The finding and the recruiting of scientists have been a long-standing issue in higher education. Due to the dearth of reliable evidence on scholarly potential at an early stage of a scientist’s career, the hiring department often has to look for alternative assessment criteria. Drawing on the similarity-attraction theory, it is hypothesized that decision makers in academia tend to prefer candidates whose demographic backgrounds are similar to their own. By examining personnel exchange between German departments of business administration, recruitment patterns are visualized and examined on the basis of the similarity-attraction paradigm. Poisson regression analysis indicates that similarity and geographical proximity help to explain recruitment processes among German departments of business administration.
Berelson B. ( 1960) Graduate Education in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2.
Bonacich P. ( 1972) Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology2: 113-20.
3.
Booth A., Babchuck N. ( 1973) Personal influence networks and voluntary association affiliation. Sociological Inquiry39: 179-88.
4.
Borgatti SP, Everett MG, and Freeman LC ( 2002) Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis . Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies .
5.
Burris V. ( 2004) The academic caste system: prestige hierarchies in PHD exchange networks. American Sociological Review69: 239-64.
6.
Burt RS ( 1987) Social contagion and innovation, cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology92: 1287-1335.
7.
Byrne D. ( 1971) The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
8.
Caprara GV, Vecchione M., Barbaranelli C., et al. (2007) When likeness goes with liking: the case of political preference. Political Psychology28(5): 609-32.
9.
Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung (2003 ) CHE-Forschungsranking 2002: BWL. Available at: http://www.che.de/downloads/Forschungsranking2003Kurzpapier_148.pdf
10.
Cohen J. ( 1977) Sources of peer group homogeneity. Social Education50: 227-41.
11.
D’Aveni RA ( 1996) A multiple-constituency, status-based approach to interorganizational mobility of faculty and input-output competition among business schools. Organization Science7: 166-89.
12.
Franke N., Gruber M., Harhoff D., and Henkel J. ( 2006) What you are is what you like - similarity biases in venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up teams. Journal of Business Venturing21: 802-26.
13.
Gossling T. ( 2004) Proximity, trust and morality in networks. European Planning Studies12(5): 675-89.
14.
Granovetter M. ( 1974) Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Gulati R., Gargiulu M. ( 1999) Where do inter-organizational networks come from? The American Journal of Sociology104: 1439-86.
16.
Guttentag M., Secord P. ( 1983) Too Many Women? The Sex Ratio Question. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
17.
Hall DB ( 2000) Zero-inflated poisson and binomial regression with random effects: a case study. Biometrics56(4): 1030-9.
18.
Hanneman RA, Riddle M. ( 2005) Introduction to social network methods, online-resource . Available at: http://faculty.ucr.edu/∼hanneman/nettext/
19.
Kanter R. ( 1977) Men and Women in the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
20.
Lincoln JR, Miller J. ( 1979) Work and friendship ties in organizations: a comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly84: 181-99.
21.
Liao TF ( 1994) Interpreting probability models. Sage University Paper No. 101.
22.
Liedka, v. R ( 1991) Who do you know in the group? Locations of organizations in interpersonal networks. Social Forces70(2): 455-74.
23.
Lin N., Ensel WM, and Vaughn JC ( 1981) Social resources and strength of ties. structural factors in occupation status attainment. American Sociological Review46: 396-405.
24.
Long S., Fox MF ( 1995) Scientific careers: universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology21: 45-71.
25.
Macharzina K., Wolf J., and Rohn A. ( 2004) Quantitative evaluation of German research output in business administration: 1992-2001. Management International Review44: 335-59.
26.
McPherson M., Smith-Lovin L., and Cook JM ( 2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27: 415-44.
27.
McPherson JM ( 1983) An ecology of affiliation. American Sociological Review48: 519-35.
28.
Merton RK ( 1957) Priorities in scientific discovery. American Sociological Review22(6): 635-59.
29.
Neckerman H. ( 1996) The stability of social groups in childhood and adolescence: the role of the classroom social environment. Social Deviance5: 131-45.
30.
Oerlemans LA, Meeus MT, and Boekema FW ( 2001) On the spatial embeddedness of innovation networks: an exploration of the proximity effect. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie92(1): 60-75.
31.
Podolny JM ( 1994) Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly39: 458-83.
32.
Snow D., Zurcher LA, and Ekland-Olson S. ( 1980) Social networks and social movements: a micros-structural approach to differential recruitment. American Sociological Review45: 787-801.
33.
Stark R., Bainbridge WS ( 1980) Networks of faith: interpersonal bonds and recruitment to cults and sects. American Journal of Sociology85: 1376-95.
34.
Staufenbie, JE, Heimburger S., and Friedenberger T. (2002) Wirtschaft studieren: Berufsziele, Studieninhalte und die Wahl der Hochschule. Köln: Staufenbiel.
35.
Tsui AS, O’Reilly CA ( 1989) Beyond simple demographic effects: the importance of relational demography and organizational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal32: 402-23.
36.
Uzzi B. ( 1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly42 (1): 35-67.
37.
Uzzi B. ( 1999) Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: how social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review64(4): 481-505.
38.
Westphal JD, Zajac EJ ( 1995) Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Administrative Science Quarterly40: 60-83.
