Impact of Academic Endogamy on Scientific Output in Chinese Universities: A Humanities and Social Sciences Perspective

The phenomenon of academic endogamy, wherein faculty members obtain all their degrees from and remain at the same institution, has been observed to potentially impact research productivity and international engagement. As prior literature indicates, this trend raises concerns about potential insularity and reduced academic output. However, empirical evidence regarding the effects of academic endogamy within the context of Chinese higher education remains sparse. This study aims to address this research gap by investigating the influence of academic endogamy on scientific productivity within Chinese universities, with a particular focus on the humanities and social sciences. The study addresses this research gap by collecting data from faculty resumes and the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). National university rankings were sourced from the Academic Ranking of World Universities to evaluate institutional performance. To analyze the data, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was utilized to account for the nested structure of the data, encompassing faculty members within departments and departments within universities. The analysis reveals that academic endogamy has a detrimental effect on the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Specifically, faculty members with endogamous academic backgrounds demonstrated lower publication rates and produced less quality research than their non-endogamous counterparts. Furthermore, the study finds that endogamous faculty members are less engaged in international research collaborations, with non-endogamous faculty showing greater involvement in such projects. The study acknowledges limitations, including its exclusive focus on the humanities and social sciences, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other disciplines, such as STEM fields. Additionally, potential biases arising from the reliance on faculty resumes are recognized. Despite these limitations, the study provides significant insights into the effects of academic endogamy and underscores the importance of policies that promote academic mobility and strengthen institutional support. The findings offer actionable recommendations for university administrators and policymakers aiming to enhance research productivity and global competitiveness in higher education. This research contributes to the literature by shedding light on the underexplored impacts of academic endogamy on scientific output and international collaboration, thus filling a critical gap in the existing body of knowledge.