Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Academic inbreeding and research productivity and impact in Australian law schools

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study compares the research productivity and impact of inbred and non-inbred faculty employed at Australian law schools. The sample consists of 429 academics, employed at 21 law schools. To measure research productivity and impact we use articles published in top law journals, defined in six different ways, as well as total citations and two different citation indices. We report results including, and excluding, publications in the academic’s home law review. We find evidence that silver-corded faculty outperform other faculty on one of the measures of publications in top journals, once the endogeneity of academic seniority, grant history and the status of the law school at which the individual is employed is addressed, but this finding is not robust across alternative measures of articles published in the top journals. We find that there is no statistically significant difference between the research productivity and impact of inbred and non-inbred faculty. This finding is robust to a range of different ways of measuring research productivity and impact and alternative econometric approaches, including using two-stage least squares to address the endogeneity of academic seniority, grant history and the status of the law school at which the legal academic is employed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The LLB is typically taken as a second undergraduate degree in Australia, where one’s first undergraduate degree is in another discipline, such as Arts, Commerce or Science, or the Bachelor of Jurisprudence, which is a lower level, three year undergraduate degree in law. Normally, it takes three years fulltime study to obtain the first undergraduate degree and then a further two years fulltime study to obtain the LLB. The LLB is the professional degree required to practice law in Australia and is, thus, equivalent to the Juris Doctor (J.D) in the US. The University of Melbourne is the only Australian university which has adopted the US practice in which students first do a generalist undergraduate degree followed by a professional postgraduate degree and this is a recent occurrence, having been introduced in 2008. At the University of Melbourne the last intake of law students into the LLB occurred in 2007 and their law graduates now receive a J.D instead of an LLB.

  2. In the US, one might criticize use of University law reviews for an exercise such as this on the grounds that the articles are selected by student, rather than faculty, editors and publication decisions are often based on decisions other than strictly quality. However, it should be noted that each of the Australian law reviews have faculty editors as well as student editors and, unlike in the US, all manuscripts submitted to University law reviews are subject to a double-blind peer review process.

  3. The major ranking of law journals in the US is the Washington and Lee University Law Journal Rankings. These rankings formed the basis for the original ERA 2010 rankings. The original list, however, was later modified in recognition of the fact that the Washington and Lee University Law Journal Rankings draws its citation data from Westlaw, which only contains a limited number of Australian law journals. Hence, the rankings were heavily tilted against Australian journals. As the Chair of the Australian Law Dean’s Council noted at the time the ERA rankings were being compiled, “the judgments and quality on which the Washington and Lee list was constructed reflect the interests and concerns of courts, of practitioners and legal academics writing on United States law. Those judgments have little, if any, connection with law or legal writing in Australia” (Ford 2009).

  4. Google Scholar has been subjected to various criticisms (see eg. Jasco 2010). However, there is now evidence that these criticisms have been addressed (Harzing 2010, 2013). Consequently, Google Scholar has been suggested as a viable alternative to Scopus and ISI Web of Science to measure citations in disciplines other than the hard sciences (Harzing 2013).

  5. We exclude education-focused faculty because, by definition, this group is not expected to do research as part of their employment and our focus is on comparing the research productivity of inbred versus non-inbred faculty. While excluding education-focused faculty follows the approach in previous studies, it might be argued that inbred faculty are concentrated in education-focused roles. If this is the case, excluding education focused faculty might mean that we are comparing the whole spectrum of non-inbred faculty with the very best inbreds alone, which would be a limitation. We do not see this as a major problem in this study, though, because there are very few education-focused faculty listed on the websites of Australian law schools, suggesting there is not large numbers of inbred faculty we are missing by not considering education-focused roles in our analysis.

  6. We entered the person’s full name in quotation marks into the advanced search option for Google Scholar. We addressed the potential for false “hits” as follows. Following the approach in Sisk et al. (2012), when an individual had a common surname or when the first set of 20 results in the Google Scholar search uncovered false “hits,” we did not rely solely on the raw search result count. Instead, we examined the first 50 results (or all results if there were fewer than 50), compared them to a list of publications by that faculty member, identified which of the first 50 results were to the person under study, and then applied the percentage of correct hits in that first 50 to the full search results.

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2011). Research productivity: Are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones? Scientometrics, 93(3), 553–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J. G. (1999). Academics’ motivation and self-efficacy for teaching and research. Higher Education, Research and Development, 18(3), 343–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, P. (2011). Gender differences and factors affecting publication productivity among Australian University Academics. Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 85–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, B. (1960). Graduate education in the United States. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittles, A. H., & Neel, J. V. (1994). The costs of human inbreeding and their implications for variations at the DNA level. Nature Genetics, 8, 117–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, B. S., & Caron, P. L. (2006). Ranking law schools: Using SSRN to measure scholarly performance. Indiana Law Journal, 81, 83–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchmueller, T., Dominitz, J., & Hansen, L. (1999). Graduate training and the early career productivity of Ph.D. economists. Economics of Education Review, 14, 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burris, V. (2004). The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in Ph.D. exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 239–264.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Caplow, T., & McGee, R. J. (1958). The academic marketplace. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cawley, J. (2011). A guide and advice for economists in the US Junior Academic Market (2011–2012) Edn, IZA Discussion Paper No. 5984.

  • Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menendez, L. (2010). Mobility versus job stability: Assessing tenure and productivity outcomes. Research Policy, 39, 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datillo, J. (1987). The scholarly productivity of inbred and non-inbred full-time doctorally-prepared nursing faculty in teaching positions in the South. A Dissertation submitted to the College of Nursing, Georgia State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

  • Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2008). Review of Australian Higher Education, Discussion Paper, June, Canberra, DEEWR.

  • Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2005). Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Review, 58, 791–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eells, W. C., & Cleveland, A. C. (1935a). Faculty inbreeding. Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 261–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eells, W. C., & Cleveland, A. C. (1935b). The effects of inbreeding. Journal of Higher Education, 6(6), 323–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. T. (1998). Ranking and explaining the scholarly impact of law schools. Journal of Legal Studies, 27(2), 373–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. T. (2000). Inbreeding in law school hiring: Assessing the performance of faculty hired from within. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(2), 369–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliot, C. W. (1908). University administration. Boston: Houghton-Mifflen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, G. (2010). How does the market use citation data? The Hirsch index in economics, National Bureau of Economics Research, Working Paper 16419.

  • Ford, B. (2009). Council of Australian Law Deans—Chair’s Report, Australasian Law Teachers Association Newsletter. Edn 1, p. 25. Available at http://www.alta.edu.au/resources/PDFs/Newsletter/2009_alta_newsletter_edition_one.pdf. Retrieved 20 April 2013.

  • Gold, D., & Lieberson, S. (1961). Texas institutional inbreeding re-examined. American Journal of Sociology, 66(5), 506–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Brambila, C., & Veloso, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: A study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36, 1035–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, T. H., & Sauer, R. D. (1995). Life cycle productivity in academic research: Evidence from cumulative publication histories of academic economists. Southern Economic Journal, 62, 728–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gumpenberger, C., Gorraiz, J., Wieland, M., Roche, I., Schiebel, E., Besagni, D., et al. (2013). Exploring the bibliometric and semantic nature of negative results. Scientometrics, 95, 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamermesh, D. S., & Pfann, G. A. (2009). Markets for reputation: Evidence on quality and quantity in academe, National Bureau of Economics Research, Working Paper 15527.

  • Hargens, L. L., & Farr, G. M. (1973). An examination of recent hypotheses about institutional inbreeding. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1381–1402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2010). The publish or Perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2013). A preliminary test of Google scholar as a source of citation data: A longitudinal study of nobel prize winners. Scientometrics, 94, 1057–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 102, 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A. B. (1938). Ingroup membership and academic selection. American Sociological Review, 3(6), 826–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H., Sato, M., & Yonezawa, A. (2011). Academic inbreeding: Exploring its characteristics and rationale in Japanese Universities using a qualitative perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12, 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H., Veloso, F., & Grediga, R. (2010). Navel gazing, academic inbreeding and scientific productivity. Management Science, 56(3), 414–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inanc, O., & Tuncer, O. (2011). The effect of academic inbreeding on scientific effectiveness. Scientometrics, 88, 885–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasco, P. (2010). Metadata mega mess in Google scholar. Online Information Review, 34(1), 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, T. N., & Sorensen, A. C. (2005). Inbreeding—Lessons from animal breeding, evolutionary biology and conservation Genetics. Animal Science, 80, 121–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landino, R. A., & Owen, S. V. (1988). Self-efficacy in university faculty. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S., & Stephan, P. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic economists. American Economic Review, 81(1), 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewbel, A. (2012). Using heteroscedasticity to identify and estimate mismeasured and endogenous regressor models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 30(1), 67–80.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • McGee, R. (1960). The function of institutional inbreeding. American Journal of Sociology, 65(5), 483–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeely, J. H. (1932). Faculty inbreeding in land-grant colleges and universities. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merritt, D. J., & Reskin, B. F. (1997). Sex, race and credentials: The truth about affirmative action in law faculty hiring. Columbia Law Review, 199(240), 199–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, V., & Smyth, R. (2013). Are more senior academics really more research productive than junior academics? Evidence from Australian law schools. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0886-3. Retrieved 20 April 2013.

  • Nature. (1992). Reforming Japan’s science for the next century. Nature, 359, 573–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nature. (1993). What road ahead for Korean science and technology? Nature, 364, 377–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nature. (1998). Spanish universities and the obstacles to development. Nature, 396, 709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, A., & Rivero, A. (2001). High rate of inbreeding in Spanish universities. Nature, 410, 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 1067–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, S. (1993). A study of faculty inbreeding at eleven land-grant universities. A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty, Iowa State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

  • Peltz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pjesky, R. J., & Sutter, D. (2011). Does the lack of profit motive affect hiring in academe? Evidence from the market for lawyers. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70(4), 1053–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, I., & Stapledon, G. (1997). A citation analysis of Australian law journals. Melbourne University Law Review, 21, 676–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, F. W., Henry, N. B., Kelly, F. J., Klein, A. J., & Russell, J. D. (1933). The university faculty. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sato, J. (1992). The Scholarly Productivity of Inbred and Non-inbred Faculty in Schools of Nursing with Graduate and Undergraduate Nursing. A Dissertation submitted to the College of Nursing, The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

  • Schmidt, P. (2011). Taboo against academic inbreeding is broken most by the lofty and the lowly, study of sociology departments finds, The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 21.

  • Science. (1998). Academic inbreeding attacked. Science, 282, 2165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science. (2003). Chinese universities: An end to business as usual? Science, 302, 43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science. (2006). Spain reconsiders its university reform law. Science, 314, 911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sisk, G., Aggerbeck, V., Hackerson, D., & Wells, M. (2012). Scholarly impact of law law school faculties in 2012: Applying leiter scores to rank the top third. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2109815. Retrieved 20 April 2013.

  • Sivak, E., & Yudkevich, M. (2012). University inbreeding: An impact on values, strategies and individual productivity of faculty members. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1996417. Retrieved 20 April 2013.

  • Smyth, R. (1998). Academic writing and the courts: A quantitative study of the influence of legal and non-legal periodicals in the high court. University of Tasmania Law Review, 17(2), 164–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, R. (2012). Who publishes in Australia’s top law journals? University of New South Wales Law Journal, 35(1), 203–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soler, M. (2001). How inbreeding affects productivity in europe. Nature, 411, 132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, J., Almeida, P., & Wu, G. (2003). Learning by hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer. Management Science, 49(4), 351–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock, W. A., Alston, R. M., & Milkman, M. (2000). The academic labor market for economists: 1995–1996. Atlantic Economic Journal, 28, 164–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrisi, B. (2013). Academic productivity correlated with well-being at work. Scientometrics, 94, 801–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, R. A., Hassler, N., & Sellinger, E. (1979). Inbreeding in social work education: An empirical examination. Journal of Education for Social Work, 15(2), 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, J. C., & Conrad, C. F. (1984). Institutional inbreeding reexamined. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Russell Smyth & Vinod Mishra

Authors
  1. Russell Smyth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vinod Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinod Mishra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smyth, R., Mishra, V. Academic inbreeding and research productivity and impact in Australian law schools. Scientometrics 98, 583–618 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1052-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1052-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation