Search

Critics argue that few sociological publications are cited in the subsequent literature and that this implies many are superfluous. Data on the number of citations to three kinds of sociological documents-Journal ankles, chapters in edited books, and books-show that a substantial majority of each type is cited in the subsequent literature. Furthermore, the high proportions of ever-cited items do not result from authors' citation of their own work Average citation levels of journals are highly correlated with other measures of journal stature. The average book is cited about as often as an average article in a highly-cited journal while an average chapter in an edited book is cited about as often as an average article in an infrequently-cited journal. Within-Journal variation in article citation rates far exceeds between-journal variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While sociologists at the national level are often called upon to present opinions about social issues, the crucial work of clarifying the image of the discipline is probably best done in local settings. The difficulty, however, is that practicing sociologists at the state and local levels are often unsure about how to deal with the press and as a consequence are reluctant to present themselves to the local media arena. Several state associations are aware of this problem and have incorporated media training into their annual programs (notably, Georgia and North Carolina). This paper suggests some strategies for talking with the local media, based on personal experience of the author both as a sociologist and as a member of a state legislature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on sociology and the mass media. The typical processing of sociology is the inception of a problem, research, preparation and submission of results, evaluation of them by reviewers, publication, citation, replication and eventually, replacement. One of the latent consequences of good press coverage has been a high rate of feedback to the author in the form of mail and telephone requests, queries and rebuttals. These have been of four basic kinds such as collegial, clarifiers of the manners, entrepreneurs and celebrity seekers. Mass dissemination of sociology can have the consequences of aggravating an already ambiguous image, distortion of any given sociological paper and misrepresentation of the nature and scope of sociology as a discipline and profession. Consequently, it is time for the American Sociological Association to institutionalize procedures for the dissemination of sociology to the public. One of the proposals for consideration by the association are recognition that in order to obtain constitutionally defined objective to stimulate and improve research, instruction and discussion and to encourage cooperative relations among persons engaged in the scientific study of society, we must take the mass media into account.

The recent and prolific attention to public sociology has involved a great deal of theoretical debate about its merits, flaws, and potential future within the discipline. Despite the loud call for becoming more public, existing research on the discipline lacks both an empirical understanding of where we are as well as a methodological rubric to guide future inquiry. This project explores one outlet for public sociology—the press—as a starting point for this line of research. Through an investigation of Associated Press stories featuring sociology and sociologists, we seek to provide a baseline for consideration of public sociology efforts by describing the current state of how our discipline and its members are portrayed in the press. Further, based on our findings we provide some insights for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the discipline of sociology has seen an increased discussion of public sociology, but the discussion has focused on whether or not it is a good idea for sociologists to become more engaged with their various publics. A different question motivates this research: What are the institutional arrangements that make doing public sociology difficult, and thus less likely? Following Dorothy Smith, we start from the perspective of frontline actors and ask them about their experiences. We combine data from two sources: individual interviews with a sample of 50 academic feminists, a group that has theoretical motivation to be interested in public sociology and group interviews with 15 feminists engaged in some form of public sociology. These informants tell us about two related institutional barriers to doing public sociology: the culture of professional sociology and the standards we use for evaluating scholarship. The impact of these disciplinary barriers probably varies by institution type and career stage but there is reason to suspect they generate costs not just for individuals but for the discipline. Taking steps to break down these barriers would ameliorate concerns some have raised about public sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]