Search

Feminist scholars have proposed that two types of links exist between research methods and gender. Female scholars have been thought to be more likely than males to choose qualitative methods because such methods are compatible with relational and emotional skills stereozypically associated with women. Qualitative approaches also have been thought to be especially appropriate for study of gender issues and women's experiences and to be an effective strategy for correcting androcentric biases in construction of social theory. We examine articles in 10 sociology journals in 1974-83. Most articles have been quantitative, but female authors have used qualitative methods more often than males. Writing about gender increased rather than decreased the likelihood of having used quantitative methods for both women and men. We suggest that papers focusing on gender and also using qualitative methods represented double nonconformity and hence were unlikely candidates for publication in mainstream journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article narrates the author's comments on editing, reviewing and publishing articles in the American Sociological Review (ASR). Some people complained that the ASR had been unsympathetic to their kind of sociology and that a special issue was the only sure way to remedy the situation. So far, my own appraisal is that neither their diagnosis nor their proposed cure is appropriate. In both the previous and the current editorial regimes the Deputy Editors have been responsible for assigning all reviewers. The Deputy Editors have varied scholarly histories, preferences and prejudices. However, they generally make reviewer assignments and about which they are most familiar and about which they tend to be positive. In any case they are usually do desperate to find appropriate, skilled and conscientious reviewers that they do not have enough degrees of freedom to be able to choose individuals whose prejudices they know. Even if the review process were discriminatory I think that special issues would be a dangerous and costly remedy. The ASR should be a journal that publishes the best papers available regardless of topic or research style. It is important that readers know that when a paper is published in the ASR it is not because of politics or fashion but because a reasonable, fair and rigorous peer review process has selected it on the basis of quality.

This article deals with the poor quality of article reviews received by the American Sociological Review (ASR). The staff have been disappointed in the overall quality of reviewing at ASR. It seems that too many reviewers do not seem to know what they need to do to write a good review, and it is time the discipline do something about the problem. A good place to start might be by reconsidering a widely held assumption about reviewing--the notion that anyone with a Ph.D. is able to review scholarly work in his or her specialty. This assumption is positive, supportive, democratic, and politically correct within the profession. But our empirical experience is that it is too often false. The fact is that our graduate programs train us to criticize works that have already been published--works that have already gone through the generally complex and chastening process of review and editing. One way to train a reviewer is to adopt a graduate student and involve him or her in your review process. The American Sociological Association should also offer a workshop on reviewing at the annual meetings where anyone could attend the workshop.

This article presents the editors' comments on the journal and their role in its publication. They outline their criteria for contributions and the potential audience for the material. The editors feel that having a strong pool of reviewers is key to a diverse and academically rigorous publication. They also want to focus on articles that will be compelling and relevant to the largest possible audience, instead of overly esoteric subjects. In closing, they thank many of the people who work with them on the journal.

Presents an introduction to the December 1987 issue of the journal "American Sociological Review."

The article deliberates about sources behind the founding of the journal "American Sociological Review" (ASR). The establishment of the ASR in 1935 conventionally is seen as a rebellion against the influence of the Chicago School on the profession. The article outlines the events in the rebellion, identifies the protagonists in the conflict, and describes the reasons for conflict. The journal of the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago, referred as Chicago School, "The American Journal of Sociology" functioned as the official journal of the American Sociological Society (ASS)until 1936, giving the Chicago department extraordinary centrality in professional communication. During the thirties, however, the American sociological community was turbulent with conflict and hostility, much of it directed towards Chicago and to the issue of its influence in the profession. This hostility came to a head in 1935 when the ASS voted to establish an independent journal for the Society, the American Sociological Review.

The article acknowledges and lists referees who participate in the selection of manuscripts for publication in the journal.

The article highlights the editorial policy of the journal "American Sociological Review," (ASR). The terms of the associate editors of the journal come to an end with the publication of a new volume. This precedent will be followed this year as well. The normal term of an Associate editor is three years. In order to provide for an orderly and equally incremented turnover of ASR's editorial board, the editor opted to divide initial set of nominees for that board into two sets, one of which was asked to serve a two--rather than a three-year term. It is that set which has now become emeritus. Collectively, they are an exceptionally talented and responsible crew. While occasionally turned to for advice on policy matters, the primary responsibility of Associate Editors is as reviewers; they do a disproportionate share of the refereeing of materials submitted to the ASR.

The article presents a response to an earlier article of the October 01, 1981 issue of the periodical "American Sociological Review." Bridges and Miller argue that the sample is restricted, making generalization a bit difficult. Furthermore, they argue that their replication with the QES (and equally good if not better measures) gives a more accurate representation of the process of acquiring power in the workplace. Bridges and Miller state that the major differences are that they find experience and tenure effects are larger for men than for women.