Was there a “golden past” for the introductory sociology textbook? A citation analysis of leading journals

Much debate over the years has centered around whether there was ever a “golden past” for the introductory sociology textbook, when high quality books influenced the development of scholarship and thinking. Some empirical evidence is added to this debate through an analysis of the citations to introductory sociology textbooks in all the articles and research notes appearing in theAmerican Journal of Sociology, theAmerican Sociological Review, andSocial Forces from 1960 to 1969 and from 1984 to 1993. The data show that, although seldom cited in recent journals, introductory sociology textbooks were often cited in the earlier period. The article concludes with some thoughts about why introductory sociology textbooks have had a declining influence on scholarship.     

Avoiding Aging? Social Psychology’s Treatment of Age

Population aging, in conjunction with social and cultural transformations of the life course, has profound implications for social systems—from large-scale structures to micro-level processes. However, much of sociology remains fairly quiet on issues of age and aging, including the subfield of social psychology that could illuminate the impact of these broader social forces on individual lives. This study examines the scope of research on age, aging, and the life course in the leading social psychological journal in sociology (Social Psychology Quarterly) and compares it with coverage in the primary social psychology journal in psychology (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) and two sociology journals (American Sociological Review and Journal of Health and Social Behavior). An analysis of articles published between 1977 and 2006 shows that approximately 7 percent in Social Psychology Quarterly or Journal of Personality and Social Psychology seriously considered age. In contrast, 11 % of articles in American Sociological Review and 25 % in Journal of Health and Social Behavior did so. Across the journals, examinations of age increased over time. However, studies reflect a limited range of methodological and theoretical approaches with few employing qualitative methods or a symbolic interactionist perspective. We discuss several under-explored sites for research on age, aging, and the life course that would enrich social psychological and sociological scholarship more broadly.     

American sociology’s changing interests as reflected in two leading journals

This study involves an analysis of the major topics published in theAmerican Journal of Sociology andAmerican Sociological Review from the 1890s through the 1970s. The data indicate that the discipline focused initially on its self-definition and major social problems, moving to more theoretical and methodological matters during the 1930s. The war years reflect a major concern with political matters, shifting to economic issues and the problems of minorities in later decades. The limitations of these normative and economic interests are discussed. He has concentrated on sociological theory, the history of sociology and comparative minority relations. He is presently engaged in a world-wide analysis of racial discrimination and conflict.     

Diversity in sociology: Problem or solution?

Some of sociology’s recent internal critics (e.g., Turner and Turner, 1990; Halliday and Janowitz, 1992; Collins, 1986; Gans, 1990; Crane and Small, 1992) suggest that the discipline's diversity of theoretical, methodological and substantive foci leave it in a weakened position for achieving individual and collective ends. Other sociologists (e.g., D'Antonio, 1992; Roos and Jones, 1993; Stacey and Thorne, 1985) argue that substantive diversity has made the discipline attractive to a greater variety of previously underrepresented groups, particularly women, groups that have, in turn, contributed to sociology’s substantive diversity. This paper reports on a content analysis of 2,016 articles from North American sociology journals in 1936, 1956, 1976, and 1996 as well as from chemistry, anthropology, economics, political science, and psychology journals in 1996. The analysis focused on a number of, often contradictory, hypotheses drawn from the competing views of sociology's diversity with respect to its substantive concerns and its gender composition. It finds, for instance, that there is more substantive diversity in today's sociology journal articles than there was earlier, at least when diversity is measured in terms of fields that are reputed to be attractive to women. This may not be surprising, since more women are writing sociology journal articles than ever before. Moreover, the substantive diversity seems to be related to more, not less, funding of sociological research. It is, of course, a trite remark — one made more frequently by sociologists than by their gibing critics — that sociology has not yet come to the development which commands from its adherents wholehearted agreement as to the objectives to be aimed at, the field to he limited, and the methods to be used. Gladys Bryson, 1936     

Recent ASA Presidents and ‘Top’ Journals: Observed Publication Patterns,Alleged Cartels and Varying Careers

It has been common for studies presented as about American sociology as a whole to rely on data compiled from leading journals (American Sociological Review [ASR] and American Journal of Sociology [AJS]), or about presidents of the American Sociological Association [ASA], to represent it. Clearly those are important, but neither can be regarded as providing a representative sample of American sociology. Recently, Stephen Turner has suggested that dominance in the ASA rests with a ‘cartel’ initially formed in graduate school, and that it favors work in a style associated with the leading journals. The adequacy of these ideas is examined in the light of available data on the last 20 years, which show that very few of the presidents were in the same graduate schools at the same time. All presidents have had distinguished academic records, but it is shown that their publication strategies have varied considerably. Some have had no ASR publications except their presidential addresses, while books and large numbers of other journals not normally mentioned in this context have figured in their contributions, as well as being more prominent in citations. It seems clear that articles in the leading journals have not been as closely tied to prestigious careers as has sometimes been suggested, and that if there is a cartel it has not included all the presidents.     

The race relations problematic in American sociology: A case study and critique

This article reports the results of an analysis of all racial and ethnic relations articles published in the American Journal of Sociology, the American Sociological Review, Social Forces, and Social Problems, from January 1969 through December 1995. The analysis identifies by journal: 1) major methodological orientation(s); 2) how the concepts of “race,” “ethnicity,” and racial and ethnic relations are operationalized, which is useful for examining tendencies toward, or against, reification; 3) substantive content—that is, what a sociology of racial and ethnic relations is; and 4) primary context—that is, are racial and ethnic relations treated as a substantive subdiscipline in their own right, or are they merely a topic of interest for other subdisciplines such as social psychology? In brief, although some differences exist between the journals, all four journals publish disproportionately racial and ethnic relations research that: 1) is highly quantitative as opposed to theoretical, conceptual, or sociohistorical; 2) reifies U.S. Census definitions of race and ethnicity as opposed to critically evaluating such definitions; 3) social psychologizes racial and ethnic relations, or subsumes such relations under stratification processes; and 4) subsumes the racial and ethnic relations problematic under subdiscipline rubrics other than a sociology of racial and ethnic relations. The conclusion discusses the implications of these findings; for example, by virtue of what they publish, these journals construct a paradigmatic frame that gives precedence to, or legitimizes, some views and excludes, or de-legitimizes others.     

Productivity of women scholars and gender researchers: Is funding a factor?

Articles by women scholars and proportions of articles focused on gender have increased steadily in major sociology journals since 1974. Women are more heavily represented as journal authors than as members of graduate-program departments, the institutional bases where most published work originates. We consider whether funding might account for these patterns by examining acknowledgement of support in published articles. We find no significant relationships among author gender, article topic, and notation of internal funding. Male-authored articles focused on nongender topics acknowledge external funding significantly more often than women-authored works and articles focused on gender written by women or men. Funding patterns therefore do not appear to account for increased productivity by women and gender researchers. She is currently studying the educational achievement of immigrant students. Linda Grant is an assistant professor of sociology and faculty associated of the Institute of Behavioral Research at the University of Georgia. Her current research focuses on gender and academic careers and gender relationships in schools. Her current research includes the feminist critique of sociology and publishing, and the U.S. women’s movement.     

A longitudinal assessment of productivity in prominent sociology journals and departmental prestige

This paper tests the theory of cumulative advantage and disadvantage as it applies to the productivity and prestige of academic departments within sociology. The theory suggests that past perceptions of departmental prestige and cumulative records of faculty productivity are of greater significance than more recent levels of productivity in determining their perceived level of eminence within the discipline; a phenomenon due to the accumulation of past performance and recognition over time. The paper employs two widely disseminated measures of departmental eminence: the 1966 Cartter Report rankings and the 1982 Conference Boards assessments. Measures of departmental productivity are derived from cumulative publication histories of departments between 1936 and 1989 in three preeminent sociological journals; namely, theAmerican Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology, andSocial Forces. The paper finds that while past accomplishments do not bear importantly on current perceptions of departmental prestige after controlling for the level of productivity maintained during the preceding decade, prior perceptions of prestige are strongly associated with current rankings. In addition, past perceptions of academic prestige are found to be highly stable, thereby creating the potential for a stratification hierarchy that allows for little mobility over time.     

Sources of Influence in the Family Therapy Field: Publication Trends in Three Major Journals1

The institutional sources of all articles published in the three major marriage and family therapy journals through 1978 are identified. The journals reviewed include: Family Process, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, and the American Journal of Family Therapy. While no single center emerges as dominating the published family therapy literature, a small number of institutions clearly have exerted a profound impact on the literature of the field. Moreover, the absolute number of centers influencing the field is rapidly increasing, and these centers are becoming particularly influential in the newer journals in the field.     

The isolation of crime,law, and deviance from the core of sociology

The study of crime, law, and deviance is considered to be an isolated subarea of sociology that draws upon but does not contribute to the core of the discipline. Subareas, the specific and substantive topics of sociology, may be expected to make less obvious and direct contributions to the core than do theory, methodology, social organization, and social psychology as the major areas of sociology. And within subareas, studies that are readily applied may be considered less integrated and contributory to the discipline than the more “pure” or basic science subareas. This analysis examines the relationships between areas, subareas, and the core of sociology; the subject matter of sociological subareas; the actual versus perceptual isolation of crime, law, and deviance studies from the core; and the meaning of contribution. Measurement of contribution is limited to a survey ofSociological Abstracts, theCumulative Index of Sociology Journals, and the 1993 program for the American Sociological Association annual meetings. Comparing area and subarea publications and conference sessions suggests that, contrary to expectations, crime, law, and deviance research constitutes a significant portion of the available knowledge base. The perceived isolation of crime, law, and deviance from sociology may be explained by professional bias against applied studies of stigmatized populations. An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the 1992 American Sociological Association Annual Meetings.     

Intellectual Integration and Articles in Core Sociology Journals, 1960–2000

This study builds on and extends two studies by Oromaner (J Am Soc Inf Sci, 28:34–37, 1977; Int J Inf Manage, 6:29–35, 1986) in which he examined the integrating role of sociology’s three core general journals (American Journal of Sociology (AJS), American Sociological Review (ASR), Social Forces (SF)) among both core (N = 3) and specialty (N = 7) journals. In each study he traced the number of citations received by full-length articles published in the core journals (1960, 1973) during the first 10 years after publication. The present study replicates this methodology for articles published in 1990. In addition, the present study looks at the relationship between each of the core journals and each of the ten citing journals. The percent of core articles cited has increased from 67 to 84, however, the percent cited in five or more journals has remained quite stable and low (13%, 10%, 12%). Core journal articles are more likely to be cited in core journals than they are in specialty journals, and there appears to be some relationship between specific core journals and certain specialty journals. More in depth analysis is presented for the 1990 cohort.     

Public Sociology or Partisan Sociology? The Curious Case of Whiteness Studies

This paper identifies the common themes in 245-plus refereed articles on whiteness studies that were published in academic journals after 1992 in an attempt to assess the implications of whiteness studies for the discipline of sociology. Of special interest is the relationship between whiteness studies and Michael Burawoy’s call for public sociology. I argue that the emerging field of whiteness studies identifies itself as a public sociology that is infused by the moral vision of critical sociology. Nevertheless, the field does not accept professional sociology as Burawoy defined it. The ontological, epistemological, and soteriological foundations of whiteness studies encourage the field to pander to one segment of the public—the marginalized—and condemn another segment of the public—“privileged whites,” thus rendering impossible a democratic dialogue on one of the most basic social issues of our time. Conflating Western epistemology with whiteness encourages a misreading of American social scientific work on race relations, thus opening the door to a so-called hermeneutics of suspicion. The result is not an innocuous “pop” sociology, but a partisan sociology, whose implications should caution sociologists against an uncritical embracing of public sociology.     

Mapping Gender and Migration in Sociological Scholarship: Is It Segregation or Integration?

A review of the sociological research about gender and migration shows the substantial ways in which gender fundamentally organizes the social relations and structures influencing the causes and consequences of migration. Yet, although a significant sociological research has emerged on gender and migration in the last three decades, studies are not evenly distributed across the discipline. In this article, we map the recent intellectual history of gender and migration in the field of sociology and then systematically assess the extent to which studies on engendering migration have appeared in four widely read journals of sociology (American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Demography, and Social Forces). We follow with a discussion of these studies, and in our conclusions, we consider how future gender and migration scholarship in sociology might evolve more equitably.     

Women’s sociological research and writing in the AJS in the pre-World War II era

Recent revisionist scholarship on the history of sociology suggests that women scholars in the pre-World War II era made distinctive contributions to the development of the field of sociology. Most research, however, has focused on women prominent in their era, whose works might or might not be typical of all women who published during the same periods. Furthermore, few studies have made explicit comparisons between works by women and by men writing in this same era, so it has been difficult to sort out gender effects from historical era effects. This study explores writings by women and men in the first volumes of the American Journal of Sociology, from 1895 through 1940. As the oldest continuously published sociology journal in the U.S., AJS played a central role in the development of American sociology. We find that women authors were present in AJS from the earliest days, though their share of authorships never was large, and fluctuated year by year. Women’s work was distinctively different from that of men, with more women than men writing empirical, evidence-based articles, focusing on women, children, immigrants, the poor, and other have-not groups, and advocating for social reform. Writings of rank-and-file and prominent women sociologists were similar in methods, content, and form, and their distinctive contributions to sociology paralleled many of the concerns of feminist sociologists today.     

Objective and Reputational Rankings of Ph.D.-Granting Departments of Sociology, 1965–1982

Abstract

From its inception in 1965 until 1975 when it stopped publishing such studies, The American Sociologist (TAS) published numerous quality rankings of Ph.D.-granting sociology departments and several articles that compared different rankings. During these years TAS published far more rankings of sociology departments than did any other journal This article reviews these studies as well as the rankings of sociology departments found in three major multi-disciplinary rankings (Cartter, 1966; Roose and Andersen, 1970; Jones, Lindzey, and Coggeshall, 1982). It discusses the major methodological approaches used in these studies and reviews the debate among scholars regarding the most appropriate ways to rank departments. An analysis of the various objective and subjective rankings reveals that there is an elite group of seven departments that consistently rank at the top regardless of the ranking method employed.     

Isomorphism,Institutional Parochialism,and the Sociology of Religion

This article investigates whether the field of sociology of religion is occupied by parochial concerns. We characterize institutional parochialism as the degree to which people in an academic field tend to study their own societies. This study employs a content analysis of articles published in The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion and Sociology of Religion from 2001 to 2008, with particular attention paid to the incidences in which Muslim and non-Western groups were studied before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There was no change in the rate that “Muslim” communities were studied following the 9/11 attacks, but it appears journal content did change to reflect ongoing debates in the West and in response to mimetic pressures being placed on the field. Overall, if the sociology of religion can be characterized as parochial, we contend that the broader field of American sociology is likely far more so.     

L. L. Bernard and the original American sociologist

The original version of The American Sociologist (TAS) has been overlooked by contemporary sociologists. L. L. Bernard edited the publication from 1938 to 1947. This article describes the contents of this publication and places these materials in historical context. While there were profound differences between Bernard’s publication and the later TAS, both publications dealt with issues in the sociology of sociology. His research has ranged from criminology and the sociology of law to the sociology of science, and several previous articles of his have appeared inThe American Sociologist. specializing in sociological theory and deviance. His articles have previously appeared inThe Review of Social Theory andRural Sociology. Gideon Sjoberg gave generous encouragement and direction throughout this project. Others who offered helpful suggestions at various phases of the writing include: Jessie Bernard, Alfred McClung Lee, Irving Louis Horowitz, David Carpenter, and two anonymous reviewers.     

The incorporation of gender scholarship into sociology

The prospects of an intellectual revolution in sociology informed in part by a feminist perspective loomed large in the early 1970s. Following Ward and Grant's (1985) empirical examination of gender and feminist scholarship in sociology journals between 1974 and 1983, our research provides an empirical assessment of the “second ten years” after the feminist critique of the discipline, 1984–1993. Specifically, we examine the incorporation of gender-content scholarship into mainstream sociology journals. Our research also assesses the extent to which gender-content scholarship published in these journals is feminist-oriented or not and the extent to which this is influenced by the sex of authors, the type of journal, and the sex composition of editorships and editorial boards. Our findings indicate that although there were more gender- and feminist-oriented articles published in the recent ten-year period, proportionally there were fewer feminist-oriented articles than in the previous ten-year period. Our findings suggest that a feminist revolution in sociology is not likely to occur anytime soon, although the assimilation of feminist scholarship into sociology is occurring along the lines of other critical intellectual movements in recent decades. David V. Waller current research focuses on intellectual and social changes in the social sciences including the impact of electronic journals on communication among scientists, and on the geopolitical and economic determinants of change in the contemporary world system. Dana Dunn has authored articles on gender stratification, sex-based earnings inequality, and women in political office, and is editor of Workplace/Women's Place, a textbook addressing women's experiences in the workplace. Please direct all correspondence to David V. Waller, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Box 19599, University of Texas, Arlington, TX 76019 or to Waller@uta.edu.     

The “Peculiar Eclipsing” of Women in Sociological Theory: Moving from Nearly Total to Partial

This paper revisits the observation made by Ward and Grant (Current Perspective in Social Theory 11:117–140, 1991) that there had been a “peculiar eclipsing” of women in sociological theory. It provides longitudinal studies of women’s participation and recognition in three conventional outlets for sociological theorizing: the theory section of the American Sociological Association (ASA); sociological theory textbooks; and sociological theory journals. It finds that the percentage of ASA Theory Section members who were women increased from 12% in 1982 to 31% in 2008, but is not nearly as high as the 53% in all ASA sections taken together; that women’s recognition in sociological theory textbooks grew, more between the 1980s and the 2000s than between the 1960s and the 1980s, undoubtedly reflecting the increasing respectability of feminist theory within the profession; and that women’s relative participation as authors in sociology theory journals increased from the 1980s to the 2000s by about 33%, but nowhere near as much as their participation as authors in the American Sociological Review, where their relative participation in the 2000s was more than three times what it had been in the 1980s. We speculate that, given women’s increasing leadership roles in both the Theory section and the theory journals, women may be using less conventional outlets for their theorizing than is offered by either the section or the journals.     

Sociology and the environment: An analysis of journal coverage

Many sociologists have suggested that the dominant paradigm in sociology ignores the environment, which accounts for the fact that environmental sociology is poorly represented in sociology’s mainstream journals. The purpose of this article is to test this assumption empirically by examining the coverage of environmental sociology in nine mainstream sociology journals from 1969 through 1994. The nine journals are separated into two tiers, representing higher and lower prestige journals. Each environmental article is categorized by its area (attitudes and behaviors, environmental movement, political economy, risk, and “new human ecology”) and whether it involves “sociology of the environmental issues” (the application of standard sociological perspectives to environmental issues) or “core environmental sociology” (the examination of societal-environmental relationships). We find that less than two percent of all articles published in the sampled journals in the twenty-five-year period of study were environmental, and that the higher tier journals were less likely to publish environmental articles than were the lower tier journals. Environmental articles were more likely to be part of “core environmental sociology” after 1981 than they were “sociology of the environmental issues,” which suggests a greater recognition among both environmental sociologists and journal reviewers that human societies are ecosystem-dependent. The number of environmental articles increased in the 1990s, portending a fruitful period for sociologists specializing on the environment. We argue that the broader field of sociology can benefit by recognizing the linkages environmental sociology has to other sociological specializations and that, ultimately, sociology needs to be able to address environmental variables in order to understand society. Naomi T. Krogman’s primary interest is in stakeholder framing of environmental disputes and natural resource policy change. She is currently a research sociologist at the Center for Socioeconomic Research at the University of Southwestern Louisiana and adjunct faculty in the Department of Sociology, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, LA 70504-0198. JoAnne DeRouen Darlington is a research sociologist focusing on social change and community sustainability emerging from the disastrous interactions between society and the environment. She is currently employed with the Natural Hazards Research Center, Campus Box 482, Boulder, CO 80309.