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.     

The mouse that roared? Article publishing in undergraduate sociology programs

This paper explores article production by the entire population of US undergraduate sociology departments. The available literature suggests that undergraduate programs publish little, that this is concentrated among relatively few—mainly liberal arts—departments, and that publication rates are increasing. We argue There are reasons to expect that social/economic presence, reward policies, student quality, and faculty quality, size, and workload will affect productivity. Tracing publication of articles across the 1990s, few undergraduate departments are represented in 30 journals deemed important on the bases of reputation and citation rates. Liberal arts schools do not predominate. Ceteris paribus, public schools outpublished private schools. Publication rates have not increased. Social/economic presence, and student and faculty quality affect publishing, but salary, tenure structure, and workload do not. Finally, faculty size suppresses per capita publication.     

Evaluating Ph.D. sociology programs: Theoretical,methodological and policy implications

Reputational surveys frequently are used in evaluating doctoral programs. A sample of faculty-rated graduate programs and the resulting data are used to rank the programs in the academic discipline being considered. As an alternative, we present a new and auspicious assessment methodology by analyzing sixty doctoral programs in sociology for 1975/80 on six measures of research productivity and graduate education. We calculate two proximity matrices and reduce each with ALSCAL. Two solutions are generated: (1) per capita and (2) gross productivity of departments. These analyses show that conventional ranks contain a number of deficiencies and more comprehensive measures of departmental performance add important dimensions. We empirically document a tendency for conflict between faculty productivity and graduate education. Finally, our analyses suggest that omission of several assessment variables may have penalized departments emphasizing qualitative research. Recommendations for improving the next national assessment are advanced. Address correspondence to Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, 61761-6901.     

Chilly Environments, Stratification, and Productivity Differences

Productivity differences between sociology PhD’s were examined controlling for both human capital and life style differences. Productivity was defined in two ways. First, we looked at differences in article productivity to date. Next, differences in the average productivity of faculty (defined as total articles to date divided by years of experience) were explored. We aimed to capture how working in a chilly environment shapes productivity differences among faculty—especially between faculty working in ranked and unranked PhD programs. Faculty who worked in a ranked PhD department were significantly more productive than others. However, women in these departments were much more likely than men to report being in a chilly environment. Among faculty working in unranked PhD programs in sociology, two variables were critical in understanding productivity differences (age the PhD was awarded and chilly work environment). Faculty who felt welcomed in their department published more than others all else equal. Being in a chilly environment appears detrimental to establishing a publishing career for these faculty.     

Sociological Stratification: Change and Continuity in the Distribution of Departmental Prestige, 1965–2007

Previous research has found that there is a good deal of stability in departmental prestige, but has not considered its long-term dynamics. This paper investigates a hypothesis implied by some accounts in the sociology of science and organizational theory: that there will be a permanent component of prestige associated with the department or university. The data are the ratings of graduate departments of sociology between 1965 and 2007 using a measure of prestige constructed from hiring patterns. There is no evidence of a permanent component for individual departments, but there is evidence of a permanent difference between departments in “elite” universities and those in other universities. Despite change in rankings within each group, the difference between the groups remained constant over the period. That is, there appear to be enduring barriers that limit the mobility of individual departments.     

Work–Family Balance and Tenure Reasonableness: Gender Differences in Faculty Assessment

Abstract

Perceptions of work–family balance and of the reasonableness of tenure expectations are key faculty retention factors. Using a national job satisfaction survey with 2438 tenure-track assistant professors, we explore whether faculty assessment of departmental and institutional support for family–work balance and their satisfaction with family-friendly policies influence their perceptions of the reasonableness of tenure expectations. We pay attention to the importance of gender in our models. Results reveal that women are less likely than men to report tenure expectations as scholars are reasonable and that departments and institutions are supportive of family–work balance. Departmental support for family–work balance, caring for an ill family member, satisfaction with family-friendly policies, and workload have the strongest association with reasonableness. Satisfaction with family-friendly policies has a significant relationship with reasonableness of tenure expectations only for faculty with family care responsibilities. Implications for family-friendly policies and practices in academia are discussed.     

Duality of departmental specializations and PhD exchange: A Weberian analysis of status in interaction using multilevel exponential random graph models (mERGM)

Weber proposes that lifestyle similarities preserve status by producing interactional closure between status similar actors. I investigate this theory on academic status hierarchies by conceptualizing sub-disciplinary specializations as departmental lifestyles and PhD exchange networks as interdepartmental interactions. Multilevel exponential random graph models (mERGM) reveal that the more specializations departments share, the more likely they are to exchange personnel. On the flip side, departments that do not share specializations are less likely to exchange doctoral candidates. Moreover, shared specializations are key determinants of closure between elite departments. These results support Weber’s theory and suggest that shared specializations preserve existing patterns of inequality between elite and non-elite departments.     

The Institutional Structure of Eminence: Alignment of Prestige among Intra-University Academic Departments

Abstract

This study examines the reputational ratings of twenty disciplines using data from the 1982 Conference Board of Associated Research Councils to identify the extent to which such ratings can produce meaningful rankings of universities. Given that perceptions of departments and universities reflect social psychological images about the relative value of the program or school, such images can have powerful implications for hiring, recognition and the rewards process if they remain stable over time. The result is a mental construct that can have powerful implications for structure of stratification among higher educational institutions and the careers of those who pass through these universities. Seen from this perspective, eminence based on reputation is a property of the university. As such, departments within given universities should be quite consistent with regard to their respective ratings. Findings from this paper reveal the reputations of programs within universities are quite similar to each other, based on prestige ratings made by faculty in the same discipline at other universities. Implications for the structure of eminence and its consequences for individuals are subsequently discussed.     

Unequally Adrift: How Social Class and College Context Shape Students’ Mentorship Experiences

Faculty mentorship is a highly advantageous yet under-explored form of social capital which can grant access to co-curriculars (e.g., research assistantships), ensure strong letters of recommendation, and more. It is also typically informal and dependent on student initiative, requiring that students be skilled at engaging educational authority figures. Privileged students are most likely to have such skills as part of their dominant cultural capital, making faculty mentorship a site of social reproduction. To explore variations in this process, I compare two institution types: a small, teaching/undergraduate-focused regional university and a large, research-intensive flagship. In interviews with 68 working- and upper-middle-class students, I find that college context mediates the relationship of class background and faculty mentorship. Upper-middle-class students fostered advantageous faculty relationships at both universities, but working-class students diverged: at the flagship, they rarely approached professors in search of mentorship, while those at the regional university described close, beneficial connections with professors. I discuss working-class students’ dissimilar experiences in terms of each university’s structural and cultural characteristics (organizational habitus), particularly their institutional focus and size. I argue that through their particular organizational features, colleges can both reproduce and reduce inequalities, challenging the determinacy of precollege socialization in education.     

Gender-based faculty-pay differences in academe: A reduced-form approach

I test for gender differences in faculty salaries for the academic year 1987–1988, using a basic sample of 560 higher education institutions. The ratios of female faculty pay to male faculty pay are regressed on a reduced-form equation for implicit marginal productivity ratios and rate of departure ratios. Marginal productivities depend on faculty and administrative inputs and proxies for technology. Rate of departure ratios depend on various institutional characteristics, such as size, unionization, administrative intensity, Carnegie Foundation classification, type of ownership, and degree of faculty tenured. The results indicate that, after adjusting actual pay ratios for implicit marginal productivity ratios, female faculty pay is at least as high as male faculty pay for much of the sample (74 percent).     

DOES RAIDING EXPLAIN THE NEGATIVE RETURNS TO FACULTY SENIORITY?

We track faculty for 30 yr at five PhD‐granting departments of economics. Two‐thirds of faculty who take alternative employment move downward; less than one‐quarter moves upward. We find a substantial penalty for seniority, even after richly controlling for faculty productivity, and the penalty is little changed when we allow wages and returns to seniority to differ by mobility status. Faculty who end up moving to better or comparable positions were penalized as severely for seniority while they were in our sample as faculty who stay. These results are incompatible with the raiding hypothesis. Faculty from top 10 programs are also punished for seniority but to a lesser degree than other faculty, which could reflect reduced monopsony power against such faculty if they are more marketable. All results persist when we control for prospective publications and allow lower returns for older publications. Match‐quality bias has dissipated in the post‐internet period, which may be the consequence of greater availability of information. (JEL J62, J44, J42)     

Recent Changes in Male Income*

This paper explicitly defines two perspectives for investigating change: the longitudinal and the cross-sectional. After examining changes in male income between 1950 and 1970 by following cohorts through time, we identify a pattern of income changes with age which is quite different from that obtained in a cross-sectional analysis. On a longitudinal basis, it is evident that as men age to the retirement years that their income continually increases. A cross-sectional analysis leads to the conclusion that there is a decline in income during the latter working years. Two simple models (using change in the cost of living and productivity levels) are offered to help account for the patterns of income change. Although adjustments for varying costs of living and productivity levels slightly alter the pattern the two substantially different conclusions are not changed to any great degree. The implications of these conflicting statements are discussed.     

University Civic Engagement with Community-Based Organizations

Abstract

This article compares and contrasts two case studies of large research universities involved in civic engagement projects with urban nonprofit community-based organizations and neighborhood associations. The article uses a community building framework in which organizational, interorganizational, and community-level features are examined. The study found that each university used a different approach through which to achieve a university-community partnership. A dispersed model favored an entrepreneurial approach for individual faculty and student involvement, while the coordinated model requested faculty and students from different departments to work together toward a community-driven goal. The extent to which these different models of civic engagement delivered what community organizations wanted was based on five factors: (1) the university's geographic proximity to a tar get low-income neighborhood, (2) leadership for institutional social commitment, (3) use of community-based research, (4) funding as a social strategy, and (5) a flexible curriculum. Challenges faced by faculty, students, and practitioners are addressed, and directions for future research are suggested.     

Books vs. articles: Two ways of publishing sociology

Sociologists tend to publish either in the form of articles in scholarly journals or in the form of books. This paper attempts to show that not only do specific university departments have scholarly cultures emphasizing one or the other, but that structural and demographic factors — such as location, public or private status, and size — are correlated with each. Book departments tend to be found at exclusive private universities in or near big cities on both coasts, while article-producing departments tend to be in land grant universities in the South and Midwest. Recognizing that such publication decisions are not purely scientific in nature but are also partially socially constructed ought to allow us to have more diversity in how departments structure their scholarly cultures.     

Response to Mark Lusk

This empirical study examined the association between social work students' ratings of teaching ability and several course, student, and instructor variables. Over 5,000 standardized evaluation forms rating instructors' specific skills and overall effectiveness were collected between 1991-93 at a school of social work in a large urban university. The results showed strong positive relationships between ratings of teaching effectiveness and ratings of skills reflecting course organization, rapport with students, and fair grading. This study supports the legitimacy of student ratings in assessing faculty, and the authors discuss implications for faculty development of the strong relationship between effective teaching and organizational skills.     

Sociology at the University of Kansas, 1889–1983: An Historical Sketch

Sociology at the University of Kansas began in 1889, making it one of the oldest departments in the country. This paper sketches its first 94 years, with special attention given to courses offered, faculty development, and the expansion of its graduate program. Suggestions for further research are made regarding sociology not only at this university, but others as well.     

Graduate education in an age of decline

In the 1980s, sociology departments in a number of universities have been caught up in a deteriorating educational environment. Many have experienced reduced numbers of faculty and students, often becoming little more than service departments. This article looks at this process as it occurred at a midwestern university noted for its strong theoretical tradition in graduate education. How this happened and the effects it had on graduate students is the focus of this work. Barbara Ryan graduated from Washington University in St. Louis in 1986 and presently is teaching in the Department of Sociology at Northern Illinois University. Her specialty area is social movements and her dissertation was an analysis of change in the contemporary women’s movement.     

Internal markets for department chairs: Comparative advantage,life-cycle,and jury duty

We examine the internal market for department chairs in U.S. universities and pro-vide the first empirical evidence concerning the determinants of departmental chair service using data from the economics departments in eight large public universities. The results reveal the wage premium for chairs increases with length of service and continues for an extended period thereafter. The chair premium largely represents com-pensation for foregone research and the attendant atrophy of research skills. The empir-ical results also indicate that departments tend to choose productive scholars to serve as chair, but avoid putting their most productive scholars in that position unless they are past their peak productivity period in their life-cycle. We thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. We are responsible for any errors.     

Unsettling Universities' Incongruous,Gendered Bureaucratic Structures: A Case‐study Approach

Recent research shows that women faculty members in academia continue to face systemic barriers to opportunity and advancement and that these barriers are particularly strong in science and engineering, and in university administration. University administrators and faculty members, however, have been slow to recognize that systemically gendered barriers will have to be reduced or eliminated in order for women faculty to advance in their careers. One key problem is that many, if not most, leaders in powerful decision‐making roles in universities continue to embrace women‐centred explanations for gender disparities in advancement through the academic ranks. University leaders' lack of recognition of institutionalized gender barriers suggests the need for greater dissemination of research findings (and training) about how systemic barriers operate and why these barriers disproportionately disadvantage women. In this article I first theorize universities as incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures. I then outline an intervention strategy for enabling university faculty members and administrators to see incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures and to then use this knowledge to develop strategies for addressing the problem of women's underrepresentation among science and engineering faculty. The strategy described is a case‐study approach recently implemented at a mid‐sized research‐intensive university in the US Midwest. The workshop was part of a broader university programme aimed at transforming the university's cultures, practices and structures in ways that help to enhance the recruitment, retention and promotion of women scientists. I conclude by discussing the benefits and limitations of the case‐study approach as a method for unsettling accepted knowledge about the gendered structures and normative practices of the university.     

Herausbildung einer akademischen Elite?

Given a tendency to higher third-party funding, the mechanisms of distribution of research money become more and more relevant for individual academic careers as well as for scientific institutions at large. This article focuses on an empirical test of hypotheses on the impact of universities’ size and reputation on the chances of grant approval. Using multivariate analysis of register data provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG) for all applications for single grants from 1992–2004, individual chances of grant approval as well as success rates in departmental grant acquisition are estimated. The analyses detect neither strong context effects on individual chances of grant approval nor a clear tendency towards a higher concentration of research funding on fewer universities. Only scientists working in West German universities with a long standing tradition have a slightly better chance to get research funding. At the level of university departments, higher personnel resources translate into a higher number of applications and approvals only for very large institutions. Regarding funding of single grants, there is no trend of a growing inequality among the universities. Finally, these results are discussed with a specific reference to the recently launched “Initiative for Excellence” – a program designed in order to foster high level research in Germany – and are contrasted to some arguments of Richard Münch.