Recursive Feedback and Institutional Lock-In in Academic Knowledge Production

Academic institutions are designed to evaluate evidence, yet across many domains strong and well-synthesised research often fails to alter priorities, evaluation norms, or decision-making frameworks. This paper argues that such failures are frequently structural rather than informational. Treating academia as a feedback-driven system, the paper introduces a diagnostic framework grounded in Recursive Dynamics. It shows how ordinary evaluative practices can generate self-reinforcing Advantage Loops, in which narrow success metrics confer authority over future standards of legitimacy. Under these conditions, empiricism does not disappear, but shifts from a tool for correction into a mechanism for institutional filtering. Evidence that challenges dominant framings is not rejected as false, but rendered inadmissible. The paper distinguishes informational failure from structural closure and introduces the Recursive Disclosure Index (RDI) as a conceptual tool for diagnosing when systems retain activity but lose responsiveness. Rather than proposing reforms or optimisation strategies, the analysis is deliberately diagnostic. Its purpose is to clarify why integration efforts, evidence synthesis, and improved communication can stall even in the presence of expertise and goodwill. Written as an accessible entry point to the broader Recursive Dynamics framework, the paper is intended for researchers, integrators, and institutional actors concerned with evidence use, interdisciplinary work, and organisational learning. More formal developments and cross-domain applications are left to subsequent work.