A/o. INSTITUTIONAL INBREEDING AMONG MATHEMATICS FACULTY …/67531/metadc278034/... · Stewart, G....
Transcript of A/o. INSTITUTIONAL INBREEDING AMONG MATHEMATICS FACULTY …/67531/metadc278034/... · Stewart, G....
37? A 8 / </
A / o .
INSTITUTIONAL INBREEDING AMONG MATHEMATICS
FACULTY IN AMERICAN COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
University of North Texas in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
By
G. Bryan Stewart, B.S., M.A.
Denton, Texas
August, 1992
37? A 8 / </
A / o .
INSTITUTIONAL INBREEDING AMONG MATHEMATICS
FACULTY IN AMERICAN COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
University of North Texas in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
By
G. Bryan Stewart, B.S., M.A.
Denton, Texas
August, 1992
Stewart, G. Bryan, Institutional Inbreeding among Mathematics
Faculty in American Colleges and Universities. Doctor of Philosophy
(College and University Teaching), August 1992, 101 pp., 9 tables,
bibliography, 53 titles.
The purpose of this research was to estimate (1) the extent to
which institutional inbreeding is prevalent among mathematics
faculty at colleges and universities throughout the United States;
(2) the extent of institutional inbreeding among mathematics faculty
at American colleges and universities classified according to
institutional genre; (3) the extent of institutional inbreeding among
mathematics faculty classified according to gender; and (4) the
extent of institutional inbreeding among mathematics faculty in
American colleges and universities classified according to regions of
the country. Institutional inbreeding was defined as faculty
employment at the institution from which one received the highest
earned degree. An exhaustive review of the literature on inbreeding
was used to develop this research.
All public-supported and private-supported American
universities that offer a doctorate in mathematics were identified by
consulting the 1991 American Mathematical Society Professional
Directory. Catalogs for the academic year 1991-1992 were requested
from each institution. One-hundred sixty-seven institutions of
higher education which offer the Ph.D. degree in mathematics and
5,961 faculty members were identified.
The results of the analyses found a mean proportion of inbred
mathematics faculty of 3.46 percent, which is one-tenth of the most
recent study examining mathematics faculty. A chi-square goodness
of fit test using specified frequencies, found a statistically significant
difference between rates of institutional inbreeding among
mathematics stratified according to gender. A chi-square goodness
of fit test using specified frequencies was used to test the association
between mathematics faculty when stratified by Carnegie
classification and regions of the country. No association was found
between rates of institutional inbreeding of mathematics faculty
when institutions were stratified according to the Carnegie
classification and regions of the country. This research indicates
institutional inbreeding is on the decline among mathematics faculty
in American Colleges and Universities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this doctoral dissertation required support
and help from many individuals. The currently fashionable term,
mentor, cannot do justice to the assistance given me by my major
professor, Dr. D. Barry Lumsden. The other members of my doctoral
committee Dr. John Ed Allen, Dr. Howard Smith, and Dr. Hugh
Kirkpatrick, provided critical reviews and many helpful suggestions.
My father, Dr. James H. Stewart, Jr. and Chris Sawyer provided
valuable assistance in proofreading. I would like to thank my
mother for all her help throughout my graduate work. And finally,
my wife Krisanne for all her moral support and encouragement
throughout this process.
in
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem Purposes of the Study Research Hypotheses Significance of the Study Definition of Terms
n. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction Definitions of Institutional Inbreeding Early Studies Recent Studies
III. METHODOLOGY 51
Introduction General Procedures Classification of Institutions Classification of Institutions by Geographical Region Classification of Faculty by Gender Analysis of Data
IV. RESULTS 57
Introduction Demographics on Institutional Inbreeding Institutional Inbreeding by Gender Institutional Inbreeding by Carnegie Classification Institutional Inbreeding by Regions of the Country
I V
TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued
Chapter Page
V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 85
Summary Discussion Conclusions Recommendations
REFERENCES 96
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Institutions of higher education which offer the Ph.D. degree in mathematics 58
2. Mathematics faculty classified according to gender 66
3. Schools with institutional inbreeding in mathematics 68
4. Summary of chi-square goodness of fit test using specified frequencies among mathematics faculty classified according to gender 73
5. Inbred female mathematics faculty 74
6. Inbred male mathematics faculty 76
7. Summary of chi-square goodness of fit test using specified frequencies among mathematics faculty stratified by Carnegie classification . . . 81
8. Summary of chi-square goodness of fit test using specified frequencies among mathematics faculty stratified by regions of the country . . . 83
9. Institutional inbreeding trends in studies of mathematics faculty 87
V I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
For the past six decades, educators have been studying the
effects of institutional inbreeding among American colleges and
university faculty. Although institutional inbreeding has been
extensively examined, no study has been devoted exclusively to the
field of mathematics. With a predicted shortage of faculty members
in the next ten years, the effects of inbreeding are a paramount issue
in academia (Bezdek, 1973 p.77).
Previous studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding
institutional inbreeding. For example, early research revealed that
67 percent of mathematics faculty at the University of Pennsylvania
were inbred (Jones, 1924). Similar evidence showed that at the
University of Chicago in 1929-1930, inbreeding occurred at a rate of
75 percent (Smith, 1929). More recently, a study by Crane (1970)
found institutional inbreeding ranging from 8 to 24 percent across a
nationwide spectrum of institutions, with the most prestigious
departments having the highest proportions (p. 957).
The perspective of the present research described herein was
both historical and statistical. Historical, in that data on faculty
inbreeding from 1991-1992 were compared, wherever possible, with
similar data from previous studies. Statistical, with respect to the
tests of significance of the data derived from the present
investigation. Since the data set utilized in this study greatly
exceeded that of previous studies, the perspective was much
broader.
A 1977 survey of the American professoriate examined 160
institutions of higher learning and included every major discipline
(Conrad and Wyer, 1982, p.47). Regarded as the last major published
study of institutional inbreeding, the Conrad and Wyer study, like
those that preceded it, was methodologically flawed. Conrad and
Wyer sampled from a single institution, or a small restricted group of
institutions, and combined mathematics departments with many
other disciplines. Consequently, limitations in methodology have
prevented scholars from generalizing the findings of previous studies
to specific institutional disciplines such as mathematics. The present
exploratory, national study investigated institutional inbreeding
among mathematics faculty in contemporary American higher
education and included only mathematics departments that offer the
Ph.D. degree.
Statement of the Problem
This study examined the prevalence of institutional inbreeding
among mathematics faculty in American colleges and universities
which offer the Ph.D. degree in mathematics.
Purposes of the Study
The purposes of this study were to estimate (1) the extent to
which institutional inbreeding is prevalent among mathematics
faculty at colleges and universities throughout the United States;
(2) the extent of institutional inbreeding among mathematics faculty
at American colleges and universities classified according to
institutional genre; (3) the extent of institutional inbreeding among
mathematics faculty classified according to gender; and (4) the
extent of institutional inbreeding among mathematics faculty in
American colleges and universities classified according to regions of
the country.
Research Hypotheses
HI: There is no association between rates of inbreeding among
mathematics faculty when stratified according to gender.
H2: There is no association between rates of faculty inbreeding
among mathematics faculty stratified according to the types of
institutions in which they are employed.
H3: There is no association between rates of inbreeding among
mathematics faculty in contemporary American higher education
when employing departments and universities are stratified
according to regions of the country.
Significance of the Study
Current literature conspicuously ignores institutional
inbreeding related to mathematics. This study provides a baseline
for future research by examining inbreeding in mathematics
departments that offer the Ph.D. degree. Specifically, this study
determined the extent of institutional inbreeding prevalent in
mathematics departments in American institutions of postsecondary
education.
Definition of Terms
Institutional Inbreeding: Operationally defined as faculty
employment at the institution from which one received the highest
earned degree.
Gender: The gender composition of mathematics faculty in
American colleges and university programs that offer the Ph.D.
degree in mathematics.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
For more than eighty years an impressive body of literature on
institutional inbreeding has accumulated. For the purposes of
organizing and presenting a review of the literature related to
institutional inbreeding, the present review is divided into three
major areas: (1) definitions of institutional inbreeding, (2) early
studies, and (3) recent studies.
Numerous scholars have attempted to explicate the advantages
and disadvantages of institutional inbreeding. However, an
exhaustive survey of this literature reveals a variety of meanings
associated with institutional inbreeding. Concerns for
intersubjectivity require a summary of definitions employed in
previous research as a means of deriving an institutional inbreeding
construct (Reynolds, 1977, p. 15-16).
Definitions Institutional Inbreeding
One of the difficulties associated with integrating the findings
of the various studies into a consistent perspective concerning
inbreeding involves a common definition of the concept. Two broad
categories are reflected in the writings and research of those who
have explored the issue, viz., academic and institutional inbreeding.
The problem with these two categories is their insensitivity to many
nuances in meaning and degrees of manifestations of inbreeding. An
inductive review of the literature on inbreeding leads to the
formulation of four distinct definitional genres: 1) academic
inbreeding, 2) institutional/institutional inbreeding, 3) institutional/
departmental inbreeding, and 4) non-institutional/departmental
inbreeding.
Academic inbreeding is to be distinguished from institutional
inbreeding. Academic inbreeding refers to the employment of
faculty who have "the academic spirit or the best academic training"
(Miller, 1918), whereas institutional inbreeding refers to the practice
of colleges and universities hiring their own graduates for faculty
positions (Fitzpatrick, 1917). Miller argues that "It is doubtless very
desirable that the universities maintain close contact with the rest of
the world, but such contact does not require that all types of
untrained minds should be represented on its faculties." For this
reason, he goes on to state unapologetically that academic inbreeding
seems to be "the backbone of success of a university." Academic
inbreeding refers to the hiring of only those who have undergone
rigorous and formal academic training, as opposed to those who may
indeed be knowledgeable but who lack formal, systematic, and self-
initiated learning.
Institutional/institutional inbreeding refers to the practice
whereby institutions hire their own graduates for employment
within the institution. However, the employment by the institution
is within the institution and not within the department in which
faculty received their training. For example, University X may hire a
graduate from the department of computer science within the college
of arts and sciences to teach in the department of computer
education in the college of education at University X. In this
instance, inbreeding is clearly evident, but at an institutional/
institutional level. The graduate of the institution has been hired by
the institution to teach within the institution, but within a
department other than that from which the terminal degree was
obtained.
The third genre of inbreeding may be described as
institutional/departmental. In this situation, University Y may hire a
graduate from the Educational Leadership Department within the
College of Education at University Y to teach in the Educational
Leadership Department within the College of Education at University
Y. The institution, viz., University Y, is doing the hiring, but the
hiring is from the student ranks within a particular department into
the faculty ranks within the same department.
The fourth, and final, genre of institutional inbreeding is
admittedly more theoretical than the others. Nevertheless, it does
qualify as a kind of inbreeding because it has been known to occur at
universities around the country. Non-institutional/departmental
inbreeding refers to the practice whereby University Z permits
department C to hire graduates, not from University Z, but from the
8
university from which the majority of faculty in department C at
University Z received their degrees. Translated, the majority of the
faculty in the department of higher education at University X
received their doctorates from University Y. Consequently, priority
is given by the higher education faculty at University X to hiring new
faculty who are graduates of University Y. This represents non-
institutional/departmental inbreeding. The university is not hiring
its own graduates; hence, the inbreeding may be said to be non-
institutional. Departmental inbreeding is occurring for the reason
that a proportion of the faculty within the department are graduates
of the same institution and an ideological, academic, and intellectual
hegemony is developing.
Within the different genres of institutional inbreeding, varying
degrees of inbreeding may occur. Bridgeland (1980) maintains that
inbreeding occurs whenever a department hires a faculty member
whose highest degree (usually the Ph.D) is from the university of the
hiring department. To others (McNeely 1932; Cleland 1944; Lafferty
1964), inbreeding involves hiring faculty who have obtained their
undergraduate training in the institution where they are employed
and their graduate training in another institution. Conrad and Wyer
(1982) view inbreeding in completely opposite terms. To these
researchers, inbred faculty are those who have obtained their
undergraduate training in another institution and their graduate
training in the institutions where they are employed.
Inbreeding may also involve instances where faculty have
received part of their undergraduate training in their own
institutions and part in other institutions (McNeely 1932). Another
form of inbreeding occurs with regard to graduate training, a portion
of which may have been received at the employing institution and a
portion in a different university. (McNeely 1932)
Dutton (1980) perceives inbred faculty as "those whose entire
professional experience has been limited to the confines of a single
institution by virtue of their being recruited directly from the
graduating classes of the employing institution." Because colleges
and universities typically do not hire individuals with only
baccalaureate degrees, Dutton's definition most probably includes
faculty with either master's or doctoral degrees. More interestingly,
Dutton's definition of inbreeding would include an individual who
was graduated from University X with a degree in, say, computer
science within the college of arts and sciences, but who has been
hired to teach by University X in the department of computer
education in the college of education.
Early Studies
According to the conventional wisdom of American higher
education, institutional inbreeding should be avoided (Ezrati 1983;
Fitzpatrick 1917; McGee 1960). The first recorded warning about the
practice appeared when president Elliot (1908) of Harvard
University wrote:
10
It is natural, but not wise, for a college or university to recruit
its faculties chiefly from its own graduates—natural, because
these graduates are well known to the selecting authorities,
since they have been under observation for years; unwise,
because inbreeding has grave dangers for a university, and also
for technical schools and naval and military academies
(Elliot, 1908, p. 80).
An examination of the list of faculty members in the 1910 edition of
the Harvard University Catalogs shows that sixty-four percent of the
faculty were inbred Harvard graduates (Hargens and Farr, 1973).
Hargens and Farr (p. 1381) concluded that Elliot undoubtedly knew
or suspected that a disproportionate number of Harvard faculty were
trained there. A later study of Harvard faculty reported that 79
percent of associate professorships and 88 percent of full
professorships given in a four-year period prior to 1954 were filled
by Harvard graduates (Stouffer, 1954; Wells, Hassler, and Sellinger,
1979, p. 23).
Since Elliot's warnings, over thirty scholars have written on the
effects of institutional inbreeding. Fitzpatrick's (1917) views
paralleled those of Elliot's in that
. . . genuine universities of the countiy condemn unreservedly
what is called institutional inbreeding, that is, the placing on
the teaching staff of the university of its own graduates
immediately upon graduation. The sterility of such a
11
procedure seems obvious, but nevertheless, numbers of
institutions in this country are now following the practice.
It is opposed not merely for the benefit of the individual
professor and his students, but to save the educational
institution itself (p. 680).
Further, Fitzpatrick (p. 680) adds that the conscious adoption of such
a system tends to conserve the status quo or traditions.
Miller (1918) disagreed with Fitzpatrick's findings. According
to Miller,
Academic inbreeding has been on the wane in our country for
a number of years. On the other hand, it is not so clear that
academic inbreeding has been or should be on the wane. The
influences which have come into our universities by bringing
into their faculties the businessman, the practical farmer, the
engineer, and the pedagogue have been largely offset by the
increasing emphasis on specialization and the relatively smaller
influence of the professional views of the preacher (p. 54).
Miller believed that institutions appoint their own graduates for
convenience, not because it is impossible to find qualified applicants
(p. 54). Miller concluded with the statement that academic
inbreeding seems to be the backbone of success of a university (p.
54).
Heilman's (1920) report, contained in the Educational Survey
of Colorado State Teachers College, disclosed that one-half of the
Colorado State Teachers College faculty were inbred. Heilman (1920)
12
added that institutions selecting teachers largely from their own
graduates have the advantage of choosing their very best (p. 22).
Two years later, Kolbe (1922) reported on a survey conducted at the
University of Arizona that clouded the issue. At the time, the
University of Arizona was a young institution and Kolbe maintained
that there was no evidence of faculty "inbreeding" (p. 39).
McNeely (1932) conducted the first comprehensive study
focused on academic inbreeding. McNeely defined inbreeding as the
practice of selecting former students of an institution as members of
its faculty (p. 262). Inbred faculty were operationally defined as
members of the teaching faculty who had received one or more
earned degrees from that institution (McNeely, p. 262). McNeely
examined 49 land-grant colleges and universities which employed
6,754 faculty members in the academic year 1927-1928. Arguing
that employing an institution's own graduates as faculty was
detrimental to the progress of the institution, McNeely added that
such faculty frequently become steeped in the traditions and the
practices of an institution, thus attenuating the breadth of their
perspective and limiting the progress of an institution (p. 1).
The rationale for McNeely's (1932) study was that little effort
had been made to obtain information on the extent to which the
practice of inbreeding prevails in the United States. The most
complete example of inbreeding was found among faculty members
who have obtained all their training, both undergraduate and
graduate, in the institutions employing them. The results of the
13
study revealed that the graduate training of a total of 37 percent of
the staff members was secured either wholly or partially at the
institutions where they taught (p. 5). Of that number, 10.1 percent
completed all their work at their respective institution and 18.9
percent completed a portion of their work there (p. 5). The
percentage of instructors who secured all or part of their graduate
training at the institution where they were employed was 52.8 (p. 5).
The percentage of professors was less than half as large, at 25
percent (p. 5). McNeely (1932) also categorized faculty into seven
fields of teaching: liberal arts, education, home economics,
agriculture, engineering, commerce and business, and physical
education. His findings revealed a wide difference in the extent of
inbreeding among these seven fields. Engineering had the largest
percentage of inbreeding, at 44.1, and home economics had the
smallest percentage, at 21.1 (p. 22).
McNeely's (1932) study of inbreeding examined both
undergraduate and graduate training and provided a foundation for
subsequent studies. One important conclusion of McNeely's research
was that a greater proportion of inbreeding occurred at the lower
rank of instructor. This indicates that colleges and universities had a
tendency to appoint their own graduating students directly to faculty
membership (p. 15).
Eells and Cleveland's (1935a) study on academic inbreeding
included all institutions of higher education that were on the
accredited list of the American Council on Education, and included
14
219 institutions, both public and private, located in 42 states,
representing 16,837 faculty members. Eells and Cleveland
(1935a) found that 34 percent of faculty in the study were inbred,
while six institutions reported no inbreeding: i.e., Albany College,
Arizona State Teachers College, Catawba College, Pacific University,
Sul Ross State Teachers College, and Texas College of Arts and
Industries (p. 262). Eight institutions had over 60 percent
inbreeding. These included Erskine College, the University of Notre
Dame, Wake Forest College, Davidson College, Mississippi College,
Roanoke College, and Mississippi Agriculture and Mechanical College.
Reported, but not included in the study, were the United States
Military at West Point and the United States Naval Academy at
Annapolis, with rates of inbreeding at 97 percent and 73 percent,
respectively (p. 262).
Although little information concerning the actual extent of
inbreeding on a national scale was known, Eells and Cleveland argued
that inbreeding was indeed one of the fundamental problems of
colleges and universities in America (p. 261). Further, Eells and
Cleveland (1935a) proposed the need for an intensive study of
academic inbreeding in order to (1) discover norms of existing
inbreeding practices, (2) establish desirable standards concerning
faculty employment, and (3) evaluate inbreeding in American higher
education (p. 261).
Eells and Cleveland (1935a) used university and college
catalogs to discover if faculty members had received a degree from
15
the institution in which they were teaching. The median percent of
the entire group was twenty-four. The seven institutions with the
highest incidences of inbreeding were found in the South, with only
one awarding the doctor of philosophy degree in 1929-1930. The
authors concluded that the larger the institution, the greater the
amount of inbreeding. Their rationale was that these schools had
strong graduate schools that confer more doctor's degrees (p. 263).
On a regional basis, the percentage of faculty inbred declined
steadily from East to West. The East consisted of twenty-two
colleges, with inbreeding at the rate of 38 percent (p. 263). The
Middle West consisted of one hundred nine colleges, with inbreeding
at 35 percent (p. 263). The Mountain region had fifteen colleges, at
32 percent inbreeding (p. 263). The South had fifty-nine colleges, at
31 percent inbreeding (p. 263). Finally, the Pacific Coast contained
fourteen colleges, with 29 percent inbreeding (p. 263).
The study examined 8,966 faculty in 151 privately controlled
institutions. Of those 8,966, 36 percent were inbred, compared to
7,871 in 68 publicly controlled institutions, at 32 percent (p. 263).
Other significant results included the fact that inbreeding was almost
twice as great in large institutions as in small ones (p. 264). There
was no significant difference between small institutions and those of
average size (p. 264).
Eells and Cleveland (1935a) surveyed 4,311 faculty members
in institutions conferring more than 15 Ph.D degrees; inbreeding
occurred at 36 percent (p. 264). For 11,266 faculty in institutions
16
conferring no Ph.D degree, 29 percent inbreeding occurred (p. 264).
The study also categorized institutions into 12 different fields. The
percentages ranged from a low of 22 percent in home economics to a
high of 40 percent in biological science (p. 266). Also included in the
study was mathematics, with a percentage of 33 percent (p. 266).
Finally, Eells and Cleveland (1935a) studied the same faculty from
1902 to 1932 and found in 1902, with 718 faculty, inbreeding
occurred at 31 percent (p. 267). In 1912, with 1,618 faculty,
inbreeding occurred at 34 percent (p. 267). In 1922, with 2,269
faculty, inbreeding occurred at 33 percent (p. 267). And finally, in
1932, with 4,569 faculty, inbreeding peaked at 41 percent
(pp. 267-268).
Eells and Cleveland (1935a) point out that many different
types of inbreeding occurred. They counted 19 distinct patterns of
inbreeding among 3,903 faculty. Their conclusions were that the
long-term effect of inbreeding likely was to be distinctly narrowing.
They found no evidence that faculty inbreeding is either increasing
or decreasing (p. 266). The authors concluded that
. . . provincialism in higher education needs to be changed for a
broader catholicism. Indiscriminate inbreeding is likely to be
as disastrous in the educational field as in the biological field.
The data suggest the need for more careful attention to higher
educational eugenics if the virility of the American college and
university is to be continued and accentuated (p. 268).
17
In the 1930s, four pivotal studies were conducted on
institutional inbreeding. Reeves (1933) reinforced the negative
beliefs associated with inbreeding when he wrote:
It must be recognized that there is a very general sentiment
among American institutions of higher education to the effect
that inbreeding is unwise. Except in the case of persons of
extraordinary ability, the new doctor who stays with his alma
mater will be slower to gain recognition, either professionally
or economically, than if he starts his career elsewhere. These
early years are his period of highest development, and he will
at this time most quickly appreciate the significance of the
outside differences. At any cost, he must be saved from falling
into a rut. Some of the outstanding graduate schools of this
country have adopted the policy of not employing any of their
own graduates until they have won recognition elsewhere
(Reeves, Floyd W. et al. p. 36).
Eells and Cleveland (1935b) reexamined their study and
conducted a new study analyzing the effects of inbreeding. In this
study, they measured the effects of inbreeding on two paired groups.
Eells and Cleveland (1935b) studied over 4,000 inbred and non-
inbred faculty and examined three features: rate of advancement,
scholarly productivity, and professional recognition. The definition
of inbreeding used and the data gathered were the same as in their
early study. Inbred and non-inbred faculty members were paired
on the basis of institutional membership, length of service, subject
18
matter taught, gender, and academic rank. Academic rank was
determined by an examination of institutional catalogs. A total of
2,036 pairs of inbred and non-bred faculty members was isolated.
The study concluded that 203 male inbred instructors took 4.3
years to be promoted to assistant professor, while 197 non-inbred
men took only 3.2 years to be promoted to assistant professor
(p. 325). Similarly, 166 inbred male assistant professors took 4.9
years to be promoted to associate professor, while 156 non-inbred
men took only 4.5 years to be promoted to associate professor
(p. 325). Finally, 100 inbred male associate professors took 4.9 years
to be promoted to full professor, while 93 non-inbred men took 5.0
years to be promoted to full professor (p. 325). According to the
Eells and Cleveland (1935b), the rate of promotion from one rank to
the next is slower in publicly controlled institutions than in privately
controlled institutions (p. 324). Finally, they concluded:
From every standpoint from which objective evidence has been
collected, it appears that the probabilities of academic
advancement, scholarly productivity, and outside professional
recognition are distinctly greater for men who have academic
preparation in institutions other than those in which they are
teaching (p. 328).
Hollingshead's (1938) study of institutional inbreeding at
Indiana University in the years 1885 to 1937 clearly demonstrated
that membership in the academic ingroup (inbred group) acquired
by training in Indiana University had been a factor in determining
19
the selection of appointees in almost every division of the university
(p. 826-827). Further, Hollingshead added that this practice did not
greatly diminish as the years passed. Approximately one
department head out of five brought to the university to fill a
vacancy was an alumnus. Also, half the instructors were trained at
Indiana University (p. 827).
There were several interesting results in the study. Although a
small sample was used in this study, the proportion of inbred
mathematics faculty, 9 out of 19 (47.4%), was considerable (p. 826).
Also, there has been an inverse relation between rank and alumni
appointments: the higher the rank, the lower the proportion of
appointees (p. 827). An interesting finding was that during 46 of the
52 years involved, each of the presidents was an alumnus of Indiana
University (pp. 827-828). All registrars and comptrollers as well had
been alumni or had received some training at the university
(pp. 827-828). Finally, two-thirds of the librarians also had
graduated from Indiana University (p. 828).
Hollingshead's (1938) study explained the occurrence of
institutional inbreeding. College administrators, prizing their own
viewpoints above all others, will select faculty with whom they are
personally familiar and whom they believe are well-qualified (p.
532). Moreover, Hollingshead observed that it is easier to engage a
person who is readily contacted than to spend time, money, and
energy looking for outside persons (p. 832).
20
Cleland (1944) conducted a study examining the faculty of 36
institutions. These 36 institutions consisted of 26 liberal arts
colleges, three state teachers colleges, and seven large institutions
(p. 193). The large institutions included four state universities, two
state agricultural and mechanical universities established under the
Morrill Act (1862), and a large privately controlled technical
university. As in many of the previous studies, university catalogs
were used. However, one of the limitations of this study is that
Cleland considered only faculty holding only the bachelor's degree.
The 26 liberal-arts colleges included 1,366 faculty members
with inbreeding at 26 percent (p. 194). The highest level of
inbreeding found was 51 percent; the lowest level was 13 percent.
The median level was 30 percent (p. 194). The state teachers
colleges included of 252 faculty, in which 25 percent of the teachers
were graduates of the college in which they taught (p. 194). The
seven large institutions had faculties ranging from 218 to 338, a total
of 1,950 faculty, with inbreeding occurring at 23 percent (p. 194).
Cleland (1944) discussed several advantages of inbreeding.
College authorities might have a tendency to consider a faculty
member from their institution to be the most qualified to fill an
available position. Also, hiring an alumnus is considerably less risky
than hiring an unknown person who might not be familiar with the
college and its problems. Further, it is advantageous to bring in
alumni who agree with college presidents' views. Disadvantages of
inbreeding include the danger of employing alumni faculty based
21
upon friendship, alumni influence, and especially convenience, rather
than upon scholarship and teaching abilities. A danger of hiring
inbred faculty is the increased risk of negative reactions from other
faculty (pp. 194-195).
Cleland (1944) suggests that some interesting results might be
uncovered if an analysis were made by subjects or departments
(p. 195). Finally, it would be interesting to make an analysis
indicating the alma maters of the successful teachers of English,
mathematics, and all the other disciplines of the college curriculum
(p. 195).
McGee's (1960) study, conducted at the University of Texas at
Austin, examined the occurrence of institutional inbreeding alumni of
junior faculty members. At the time of this study, the University of
Texas at Austin was the seventh largest academic institution in the
United States (Austin American. December 7, 1958). Of the 354 full-
time junior faculty members in 1957, 118, or 33 percent, had at least
one University of Texas degree, while 103, or 29 percent, had their
highest degree from the University of Texas (p. 484). These findings
were similar to the results of Eells and Cleveland (1935) and Cleland
(1944).
Academic inbreeding, though deplored in the University of
Texas System, was a functional necessity for the Austin university's
participation in the national academic labor market. McGee's (1960)
study compared inbred and non-inbred faculty on the variables of
rank, load, and productivity. McGee (p. 484) reported that
22
inbreeding occurred least among men with the doctoral degree and
greatest among men with the master's degree.
Although the practice of inbreeding seems almost universally
deplored, there have been relatively few quantitative studies, and no
systematic attempts to explain its prevalence (p. 483). McGee (1960)
suggests that institutional inbreeding is not always a dangerous
malfunction of the institutional metabolism and may, in certain
circumstances, at least have utility in an educational institution (p.
483). The research also confirms the general conclusions of earlier
studies as to the extent and personal consequences of institutional
inbreeding, but it presents a more detailed analysis of the reasons
for it and suggests that inbreeding is pathological only in relation to
some ideal (p. 484).
McGee (1960) observed institutional discrimination against
inbred junior faculty. In the same work, McGee reported that
although inbred faculty were more likely to hold office in a learned
society, they were less likely to achieve successful scholarly
production or to be allowed to apply for and receive research grants
(p. 488). In summary,
it seems likely that the university's handicaps in the academic
labor market have caused numerous deans and department
chairmen and members of promotion committees individually
to decide to rob Peter to pay Paul in specific cases and thus
have created, an unconsciously developed administrative
23
adjustment resulting in selective and discriminating
inbreeding (p. 488).
Gold and Lieberson's (1961) re-examination of McGee's (1960)
results argued that institutional discrimination reported by McGee
involved differences among faculty which are not attributable to
academic training, scholarly productivity, and other factors normally
associated with rank (p. 507). Further, Gold and Lieberson (1961)
questioned McGee's (1960) findings because of weaknesses in his
research design. While Gold and Lieberson acknowledged the
possibility of discrimination against inbred faculty in terms of rank
at first appointment, they contradicted McGee by concluding that
after entry into the faculty, discrimination operates against persons
not receiving their highest academic degree from employing
institution (in this case, the the University of Texas at Austin),
particularly if the highest degree is not a Ph.D (p. 508).
Lafferty (1937) examined the extent to which six teachers
colleges in Texas employed their own alumni. The study concluded
that those colleges need fear no serious criticism in the matter of
academic inbreeding (p. 78). Lafferty's (1964) follow-up study of
the same colleges, only one of which remained as a teachers' college,
determined a general rule to the extent an institution should give
faculty appointments to its own baccalaureate graduates. As with
the 1936-37 data, the 1963-64 data were collected from the catalogs
of each college (p. 15). The results indicated that Sam Houston State
Teachers College, North Texas State University, and West Texas State
24
University had the greatest preference for their own graduates (pp.
15-16).
Lafferty (1964) identified two advantages of inbreeding. First,
it enables an institution to obtain a known quality of ability not
assured when negotiating with strangers (pp. 14-15). Second,
inbreeding assures a familiarity and loyalty to institutional policies
and goals that only can be acquired over a period of time, i.e., an
instant patriotism (p. 15). Likewise, two disadvantages: the principle
of propinquity may lull administrators into attaching unrealistic
appraisals to the professional quality of faculty, and academic
inbreeding might produce conformity and provincialism at a time
when criticism and sophistication were needed (p. 15).
Berelson's (1960) study of institutional inbreeding reported
that prestigious American universities have always had a greater
proportion of their faculties inbred than other institutions. Berelson
noted that the greatest proportion of inbred faculty members at the
eminent universities were scholars who had originally obtained
positions at other universities, but who had been recalled to their
alma maters (p. 116). This "silver cord" phenomenon has
traditionally been interpreted as an indication that the faculty
members inbred in this manner have demonstrated their superiority
in open competition (Caplow and McGee, 1958, p. 53). According to
Berelson (1960), elite universities do not necessarily perceive
academic inbreeding to be a disadvantage, contending that if they
are the best universities, it then follows their students are the best
25
prepared (p. 116). Therefore, looking elsewhere for the most
qualified faculty would be absurd. In summary, Berelson (1960),
like McGee (1960), argued that academic inbreeding may reflect
patterns of recruitment shared by administration and department
chairs (Hargens and Farr, 1973, p. 1381). In an attempt to test the
reproducibility of McGee's and Berelson's hypothesis, Hargens and
Farr (1973) examined data from a large sample of university
scientists who were originally examined by Hagstrom (1966).
Graduate faculty members were systematically and randomly
sampled in mathematics, experimental biology, physics, and
chemistry. Information about the number of articles published by
each faculty member was collected.
Crane (1970) examined faculty hiring at the twenty leading
departments in four types of disciplines during 1963-64, 1964-65,
and 1965-66 (p. 924). The departments included were the natural
sciences, the biological sciences, the social sciences, and the
humanities. The finding concluded that 13 percent of the faculty
obtained positions in the departments from which they had received
their highest earned degree. The twenty departments showed 24
percent inbreeding in the first five departments, 12 percent
inbreeding among those hired in the next five departments, and 8
percent among those hired by departments in ranks eleven to
twenty. Private universities were found to be more likely to engage
in inbreeding than public universities. Crane found inbreeding to be
the highest in physics and psychology (16 and 18 percent,
26
respectively) and lowest in chemistry and economics (8 and 9
percent, respectively).
Hargens and Farr (1973) argued that in attempting to maintain
their position of eminence, distinguished departments may be forced
to hire their own graduates (p. 1384). Inbred scientists in high-
prestige departments, however, appeared to be no more productive
than scientists in departments of lesser eminence (p. 1381). The
results were inconsistent with the claim that inbred scholars are
more talented and productive than their non-inbred peers. Citing
Pelz and Andrews' (1955) explanation, Hargens and Farr concluded
that inbred scholars lack exposure to new ideas and techniques
which make for a higher level of scientific productivity and
creativity (p. 140). Moreover, their old ties with senior faculty might
inhibit the development and independence of junior scholars (p.
1400).
Blau (1973) examined the phenomenon of faculty inbreeding
and its relationship to institutional type. Blau's narrow definition
was that the sole indication of faculty inbreeding was the proportion
of faculty members appointed in the last academic year who had any
degree from that institution (p. 31). Blau concluded that inbreeding
is most harmful at prestigious universities. Reasoning that weak
institutions avoid rigorous outside recruitments in order to avoid
rejections of offers to senior faculty which might puncture inflated
self images of institutional and departmental prestige (p. 121), Blau
argued that weak institutions are more inbred than strong ones
27
(p. 137). Elite universities are said to recruit their faculty primarily
from graduates of elite universities (p. 137). Decision-makers
employed at elite institutions tend to circulate, both professionally
and socially, with other elites (CF: Marlier, 1982 p. 18). The
definition of inbreeding was expanded by Blau (1973) in that inbred
faculty were viewed as those faculty members who had at least one
degree from the employing academic institution.
Lewis (1975) contended that institutions, especially the more
prestigious ones, still hire their own graduates (p. 111). This seems
to occur even though, according to Blau (1973), inbreeding has
"adverse effects on faculty quality" no matter what the academic
setting (p. 273). Blau (1973) hypothesized that inbreeding may
promote faculty loyalty, presumably because faculty members
holding degrees from the same institution where they currently
work will exhibit greater allegiance to that institution (pp. 125-126).
Miller's (1977) study of the top ten schools of graduate nursing,
education, and social work found that almost half of the faculty in
collegiate nursing programs were drawn from the schools' own
graduates (p. 172). The study further revealed that academic
inbreeding is generally considered a detriment to academic
innovation, creativity, and achievement (p. 172). Miller (1977)
concluded that inbred faculty are selected for teaching positions not
because of impersonal standards of competency, but on the basis of
social relationships (p. 73).
28
The disadvantages of inbreeding are that it stifles academic
innovation, is dysfunctional for faculty itself, and that inbred faculty
typically receive lower salaries (p. 173). Referring to Blau (1974),
Miller (1977) advances several advantages of academic inbreeding:
i.e., it serves specific institutional needs, conserves institutional
resources, maintains institutional prestige and status, increases
faculty loyalty to the institution, and provides for faculty in scarcity
situations (pp. 42-43).
The method of the study was an examination of two sets of
professional schools of nursing, education, and social work. An elite
group and a non-elite group were formed. Schools of nursing, taken
as a whole, had the highest proportion of inbred faculty, at 48
percent (p. 174). The percentage of inbred faculty in schools of social
work was 39 percent (p. 174). In schools of education, 31 percent of
the faculty were inbred. The differences in academic inbreeding
between professional schools were highly significant, (x = 18.58,
p <. 001), (p. 174). The elite schools of nursing and education had a
higher proportion of inbred faculty than the non-elite groups
(p. 175). In schools of social work, the non-elite group exceeded the
elite in proportions of inbreeding (p. 175).
The ten non-elite schools of education had the lowest percent
of inbreeding, at 27 percent (p. 174). Non-elite schools of nursing
had inbreeding occurring at 45 percent, more than any other group,
elite or non-elite (p. 174). Only in schools of education were the 9
differences in inbreeding significant (x = 31.9, p<.001), (p. 175).
29
Among the elite schools of nursing, inbreeding ranged from 36
percent to 64 percent, while among non-elite schools the range was
11 to 39 percent (p. 175). In elite schools of education, the range
was 23 to 58 percent, and in non-elite, 10 to 38 percent (p. 175). In
schools of social work, the elite schools ranged from 4 to 67 percent,
and the non-elite from 15 to 70 percent (p. 175).
Miller (1977) concluded that schools of nursing have
abnormally high levels of inbreeding, reflecting a shortage of
qualified nursing faculty (p. 175). Further, it was observed that most
nursing educators tend to lack independent mobility because of
social factors. Schools of education and social work do not appear to
have the same difficulty (p. 175). Nursing faculty are not always
recruited and selected on the basis of objective values and academic
achievement, but rather because of their availability, their behavior
as students, and their apparent congruence with other faculty
(p. 175). Miller added that this philosophy of selection appears to be
detrimental to attempts by baccalaureate nursing programs to
achieve parity with other university programs (p. 175). Institutional
inbreeding also permits old attitudes and values to be continuously
recycled without ever being retested, updated, or possibly discarded
(p. 176). In contrast, hiring inbred faculty incurs considerably fewer
expenses associated with travel and recruitment, permits lower
institutional budgets devoted to salary, and allows for more access to
background information on the inbred candidate (p. 176).
30
Wells, Hassler, and Sellinger (1979) examined institutional
inbreeding in social work education. Prior empirical studies had
been equivocal in support of institutional inbreeding, and sizeable
proportions of inbreeding had been noted in high-prestige
institutions. Despite warnings against inbreeding throughout the
years, this phenomenon of faculty selection and composition
continues to be quite prevalent in higher education (p. 23).
These scholars defined inbreeding as the selection of former
students of an institution as members of its faculty (p. 23). Wells,
Hassler, and Sellinger (1979) stated that the empirical examination of
the effects of institutional inbreeding must be regarded as
inconclusive (p. 24). According to Wells, Hassler, and Sellinger
(1979), high-prestige institutions appear to have the highest
proportion of institutional inbreeding. But if inbreeding has
detrimental effects on faculty calibre, then one would expect it to be
most prevalent in low-prestige rather than high-prestige institutions
(p. 25).
Wells, Hassler, and Sellinger (1979) hypothesized that there is
no relationship between a school of social work's proportion of
inbred faculty and any specific measure of a school's prestige or
intellectual and professional productivity, and that there is no
relationship between the academic nativity of individual faculty
members and measures of their scholarly productivity. This study
was different from previous ones in that both institutions and
individual faculty members were considered. Data for the study
31
were obtained from the most recent catalogs from the Council on
Social Work Education (1975), listing accredited graduate social work
programs. Appropriate data were collected for 49 of the 82
accredited schools (60%), with a total of 1,729 faculty identified
(p. 25).
An inbred faculty member was defined as any full-time faculty
member who was teaching in a school of social work that was part of
the same institution from which he or she had received a graduate or
doctoral degree (p. 23). The study made no distinction between
faculty members who had taught only at their alma maters and those
who had originally obtained positions at other universities, thus
depicting the "silver cord" phenomenon (Caplow and McGee, 1958).
Data were gathered using four criteria: prestige, scholarly
productivity, professional activity, and student-faculty ratios.
Prestige data were drawn from the Blau-Margulios (1975) ranking of
professional schools. The Social Science Citation Index (1975)
provided author listings for all articles appearing in over 2,000
journals. Professional activity was a measure of a faculty member's
efforts to contribute to the development and communication of social
work knowledge. Student-faculty ratios for each school were
calculated from the Council on Social Work Education's Annual Report
(1975).
The 49 schools were dichotomized into high-prestige and low-
prestige categories, and the mean proportion of inbreeding was
calculated for each group. The mean for the high-prestige schools
32
was .34 with a standard deviation of .26, while the low-prestige had
a mean of .23 and standard deviation of .17 (p. 26). The difference
was not significant (t = 1.29, df = 47, p > .20), thus supporting the
first hypothesis. Schools were then ranked on the four criteria, and a
correlation coefficient of .20 was found, indicating a positive
association between inbreeding and citations, with r = -.18 (p. 26). A
- .18 correlation was found between inbreeding and student-faculty
ratio (p. 26). Wells, Hassler, and Sellinger (1979) concluded that
there was no relationship among a school of social work's proportion
of institutional inbreeding and specific measures of prestige,
intellectual and professional productivity, and quality of teaching
(p. 27).
The second hypothesis, that institutional nativity does not
differentiate between faculty members across schools in relation to
measures of quantity of scholarly productivity, was supported. A
2x2 table between institutional nativity and intellectual productivity,
with respect to publications or citations, was constructed and a chi-
square calculated, with no relationship found.
Wells, Hassler, and Sellinger (1979) concluded that the
injunctions against inbreeding are widely observed, and in the
sample studied, ranged from 24 percent and to 79 percent, with
more institutional inbreeding occurring at prestigious institutions
(p. 27). The relationship between institutional inbreeding and the
academic endeavor was classified as complex, with inbreeding
occurring heavily among nondoctoral faculty. Finally, Wells, Hassler,
33
and Sellinger (1979) were unable to find any specific associations
between inbreeding and its negative effects, notwithstanding the
plausible arguments against inbreeding and warnings about its
negative effects (p. 28).
Recent Studies
Bridgeland (1980) studied the relationship between the level of
salary within the three major departmental classifications ~
assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor ~ and the
percentage of inbreeding within each of the three major ranks of
departmental faculty. Citing Mills' (1962), Lafferty's (1964), and
Brown's (1965) observation that inbreeding is on the decrease,
Bridgeland adopted Newburn's (1959) explanation that universities
with excessive inbreeding are considered weaker (p. 18). Bridgeland
(1980) added that much research on institutional inbreeding is of
poor quality and cautioned scholars interested in the topic. The study
consisted of a questionnaire mailed to the chairpersons of 9 different
departments at six large midwestern universities in the late 1970s.
The faculty at these institutions had national reputations in their
fields. Of the 52 departments surveyed, six (1.5 percent) reported a
formal policy against inbreeding; and one department reported an
imposed limit of 20 percent (p. 217). When chairpersons were asked
if having the local degree had any impact on a person's relative
reward, the response was consistently negative (p. 220). In
summary, Bridgeland (1980) concluded that weak departments in
the university hierarchy may hire inbred faculty because they do not
34
carry out national personnel searches, partly owing to lack of
financial support (p. 221).
Similarly, Dutton (1980) observed that the practice of
inbreeding is diminishing (p. 3) and proposed several new categories
of institutional inbreeding. "Adherents" were defined as faculty who
had remained immobile since accepting their first professional
position at another institution other than where they received their
highest degree (p. 4). "Acanome" were defined as faculty holding
positions in at least two different institutions since attaining their
highest degree (p. 4). Faculty not continuously employed at an
institution and who had at some point in their professional career
been employed outside of the institution were called "silver cords"
(p. 5). Using the American Council on Education's (1972-73) national
survey of college and university faculty members, Dutton examined
institutional inbreeding among 4,322 faculty, of which 168 were
pure inbred (7.2 percent), 843 "adherents" (36.3 percent), 123 "silver
cords" (5.3 percent) and 1,188 "acanomes" (51.2 percent) (pp. 6-8).
Adversaries of institutional inbreeding had long argued that
the recruitment and prolonged retention of former students inhibit
institutional progress and vitality (Dutton, 1980, p. 3). Other
concerns of institutional inbreeding cited by Dutton are that "pure"
inbred scholars, whose entire professional experience was limited to
the confines of a single institution, lacked the exposure to varied
experiences, a network of external collegiate ties, and broad
professional and scholarly cosmopolitan activities (p. 3). Pure
35
inbreds represent perhaps the least mobile segment of the academic
community.
Wyer (1980) noted that early studies used very general
criteria for identifying inbred faculty and that most existing studies
suffer from one or both of two significant weaknesses (p. 220). First,
many studies suffered from sampling inadequacies, thus restricting
the generalizability of results. Second, studies often lack
multivariate analyses. Wyer concluded that the research was unified
only in its assumption of the undesirability of the phenomenon
(p. 39) and the literature evaluating the relative merits of inbred
faculty is ambiguous (p. 55). In addition, Wyer identified
frustrations about previous research:
The pessimistic ambiguity of the Hargens and Farr (1973)
results is characteristic of the research on inbreeding. The
literature is unified only in its assumption of the undesirability
of the phenomenon. The studies, often restricted by
methodological simplicity, do not present a clear statement on
either the relative merits of inbred faculty or on the individual
or institutional motivation to practice inbreeding (p. 56).
Most studies prior to Wyer (1980) were limited to a single institution
or a narrow range of disciplines. Wyer's research was taken from a
survey of the American professoriate conducted by McDonald (1977),
which encompassed 160 institutions and includes faculty from
virtually all major academic disciplines.
36
Wyer (1980) examined the effects of inbreeding on the
professional development of university faculty and possible
employment discrimination practices against female faculty imposed
by the male-dominated professoriate. Wyer's concern resulted from
several factors. One such factor was The American Colleges Project
on the Status and Education of Women which includes a policy
forbidding departments from hiring their own students upon degree
completion, thus decreasing the available pool of qualified female
applicants and working a hardship on married women (Sandler, 1974
p. 7). Moreover, rules prohibiting the hiring of an institution's own
graduates effectively limit employment opportunities for such
women (Gappa and Vehling, 1979, p. 5). Another reason for concern
regarding the institutional inbreeding of female faculty members
involves affirmative action pressures. An institution attempting to
hire nontraditional faculty may find that the easiest applicants to
attract are its own graduates. And finally, Wyer maintains that
female inbred faculty have patterns of productivity which are
significantly different from the patterns of productivity of male
inbred faculty (p. 20).
While no differences in academic productivity due to
inbreeding and gender were found in the study, some gender-related
findings did emerge. Inbred females required more time for
promotion to associate professor than their non-inbred female
counterparts (p. 103). The relationship between inbreeding and
promotion from associate to full professor, however, was substantial
37
(p. 105). The percent of male inbred faculty at the ranks of
instructor, full and distinguished professor is greater than for the
male non-inbred counterpart (pp. 105-107). Inbreeding had no
impact on the rates at which faculty were granted tenure (p. 107).
Interestingly, while both male and female inbred faculty had greater
longevity than non-inbred faculty, inbred faculty were less
renumerated than non-inbred faculty (p. 132).
Wyer (1980) compared the data with the Eells and Cleveland
(1935a) study and found the rate of inbreeding for holders of
doctoral degrees had dropped from 16 to 11 percent. The only
exception was in the field of home economics. In mathematics, Eells
and Cleveland (1935a) found inbreeding to be 33 percent, while
McDonald (1978) found it occurring at 7 percent (p. 84).
Some conclusions from Wyer's (1980) study were that faculty
are more immobile over time and that institutional inbreeding is a
handicap for women, but not for men (pp. 119-120). Other results
revealed that inbred faculty are concentrated at the instructor and
full professor ranks (p. 121). Inbred men are concentrated at the
level of instructor and inbred women serve more time prior to
promotion to associate professor (p. 125-126). Female inbred faculty
have patterns of productivity which are significantly different from
the patterns of productivity of male inbred faculty (p. 20). Further
examination of the data revealed that inbred faculty are paid on the
average less than non-inbred faculty of equivalent experience
38
(p. 132). And finally, the results of this study indicate that inbred
women are more productive in institutional services than are inbred
men (p. 135).
Bridgeland (1982) examined departmental image within six
large midwestern universities and claimed that academic inbreeding,
or hiring one's own university graduates, is becoming increasingly
taboo (p. 287). Further, Bridgeland claimed that it is quite clear that
faculties do not hire their own departmental or university graduates.
The prevailing opinion was that it is impossible to be objective about
one's own and there is value in having new, differing, or outside
perspectives and experiences. Diversity is needed; otherwise, a
'protege syndrome' may develop (p. 288). Institutional inbreeding
restriction is rarely a stated policy, especially in recent years,
because of possible legal ramifications (p. 288). Jamrich
(1958) reported that institutions whose reputations are outstanding
and perhaps those universities that are geographically isolated from
others of equal or superior status are relatively free from this
inbreeding constraint. Local hiring cannot be done unless the
university has an assured national reputation. Hiring even a few of
one's graduate students is detrimental to the image of a unit that has
ambitions (p. 288).
Conrad and Wyer's (1982) follow-up study to Wyer's (1980)
research concluded that inbred faculty contribute uniquely to the
cohesiveness, identity, and historical consciousness of an academic
39
organization (p. 46). Inbred faculty also have strong ties to their
institutions early in their service, (p. 46)
When his allegiance is coupled with their dual experience as
both students and faculty, inbreds are more likely than others
to preserve and transmit institutional traditions and values.
Also, inbreds can provide a powerful anchor against diverse
educational currents. In lower ranks, inbreds can offer
continuity that outsiders simply cannot bring to an institution
(P- 46).
Conrad and Wyer (1982) further stated that the use of inbreeding in
faculty hiring might be a viable strategy for the development of a
critical mass in a specialty area with the least investment of scarce
resources, (p. 46)
Prohibitions against inbreeding are based on the fear that
institutional parochialism may remain unchallenged, change may be
hindered, and intellectual life and research efforts may become
increasingly narrowed and stunted (p. 46). Significant changes have
occurred in the academic marketplace since the data for the last
major study were collected in 1966. The increased emphasis on
hiring women and minorities has changed the professorate. Also, the
changing social context of professional employment has influenced
the operation of the academic marketplace. The methodological
flaws of previous research, i.e. univariate methods of analysis, do not
permit consideration of the interaction between the variables that
40
affect personnel decisions. Conrad and Wyer (1982) echoed earlier
claims that most studies are limited in generalizability.
The Conrad and Wyer (1982) study, which explored the
consistency of earlier findings regarding the individual consequences
of institutional inbreeding, was consistent with a recent national
sample of faculty in that inbred faculty display patterns of
productivity different from those not inbred. The data were
gathered from the 1977 Survey of the American Professoriate and
included 160 institutions and virtually all institutional disciplines.
The sample yielded 345 inbred faculty and 2,709 not inbred. Conrad
and Wyer's findings revealed that inbred faculty spend less time on
research and writing, but more time on advising students and
administrative work (p. 47). No major differences were found
between inbred and outside faculty when the measures of
productivity were adjusted for experience. Finally, inbred faculty
were found to be more productive on all measures of research
activity (p. 48).
Taken together, Conrad's and Wyer's (1982) and Wyer's (1980)
research suggested that a reexamination of inbreeding practices was
long overdue. Despite consistently negative results in past research,
they found that inbred faculty may indeed be more productive than
non-inbreds (p. 48). Conrad and Wyer concluded that a policy
that forbids or severely limits inbred hiring, promotion, or
retention may not be in the best interests of any institution. In
the present educational environment, our inbreds may well be
41
our thoroughbreds. A wise policy of selective inbreeding can
be a good policy in academe (p. 48).
Marlier's (1982) research on inbreeding among college
administrators examined the extent of institutional inbreeding
among upper-level administrators. Inbreeding was defined as
previous affiliation with the institution through having earned a
degree or having held a previous position at an institution, or both
(p. 41). The data were generated by a mail survey in the spring of
1981, with a target population of upper-level line administrators in
all accredited, four-year, degree-granting institutions in the
contiguous United States. The sampling procedure resulted in a total
of 3,978 individual administrators, with a response rate of 72.8
percent (N = 2,896) (p. 55).
The following classifications of the Carnegie Foundation were
used in the Marlier (1982) study: Doctorate-granting universities I
and II, Comprehensive colleges and universities I and II, and Liberal
arts colleges I and II. In doctorate-granting institutions,
administrators at both public and private doctoral-granting
institutions were the most inbred of the three institutional types.
This pattern was to be expected since these institutions are the ones
offering the vast majority of graduate degrees (1982, p. 104). Sixty-
three percent of the administrators at public institutions and 62
percent of those at private ones were inbred by position. It is likely
that the larger the institution the higher the rate of inbreeding by
position (p. 107). Results of the study suggest, however, that the
42
higher the level of administration, the lower the amount of
inbreeding (p. 110). In summary, all three institutional types tend to
choose a large percentage of their upper-level administrators from
their own institution rather than hiring from the outside, (p. 188)
Student affairs administrators are the most inbred of the four
position types, and females are more inbred than males by degree.
But significant differences exist between the genders in inbreeding
by position (p. 116). Importantly, it was suggested that additional
studies should expand the notion of inbreeding to include geographic
regions (p. 120).
Marlier (1982) claimed that inbreeding has not been studied in
a rigorous fashion at the national level. Blau (1973), Smelser and
Content (1980), and Wilson (1979) referred to inbreeding as it
applies to faculty who hold positions in the same departments from
which they graduated (p. 5). This study used the definition that
administrators were inbred if they were employed by an institution
from which they received a degree or at which they held a faculty or
staff position (p. 5). Marlier contends that faculty inbreeding is
generally viewed as undesirable (p. 5). It can indicate that the hiring
department is too weak academically to compete in a larger market
and, therefore, is resigned to hiring its own graduates (p. 5).
The purpose of the study was to established baseline data on
the extent to which administrators in American colleges and
universities, as organizations, are basically conservative and slow to
change. Glenny and Bowen (n.d.) suggested that when a system or
43
campus hires from within or hires its own graduates, it is usually a
sign of financial stress or of conservation or perhaps both (p. 26).
Marlier (1982) lists three aspects of organizations that could
affect the amount of inbreeding present in administrators careers.
First, organizations often seek to reduce uncertainty and avoid risk.
Second, academic organizations espouse belief in the norm of merit
and universalism. And third, at least one type of institution, the
university, is interested in maximizing its prestige (p. 11). Brown's
The Mobile Professor (1967), found a high degree of provincialism in
hiring patterns of institutions and, consequently, the career patterns
of faculty (p. 83). Further, Brown (1967) added that Catholic,
Protestant and nondenominational institutions tend to hire faculty
who have undergraduate degrees from a matching type of school (p.
84). This preference for faculty who have graduated from a
particular institutional type also was extended to a preference for
faculty who have been educated in similar geographic regions.
Brown believed it is common for professors to switch jobs, and the
idea of working one's way up in a single institution is foreign to most
faculty members (p. 25).
The term "institutional inbreeding" seemed to be restricted to
the academe sphere in that it refers to the hiring of one's own
graduates. Marlier (1982) reasoned that there was more opportunity
for inbreeding within academe than within business, since an
institution of higher education produces graduates who remain at the
44
institution as employees (a lack of inter-institutional mobility) or
who could move elsewhere (an inter-institutional mobility) (p. 26).
According to Kanter (1977), a closely related term to
inbreeding surfaced in organizational studies known as "social
homogeneity." Social homogeneity, when used as a selection criteria
for managers, means that decision-makers tend to hire managers
who are like themselves in terms of gender, race, and educational
background (Kanter, 1977, p. 58). Marlier (1982) stated that
administrators appear to come from within higher education and
they stay in the same institution. Studies of this phenomenon,
however, were descriptive only of people who had recently changed
jobs and were based only upon data concerning administrators in
academic affairs (pp. 35-36).
Organizations seeking to reduce risks and uncertainty tend to
hire and promote those individuals with whom they are most
comfortable and familiar. Yet in academic organizations, the
principles of merit and universalism posit countervailing values such
that hiring and promotion, and consequently inter-organizational
movement, would be more open (1982, p. 36). Marlier (1982)
observed that
there had been no readily agreed upon definition of the term
(inbreeding). In a negative sense, inbreeding does not
encourage the infusion of new blood or new ideas into the
organization. It can foster provincialism and favoritism and
thereby contribute to a closed system. On the other hand, the
45
positive aspects of inbreeding are that an individual is familiar
with the employing institution and invariably has developed
contacts throughout the organization. In addition, the inbred
person can exhibit a high degree of institutional loyalty. In
summary, the phenomenon of inbreeding has been narrowly
defined, coupled with the lack of a widely accepted definition,
has resulted in an incomplete picture of the concept (p. 38).
According to Marlier (1982), the definition of inbreeding, as it
applies to faculty, is that the faculty member is inbred if his or her
terminal degree is from the employing institution (p. 40).
Ezrati (1983) examined the effects of institutional inbreeding
and personnel policies and procedures in institutions of higher
education on the career potential of faculty women. Rules in regard
to inbreeding typically specify that graduates of an institution of
higher education may not be employed as faculty at the same
institution (p. 109). The purpose of a policy against inbreeding is to
introduce new ideas into the institution through the employment of
individuals trained elsewhere (pp. 109-110). Abramson (1975)
points out the fallacy of this argument: it assumes that graduates are
permanently fixed in their thinking by their training (p. 6).
Fley (1979), an associate professor at the University of Illinois,
claims that an unofficial policy prohibiting inbreeding is ignored
when male graduates apply (p. 172). Also Broad (1980) noted that
the University of Minnesota had such a provision to waive its policy
of not hiring its graduates for tenured position in a legal document
46
(i.e., consent decree) settling a recent gender discrimination suit (pp.
1120-1122). Sandler (1974) noted that personnel policies which
prohibit inbreeding may be a violation of Executive Order 11246 and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but this issue is not clear. All these
findings illustrate the danger that can be associated with inbreeding.
Wyer and Conrad (1984) reexamined institutional inbreeding
and concluded that most of the previous studies suffered from
several major limitations. First, in examining the individual effects
of institutional origin, researchers have concentrated exclusively on
the consequences of inbred status on the quantity of faculty
scholarly productivity (p. 215). Second, most studies of inbreeding
were based on samples of faculty drawn from a single institution or
discipline, or a restricted group of institutions or disciplines (p. 215).
Third, most studies are based exclusively on univariate analysis that
failed to consider competing hypotheses of interaction effects (p.
215).
Wyer and Conrad (1984) looked at 160 institutions from all
major disciplines. The sample included 345 inbred faculty and 2,709
non-inbred faculty (p. 216). The study reexamined the 160
institutions used in the Wyer (1980) study. The overall weight of
the evidence was clear: regardless of the reasons given for
discrimination, no study had concluded that it does not exist (p. 223).
More importantly, the new and potentially controversial finding in
this research was that inbred faculty are more productive in all areas
of scholarly research when an adjustment is made for the
47
confounding effects of time allocation. In the face of these data,
institutions cannot hide behind the traditional argument that low pay
is a result of low productivity (p. 223).
The primary finding of the study was that inbred faculty out-
produce their non-inbred colleagues in scholarly research, (p. 224).
The strengths of this study were the use of multivariate techniques,
the definition of productivity using significantly expanded traditional
scholarly measures, and the use of data covering many institution
and disciplines (p. 224).
Dattilo (1987) examined scholarly productivity of inbred and
non-inbred nursing faculty in the South. The study claimed that
institutional inbreeding has traditionally been viewed as a
detrimental recruitment practice within higher education. The major
controversy revolved around the premise that inbred faculty are less
productive or scholarly than their non-inbred counterparts (p. 1).
Wyer and Conrad (1984) stated that administrators support the
notion that inbred faculty are more dependent, derivative, and
unoriginal scholars than non-inbred. Dattilo (1987), along those
lines, added that administrators
perceive that inbreeding results in lowered academic
creativity, innovation, and achievement. Research efforts may
become narrow and stunted. Educational quality may be
lessened and parochialism perpetuated. Ultimately, the
institutional image may be threatened. Prospective students
and outside scholars may negatively evaluate the institution
48
based on the prevalence of inbreeding and eliminate the
university as a selection for educational programs or academic
appointment. At a broader level, the prestige of the institution
may be jeopardized when a societal bias exists against the
contributions of inbred scholars (p. 2)
Dattilo (1987) lists five advantages of inbreeding: 1)
administrators may perceive inbred faculty as more loyal and
committed personnel, 2) a continuity of the norms and roles may be
ensured, 3) hiring graduates from the parent institution for faculty
positions may reduce some of the uncertainty in the hiring decision,
4) more philosophically, hiring institutional graduates is seen as a
public statement of confidence in the product, and 5) selection of
inbred faculty may be a necessary financial strategy in an effort to
utilize limited recruitment funds most effectively (pp. 2-3).
Further, Dattilo (1987) stated that geographic location is
associated with the frequency of inbreeding, and that undesirable or
isolated settings may prevent an institution from competing in the
national marketplace (p. 3). Regardless of the rationale which
condemns or condones academic inbreeding as a recruitment
practice, there is a need for further research to provide a more
objective basis for administrative decision-making (p. 4).
The purpose of Dattilo's study was to examine the relationship
between the quality of scholarly productivity of inbred and non-
inbred full-time doctorally prepared nursing faculty (p. 5). The
hypothesis was based on the widespread belief in academia that
49
inbred faculty tend to be less productive in relation to scholarly
activities of non-inbred educators (p. 37). The research question was
to determine if inbred and non-inbred differ on the number of
publications, number of referred publications, citation count,
professional presentation, professional recognition, and institutional
prestige. The total sample consisted of 321 nurse educators or
approximately 53 percent of the known population (p. 39). The
study found no significant differences in scholarly productivity
between inbred and non-inbred full-time doctorally-prepared
nursing faculty.
Lumsden, Stewart, & Linn (1990) examined the extent of
inbreeding among contemporary university faculty throughout the
United States. The study included 65,682 faculty in the publicly
supported "flagship" universities in 45 states (p. 2). Their research
sought to 1) determine the extent of faculty inbreeding in American
institutions of postsecondary education, 2) locate faculty inbreeding
according to institutions and regions of the country, and 3) ascertain
variances in faculty inbreeding attributable to academic disciplines
(P- 1).
Faculty were examined in terms of the institutions from which
they received their highest degree, and the institutions which
currently employed them (p. 2). Data were gleaned from 1989-1990
graduate and undergraduate catalogs; faculty were classified
according to schools or colleges within the universities, and a total 11
different schools were identified. The 45 institutions were separated
50
into 9 regions of the country according to the State and Metropolitan
Data Book (1986).
The smallest percentage of inbred faculty was found at the
University of Vermont, at 2.4 percent, while the largest was found at
the University of Wisconsin, at 46.4 percent (p. 3). The chi-square of
394.66 was significant, indicating a clear and robust lack of fit
between the observed distribution of inbred faculty and the
hypothesized equal distribution. The mean proportion of inbred
faculty was 15.4 percent (p. 7). Lumsden, Stewart, & Linn (1990)
concluded that faculty inbreeding appears to be on the decline, but
varies greatly within degree (p. 7).
CHAPTER III
MEIHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study estimated (1) the extent to which institutional
inbreeding is prevalent among mathematics faculty at colleges and
universities offering the Ph.D. degree throughout the United States,
(2) the extent of institutional inbreeding among mathematics faculty
at these American colleges and universities classified according to
institutional genre, (3) the extent of institutional inbreeding among
these mathematics faculty classified according to gender, and (4) the
extent of institutional inbreeding among these mathematics faculty
in American colleges and universities classified according to regions
of the country.
This chapter presents a description of the methods and
procedures for the collection of data. Included are identifications of
general procedures, procedures for the classification of institutions,
procedures for the classification of institutions by geographical
region, procedures for the classification of faculty by gender, and
procedures for the analysis of data.
51
52
General Procedures. Procedures for data collection in the study
followed the general protocol established in the Lumsden, Stewart,
and Linn (1990) study. All public-supported and private-supported
American universities that offer a doctorate in mathematics were
identified by consulting the 1991 American Mathematical Society
Professional Directory. The Directory contains addresses and contact
persons at each college and university across the fifty states.
Catalogs for academic year 1991-1992 were requested from each
institution. These bulletins were used to obtain information
regarding faculty degrees and the institutions from which they were
received. Faculty employed by institutions from which they received
their highest earned degrees were considered inbred. The
mathematics faculty were studied in terms of 1) the institutions from
which they received their highest degrees, 2) the institutions which
currently employ them, 3) their gender, and 4) regions of the
country in which their employing institutions are located.
Although approximately one-third of the institutions did not
send catalogs, or sent catalogs with incomplete information, missing
data were gleaned from microfiche records of institution catalogs or
from telephone calls made to mathematics departments. Data from
only two institutions were unavailable, viz., the University of
California at Los Angeles and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Classification of Institutions. Colleges and universities in the
study were classified according to the Carnegie Foundation
53
Classification (1987) system, viz., research universities I and II,
doctorate-granting universities I and II, comprehensive universities
I, and liberal arts colleges I. Only seven of the ten Carnegie
classifications contained institutions which offer the Ph.D. in
mathematics. Of those seven classifications, the six previously cited
included faculty who were inbred.
Research universities I offer a full range of baccalaureate
programs, award at least fifty doctorate degree, and conduct
extensive research. Research universities II are similar to research
universities I in that they offer a wide range of baccalaureate
programs, award at least fifty Ph.D.'s., and conduct extensive
research. The difference between research universities I and II is
that research universities I receive more than 33.5 million in federal
support for research, while research universities II receive 12.5 to
33.5 million in federal support. Doctorate-granting universities I and
II offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and award the
doctorate degree. The difference between the two is that doctorate-
granting universities I award at least 40 Ph.D. degrees annually in
five or more academic disciplines, while doctorate-granting
universities II award 20 or more Ph.D.'s in at least one discipline or
10 or more Ph.D.'s in three or more disciplines. Comprehensive
universities and colleges I offer baccalaureate programs and
graduate education through the master's degree, and enroll at least
2,500 students. Also, half of their baccalaureate degrees are awarded
in two or more occupational or professional disciplines. Liberal arts
54
colleges I are highly selective undergraduate institutions and award
half of their degrees in the arts and sciences.
Classification of Institutions bv Geographical Region.
Institutions were classified by geographical region, following the
schema employed by the United States Bureau of the Census (1986).
Specifically, four geographical regions were used, viz., the west,
midwest, northeast, and south (State and Metropolitan Area Data
Book. 1986). The south consists of sixteen states; the west contains
thirteen states, while the midwest and northeast are composed of
twelve and nine states, respectively.
Classification of Faculty bv Gender. The final data set stratified
inbred faculty according to gender by examining the names of
mathematics faculty as they appear in catalogs. If the gender of
inbred faculty could not be determined through catalogs or
microfiche, the chairpersons of the mathematics departments were
contacted.
Analysis of Data. Analysis of data in this study is analogous to
a well-known genetics experiment conducted by Lindstrom (1918).
Linstrom's (1918) study crossed two types of maize and found four
distinct types of plants in the second generation. In a sample of
1,301 plants, there were f j = 773 (green)
f2 = 231 (golden)
fg = 238 (green-striped)
f^ = 59 (golden-green-striped)
55
Total = 1,301
According to a simple type of Mendelian inheritance, the
probabilities of obtaining these four types of plants are 9/16, 3/16,
3/16, and 1/16, respectively. The chi-square test of goodness of fit
using specified frequencies can be applied to any number of classes,
as in the present study using regions of the country (n = 4), gender of
faculty (n = 2), and institutional type (n = 6).
In order to test the first research hypothesis, viz., that
institutional inbreeding among American mathematics faculty is not
associated with gender, a chi-square for goodness of fit using
specified frequencies with gender as the independent variable was
calculated. Expected frequencies were determined by computing the
proportions of male and female inbred faculty members discovered
in the analysis of catalogs examined in this study. The expected
values for females (7.8%) and males (91.2%) were used to measure
the association between rates of inbreeding among mathematics
faculty when stratified by gender.
Under the second hypothesis, viz., that institutional inbreeding
among American mathematics faculty does not vary by institutional
type, a chi-square goodness of fit test using specified frequencies
with Carnegie Foundation classifications of institutions was
calculated. Actual frequencies were computed using data from a
recent report published in The Chronicle of Higher of Education (July
8, 1987, p. 24). The total numbers of inbred faculty across the
country within the six Carnegie classifications, research universities I
56
and II, doctorate-granting universities I and II, comprehensive
universities I, and liberal arts colleges I, were found. The number of
faculty mathematics across the country in each of the six
classifications was divided by the faculty in all six regions and
multiplied by the number of inbred faculty (207) to obtain the
expected frequencies for each of the classifications. A chi-square
goodness of fit test, using specified frequencies, was calculated to
determine statistically the association between rates of inbreeding
among mathematics faculty when stratified by institutional type.
The third null hypothesis was that institutional inbreeding
among American mathematics faculty does not vary by geographical
regions of the country, viz., northeast, midwest, south, and west. The
number of mathematics faculty found in each region was converted
into a percentage. The percentage was multiplied by the number of
inbred mathematics faculty (207) to obtain the expected frequencies
for each region of the country. A chi-square goodness of fit test,
using specified frequencies, was calculated to measure the
association between rates of inbreeding among mathematics faculty
when stratified by geographical regions of the country.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter reports the results of this national study on
institutional inbreeding among mathematics faculty in colleges and
universities offering the doctorate in mathematics, and is divided
into four sections. The first section presents the demographics
obtained in the study. The second section recapitulates the first
research question and presents data concerning gender. The third
section discusses the second research question and presents data
associated with institutions classified according to the Carnegie
taxonomy. The fourth section reports the third research question
and presents a regional examination of the data.
Demographics on Institutional Inbreeding
Information concerning demographics relative to institutional
inbreeding was gleaned from catalogs, microfiche, or telephone
conversations with mathematics departments. According to the 1991
American Mathematical Sciences Professional Directory. 167
institutions of higher education offer the Ph.D. degree in
mathematics. Institutions of higher education which offer the Ph.D.
degree in mathematics were classified, using the Carnegie taxonomy
and regions of the country. The number of mathematics faculty at
57
58
4 )
H
<«
o
c5
e <L>
cS s
<D
O D
<D
T 3
4 3
O k
<D
4 3
5 ^ <4-4 o 4 3 O
2
£ c
o " i
o
a T) O U <D
4 3
W >
CO
c o
©9
(3
d o •»«t 5q <Er
04
1
>i
f Js fc
s * <D A +-* VH O
55
!» CA OS
1 <D
43 •d -4-> s
Wt o 5Zi
o CO
w
O
2 ; 2 S
I I
cti CD
A -+-> v* O
S5
CO
I 1
oS *» <L> « 43 Jr <*-*
£ S
55
1 cw $
oa
I
03 0> 43 -*-> w-O
55
«J ed © a> *£j *£3 +* * • * 1-4 W o o
S5 S5
v o < ^ < s r a < N f o < s c J (N <M <N
VO ON oo *n cn os m <s
h M i"H ^ rn N
vo l> fn r~1 ^ o
co *-H
en rf-fn *-<
o m
- n oo 2 rr r>
<N O H ^ M O
<r""< NO 3
o o \ o a \ f ^ © v o f o o o o \ */*» <N m m es m cn ^
oo o *-* *-* n Ci (SI *H xf 1-1
l> 00 en *-H
in *H N VI ^ ^ ff) T—I
8 Q
Vi
js
*2
0) 0)
04 04
CO O so $> 0 V 04 Q 04 3 08
W W W W ^ $) 4) Q Q O « « <3 Q O
M Cfi fl)
(2 S « Q
a
.2 «s
i w
a>
w j £ * s
I
<u >
I
f . a> T3 <
5 » 00
I &> H
«+-l o
<v
0
1 <
a> >
*3
£
a as o *C CD
S ^ 33
<u >
'8
a o Vj O «
0)
.5
"8
<53
a <D
I
x» ^
a> >
• »-<
a P
fe >
i
o
5*
do .3 q a) 3 -g
* § w o 2 *a
m m «
a
&0
o o 43 o CO
•§ .ti
S <u >
G
D
1
<d
I
O & o «5
a <D
u u u
5 9
J s &
<S 4>
43 +* u O
fc
<D X )
iH O
S5
1 00
3 §
CO
3 S3 o
CO
43 §
CO 1 CO
1 CO
1 CO
as <u
J t * o
25
1 CO
0)
£
•s X )
CO a> £
T3
s s
*•* -4-* -+-» tb HM cc an GO OS OQ 00 4) 4> a) <0 a> 4>
5 A =£ • o • o - o u • a
**•( o • »•« * »H
S s & s
OS 0)
43 <**
O 85
1 o
CO
m C4 (N (N m cn so (St
(N cn
•^f <s
00 <N 8
VO vo O eo
<N oo •«fr a
VO r a
f o *r> <N
m <N CO
v j f -ir> *-• <N fO
ON l > tJ-
f l o ' H CJ m ca o *-h r<i
" S
f r ^ vq ON tr i <N
i - i \n m
o c5
CN n c5 8
r-H 00 V0 ^ £ § r a
m oo
U
H H H HH O - H W HH
l l J l l l J J S S 8 | 8 | i s § S S g 8 S Q Q p f i S P s S O Q O ^ r t p c S p c i p i S Q Q C S c j q c S P s S p s J P ^ Q Q P ^
X > <D
• S %•*
a o
U
3 cd
H
0 .2
i w
• a s <u .is > , T : I S « *-• 5C 0
U
43
1
i O
© >
*3 D
<d
2 O
i> >
" 8 D
1 Q
4) >
I
&•
J
s >
* a
0 flC
< 5
M * "d x t *C 'C o
E
5*% 60
JO
I > . 0) *5
H e 4)
* 8 I a
D
<u
S CO
4)
I
s >
* a
a o *
*
, d CO eet
£
00 0
1 8
H
t s
4) S
3 £ -5 . 5 > 5 s 3 S ^ 5
5*% e»0 0
1 <D
H
O &
§ "§
^ > * •T3 -*•* rAi *
<u
4> >
*3 &
> >> ri +•> 0
D
^ w
* S s <•2 rg
O
o 4>
o
1
I US
• o
o «
« -fef t s
5 j g 00
s <D >
"3 &
| . a a o
s a> « .ts
60 >> 53
• t i >
s * a
£ D
a o> & s
o 43
• 3
«s <» 2 22 ^
I § J . « «8
J a " 2 ^ | a a , 3 J9 >2
I
. 1 X 9S
CQ
B a> >
I
a a o
S3
2 CD >
I
ce -4«> CO
§
(U >
3 <u
3 CO
a> f
& 0 O
<4-*
at CO
4> >:
§ §
>v j S .ts ^
<u * * . S - 2 3 * »
D g
M . S do at
3 " 3
J 5
60
£ o
U
§ *?•#
a> &
tc & a>
£ • -4-) TJ w £ O S S5
1 CO
-*-» •*>»
<4M 9Q •*m* W5 •4»» •*mi 4>» CO w Cfi 0Q od m c*5 CC CO w OS aS « CO <U <t)
Sou
th Q a> <L> a> D a) _d ri <D a> a> a>
*
Sou
tl
"S to - 2
pd -*-» VH
Sou
th
s "O
*d •4>» "d T3 1
5 I CO
<4-* CfS V- u 4-»
W * "d
* PH s S
ou
tl
o z
Sou
th
2 o
S5 *pH
2 s i 1
5 I CO O O
S5 o
55 *f«4 s
s
CN < N < N ^ 0 0 © C 4 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 ^ © 0 0 0 0 0
cd
I
<D S 2 2 S 3 ? 2 i £ : S i £ £ : * 2 r n : ^ 3 : i r > r * : l ' p > 0 0 f r i * - 4 ^ - , , ' " > ^ c p \ a \ < N r ^ f n > n ^ H r f s c
1 © r i T—h ^ T t - r ^ o o c N i c n v o r a t - < c a o m ^ c o
i
i
IT) n
( S O O \ 0 ( S I > O N ' , H ' - < f r J V , > N S O V O ^ t ' 0 , < t O O ( « t s > N ( S | i ^ c N i r - r ^ r N i f n ^ f ^ r - H T t i r i - H r l o f o i N f n g ^ - H ^ P
OH £
U
P t=s a a H - H H N t - H K — « B W 4 ^
8 8 8 8 j | $ S $ J 8 g 3 S 8 $ g 8 8 g 8 $ Q P 4 Q < * i » $ O t f t f P ! < Q Q Q P 4 # Q e t f G p $ q < Q # #
T 5 <D 3
mG +->
a o
U
3
H
a .2 oS
i w
S x j esfl •»•«
a
se §
OJ) O
1 o <D
H
a> 3
* 5
<u 3 cr £
x i S ta Cfi «j
S
£ «
£ -tS w< +* 4) «J > 0 • J-c t-H fl
P ^2
a> >
*3 £
£ «S +->
wa
i u
s
w >
*a P d>
s 3 Ctf CO
<*>
O* 0 Ph
4> . 5 *3 P
w> * p4 . 3 o
S3 >
' 3 P <u -M Cts -*-i CO
Sr . 2 « « 9 -g o
2 s s s
£ 6 >
*
<D
3 CO
o Q • H <D
£ O &
rt IT B
> *3 P
S o
o
e <D >
*3 P
•B o
>H
S& a>
55
<D <*•» 5 55
J set
0
1
O
£
S3
i
a> 4-* a CO «
O
I
tS &
lx 4> >
Q> . s
n
aS 1>
*3 t : o
55
~ U
J5 «®
1
I s
a CD
43 t : o
55
<D > *1"* a
D
a t> -*-» Cfi
0) £
5 ts o
5e;
0> > >,
5 **
4> -*-*
3 CO
o *tp*
6
u, 0> >
o a o
<o C8
Jc
•4m* CO >
8
o>
3 CO
J J5 2 O
& . s
!§ §
! Q
T3
o
p® -tS
> * »"4
4> "S 53
a o C4J 2
O
s >
<D "S 55
Ph
S . £ d P 0
1 o <D
£
tH 0) > • tN « P
a 0 -4«> a>
1 £
V* 4> >
• **
a P a> P
x)
61
O U <4-4 0 1 53
<£> A
o a
1 o CO
<u A Ih o 25
<s> £ T>
4> * 13
*3 *•* irf t»
2 S § C/l
wJ oS oS <D 4) 4> A A A
V u u u EJ o o o ^ 2 Z 2
<D A to O 55
<*£
0> 43 •*rf to O 55
OS o>
' 5 is o S5
03 A to O 25
A A *i IS 2 2 o o 00 CO
4> 43 4-» In o S5
5 fl € ss S3 S3 o O o CO CO CO
§ CO
S C5i **••* O)
3 <D
<N fM M N W
CD
13 VTi <N OO H Tj" 0S *-< TJ"
00 JQ 2 cn Tf
co m c3 m vj (Ti
vH ^ en ON
CN <s
so ^ -H Cl
<N o »-< O «-• <N *-H <N
r* U-
Q\ <N
eo m o —« a -rj- ON ra oo v> oo v> rf m cn ON Ti- en m s ON M
**H <T>
Ul
U
a hh « sa a H g 8 8 8 & « G «
* OB W 5 <2 &
a a „ CO {ft o O <U 5 CBi p£j Q pes
a a CO 03 <u <u 8 8
o o
T? 4) S>
#c *+-» c o
U
<D VMM*
H
a .2 08 o *§
tf)
0> •a
d o
0) S3
Jl o 4>
* £ >>
. e >> <s> .ts >
e 0) > *a a
£ >> .is cc
s > *d a
V-t OJ
-a as *3 t-<
0> > "a
a as *3
98 > "a o
4 o> OS
a £ 4) 09 d 0) O • fN
6i) J e3 Qi CO
ce u <D >
I
§ *d S3 O «»
bO o »•*< o M 0) H
•a 1 2 -a .9 « 3 3
«S ^ Q
6 d> s o CO
<» #>
-s I eg
S > a>
I I 1 1 ^ n
«5 eft w
I -a
CO CO CO
£ <
55 D CO
.a m
i i OD
* S
S 2 a > £)
I S S
25 25 D D CO CO
ss o 2 >% CO
fi a
a, a 0» H
<«
o> H
2 > *a a x) o 4) H «d K <U H
'S 5 S3
I a
a> .2; a
>* A .2 <« *-» ^ "I
H
§ J S» H
Ih 4> > • *•*
a
4> > '2 a
u a> 4> C a
62
g O V
WQ & £ I 1 CO CO £ £ I £ I I I 1> £
<t> <U ^ 3? oS 3 3 i S S *
<u «•* _d w T; r "T* © 25 5 4-> CO 4>
5 6 +•» 5 S3 4-> CO 4> S3 1
ss O 00 0 CO O CO 1 o CO
I <M O —< <N © O © *-•< O
4) *5 1 Ph
ci en <n fn cm cm
ooi>T-Hr-<r--iosrnr oosovot-H'-Hoooscioi>\oos,*tcnwpi
o T-H © QN © , O O O O t f n M N O n n H O M O
,8 fc oocrjTt-iri^Hi/ifoc^oooovofoc^rt-^ <N 5<NI><TifnvO<NVjfTST-H\0TfTj-Cv|frj
5 ON <~t \0 00 ^ H *o en tj-
w 4> U
HH •—( ® HH >—( H-4 S;KX*?;RSRiRxS£??xalefi6fi9i»cfiOa>ca<»c> niSiSiSiJii^x O <D © 0) O $> 4> O 0> <L> 0> O 4 & & 0 & 0 4 Q & & & Q
*0 <D S3 .5 c o U
jj 3 cS H
a o **N cS O •S w <D *d ofi £
o • N B
•a dC ;£ 3 Uh i Cfl 03 r«H < <+H
O
13 >> ®3
1 N
* W* U <
O ?> >i
>*
4> 1 <u 02 03 1
< u 3 "S -S "s £ .£ &
os
I cC U
<n £ 13 c? <
•8
~ a «
I 1 5§ I at o o
i o S3 bfi cq .2 5 0,3 * ®
S « <g «> -T | 1 £ o £ 3 It r°5 u ° *o o * P
U I eet CO
I U <+-• o
.-S *S /£ ,§* ,|T £* p p p p p p p & & & 5* & 5® 5® 5® 50 5® WS t» {» CO e» "m on *5 *«! *5 *12 *!? *!? 'f? 4) 0>
> > *3 *3 S3 £
- e <D $ > > *a *a P D
s .6 5
S 5
u V
I & 0J > > « *a D £>
S .s 0> > <
5
o >> 8 0) *3 £>
t o «w C/3 O
o U <+«
o
«t pN <u Q
s £ § Q E
fltf "& | § « D HJ
e 2 CO S3 O SB
o o
8 4>
5
<D > 1
s > u <0 > '3 *3 '3 D O O
S .s 5
Ch a> <u > > 3 '3 D &
63
a
I & £
Mm* « 4-» 05
-+•« 05 <Xt
0> 0> 0J <a *
* 0 - d T3 «»H • f-<
2 s % s
§ g o
M §
CO
S3 O
00
1 o
CO
cii <D
-4-* *4 o
&
ss o
CO
-*-» 09 « +4 cc
4-* 05 Cfi
«*•» CC
05
4) CD
South
<u 4> <D iH 0 <D
£
South
$ <4-* GO
Soutl
z - G GO " 3
South
• 0 * 0 ®
Soutl
"O
i
South
s
•fM
S s
Soutl
s
0
S 5
c n ON \o m m s o c n *r> f n c n s o
q \ o r n <N s o 0 0 tJ- f f )
m v o w ^ ^ t ^ u ^ v o f n o s c n v o ^ t ^ ^ j - o o i - < o o < s * / > c \ i o o r ^ * - H c ^ ^ c 4 c < i r < i ? n * - < 8
1
& S3 O
p°c Hh
\ c —• m o *-< c<i e n
c n <N
e n o \ i > 0 0 3 $ $ O O W ^ t > ^ O O m ^ O T j - T f
^ o s c s v i m o N t ^ ' - H f n i n 0 0 m i > e n H <N r a rr> f n e s
U
8 D
«3 t» a » ai <D Q <U & 0£ & at p §
V Qu
3 & 8 Q
a> Cti $ $ o
U $ a w
8 8 O 0
« K
O 00 « O «1 0 <t> <0 o a>
Q OJ O 0 5
T> <L> D
. 9
a o
U
J O s cd
H
a
.2 t s 0
1
S j s
US
o
SP o
a u
o » . 3
3 J J I • 3 a y a ~ 3 «
°5
£ | 0 * 5
1 * g
1 8 J 3
•* d 5
<D W>
JU pN O
u
1 j s
§ , u *•<
§ ^ I «
cC «
" S ni
& 03
s
fl oct w>
3 o
o a « a> §
5 o & Qn
.a 1 - 2 o
u
£ u
ed ©
M *
& < 3 J 3 o
« j
« r h J
S s s S S ^ s s s
••S? ; s - I T . I T . I T I ? . I T ~ ~ ~ £ > £ > _ & • S® S» S« 5® «a « «» 'S3 *oo t» * 3 ' « w * 5 ' £ * £ *12 * £ *rs *!2 "!* - n
O Q0 WS ««•<
2
o >%
d o
s
s OB
U
! <4-f o
. 8 j ?
« & 1
«
i 4>
5 5
J 3 <so
I 0)
> ! > • P*
E §
w I-* o> >
•a & s
5
> •a &
s > * »•* 5
4J >
* 3 & " 4 I
w <u
t >
J
> *a <D
. s
5
CD >
•a S 3
a> >
I
<u
. s a
D
S2 a>
I
0)
I
o . 2
s
%
SK
& >
*a D
> 1
64
£ O u
o
a o
"5
pa
A 3 o
co
<D
I *
* i
JEj
o 00
oo *rj *2 ai +* +* U ©
55
V*
o
S5
us a>
4-> t* o
55
as 4>
•4-* V*
o
S5
' S < 5 d d 0 o
CO CO
a>
£
* d * 2 •w •*-* 5
4> 5
d d d d d d o 0 o o o T J 0
0 0 CO 0 0 CO CO s
CO
*8 ts <u £ § 00
s>
g
r<U
<m m cn -h <n m n N \o ca en
3 «
CL> 8
\D tT *-H f?|
*-H Tf <*"> fS C\ VO Tt t-H (\i m <s m T~(
5 a £ Tf lO 00 (N r-4 O —» «M rf- rn »/•)
3
•d r-t O iTi <N i-H 00 O -H r-H cs m
I Uh
(N ^ W M m m rt Wi in oo so
rr TJ- *-H c<i m a h h T}; Tf ^ ^ M 0 0 ^
ON <s
m m fn *-H Tf P"i
« $>
u
v V V wa w
* s <§ a a
«s w «s <U D 0> &S 0£ CSi
<9 P$
OS £ 8
o
<u o <tf U
~ W
<Z3 Q 0) © (as a
wa O CD O « Q
8 8
Q Q
« W W «> q q & 04 &
T> <D
3
C
-+•*
C
o
U
o »""H
X) ctf
H
a o * **
03
4 W
t-4
a>
- a
a
a o
« ccf X a>
H
«
25
B CD
5§
*§ § pwH 0
u
a
J S
1
55
0) >
•a c»
i 55
t? TJ <** O O o
1
1
a o GO a)
s *3 £ <•£ > 60
>> s
9 s CD .t$ CL CX
•§ O
u B WS j§
<§ <+H
O
•8
•e O &
43
3 o
CO
d o
CO
> X o a
at
u
B • S a g *a Hi d
<u 0)
0)
H
o > *
§ <*•*
&0 £
*4 <
fltf $ H
o
.0
ce X 0> H
at a cd Q
H
a o
- S
4J o H
B <D >
5
. 5 .& .a .& > > > > > a c cj 0 a a *a *a *a
D D D 5 i 3 5 t ) 5 5
B
CD
.6 5
.§• £ £ .-a .-a .I 4 .« .« .« ^ § • £ .1* ^ ^ £ » & ^ >> >> ^ «j w ?» co t« as «s co as S S £ £ 'Tl *r? •*-» **r' -f-« «i-t
3 H
«4H o
*4 «d
— °W
1 1
£? * •$ I
<D >
1
> *
s 4>
5
<U
I
k B CD 0) > > 0>
>
"a 'a *a *a
5D & & 5
<u >
*a &
65
<D 3 cs • tH •w c
o U
2 GJ
H
o U
£ g ^ ^ A * ? > a> as "tt *£2
~ 2 £ ;> © § ^ g & > CO CO
a>
£
« a>
*o
50 CC a>
•4—> u
o
S5
-+-» Cfi
I o CO
<D £ TJ
05 a> *
2 2 85
3 &
- w -
t i
•8 Cti
U
<N n
n \o N in CM m m CM CM
*0 0 0
so i—» vo r-<N Wi
<N CM 9
<M en
en en <M
Tf <N O ^ O *—i CH
8 CsJ CM cn
ON en en
o\ Tf CM
ir> m fn
*r> <M
£ c f i S ^ w a Q o c o a ^ s f i O 4 > a > a > < i > 4 > { t > o d < u o o
U
a .2 o
•8 W
&
" 3 «
§
§ « •3 cd
s
a)
1
.a" •»-4 *"""* i o
o o
IT
b > *a o
4> <y
•2 ^ ••§*
£ £ <+« O
I 5
*4 0) >
"3 D
a> 4-»
£ * £ * £ * «j •!?
& >
i © > *a D
$ B co
*£3
a
D
S i u a> T3 d OS >
43
8
<£ ce
:§ tjT)
. S 3 >
u © > *p d D
d o -*-» ftp
d 3 W
e«
£
1-4 <u >
*3 D
«u -*-» cC
55
§
>. «
0) > **•<
a &
d «S >>
j >
CO <V
£
a>
I &
.9 t4) .S3 >
© £
© >
*3
a 03 &0
'M o
S 2 OQ a>
<u > • fh d D
5 CO
^3 o
o d ©
a>
& >
»d
as a> t» (D
eft ao Q O C
tS (2 I £ a J3
*0 d 4) &o a> »4
66
each institution was found and divided into males and females.
Inbred faculty were also identified at each of the 167 institutions.
For complete demographics on institutions which offer the Ph.D.
degree in mathematics, see Table 1.
When analyzing the data, approximately 6,000 mathematics
faculty members were found (5,961) in 167 institutions of higher
education. Faculty members in the study were full professors,
associate professors, assistant professors, or instructors. Adjunct
professors and emeriti professors were not included. A majority of
the mathematics faculty were male, totaling 5,324 (91.1%), while the
number of female mathematics faculty members was 464 (7.8%).
The study identified sixty-two "other" faculty members (.01%) whose
gender could not be determined. For a summary of the universe of
mathematics faculty stratified according to gender, see Table 2.
Table 2.
Mathematics faculty classified according to gender
Gender N %
Males 5,435 91.2
Females 464 7.8
Other 62 1.0
TOTAL 5,961 100.0
67
Data collection on institutions which offer the Ph.D. degree in
mathematics revealed 207 inbred faculty, yielding a percentage of
3.5. Florida Institute of Technology had the highest percentage of
institutional inbreeding (42.9%), while sixty-nine (41.3%) other
departments of mathematics practiced no inbreeding. Two schools
practiced inbreeding between twenty and thirty percent, viz., New
York University, the Courant Institute (26.8%) and the University of
Louisville (22.2%). The following institutions had inbreeding less
than twenty percent but more than ten percent: Polytechnic
University (17.7%), California Institute of Technology (15.8%),
University of Denver (15.8%), Illinois Institute of Technology (15.8%),
North Dakota State University (15.4%), Yale University (15.0%),
University of Maryland (14.8%), University of Notre Dame (13.5%),
Northwestern University (12.5%), University of California at Berkeley
(12.2%), Stanford University (12.0%), Auburn University (11.5%),
Ohio State University at Columbus (11.5%), and University of
Missouri at Rolla (10.7%). Thirteen schools had inbreeding ranging
between seven and ten percent. See table 3 for a listing of rates of
institutional inbreeding among mathematics faculty in descending
order of magnitude.
68
Table 3.
Schools with institutional inbreeding in mathematics
Institutions Percent of Inbred Faculty
Florida Institute of Technology 42.86
New York University, Courant Institute 26.83
University of Louisville 22.22
Polytechnic University 17.65
California Institute of Technology 15.79
University of Denver 15.79
Illinois Institute of Technology 15.79
North Dakota State University, Fargo 15.39
Yale University 15.00
University of Maryland, Baltimore 14.82
University of Notre Dame 13.51
Northwestern University 12.50
University of California, Berkeley 12.16
Stanford University 12.00
Auburn University 11.54
Ohio State University, Columbus 11.54
University of Missouri, Rolla 10.71
University of Texas at Austin 9.41
Stevens Institute of Technology 9.09
University of New Hampshire 8.70
Table 3. (Continued)
69
Institutions Percent of Inbred Faculty
University of Colorado, Denver 8.33
Washington University 8.33
University of Illinois at Chicago 8.20
North Carolina State University 7.84
University of Tulsa 7.69
Indiana University, Indianapolis 7.69
Wesleyan University 7.69
University of New Mexico 7.50
Rice University 7.14
University of Cincinnati 6.98
Rensselaer, Polytechnic Institute 6.90
Duke University 6.90
University Delaware 6.82
University of Missouri, Kansas City 6.67
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 6.67
George Washington University 6.67
Columbia University 6.67
Mississippi State University 6.25
Howard University 6.25
Lehigh University 6.25
University of Wisconsin, Madison 6.06
Table 3. (Continued)
70
Institutions Percent of Inbred Faculty
University of Chicago 6.06
Tulane University 6.06
Univ of Virginia 6.06
Ohio University 5.77
University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa 5.71
University of Hawaii 5.71
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore 5.56
University of Rhode Island 5.56
Colorado School of Mines 5.56
Brigham Young University 5.56
Oregon State University 5.26
University of Washington 5.00
University of North Texas 4.76
University of Colorado, Boulder 4.76
Cornell University 4.44
University of Pennsylvania 4.44
University of Montana 4.17
Old Dominion University 4.17
Purdue University 4.17
Wichita State University 4.00
Georgia Institute of Technology 4.00
Table 3. (Continued)
71
Institutions Percent of Inbred Faculty
Montana State University 3.70
University of Toledo 3.45
Iowa State University 3.28
University of Maryland College Park 3.16
University of Michigan 3.16
University of Wyoming 3.13
Colorado State University 3.13
University of North Carolina 3.03
University of California, Davis 2.86
Temple University 2.86
West Virginia University 2.86
Clemson University 2.70
Carnegie Mellon University 2.63
New Mexico State University 2.56
Kent State University 2.50
Claremont Graduate School 2.44
Princeton University 2.38
University of Oregon 2.38
University of Utah 2.33
Texas Tech University 2.22
University of Pittsburgh 2.22
72
Table 3. (Continued)
Institutions Percent of Inbred Faculty
University of Tennessee, Knoxville 2.13
University of Kentucky 2.13
SUNY at Stony Brook 2.08
Texas A & M University 2.04
University of Iowa 2.04
University of Florida 1.96
Arizona State University 1.72
Virginia Polytech Institute & University 1.70
University of Arizona 1.67
Michigan State University 1.32
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 1.12
Rutgers University, New Brunswick .97
Institutional Inbreeding by Gender
To determine the extent of institutional inbreeding by gender
prevalent in mathematics departments offering the Ph.D degree, it
was necessary first to determine the gender of faculty members in
the study. The faculty members who were classified as inbred
(N = 207) were dichotomized into male or female. A chi-square
goodness of fit test using specified frequencies was used to test for
differences in rates of inbreeding when mathematics faculty were
stratified by gender. The observed number of inbred males was
73
183, while the observed number of inbred females was 24. The
specified frequencies were determined from examining the catalogs
of institutions of higher education. The rate of male inbreeding was
expected to be 91.2%, yielding an expected frequency of 119. The
rate of female inbreeding was 1.8%, resulting in an expected inbred
value of 16. The chi-square goodness of fit test yielded a value of
4.035, which was significant as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of chi-square goodness of fit test using specified frequencies among mathematics faculty classified according to gender
Gender Observed (n) Expected (n) Observed (%) Expected (%)
Males 183 189 88.4 91.2
Females 24 16 11.6 7.8
Total 207 *205 100.0 99.0
*N does not total to 207 because of "other" category
X = 4.19 with 1 d.f.; significant at p = .05
Therefore, the first hypothesis that there is no association between
rates of inbreeding when mathematics faculty are stratified
according to gender was rejected. Male and female mathematics
faculty do differ with respect to institutional inbreeding.
Institutions with the greatest frequency of female institutional
inbreeding occurred at the New York University, the Courant
Institute, University of Chicago, and the University of New
Hampshire. Each of these had two inbred female faculty. Eighteen
74
other institutions had one female faculty member inbred as indicated
in Table 5.
Table 5.
Summary of inbred female mathematics faculty
Institutions Inbred (n)
Colorado School of Mines 1
Indiana University, Indianapolis 1
New Mexico State University 1
New York University, Courant Institute
Ohio University 1
Polytechnic University 1
Rutgers University, New Brunswick 1
Texas A&M University 1
Texas Tech University 1
University of California, Berkeley 1
University of Chicago
University of Colorado, Denver 1
University of Delaware 1
University of Denver 1
University of Louisville 1
University of Maryland, Baltimore 1
University of New Hampshire 2
75
Table 5. (Continued)
Institutions Inbred (n)
University of Toledo 1
University of Tulsa 1
Washington University 1
West Virginia 1
TOTAL 24
Inbreeding with respect to men was greatest at New York University,
the Courant Institute, with nine inbred faculty. Two schools had
eight of their faculty inbred, viz., University of California at Berkeley
and the University of Texas at Austin. Five other institutions had
four or more inbred faculty, viz., the University of Illinois at Chicago
(6), Ohio University (5), University of Notre Dame (5), University of
Wisconsin at Madison (4), and North Carolina State University (4).
Fifteen schools had three inbred faculty members. A total of 87
(52.1%) schools of higher education had some occurrences of male
institutional inbreeding as shown in Table 6.
Table 6.
Inbred male mathematics faculty
76
Institutions Inbred (n)
Arizona State University 1
Auburn University 3
Brigham Young University 2
California Institute of Technology 3
Carnegie Mellon University 1
Claremont Graduate School 1
Clemson University 1
Colorado State University 1
Columbia University 1
Cornell University 2
Duke University 2
Florida Institute of Technology 3
George Washington University 1
Georgia Institute of Technology 2
Howard University 2
Illinois Institute of Technology 3
Indiana University, Indianapolis 1
Iowa State University 2
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore 1
Kent State University, Kent 1
Table 6. (Continued)
77
Institutions Inbred (n)
Lehigh University 2
Michigan State University 1
Mississippi State University 2
Montana State University 1
New York University, Courant Institute 9
North Carolina State University 4
North Dakota State University, Fargo 2
Northwestern University 2
Ohio State University, Columbus 3
Ohio University 5
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 2
Old Dominion University 1
Oregon State University 2
Polytechnic University 2
Princeton University 1
Purdue University 3
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 2
Rice University 1
Stanford University 3
Stevens Institute of Technology 1
SUNY at Stony Brook 1
Temple University 1
Table 6. (Continued)
78
Institutions Inbred (n)
Texas A & M University 1
Tulane University 2
University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa 2
University of Arizona 1
University of California, Berkeley 8
University of California, Davis 1
University of Chicago 2
University of Cincinnati 3
University of Colorado, Boulder 2
University of Colorado, Denver 1
University Delaware 2
University of Denver 2
University of Florida 1
University of Hawaii 2
University of Illinois at Chicago 6
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 1
University of Iowa 1
University of Kentucky 1
University of Louisville 3
University of Maryland College Park 3
University of Maryland, Baltimore 3
Table 6. (Continued)
79
Institutions Inbred (n)
University of Michigan 3
University of Missouri, Kansas City 1
University of Missouri, Rolla 3
University of Montana 1
University of North Carolina 1
University of New Mexico 3
University of North Texas 1
University of Notre Dame 5
University of Oregon 1
University of Pennsylvania 2
University of Pittsburgh 1
University of Rhode Island 1
University of Tennessee, Knoxville 1
University of Texas at Austin 8
University of Virginia 2
University of Utah 1
University of Washington 3
University of Wisconsin, Madison 4
University of Wyoming 1
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & University 1
Washington University 1
Wesleyan University 1
80
Table 6. (Continued)
Institutions Inbred (n)
Wichita State University 1
Yale University 3
TOTAL 183
Institutional Inbreeding by Carnegie Classification
The second research hypothesis concerned the association
between rates of inbreeding when mathematics faculty were
identified by the Carnegie Foundation's system of institutional
classification. Only six of the ten Carnegie classification categories
contained institutions which offer the Ph.D. degree in mathematics
and had inbred mathematics faculty. The 207 inbred faculty
members found were classified using the Carnegie taxonomy,
according to the type of institutions employing them.
8 1
Table 7.
Summary of chi-square goodness of fit test using specified frequencies among mathematics faculty stratified by the Carnegie classification
Carnegie Observed (n) Faculty (n) Faculty (%) Expected (n)
Res I 120 3,126 52.6 108.8
Res II 21 998 16.8 34.8
Doc I 33 1,026 17.3 35.7
Doc II 25 532 9.0 18.5
Comp I 7 242 4.1 8.4
LA I 1 21 .4 .7
Total 207 5,945 100.2 207.01
X = 9.4 with 5 d.f.; not significant with p = .05
Research universities I (52.6%) accounted for the largest
number of institutions (120) and the greatest number of faculty
(3,126) members. Research universities II accounted for 21
institutions with 998 faculty (16.8%). Doctorate-granting universities
I accounted for the second largest number of institutions and faculty
with 33 and 1,026 (17.3%) respectively. Twenty-five institutions of
higher education, with 532 faculty (89.0%), were found in doctorate-
granting universities II. In Comprehensive universities and colleges
I, seven institutions were found, with 242 faculty (4.1%). The
smallest number of institutions found was in the Carnegie
82
classification Liberal arts colleges I, with only one college and 21
faculty members found (.4%), as indicated in table 7.
A chi-square goodness of fit test using specified frequencies
was used to test the association between mathematics faculty when
stratified by Carnegie classifications. The observed values found
were compared with the expected frequencies which were derived
by multiplying the number on inbred faculty found (207) by
percentage of each faculty member in the Carnegie classification.
The chi-square goodness of fit test yielded a value of 9.4 with five
degrees of freedom and was not significant (p = .05). Therefore, the
second research hypothesis that there is no association between rates
of inbreeding of mathematics faculty when institutions are stratified
according to the Carnegie foundations classification was retained.
Institutional Inbreeding by Regions of the Country
The inbred mathematics faculty (207) were stratified by
geographical regions following the United States Bureau of the Census
(1986) schema, viz., the west, midwest, northeast, and south, to
determine the extent of institutional inbreeding by regions of the
country. The northeast region accounted for 38 inbred mathematics
faculty, the midwest contained 58 faculty, the south contributed 63
faculty, and 48 faculty members were in the west. The total number
of mathematics faculty (5,961) in the study were then separated into
the four regions of the country. In the south, 1,766 (29.6%) faculty
were found. In the midwest 1,674 (28.1%) were found. In the
83
northeast, there were 1,330 (22.3%). In the west, 1,191 (20.0%) were
found (see table 8).
Table 8.
Summary of chi-square goodness of fit test using specified frequencies among mathematics faculty stratified by regions of the country
Regions Inbred Math Faculty (n)
Total Math Faculty (n)
Faculty (%) Expected(n)
Northeast 38 1,330 22.3 46.2
Midwest 58 1,674 28.1 58.1
South 63 1,766 29.6 61.3
West 48 1,191 20.0 41.4
Total 207 5,961 100.0 207
X = 2.564 with 3 d.f.; not significant at p = .4638
A chi-square goodness of fit test using specified frequencies
was used to test the association between mathematics faculty when
stratified by geographical regions. The observed values found were
compared with the expected values which were obtained by taking
the percentages of each faculty member in the region of the country
and multiplying by the number of inbred faculty (207). The chi-
square goodness of fit test yielded a value of 2.564 with three
degrees of freedom. The £ value was .4638. The test was not
significant, hence the null hypotheses was retained. Therefore, there
is no association between rates of inbreeding among mathematics
84
faculty in contemporary American higher education when stratified
according to regions of the country.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study examined the extent of institutional inbreeding
among mathematics faculty in American colleges and universities
which offer the Ph.D. degree in mathematics. Institutional
inbreeding was defined as faculty employment at schools from which
the faculty received their highest earned degree. Specific purposes
of the study were to determine the differences between rates of
inbreeding among mathematics faculty when stratified according to
gender, type of institution in which they were employed, and
geographical regions of the country. This chapter discusses the
findings, presents conclusions, and suggests recommendations
concerning institutional inbreeding at colleges and universities which
offer the Ph.D. degree in mathematics.
Data for this study were collected on all public and private-
supported institutions across the country which offer the Ph.D.
degree in mathematics. The procedure for collection of data was to
obtain college catalogs from the 167 institutions offering the degree.
Institutions from which catalogs could not be obtained were found
by using microfiche or by making telephone calls to mathematics
85
86
departments. Once the data were collected, faculty were classified
according to gender, institutional type, and region of the country. A
chi-square goodness of fit test using specified frequencies was
calculated for each of the hypotheses. The specified frequencies
were generated by using the data found in the study.
The results of this comprehensive study reveal a population of
167 institutions of higher education and 5,961 faculty. There were
207 (3.5%) inbred mathematics faculty found at schools which offer
the Ph.D. degree in mathematics.
Discussion
From the first writings on institutional inbreeding in 1908 by
President Elliot of Harvard University to the present study,
inbreeding has been an important concern in higher education. This
study provides up-to-date comprehensive baseline data on inbred
mathematics faculty and an extensive review of mathematics faculty
in higher education unequaled in the literature. Findings from this
study can only be compared to the broad scope of the Eells and
Cleveland's (1935a) study. Eells and Cleveland (1935a) examined
219 public and private-supported institutions in 42 states
representing 16,837 faculty members. Inbreeding was reported at
34 percent (p. 13). The present study, with an inbreeding rate of 3.5
percent, reveals far less inbreeding than either Eells and Cleveland
(1935a), Hollingshead (1938), or MacDonald (1978).
87
This discrepancy may be explained, in part, by increases in the
number of faculty and the institutions offering the Ph.D. degree.
Changes in mathematics faculty across the country in the last sixty
years are evident by comparing previous studies. Eells and
Cleveland's (1935a) study found inbreeding of mathematics faculty
at a rate of 33 percent (p. 22). Hollingshead's (1938) study included
a small sample of mathematics faculty (19), but found nine inbred
faculty (47.4%) (p. 826). More recently, MacDonald found inbreeding
occurring at seven percent (p. 84). This clearly suggests a decline in
rates of institutional inbreeding, see Table 9. Could this not be
because these schools have policies, written or otherwise, which
prohibit inbreeding? And if no, are they not in jeopardy of legal
entanglements. Legally speaking, institutional inbreeding may be a
"good" thing.
Table 9
Institutional inbreeding trends in studies of mathematics faculty
Studies of Inbreeding Percentages of Inbreeding
Eells and Cleveland (1935a) 33.0
Hollingshead (1938) 47.4
MacDonald (1978) 7.0
Stewart (1992) 3.5
During the same time, the number of mathematics faculty has grown
substantially along with the number of institutions granting the Ph.D.
degree.
8 8
Early scholars (Berelson 1960) observed that prestigious
institutions are more likely to practice institutional inbreeding than
their less prestigious counterparts. While the present study did not
examine institutional reputation as a predictor of inbreeding, partial
support for this perspective is evident in this study. Institutions
which have inbreeding occurring at ten percent or more in the
Carnegie taxonomy are classified as either research universities I,
research universities II, doctorate-granting universities I, or
doctorate-granting universities II, supporting the conclusion that
institutions which offer the Ph.D. degree are more likely than other
group within the Carnegie taxonomy to hire their own graduates.
The literature on institutional inbreeding reveals two studies
which discuss gender in relation to institutional inbreeding. Wyer
(1980) examined gender in terms of discrimination, while Marlier
(1982) observed gender among upper-level administrators. Studies
examining inbred mathematics faculty and gender are nonexistent.
This is the first study to examine inbred mathematics faculty in
terms of gender.
A large difference exists between the proportion of male
mathematics faculty (91.2%) in academia compared to female
mathematics faculty (7.8%). Reasons for this gap include that,
historically, females have not been encouraged to pursue work in
mathematics at an early age. Because males account for
approximately ninety percent of mathematics faculty, opportunities
for male mathematics faculty are greater than for female
89
mathematics faculty. And finally, the education system may not
encourage female students to pursue mathematics beyond the
bachelor's degree.
When inbred faculty (N = 207) were classified according to
gender, a chi-square goodness of fit found a significant difference
between rates of inbred males and inbred females. Possible reasons
for this difference include the fact that hiring more female faculty
members will encourage more female students, and thus increase the
pool from which to choose female faculty. Because of the limited
number of female mathematics faculty in higher education,
institutions hire their own female faculty because they know their
abilities. Female mathematics faculty often are not as geographically
mobile as men because of family obligations; hence they may not be
able to relocate as easily as men. Finally, the pool of male
mathematics faculty is larger than the pool of female mathematics
faculty. This accounts for the fact that inbred males are distributed
throughout country, whereas female mathematics faculty are hired
by the institutions from which they graduated.
Departments with the highest incidence of male inbreeding
were at either research or doctorate-granting universities. This
indicates that inbreeding is occurring at institutions ranked higher on
the Carnegie Foundation taxonomy. Inbred females, on the other
hand, are found not only at research universities, but at every level
of the Carnegie taxonomy.
90
Institutional inbreeding in relationship to the Carnegie
Foundation classification (1987) was used in one study. Marlier
(1982) used the Carnegie Foundation to classify upper-level
administrators and found the larger the institution the higher the
level of inbreeding (p. 110). This study was the first to examine
inbreeding of mathematics faculty in terms of the Carnegie
taxonomy. In the present study, when mathematics faculty were
stratified according to the six categories of the Carnegie classification,
no significant difference was found.
Research universities I and II account for 69.4% of
mathematics faculty across the country and 68.1% of the inbred
mathematics faculty. Both proportions are to be expected since
research universities I and II employ the most faculty. Doctorate-
granting universities I and II account for 26.3% of mathematics
faculty and 28.0% of the inbred mathematics faculty. These
institutions offer Ph.D. degrees, and in general, have smaller
enrollments, fewer faculty, and enroll fewer graduate mathematics
students than research universities I and II. The remaining two
categories of the Carnegie classification are comprehensive colleges
and universities I and liberal arts colleges I. They only account for
4.5% of the mathematics faculty across the country and 3.9% of the
inbred mathematics faculty. These are much different from research
universities I and II and doctorate-granting universities I and II, in
that comprehensive colleges and universities I offer fewer Ph.D.s and
have smaller enrollments and less faculty. Liberal arts colleges I are
91
generally highly selective and primarily concentrate on
undergraduate education. Therefore, comprehensive colleges and
universities I and liberal arts colleges I produce fewer graduate
mathematics faculty.
Two studies examined institutional inbreeding by regions of
the country, Eells and Cleveland (1935a) and Lumsden, Stewart, &
Linn (1990). Eells and Cleveland (1935a) found that, on a regional
basis, inbreeding was on the decline (p. 263). Lumsden, Stewart, &
Linn (1990) observed a significant difference when inbred faculty
across the country were classified by region of the country (p. 5). As
with gender, no previous study examined inbred mathematics
faculty exclusively in terms of regions of the country. In this study a
chi-square goodness of fit test using the four regions of the country,
viz., the west, midwest, northeast, and south, yielded no significant
difference between proportions of inbred mathematics faculty when
stratified by region of the country.
The midwest region of the country accounts for 28.1% of the
mathematics faculty across the country at institutions which offer
the Ph.D. degree in mathematics and 28.0% of the inbred
mathematics faculty found in this study. The south accounts for
29.6% of the mathematics faculty and 30.4% of the inbred faculty.
Similarly, the northeast accounts for 22.3% of the mathematics
faculty and 18.4% of the inbred faculty. Finally, the west accounts
for 20.0% of mathematics faculty in the study and 23.2% of the
inbred mathematics faculty.
92
Similarities between the percentages of mathematics faculty
found in each region of the country with the number of inbred
faculty demonstrate that there is no difference when mathematics
faculty are stratified by regions of the country. An explanation for
the absence of significance found in this study is that colleges and
universities across the country are attempting to diversify their
faculty. By hiring faculty from different institutions, colleges and
universities can diversify their mathematics departments. The
demand for quality mathematics faculty also dilutes the pool of
mathematics faculty, thus spreading new faculty across the country.
Policies that forbid hiring inbred faculty should be carefully
studied. Bridgeland (1982) reported that the institutional inbreeding
restriction is rarely a stated policy because of legal ramifications
(p. 288). Research into policies concerning inbreeding are limited.
Practices of restriction against inbred faculty can result in litigation.
Broad (1980) noted that a sex discrimination case in U. S. District
Court brought against the University of Minnesota ended with the
plaintiff being awarded $100,000. As a result of this case for
purposes of affirmative action programs, the University of Minnesota
has waived its written policy of not hiring its own graduates for
tenured positions (p. 1120). In addition, the U.S. District court
appointed a "special master" who will resolve sex discrimination
claims, will have power to award cash damages or faculty positions
(including tenure), and will oversee hirings at the university.
Steinback (1980), an attorney for the American Council on Education,
93
stated that the settlement is a disaster for higher education and is
part of a pattern of erosion of the peer review process and posture
of the institution as ultimate determiner of who is the most
appropriate person to hold a position.
Wyer (1982) stated that several institutions had policies
forbidding departments from hiring their own students upon degree
completion, thus decreasing the available pool of qualified female
applicants. Finally, policies prohibiting institutional inbreeding may
violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Sandler 1974).
Colleges and universities should carefully address the issues and
guidelines associated with hiring practices.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are based on the data obtained and
analyzed in this study:
1. Institutional inbreeding in mathematics departments
offering the Ph.D. degree has drastically declined during the past
decade. For the 167 institutions of higher education, the mean
proportion of inbred mathematics faculty members was 3.46 percent.
This was almost one-tenth (9.54) of Eells and Cleveland's (1935a)
and one-fourteenth (13.69) of Hollingshead's (1938) studies. It
appears that institutional inbreeding among mathematics faculty is
declining.
94
2. Mathematics departments across the country which offer
the Ph.D. degree in mathematics are composed of more men (91.1%)
than women (7.8%).
3. There exists a statistically significant difference between
rates of institutional inbreeding among mathematics faculty when
stratified according to gender.
4. There exists no statistically significant difference between
rates of institutional inbreeding among mathematics faculty when
stratified according to the types of institutions, viz., research
universities I, research universities II, doctorate-granting
universities I, doctorate-granting universities II, comprehensive
colleges and universities I, and liberal arts colleges I, at which they
are employed.
5. Research universities I account for the greatest percent of
institutional inbreeding (58.0%).
6. There exists no statistically significant difference between
rates of institutional inbreeding among mathematics faculty when
stratified according to regions of the country, viz., west, midwest,
northeast, and south.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study the following
recommendations are made:
95
1. Policies that forbid institutional inbreeding should be
examined and attempts made to determine the effects these policies
have upon faculty members in higher education.
2. Additional research needs to be conducted to include
disciplines other than mathematics, e.g., English, chemistry, drama,
music, and accounting, to determine the rates of institutional
inbreeding.
3. Additional research should be conducted in other disciplines
to determine rates of institutional inbreeding when faculty are
stratified according to region of the country and the Carnegie
foundation classification scheme.
4. Future research should examine salary comparisons
between inbred and non-inbred faculty, as well as the differences
between the academic ranks of full professor, associate professor,
assistant professor, and instructor.
5. Further research should examine rates of institutional
inbreeding between emeritus faculty and adjunct faculty.
6. Additional studies should examine colleges and universities
in terms of institutional inbreeding, salary, and position change.
7. Additional research should investigate and clarify attitudes
of faculty and administrators toward institutional inbreeding.
8. Replications of the present study should continue to monitor
institutional inbreeding rates at colleges and universities of
institutions which offer the Ph.D. degree in mathematics.
REFERENCES
American Mathematical Society. (1991). Mathematical Sciences: Professional Directory. Ann Arbor, MI: Author.
Abramson, J. (1975). The invisible woman. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Berelson, B. (1960). Graduate education in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Bezdek, R. H. (1973). Whither the market for college faculty? College and University. 49. 77-100.
Blau, P.M. (1973). The organization of academic work. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bridgeland, W. M. (1980). Departmental inbreeding and salary in large midwestern universities. College Student Journal. 14. 215-221.
Bridgeland, W. M. (1982). Departmental image and the inbreeding taboo within large universities. College Student Journal. 16. 287-
289.
Broad, W.J. (1980). Ending sex discrimination in academia. Science. 208, 1120-1122.
Brown, D.G. (1965). The market for college teachers. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press
97
Brown, D.G. (1967). The Mobile Professor. Washington, D.C: American Council of Education.
Caplow, T., & McGee, R.J. (1958). The academic marketplace. New York: Basic Books.
Cleland, J. S. (1944). Inbreeding in college and university faculties. School and Society. 59, 193-195.
Conrad, C. F., & Wyer, J. C. (1982). Incest in academe: The case for selective inbreeding. Change. 14. 45-48.
Crane, D. (1970). The academic marketplace revisited: A study of faculty mobility using the Cartter ratings. American Journal of Sociology. 75, 953-964.
Dattilo, J. (1987). The scholarly productivity of inbred and non-inbred full-time doctorally prepared nursing faculty in teaching in the south (doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International. 48. 07a.
Dutton, J. E. (1980). The impact of inbreeding and immobility on the professional role and scholarly performance of academic scientists. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Eells, W. C., & Cleveland, A. C. (1935a). Faculty inbreeding. Journal of Higher Education. 6* 261-269.
Eells, W. C., & Cleveland, A. C. (1935b). The effects of inbreeding. Journal of Higher Education. 323-328.
Elliot, C.W. (1908). University administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
98
Ezrati, J. B. (1983). Personnel policies in higher education: A covert means of sex discrimination? Educational Administration Quarterly. 19. 105-119.
Fitzpatrick, E. A. (1917). Discussion and correspondence: Academic inbreeding. School and Society. 6, 679-681.
Fley, J.A. (1979). The time to be properly vicious. In M.C. Berry (Ed.)., Women in higher education administration. Washington: The National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors.
Gappa, J.M., & Vehling, B.S. (1979). Women in academic: Steps to greater equality. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 1.
Glenny, L.A., & Bowen, F.M. (1975). Organizational careers: A sourcebook for theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
Glenny, L.A., & Bowen, F.M. Signals of change: Stress indicators for college and universities. A report of the California postsecondary education commission. Unpublished manuscript.
Gold, D. & Lieberson, S. (1961). Research notes: Texas institutional inbreeding re-examined. American Journal of Sociology. 66. 506-509.
Hagstrom, W.O. (1966). Competition and teamwork in science. Madison, WI: National Science Foundation, Mimeographed.
Hargens, L. L., & Farr, G. M (1973). An examination of recent hypothesis about institutional inbreeding. American Journal of Sociology. 78, 1381-1402.
99
Heilman, J. D. (1920). Teachers' qualifications, salaries, and total load. Colorado State Teachers College Bulletin. 20 (9, Pt. 3-5).
Hollingshead, A. B. (1938). Ingroup membership and academic selection. American Sociological Review. 3, 826-833.
Jamrich, J.X. (1958). Facilities of the Michigan institutions of higher education (Staff study No.10). MI: Michigan State University.
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kolbe, P. R. , Et al. (1922). Report of survey of the University of Arizona. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Lafferty, H. M. (1937). Administrative problems in our teachers colleges. Peabodv Journal of Education. 15, 72-75.
Lafferty, H. M. (1964). Of time and the teachers colleges-in Texas. Peabodv Journal of Education. 42. 14-24.
Lumsden, D. B., Stewart, G. B., & Linn, L. (1990, November). Faculty inbreeding among contemporary university professors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Portland, OR.
Marlier, J. D. (1982). Factors relating to the extent of inbreeding among college and university administrators (doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International. 43. 06-A.
McDonald, R.K. (1978). Technical report: 1977 survey of the American professoriate. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Social Science Data Center,
100
McGee, R. (1960). The function of institutional inbreeding. American Journal of Sociology. 65. 483-488.
McNeely, J. H. (1932). Faculty inbreeding in land grant colleges and universities. (U. S. Office of Education Pamphlet number 31) Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office.
Miller, G. A. (1918). Discussion and correspondence: Academic inbreeding. School and Society. 7, 53-55.
Miller, M. H. (1977). Academic inbreeding in nursing. Nursing Outlook. 25. 172-177.
Mills, J.A. (1962). Changes in the facilities of Roman Catholic colleges: 1948-1958. National Catholic Education Association Bulletin. 58. 21-24.
Newburn, H.K. (1959). Faculty personnel policies in state universities. Missoula, Montana: Montana State University.
Pelz, D.C., & Andrews, F.M. (1966). Scientists in organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Reeves,. F.W. (1933). The university faculty. University of Chicago Survey. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Reynolds, P. D. (1977). A Primer in theory construction. Indianapolis, In.: Bobbs-Merrill.
Sandler, B.R. (1974). The hand that rocked the cradle has learned to rock the boat. In L.W. Sells, (Ed.) New directions for institutional research: Toward affirmative action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
101
Smelser, J., & Content, R. (1980). The changing academic market. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
State and metropolitan area data book. (1986). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Stouffer, S. (1954). The behavioral sciences at Harvard: Report by a faculty committee. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wells, R. A., Hassler, N. , & Sellinger, E. (1979). Inbreeding in social work education: An empirical examination. Journal of Education for Social Work. 15, 23-29.
Wilson, L. (1979). The academic man. New York: Oxford University Press.