¡°Homegrown academics¡± who spend their entire career at the institution where they acquired their PhD are less likely to take on ¡°trailblazing research agendas¡± compared to more mobile counterparts, according to a study of 7,000 academics from 140 countries.

A??in?ÖйúAƬ Quarterly?argues that the practice of ¡°academic inbreeding¡± is ¡°detrimental to the research aspirations, innovativeness, risk-taking and multidisciplinary engagement of academics¡¯ research agendas¡±.

The authors, from the University of Hong Kong (HKU), the University of Bergamo and ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon, divided researchers into three types.

¡°Homegrown academics¡± (formerly known as ¡°inbred academics¡±) lean towards ¡°less trailblazing research agendas¡± by 6 percentage points. They tend to choose ¡°safer¡± subjects, possibly because some ¡°lack the necessary creativity, openness and exposition to external knowledge flows¡±.

ÖйúAƬ

Homegrown academics have research agendas that are 19.6 per cent less focused on ¡°discovery¡± compared to more mobile academics. They also tend to be ¡°less ambitious¡­in terms of trying to assume a position of authority in the field¡±.

¡°Silver corded¡± academics, who leave their?alma mater?temporarily and then return, are relatively more ¡°competitive, independent and networked¡± than homegrown academics but still 4.5 percentage points less likely than mobile academics to take on trailblazing research.

ÖйúAƬ

¡°Mobile academics¡±, who make up the majority of the sample, work in a different institution?from where they acquired their PhD. They are the most likely to have ¡°trailblazing¡± agendas that lean towards ¡°disruptive, multidisciplinary, collaborative and riskier knowledge processes¡±. They are less likely to have ¡°cohesive¡± agendas?that focus on one discipline and produce incremental research?which confirms known knowledge.

Hugo Horta, an associate professor of education at HKU and one of the paper¡¯s authors, told?Times ÖйúAƬ?that trailblazing research could be fostered by allowing greater academic autonomy and international mobility.

¡°It is also promoted by environments that are professionally and socially supported, where there are incentives and low penalties for risk-taking, and where thinking is on the long term rather than on short-term outputs,¡± he said.

The?study states that academic inbreeding has ¡°mostly subsided¡± in more developed systems like the UK and the US, aside from some ¡°institutional clusters¡±.

ÖйúAƬ

However, Dr Horta called it a ¡°growing pain¡± in less developed systems,

¡°Academic inbreeding tends to be more prevalent in developing countries ¨C not only in Asia, but all over the world ¨C because the phenomenon¡­is part of the development of HE systems,¡± he said.

Academic inbreeding may inevitable, or even helpful, in ÖйúAƬ systems in their ¡°infancy¡±, when they are beginning to build research capacity and open PhD programmes.

But the practice becomes problematic later on, as it promotes ¡°overemphasis on institutional knowledge and organisational identity, parochialism, nepotism and reinforcement of existing knowledge¡±, which are values ¡°not attuned with the needs of contemporary science and HE¡±, Dr Horta said. ?

ÖйúAƬ

joyce.lau@timeshighereducation.com?