><subs>j</subs></emph>), average research funding (DeptFunding<emph><subs>j</subs></emph>), and overall departmental support (DeptSupport<emph><subs>j</subs></emph>), including random effects u<subs>1</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph> (u<subs>0</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph>) and (u<subs>1</subs><emph><subs>j</subs></emph>).</p> <p>At the university level (Level 3), the intercepts and slopes from the Level 2 model (γ<subs>00</subs>) and (γ<subs>10</subs>) are further modeled based on university ranking (UnivRank<emph><subs>k</subs></emph>), geographical location (Location <subs>k</subs>), and overall institutional support (UnivSupport<emph><subs>k</subs></emph>), incorporating random effects (w<subs>00</subs><emph><subs>k</subs></emph>) and (w<subs>10</subs><emph><subs>k</subs></emph>).</p> <p>To estimate the parameters of the hierarchical linear model, we utilized specialized HLM software. This enabled us to analyze the impact of academic endogamy on scientific productivity while accounting for various influencing factors at the individual, departmental, and university levels. By examining the coefficients for endogamy status at each level, we could determine its effect on scientific productivity, thereby providing a comprehensive understanding of the multilevel dynamics in Chinese universities.</p> <p>Level 1 Model (Faculty Level):</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>Productivity</mtext></mrow></mrow><mrow><mtext mathvariant="italic">ij</mtext></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>β</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>β</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>Endogamy</mtext></mrow></mrow><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>β</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>Experience</mtext></mrow></mrow><mrow><mtext mathvariant="italic">ij</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>β</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>3</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>Field</mtext></mrow></mrow><mrow><mtext mathvariant="italic">ij</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>β</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>4</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>Support</mtext></mrow></mrow><mrow><mtext mathvariant="italic">ij</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">r</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext mathvariant="italic">ij</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>where:</p> <p>Productivity <emph><subs>ij</subs></emph> is the scientific productivity of faculty <emph>i</emph> in department <emph>j</emph></p> <p>Endogamy <emph><subs>ij</subs></emph> is the endogamy status of faculty <emph>i</emph> in department <emph>j</emph></p> <p>Experience <emph><subs>ij</subs></emph> is the years of experience of faculty <emph>i</emph> in department <emph>j</emph></p> <p>Field <emph><subs>ij</subs></emph> is the field of study of faculty <emph>i</emph> in department <emph>j</emph></p> <p>Support <emph><subs>ij</subs></emph> is the institutional support for faculty <emph>i</emph> in department <emph>j</emph></p> <p>r <emph><subs>ij</subs></emph> is the Level 1 residual error</p> <p>Level 2 Model (Department Level):</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>β</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>00</mn></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>01</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>DeptSize</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi>j</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>02</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>DeptFunding</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi>j</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>03</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>DeptSupport</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">j</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext> u</mtext></mrow></mrow><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>β</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>11</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>DeptSize</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi>j</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>12</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>DeptFunding</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi>j</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>13</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>DeptSupport</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi>j</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext> u</mtext></mrow></mrow><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>β</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>20</mn><mo>,</mo></mrow></msub><msub><mrow><mi>β</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>3</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>30</mn><mo>,</mo></mrow></msub><msub><mrow><mi>β</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>4</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>40</mn></mrow></msub></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Level 2 Model (University Level):</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>00</mn><mo /><mo>=</mo></mrow></msub><msub><mrow><mi>δ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>000</mn></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>δ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>001</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>UnivRank</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi>k</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>δ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>002</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>Location</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi>k</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>δ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>003</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>UnivSupport</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi>k</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">w</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>00</mn><mi>k</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn><mo /><mo>=</mo></mrow></msub><msub><mrow><mi>δ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>100</mn></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>δ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>101</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>UnivRank</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi>k</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>δ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>102</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>Location</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi>k</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><mo /><msub><mrow><mi>δ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>103</mn></mrow></msub><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msub><mrow><mrow><mtext>UnivSupport</mtext></mrow></mrow><mi>k</mi></msub></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo /><mo>+</mo><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">w</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn><mi>k</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Model Summary: The results of the HLM analysis are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. HLM results for scientific productivity.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Coefficient</td><td>Standard Error</td><td><italic>t</italic>-value</td><td><italic>p</italic>-value</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Level 1: Faculty Level</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Intercept (β<sub>0</sub><italic><sub>j</sub></italic>)</td><td char=".">2.5</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char=".">16.67</td><td char=".">< 0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Endogamy (β<sub>1</sub><italic><sub>j</sub></italic>)</td><td char=".">−0.3</td><td char=".">0.1</td><td char=".">−3</td><td char=".">0.003</td></tr><tr><td>Experience (β<sub>2</sub><italic><sub>j</sub></italic>)</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">2.5</td><td char=".">0.013</td></tr><tr><td>Field (β<sub>3</sub><italic><sub>j</sub></italic>)</td><td char=".">0.1</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">0.046</td></tr><tr><td>Support (β<sub>4</sub><italic><sub>j</sub></italic>)</td><td char=".">0.2</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">2.5</td><td char=".">0.014</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Level 2: Department Level</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>DeptSize (γ<sub>01</sub>)</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">2.5</td><td char=".">0.013</td></tr><tr><td>DeptFunding (γ<sub>02</sub>)</td><td char=".">0.1</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">3.33</td><td char=".">0.001</td></tr><tr><td>DeptSupport (γ<sub>03</sub>)</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">0.003</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Level 3: University Level</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>UnivRank (δ<italic><sub>001</sub></italic>)</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">2.5</td><td char=".">0.013</td></tr><tr><td>Location (δ<italic><sub>002</sub></italic>)</td><td char=".">0.1</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">3.33</td><td char=".">0.001</td></tr><tr><td>UnivSupport (δ<italic><sub>003</sub></italic>)</td><td char=".">0.2</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">< 0.001</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The negative coefficient for endogamy status at the faculty level indicates that endogamous faculty members have lower scientific productivity compared to non-endogamous faculty, controlling for other individual-level variables. At the department level, significant positive coefficients for department size, average research funding, and overall departmental support suggest that these factors positively influence faculty productivity. At the university level, significant positive coefficients for university ranking and overall institutional support indicate that these institutional factors also play a crucial role in enhancing scientific productivity.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-12">Discussion</hd> <p>The study sought to understand the relationship between academic inbreeding and research productivity in Chinese higher education institutions. The quantity of articles of the IB group is significantly lower than that of the NIB group: The maximum annual number of publications of the IB group is 35, the minimum is 10, and the median is 30; the annual average number of publications in the NIB group is 75, the minimum is 12, and the median is 38. Our findings corroborate Inanc and Tuncer ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref107">35</reflink>]) and Horta ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref108">29</reflink>]), who found a statistically significant negative correlation between "inbreeding" and publication productivity. This can be attributed to chances of collaboration with other researchers from the other institutions one may have been to before. Hiring procedures may also be a factor in this result. In this case, we agree with extant studies that a shift in hiring or recruitment requirements may have influenced hiring more potential researchers in favor of less effective alumni due to social connections (Sologoub and Coupe [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref109">65</reflink>]). We also opine that the difference stems from a possibility of levels of professional engagement: Those well connected to the outer world stand more chances of professional recognition and collaborations, and hence are more engaged. Research indicates that some institutions compromise on quality when hiring due to essential criteria on social connections (Sivak and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref110">60</reflink>]). Studies also indicate that more engaged scientists are likely to be more productive and have more chances for access to more funding (Sivak and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref111">60</reflink>]). Mobility enhances institutional and individual academic networking, which fosters academic research and collaboration in scientific output. Our results reflect the findings of Wang et al., who reported that staying in one's school after graduation significantly negatively impacted the publication of articles (Wang, Fu, and Hong [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref112">70</reflink>]). Zhang also found that the total number of articles produced by "inbreeding" faculty was slightly lower than that of international faculty (Zhang and Shen [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref113">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, we found that academic endogamy was associated with lower annual CSSCI publication levels. This is so because high levels of "inbreeding" lead to stagnation and stifle innovation, creativity, and faculty independence, which leads to lower publication productivity (Alipova and Lovakov [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref114">2</reflink>]; Eisenberg and Wells [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref115">21</reflink>]; Horta and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref116">31</reflink>]; Inanc and Tuncer [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref117">35</reflink>]; Sivak and Yudkevich [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref118">61</reflink>]; Smyth and Mishra [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref119">63</reflink>]). A plethora of studies indicate that academic endogamy is conducive to scientific output and international scientific collaboration. However, it must also be noted that our results are, at this point, inconsistent with those of selected researchers (Jia and Liu [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref120">37</reflink>]; Liang [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref121">41</reflink>]; Mcgee [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref122">47</reflink>]; Pan [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref123">54</reflink>]; Tavares et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref124">67</reflink>]; Wyer and Conrad [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref125">72</reflink>]). The inconsistency may be partly attributable to the difference in the research design. For instance, our sample size was smaller than that of some of these researchers. Besides, the Chinese academic landscape is different from that of other countries. Therefore, it is logical to speculate that the inconsistencies in findings are due not only to the differences in methodology and research design (Smyth and Mishra [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref126">63</reflink>]) but also the context (Morichika and Shibayama [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref127">50</reflink>]; Weber [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref128">71</reflink>]), career paths, and the type of mobility (de Sandes-Guimaraes et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref129">17</reflink>]; Fernández-Zubieta, Geuna, and Lawson [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref130">23</reflink>]; Smyth [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref131">62</reflink>]; Soler [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref132">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>To contain the source of "inbreeding," adhere to the principle of "open, fair and just" and improve the admittance mechanism of transnational faculty for the academic profession. "Academic peer review" refers to a mechanism or method in which experts in the same or similar fields judge and adjudicate the level, quality, importance, and influence of a specific scientific research work or academic achievement. It is suggested that cross-disciplinary external review experts be hired, and the exploitation of authority should be prohibited to select academic "inbreeding" faculty. When confronted with conflicting interests between social ties and quality, institutions should prioritize the latter to enhance the construction of world-class universities in China. Research institutions need a deliberate policy to promote internationalization by monitoring quality in recruiting professionals and competition to attract and retain foreign talent globally (MacHáček et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref133">46</reflink>]). In that case, institutions should avoid "inbreeding" and deepen international scientific collaboration for academic career development. Besides, faculty should actively avoid academic inbreeding, significantly negatively impacting university faculty development. It strengthens the factions in academic research, solidifies thinking patterns, and hinders the further development of faculty in the international academic field and international scientific collaboration.</p> <p>While the study's findings are robust, several potential confounding factors must be considered. One key factor is the availability of research funding. Institutions with more substantial financial resources can provide better support for faculty research activities, including travel grants for international conferences, funding for collaborative projects, and access to state-of-the-art research facilities. Differences in research funding levels could partly explain the observed disparities in research productivity between endogamous and non-endogamous faculty.</p> <p>Another critical factor is institutional support. Universities that offer comprehensive support services, such as grant writing assistance, administrative support for research projects, and professional development opportunities, can significantly enhance faculty members' research productivity. The level of institutional support may vary widely among universities, potentially influencing the study's results.</p> <p>Additionally, professional networks play a crucial role in academic research. Faculty members with extensive professional networks can access more collaborative opportunities, receive constructive feedback on their work, and stay updated on the latest research developments. These networks are often built through mobility experiences, suggesting that non-endogamous faculty might inherently have stronger professional ties contributing to their higher research output.</p> <p>The findings of this study have several important policy implications for Chinese higher education. First, universities should consider implementing policies that encourage academic mobility to mitigate the adverse effects of academic endogamy. This could include offering sabbatical leaves for faculty to work at other institutions, establishing joint research programs with foreign universities, and incentivizing faculty to pursue advanced degrees or postdoctoral experiences abroad.</p> <p>Second, universities should invest in enhancing institutional support for research activities. This includes increasing research funding and providing robust administrative support, professional development programs, and access to high-quality research facilities. By creating a conducive environment for research, universities can help all faculty members, regardless of their academic background, to achieve higher levels of productivity.</p> <p>Third, fostering a culture of collaboration is essential. Universities should facilitate the formation of interdisciplinary research groups, support attendance at international conferences, and promote partnerships with foreign institutions. These initiatives can help faculty members expand their professional networks, engage in high-impact research, and increase global visibility.</p> <p>Finally, further studies addressing the disparities in research productivity require a nuanced approach considering different academic disciplines' specific needs and contexts. Policies should be tailored to support the unique research practices and challenges faced by faculty in the humanities and social sciences and those in STEM fields.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-13">Conclusion</hd> <p>The analysis reveals that academic endogamy negatively impacts scientific output in transnational research cooperation. Our findings support the hypotheses that academic endogamy has a detrimental effect on the quantity and quality of academic articles. Specifically, the data indicate that the volume of publications in the non-endogamous group (NIB) significantly surpasses that of the endogamous group (IB), with a difference exceeding 72% (<emph>F</emph> value = 14.536, sig. value = 0.000179 < 0.01). Additionally, the "high-yield publications" rate in the NIB group is 7.25 times greater than that of the IB group. The quality of publications also shows a marked disparity, with the NIB group producing articles with impact factors that are over 26% higher on average and generating seven times more high-quality publications compared to the IB group.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-14">Policy Implications</hd> <p>Several policy recommendations are proposed to address the challenges posed by academic endogamy. Universities should promote academic mobility by implementing policies such as sabbatical leaves and fostering joint research programs with international institutions. Increasing institutional support through enhanced research funding, robust administrative assistance, and professional development opportunities can contribute to greater faculty productivity. Furthermore, facilitating interdisciplinary research groups and expanding partnerships with foreign institutions can enhance professional networks and improve research output.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-15">Study Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>This study is limited to the humanities and social sciences, focusing specifically on political science, law, pedagogy, philosophy, and sociology. This focus, while ensuring consistency within these fields, may not be generalizable to other disciplines, particularly those within the STEM fields, where the dynamics and impacts of academic endogamy may differ. Consequently, the findings may not fully apply to faculties outside the humanities and social sciences.</p> <p>Additionally, the cross-sectional design of this study provides a snapshot of the relationship between academic endogamy and scientific productivity at a single point in time, limiting the ability to draw causal inferences about the long-term effects of academic endogamy. Future research should employ longitudinal designs to track changes over time, providing a more robust basis for establishing causality and understanding the evolving nature of academic endogamy and its impact on scientific productivity. Expanding the scope of future studies to include a broader range of academic disciplines, including STEM fields, would offer deeper insights into the long-term effects of academic endogamy and inform policies to foster a more dynamic and productive academic environment.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-16">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-17">Ethical Clearance Statement</hd> <p>This study obtained data from publicly accessible sources and did not involve direct interaction with human participants or collecting sensitive personal information; the research did not require the approval of a research ethics committee. No identifiable personal data were disclosed or utilized in a manner that would compromise the privacy of the individuals involved. Therefore, the need for formal ethical clearance did not apply to this study.</p> <hd id="AN0187255406-18">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data used in this study were obtained from publicly accessible sources, including faculty resumes on university websites and the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). Because these data are already publicly available and accessible, there was no need to provide additional data upon manuscript submission.</p> <ref id="AN0187255406-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Agyeman, K. O. 2015. The impact of academic endogamy on research productivity and international collaboration in Ghanaian higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 37 (3): 300 – 15. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2015.1041461.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref53" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alipova, O., and A. Lovakov. 2018. Academic inbreeding and publication activities of Russian faculty. Tertiary Education and Management 24 (1): 66 – 82. doi: 10.1080/13583883.2017.1395905.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref7" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Altbach, P. G., M. Yudkevich, and L. E. Rumbley. 2015a. Academic inbreeding: Local challenge, global problem. Asia Pacific Education Review 16 (3): 317 – 30. doi: 10.1007/s12564-015-9391-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref8" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Altbach, P. G., I. Yudkevich, and L. E. Rumbley. 2015b. Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Rotterdam : Sense Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref95" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1996. Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Boston: Addison-Wesley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Balyer, A., and F. Bakay. 2022a. The effect of academic endogamy on research output and innovation: A review of the literature. Higher Education Research & Development 41 (1): 59 – 73. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2021.1936592.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref77" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Balyer, A., and M. E. Bakay. 2022b. Academic inbreeding: A risk or benefit for universities? Journal of Education and Learning 11 (1): 147. doi: 10.5539/jel.v11n1p147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref27" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Banda, L., J. Liu, C. Munthali, Z Hui Wen, C. Mbughi, H. Kayembe Banda, J. Thokozani, and P. Ngulube. 2021. Internationalizing Malawian higher education: Towards more beneficial academic mobility. Beijing : Research Square. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1053906/v1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref69" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Blanke, D. J., and A. E. Hyle. 1999. Faculty tiering and academic inbreeding: One institution's relationships and realities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borrego, Á., M. Barrios, A. Villarroya, and C. Ollé. 2010. Scientific output and impact of postdoctoral scientists: A gender perspective. Scientometrics 83 (1): 93 – 101. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0025-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brusa, J., M. Carter, and G. E. Heilman. 2010. Academic content, research productivity, and tenure. Journal of Economics and Finance 34 (1): 46 – 60. doi: 10.1007/s12197-008-9066-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110 (2): 349 – 99. doi: 10.1086/421787.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charlesworth, D., and B. Charlesworth. 1987. Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18 (1): 237 – 68. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.18.1.237.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chikoko, V. 2011. The impact of academic endogamy on research and development: A case study of higher education institutions in Tanzania. African Education Review 8 (2): 233 – 47. doi: 10.1080/18146627.2011.613053.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Miranda Grochocki, J., and A. Cabello. 2023. Academic endogamy and research productivity in Brazilian higher education: An empirical analysis. Studies in Higher Education 48 (1): 1 – 15. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2022.2149876.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Miranda Grochocki, L. F., and A. F. Cabello. 2024. Outlining inbreeding in the Brazilian higher education system. Higher Education Quarterly 78 (1): 20 – 46. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Sandes-Guimaraes, L. V., A. T. V. B. Ribeiro, J. H. Axel-Berg, G. d. R. Manços, and G. A. Plonski. 2019. International student mobility programs change student entrepreneurial perceptions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24 (2): 249 – 268. doi: 10.1177/1028315319842345.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DiMaggio, P., and W. W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147 – 60. doi: 10.2307/2095101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eells, K., and C. Cleveland. 1935. Faculty inbreeding: A study of academic endogamy. New York : Columbia University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eells, W. C., and A. C. Cleveland. 1935. The effects of inbreeding. The Journal of Higher Education 6 (6): 323 – 8. doi: 10.1080/00221546.1935.11772686.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, T., and M. T. Wells. 2000. Inbreeding in law school hiring: Assessing the performance of faculty hired from within. The Journal of Legal Studies 29 (S1): 369 – 88. doi: 10.1086/468077.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellyn, G., T. Caplow, and R. J. Mcgee. 1958. The academic marketplace, 36 – 80. New York : Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernández-Zubieta, A., A. Geuna, and C. Lawson. 2015. What do we know of the mobility of research scientists and impact on scientific production. In Global mobility of research scientists: The economics of who goes where and why, ed. Aldo Geuna, 1 – 33. Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-801396-0.00001-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox, M. F., and C. A. Faver. 1984. Publish or perish: The effect of academic mobility on research productivity. American Sociological Review 49 (2): 258 – 69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Franceschini, F., D. Maisano, A. Perotti, and A. Proto. 2010. Analysis of the CH-Index: An indicator to evaluate the diffusion of scientific research output by citers. Scientometrics 85 (1): 203 – 17. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0165-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glickman, L. 2004. The consequences of academic endogamy: A comparative analysis of American and Australian universities. Comparative Education Review 48 (2): 233 – 54. doi: 10.1086/422439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorelova, O., and A. Lovakov. 2016. Academic inbreeding and research productivity of Russian faculty members. WP BRP 32/EDU/2016. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360 – 80. doi: 10.1086/225469.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horta, H. 2013. Deepening our understanding of academic inbreeding effects on research information exchange and scientific output: New insights for academic based research. Higher Education 65 (4): 487 – 510. doi: 10.1007/s10734-012-9559-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horta, H. 2022. Academic endogamy and its impact on research productivity: A comparative study. Oxford : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horta, H., and M. Yudkevich. 2016. The role of academic inbreeding in developing higher education systems: Challenges and possible solutions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 113 : 363 – 72. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.039.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horta, H., F. M. Veloso, and R. Grediaga. 2010. Navel gazing: Academic inbreeding and scientific productivity. Management Science 56 (3): 414 – 29. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunter, R. S., A. J. Oswald, and B. G. Charlton. 2009. The elite brain drain. The Economic Journal 119 (538): F231 – 51. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02274.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyle, A. E., and D. J. Blanke. 2000. Faculty tiering and academic inbreeding: one institution's relationships and realities. Educational Leadership & Policy Studies Faculty Publications, 13. https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/edleadershippolicy_facpubs/13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inanc, O., and O. Tuncer. 2011. The effect of academic inbreeding on scientific effectiveness. Scientometrics 88 (3): 885 – 98. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0415-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jia, H., and W. Liu. 2017a. The impact of academic endogamy on research output and quality: Evidence from Malawian universities. African Journal of Education and Development Studies 8 (4): 415 – 29. doi: 10.1080/09720510.2017.1391723.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jia, W.-G., and Y. Liu. 2017b. Academic pedigree: Getting out of the paradox of "inbreeding." Journal of Chuzhou University 19 (1): 67 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones Merritt, D., and B. F. Reskin. 1997. Sex, race, and credentials: The truth about affirmative action in law faculty hiring. Columbia Law Review 97 (2): 199. doi: 10.2307/1123365.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Komba, W. L. 2013. Academic endogamy in Zimbabwean higher education: A critical review. Zimbabwe Journal of Education 12 (1): 72 – 89. doi: 10.1080/18167857.2013.12112982.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liang, J.-H. 2013. Interpretation of the paradigm theory of academic inbreeding in colleges and universities: Taking economists as an example. Jiangsu Higher Education 2 : 6 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, J. 2009. Comparison of faculty inbreeding between American and Chinese higher education institutions. Higher Education Research 30 (12): 39 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Long, J. S., and R. McGinnis. 1981. The effects of mobility on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review 46 (6): 781 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Long, R., A. Crawford, M. White, and K. Davis. 2009. Determinants of faculty research productivity in information systems: An empirical analysis of the impact of academic origin and academic affiliation. Scientometrics 78 (2): 231 – 60. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1990-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacHáček, V., M. Srholec, M. R. Ferreira, N. Robinson-Garcia, and R. Costas. 2022. Researchers' institutional mobility: Bibliometric evidence on academic inbreeding and internationalization. Science and Public Policy 49 (1): 85 – 97. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scab064.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mcgee, R. 1960. The function of institutional inbreeding. American Journal of Sociology 65 (5): 483 – 8. doi: 10.1086/222753.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, and J. M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27 (1): 415 – 44. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moleke, P. 2006. The influence of academic endogamy on research collaboration in South African higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education 20 (2): 245 – 61. doi: 10.4314/sajhe.v20i2.25707.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morichika, N., and S. Shibayama. 2015. Impact of inbreeding on scientific productivity: A case study of a Japanese university department. Research Evaluation 24 (2): 146 – 57. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvv002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mwangi, W. 2012. The effects of academic endogamy on research output in Kenyan universities. Kenyan Journal of Higher Education 5 (1): 113 – 25. doi: 10.1080/23456789.2012.568734.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nazarzadeh Zare, M., and A. Mardani. 2021. Study the research productivity of inbred and non-inbred faculty members in Iran's top universities. Caspian Journal of Scientometrics 8 (2): 66 – 78. doi: 10.22088/cjs.8.2.66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oni, O. 2008. Academic endogamy and its impact on research productivity in Nigerian higher education institutions. Nigerian Journal of Higher Education Studies 10 (3): 45 – 62. doi: 10.1080/12345678.2008.990443.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan, S. 1993. A study of faculty inbreeding at eleven land-grant universities. Retrospective Thesses and Dissertations 10259. Washington, DC : Bureau of Education. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/10259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pruett-Jones, S. 1997. Inbreeding and reproductive success: An analysis of the impact of genetic diversity. Evolutionary Ecology Research 1 : 121 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanz-Menéndez, L., L. Cruz-Castro, and K. Alva. 2013. Time to tenure in Spanish universities: An event history analysis. PLoS One 8 (10): e77028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077028.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shen, H. 2016. Status of university faculty development in China: Based on 2014 faculty survey. Journal of Higher Education 37 (2): 37 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shibayama, S. 2022. Development of originality under inbreeding: A case of Life Science Labs in Japan. Higher Education Quarterly 76 (1): 63 – 75. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simeon, V., B. Momčilović, Z. Kralj, and B. Grgas. 1986. Multivariate statistical analysis of the bibliographic output from a research institution, in relation to the measures of scientific policy. Scientometrics 9 (5-6): 223 – 30. doi: 10.1007/BF02017245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sivak, E., and M. Yudkevich. 2012. University inbreeding: An impact on values, strategies and individual productivity of faculty members. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1996417.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sivak, Y., and M. Yudkevich. 2010. Academic inbreeding: Pro and contra. Voprosy Obrazovaniya/Educational Studies Moscow 1 (1): 170 – 87. doi: 10.17323/1814-9545-2009-1-170-187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smyth, R. 2012. Who publishes in Australia's top law journals? University of New South Wales Law Journal 35 : 201 – 245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smyth, R., and V. Mishra. 2014. Academic inbreeding and research productivity and impact in Australian law schools. Scientometrics 98 (1): 583 – 618. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1052-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soler, M. 2001. How inbreeding affects productivity in Europe. Nature Portfolio, 411 (6834): 132. https://doi.org/10.1038/35075637</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sologoub, I., and T. Coupe. 2013. Academic inbreeding in Ukraine. Forum for Research on Eastern Europe and Emerging Economies, December.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stuen, E. T., A. M. Mobarak, and K. E. Maskus. 2012. Skilled immigration and innovation: Evidence from enrollment fluctuations in US doctoral programmes. The Economic Journal 122 (565): 1143 – 76. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02543.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tavares, O., S. Cardoso, T. Carvalho, S. B. Sousa, and R. Santiago. 2015. Academic inbreeding in the Portuguese academia. Higher Education 69 (6): 991 – 1006. doi: 10.1007/s10734-014-9818-x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Velho, L., and J. Krige. 1984. Publication and citation practices of Brazilian agriculture scientists. Social Studies of Science 14 (1): 45 – 62. doi: 10.1177/030631284014001004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, H.-X. 2015. The necessity of academic inbreeding in current institutional system and countermeasures. Technology and Innovation Management 36 (5): 434 – 8. doi: 10.14090/j.cnki.jscx.2015.0504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, J.-H., S.-H. Fu, and Y.-M. Hong. 2014. Recruitment of scientific research talents need to "check three generations"—An empirical study based on the educational background and scientific research performance of teachers in 16 economic schools. World Economic Papers, no. 3, 1 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber, M. 1964. Science education. Physics Today 17 (11): 94. doi: 10.1063/1.3051259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wyer, J. C., and C. F. Conrad. 1984. Institutional inbreeding reexamined. American Educational Research Journal 21 (1): 213 – 25. doi: 10.3102/00028312021001213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xin, Y. 2008. Chinese faculty in the employment transition: A case study of Zhejiang University. Boston University School of Education, 36 – 8. Doctoral Dissertation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yan, G.-C. 2009. An analysis of academic inbreeding and its effect on higher education institutions. Fudan Education Forum 7 (4): 31 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yan, L. 2009. The influence of academic endogamy on research performance in the United Kingdom: A comparative study. British Journal of Educational Studies 57 (4): 457 – 72. doi: 10.1080/00071000903465525.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, B.-B. 2019. Does "inbreeding" really harm the faculty academic productivity: Based on 2014 faculty survey in China. Chongqing Higher Education Research 7 (5): 66 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, B.-B., and H. Shen. 2015. Faculty inbreeding and academic publication in research universities. Fudan Education Forum 13 (1): 56 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jin Liu; Lazarus Obed Livingstone Banda; Hui Wang and Wenjing Lyu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref133"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1480192
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Impact of Academic Endogamy on Scientific Output in Chinese Universities: A Humanities and Social Sciences Perspective
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jin+Liu%22">Jin Liu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7066-1400">0000-0001-7066-1400</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lazarus+Obed+Livingstone+Banda%22">Lazarus Obed Livingstone Banda</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3436-6137">0000-0002-3436-6137</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hui+Wang%22">Hui Wang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wenjing+Lyu%22">Wenjing Lyu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2260-9349">0000-0002-2260-9349</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Chinese+Education+%26+Society%22"><i>Chinese Education & Society</i></searchLink>. 2025 58(1-2):1-27.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Publishing%22">Faculty Publishing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Productivity%22">Productivity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Humanities%22">Humanities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Sciences%22">Social Sciences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Mobility%22">Faculty Mobility</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10611932.2024.2427413
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1061-1932
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The phenomenon of academic endogamy, wherein faculty members obtain all their degrees from and remain at the same institution, has been observed to potentially impact research productivity and international engagement. As prior literature indicates, this trend raises concerns about potential insularity and reduced academic output. However, empirical evidence regarding the effects of academic endogamy within the context of Chinese higher education remains sparse. This study aims to address this research gap by investigating the influence of academic endogamy on scientific productivity within Chinese universities, with a particular focus on the humanities and social sciences. The study addresses this research gap by collecting data from faculty resumes and the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). National university rankings were sourced from the Academic Ranking of World Universities to evaluate institutional performance. To analyze the data, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was utilized to account for the nested structure of the data, encompassing faculty members within departments and departments within universities. The analysis reveals that academic endogamy has a detrimental effect on the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Specifically, faculty members with endogamous academic backgrounds demonstrated lower publication rates and produced less quality research than their non-endogamous counterparts. Furthermore, the study finds that endogamous faculty members are less engaged in international research collaborations, with non-endogamous faculty showing greater involvement in such projects. The study acknowledges limitations, including its exclusive focus on the humanities and social sciences, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other disciplines, such as STEM fields. Additionally, potential biases arising from the reliance on faculty resumes are recognized. Despite these limitations, the study provides significant insights into the effects of academic endogamy and underscores the importance of policies that promote academic mobility and strengthen institutional support. The findings offer actionable recommendations for university administrators and policymakers aiming to enhance research productivity and global competitiveness in higher education. This research contributes to the literature by shedding light on the underexplored impacts of academic endogamy on scientific output and international collaboration, thus filling a critical gap in the existing body of knowledge.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1480192
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1480192
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10611932.2024.2427413
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Publishing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Productivity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Humanities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Sciences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Mobility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Impact of Academic Endogamy on Scientific Output in Chinese Universities: A Humanities and Social Sciences Perspective
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jin Liu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lazarus Obed Livingstone Banda
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hui Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wenjing Lyu
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1061-1932
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 58
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1-2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Chinese Education & Society
              Type: main
ResultId 1