Advertisement

Minerva

pp 1–18 | Cite as

Inbreeding and Research Productivity Among Sociology PhD Holders in Portugal

  • Orlanda TavaresEmail author
  • Cristina Sin
  • Vasco Lança
Article

Abstract

In Portugal, research productivity is nowadays essential for the positive assessment of academics, research units and study programmes. Academic inbreeding has been highlighted in the literature as one of the factors influencing research productivity. This paper tests the hypothesis that inbreeding is detrimental for research productivity, measured through the number of publications listed in Scopus. The study resorts to a database provided by the national Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education (A3ES), which comprises all academics teaching in all Portuguese institutions in the academic year 2015/2016. The sample selected for the analysis contains all academics with a PhD in Sociology (N=289). The study uses a special regression model for the analysis: the negative binomial logit hurdle. This was necessary given the large amount of academics with no publications or citations in Scopus, which were the dependent variables to assess research performance. The analysis provides separate results for the probability of inbred academics of having no papers/citations, and for the probability of producing more papers/citations than the non-inbred. Findings suggest that academic inbreeding, defined at the institutional level, has no negative effect on research productivity, contrary to what was expected. However, when defined at the national level, academic inbreeding is detrimental for the recognition and the impact of research: academics with a foreign PhD are more likely to have citations compared to academics who obtained their PhD in Portugal. A tendency was also noted that inbreeding might be more detrimental to research productivity in faculties of Economics than in Social Sciences and Humanities.

Keywords

Academic inbreeding Research productivity Portugal Sociology Publications Disciplines 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Grant no. UID/CED/00757/2013).

References

  1. Alipova, Olga, and Andrey Lovakov. 2018. Academic inbreeding and publication activities of Russian faculty. Tertiary Education and Management.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2017.1395905.Google Scholar
  2. Altbach, Philip G., Maria Yudkevich, and Laura E. Rumbley. 2015. Academic Inbreeding: Local Challenge, Global Problem. In Academic Inbreeding and Mobility in Higher Education: Global Perspectives, eds. Philip G. Altbach, Maria Yudkevich, and Laura E. Rumbley, 1–16. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: SRHE.Google Scholar
  4. Berelson, Bernard. 1960. Graduate education in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Carayol, Nicolas, and Mireille Matt. 2006. Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy 18: 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Filippo, Daniela, Elías Sanz Casado, and Isabel Gómez. 2009. Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the study of mobility and scientific performance: A case study of a Spanish university. Research Evaluation 18(3): 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deem, Rosemary. 2016. Recent Research Evaluations in the UK and Portugal. In Global Challenges, National Initiatives, and Institutional Responses, eds. Cláudia Sarrico et al., 159–186. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DGEEC—Direção-Geral de Estatísticas da Educação e Ciência. 2018. Inquérito ao potencial científico e tecnológico nacional—IPCTN16. Principais indicadores de I&D nacionais. Lisboa: Direção Geral de Estatísticas da Educação e Ciência. http://www.dgeec.mec.pt/np4/206/%7B$clientServletPath%7D/?newsId=897&fileName=IPCTN16_Destaques_Resultados_Globais.pdf. Accessed May 2018.
  9. DGEEC—Direção-Geral de Estatísticas da Educação e Ciência. 2017. Indicadores de Endogamia académica das instituições públicas de ensino universitário—2015/16. Lisboa: Direção Geral de Estatísticas da Educação e Ciência.Google Scholar
  10. Fangmeng, Tian. 2016. Brain circulation, diaspora and scientific progress: A study of the international migration of Chinese scientists, 1998–2006. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 25(3): 296–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godechot, Olivier, and Alexandra Louvet. 2010. Academic Inbreeding: An Evaluation. Laviedesidees.fr. Retrieved from http://www.booksandideas.net/Academic-Inbreeding-An-Evaluation.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2019.
  12. Gorelova, Olga, and Maria Yudkevich. 2015. Academic Inbreeding: State of the Literature. In Academic Inbreeding and Mobility in Higher Education: Global Perspectives, eds. Philip G. Altbach, Maria Yudkevich, and Laura E. Rumbley, 17–44. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heitor, Manuel, Hugo Horta, and Joana Mendonça. 2014. Developing human capital and research capacity: Science policies promoting brain gain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 82: 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hirsch, Jorge E. 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(46): 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horta, Hugo. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horta, Hugo, Francisco M. Veloso, and Rócio Grediaga. 2010. Navel gazing: Academic inbreeding and scientific productivity. Management Science 56(3): 414–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horta, Hugo, Jisun Jung, and João M. Santos. 2018a. Effects of mobilities on the research output and its multidisciplinarity of academics in Hong Kong and Macau: An exploratory study. Higher Education Quarterly 72(3): 250–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horta, Hugo, and Maria Yudkevich. 2016. The role of academic inbreeding in developing higher education systems: Challenges and possible solutions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 113: 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horta, Hugo, Mattia Cattaneo, and Michele Meoli. 2018b. PhD funding as a determinant of PhD and career research performance. Studies in Higher Education 43(3): 542–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inanc, Ozlem, and Onur Tuncer. 2011. The effect of academic inbreeding on scientific effectiveness. Scientometrics 88(3): 885–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katranidis, Stelios, Theodore Panagiotidis, and Costas Zontanos. 2017. Economists, research performance and national inbreeding: North versus south. Economic Notes: Review of Banking, Finance and Monetary Economics 46(1): 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larivière, Vincent, Yves Gingras, and Éric Archambault. 2006. Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics 68(3): 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loeys, Tom, Beatrijs Moerkerke, Olivia de Smet, and Ann Buysse. 2012. The analysis of zero-inflated count data: Beyond zero-inflated Poisson regression. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 65: 163–180.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02031.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Long, Rebecca G., William P. Bowers, Tim Barnett, and Michael C. White. 1998. Research Productivity of Graduates in Management: Effects of Academic Origin and Academic Affiliation. Academy of Management Journal 41: 704–714.Google Scholar
  25. Mairesse, Jack and Laure Turner. 2002. A look at individual differences in scientific research productivity: an econometric analysis of the publications of the French CNRS physicists in condensed matter (1980–1997). In Proceedings of the Conference Rethinking Science Policy: Analytical Frameworks for Evidence-Based Policy, SPRU, Brighton, March 21–23.Google Scholar
  26. Musselin, Christine. 2004. Towards a European academic labour market? Some lessons drawn from empirical studies on academic mobility. Higher Education 48(1): 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murray, Mike. 2014. Predicting scientific research output at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. South African Journal of Science 110: 01–04.Google Scholar
  28. Padilla, Laura Elena. 2008. How has Mexican faculty been trained? A national perspective and a case study. Higher Education 56(2): 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pan, Shouan. 1993. A study of faculty inbreeding at eleven land-grant universities. Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 10259. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/10259.
  30. Pechincha, Paula, António Marques, and José António Sarsfield Cabral. 2015. A universidade portuguesa nos rankings: estratégias de melhoria. Comunicar e Avaliar Ciência 57.Google Scholar
  31. Pelz, Donald C., and Frank M. Andrews. 1996. Scientists in organizations: Productive climates for research and development. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Puuska, Hanna-Mari, Reetta Muhonen, and Yrjö Leino. 2014. International and domestic co-publishing and their citation impact in different disciplines. Scientometrics 98(2): 823–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shin, Jung Cheol, Jisun Jung, and Soo Jeung Lee. 2016. Academic inbreeding of Korean professors: Academic training, networks, and their performance. In Biographies and careers throughout academic life, eds. Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al., 187–206. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sin, Cristina, Orlanda Tavares, and Alberto Amaral. 2017. The impact of programme accreditation on Portuguese higher education provision. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42(6): 860–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sivak, Elizaveta, and Maria Yudkevich. 2015. Academic immobility and inbreeding in Russian universities. In Academic Inbreeding and Mobility in Higher Education, eds. Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach, and Laura E. Rumbley, 130–155. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smeby, Jens-Christian, and Sverre Try. 2005. Departmental contexts and faculty research activity in Norway. Research in Higher Education 46: 593–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smyth, Russell, and Vinod Mishra. 2014. Academic inbreeding in Australian law schools. Scientometrics 98(1): 583–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Soler, Manuel. 2001. How inbreeding affects productivity in Europe. Nature 411(6834): 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sologoub, Ilona, and Tom Coupé. 2015. Academic Inbreeding in Ukraine. In Academic Inbreeding and Mobility in Higher Education, eds. Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach, and Laura E. Rumbley, 228–258. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tavares, Orlanda, Sónia Cardoso, Teresa Carvalho, Sofia Branco Sousa, and Rui Santiago. 2015. Academic inbreeding in the Portuguese academia. Higher Education 69(6): 991–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tavares, Orlanda, Vasco Lança, and Alberto Amaral. 2017. Academic Inbreeding in Portugal: Does Insularity Play a Role? Higher Education Policy 30(3): 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wyer, Jean C., and Clifton F. Conrad. 1984. Institutional inbreeding reexamined. American Educational Research Journal 21(1): 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zeileis, Achim, Christian Kleiber, and Simon Jackman. 2008. Regression Models for Count Data in R. Journal of Statistical Software 27(8): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.A3ES (Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education)LisboaPortugal
  2. 2.CIPES (Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies)MatosinhosPortugal

Personalised recommendations