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.