Search

How has sociology evolved over the last 40 years? In this paper, we examine networks built on thousands of sociology-relevant papers to map sociology's position in the wider social sciences and identify changes in the most prominent research fronts in the discipline. We find first that sociology seems to have traded centrality in the field of social sciences for internal cohesion: sociology is central, but not nearly as well bounded as neighboring disciplines such as economics or law. Internally, sociology appears to have moved away from research topics associated with fundamental social processes and toward social-problems research. We end by discussing strategies for extending this work to wider science production networks.

Discourse and ideology are interrelated concepts in social sciences and the humanities and are even occasionally employed interchangeably. This paper sheds light on their relationship in academic discourse and examines the role of sociology as a scientific field in its conceptualization. Using bibliometric analysis, we examined 15,716 academic publications mentioning "discourse" or "ideology" in their title and written in English by American and British scholars between 1966 and 2015. The investigation focused on the two terms' conceptual environment, areas of usage, journals, and the organizations to which the authors were affiliated. First, we conclude that although some sociology researchers have attempted to create a sociological definition for the concept of discourse, sociologists are not its most active users. The same is true for ideology. These concepts have established niches in other disciplines (political science and history for "ideology," and educational science and linguistics for "discourse"). Second, throughout the years, the field of discourse studies has become more diversified and fragmented than that of ideology. Third, the leading organizations in both fields are prestigious American and British universities, which indicates that discourse and ideology are elements of the intellectual elites' language. Fourth, the concept of discourse was more frequently applied than that of ideology in the years 2010–2015, and we expect that it will remain popular among scholars in the next decade. As for ideology, we believe that new social challenges could foster the rediscovery of this concept in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

“Antiracist Education in Theory and Practice: A Critical Assessment” As a set of pedagogical, curricular, and organizational strategies, antiracist education claims to be the most progressive way today to understand race relations. Constructed from whiteness studies and the critique of colorblindness, its foundational core is located in approximately 160 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the past 15 years-identified through a comprehensive search of Academic Premier Search, EBSCOMegaFile, Education Abstracts, JSTOR, and SOCIndex. A critical assessment of these papers concludes that antiracist education is not a sociologically grounded, empirically based account of the significance of race in American society. Rather, it is a morally based educational reform movement that embodies the confessional and redemptive modes common in evangelical Protestantism. Inherently problematic, whether or not antiracist education achieves broader acceptance is open to debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How has sociology evolved over the last 40 years? In this paper, we examine networks built on thousands of sociology-relevant papers to map sociology's position in the wider social sciences and identify changes in the most prominent research fronts in the discipline. We find first that sociology seems to have traded centrality in the field of social sciences for internal cohesion: sociology is central, but not nearly as well bounded as neighboring disciplines such as economics or law. Internally, sociology appears to have moved away from research topics associated with fundamental social processes and toward social-problems research. We end by discussing strategies for extending this work to wider science production networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that applied research still retains a second class status within the sociological community that is at least unexamined and probably unjustified. Applied research is not the corruption that some would claim, while basic research is hardly the ideal to which all sociologists should aspire. The paper begins with a discussion of the nature of applied research, moves to a demystification of basic research, and concludes with some suggestions about how a reconciliation of sorts might be accomplished. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper argues, by way of empirical example, that the long-accepted contention that participant-observation research can best be accomplished by strangers who become like natives is by no means the only or even best approach. Rather, natives can be trained to distance themselves from their own group, making use of inherently objective sociological and anthropological perspectives. Such natives-as-strangers are more likely to be cognizant of nuances in the cultural life being studied. Using the example of the author's research among Jews, the paper also outlines some of the risks of this native-as-stranger approach, foremost among them being the tendencies to take too much for granted and to become alienated from one's native group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The section presents comments on articles featured in the August 1978 issue of The American Sociologist. Gerald D. Berreman claims that the ethics and responsibility in social science research are frustrating to discuss in print or in person: the issues are complex and highly contextual so that clear-cut rules-of-thumb are impossible to formulate; they are value-laden and controversial so that discussion often degenerates into preachment, accusation and defense. James D. Carroll noted that each of the articles is a useful contribution to the understanding of law, politics and administration of knowledge. From an analytical perspective, these papers fit well into conceptual frameworks suggested by such terms as "post-industrial society," "knowledge society," and the like. From a professional perspective, each of the papers addresses issues that researchers should be more familiar with, and that professional societies should have greater capacity to address on a systematic basis than is presently the case. From a legal perspective, the paper by Kathleen Bond addresses a constitutional question under the U.S. first amendment, which involves something of a paradox. Carl B. Klockars suggests a model of sociological research that begs the softening of a series of trained incapacities, which the sociological community has worked long and hard against substantial resistance to develop.

This section introduces a series of articles on financing sociological research. The late Alvin Gouldner presented us with a fundamental paradox that those who supply the greatest resources for the institutional development of sociology are precisely those who most distort its quest for knowledge. The problem of financing sociological research is not the burden of individual researchers, it is the challenge to a discipline and a profession that must take account of a shifting cultural-political climate and be accountable to a restive public. The paper by Martin Bulmer examines the unique role of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, under the directorship of Breadsley Ruml, in distributing relatively large amounts of money for social research during the 1920s. Highlighting the entry of more direct federal government support for basic social science research, Roberta Balstand Miller's paper, The Social Sciences and the Politics of Science: the 1940s, examines the debate about the inclusion of the social sciences in the legislation that established the National Science Foundation.

This paper explores whether the field of sociology harbors a dismissive attitude towards religion. Specifically it examines whether introductory sociology textbooks present the classic secularization theory over the more recent religious economies explanation of religious change. The classical secularization thesis suggests that religion is declining in importance in modern societies and may disappear completely. The religious economies perspective proposes that religion has actually become more influential and dynamic over time. While both theories are well represented in the sociology of religion literature, we explore whether generalist sociology textbooks reflect this reality. This article provides a content analysis of 31 introductory sociology textbooks published between 2003 and 2006. We assess the presence and promotion of the above theories in these textbooks. Our analysis reveals that 20 (65%) of the 31 textbooks in our study present only secularization theory, while seven (23%) of the textbooks cover both secularization theory and religious economies theory. We assess the ramifications of such a lopsided arrangement and conclude by encouraging a more open dialogue on this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Detroit Area Study (DAS) has served for 25 years as one model of how a sociology faculty can combine productive research and graduate training within a single small unit. This paper outlines the current structure and costs of DAS, describes its math advantages and limitations, and suggests several ways in which other universities might develop units that are similar but not identical to DAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the relationship between original research reports and discussion of these same reports in textbooks Through a systematic search of textbooks dealing with a particular sociological generalization, the authors are able to return to the original sources upon which the textbook accounts are based and to compare what is contained in both. Serious errors of commission and omission are revealed in the textbook treatments of the primary research material The authors conclude by suggesting ways in which textbooks may reflect more accurately future developments and trends in the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This section presents a text of a research paper about the successful completion of survey research projects in an urban setting, presented in the Research and Theory Section of the National Council on Family Relations annual meeting held in St. Louis, Missouri on October 26, 1974. Increasingly, the successful completion of a survey research project in an urban setting requires an exchange strategy by which the subjects of that research and the community in general define their social situation and have some control in the relationship between themselves and the researcher. For those who are engaged in survey research in urban settings, there is no easy escape from resistance to their studies. All of this comes at a time when there is a greater need than ever before for information which could come from survey and community research to deal with problems such as poverty and poor health. Yet resistance to survey threatens to make such research extremely difficult or impossible. Some of the charges which had led to this resistance include the invidiousness of some of the findings which have portrayed ethnic minorities and low-income people in portraits unappealing to the subjects, to threats to individual and group privacy, failures of the outside investigators to consult with individuals and groups within the communities in question, and the sponsorship of research when it is perceived by residents of the communities to be establishment oriented.

This paper has attempted to outline the present situation and trends in scholarly cooperation between Latin American and U.S. social science, tracing significant changes in recent years, and identifying policy-shifts in foundations and other granting agencies as a primary cause of such changes. It has briefly analyzed the current structure of international cooperation. Finally, it has presented the most coherent position running contrary to growing optimism, which would predict a mutually advantageous cooperative framework.
Changes implemented by foundations and granting agencies have carried cross-national cooperation to a level beyond which U.S. scientific establishments cannot or are not likely to go. In other words, the alternative to the new forms of cooperative research is probably no cooperation at all. Tins is, in essence, what the radical critique argues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Graduate students learn to be sociologists in part by doing research. Many undergraduate institutions whose roles have been primarily defined by teaching have inadequately addressed the need of their students to obtain research experience. When such opportunities are available, and when they are properly structured and coordinated with the undergraduate curriculum, advantages accrue to both students and the profession. This paper examines curricular and extracurricular ways to strengthen undergraduate research opportunities as preparation for graduate school. It is suggested that such preparation is also beneficial to many students who do not go on to graduate school. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I argue that the selection of appropriate statistical procedures is at best haphazard without a careful consideration of the consequences of one's research, and that significant distortions often will result when applied concerns are ignored. I advance the hypothesis that typical conceptions of basic research in sociology preclude the proper use of statistics. From this it follows that mainstream, quantitative sociology can begin to save itself only by taking seriously the question of applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines some of the reasons why the social sciences were excluded from the legislation that established the National Science Foundation in 1946. Although the social sciences had been used increasingly before the war in the interest of rational social planning by the federal government and had been supported during the war, they nevertheless were weaker after the war than before it. The failure to include the social sciences in NSF was due to three factors. opposition by key scientists, conservatives' fears that social science research would emphasize potential political problems such as racial inequality, and the failure of social scientists to make a strong bid for their inclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper challenges the conventional academic wisdom that supports the "publish or perish" doctrine. Employing a theoretical framework derived from Berger and Luckmann (1966), other sources of legitimation are analyzed. While the doctrine is related to themes in the larger culture (i.e., a high mass production/consumption economy), this does not fully explain why research and publication receive such determined support from faculty, particularly since alternative means of evaluation exist. An explanation of the publish or perish doctrine is offered in terms of the use of esoteric knowledge (its product) to enhance and preserve professional authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The section presents the response of the authors to criticisms on their articles published in the August 1978 issue of the journal The American Sociologist. According to Richard M. Stephenson, the responses to the papers illustrate very well Berreman's observation that ethical problems in research are complex, highly contextual, and controversial. Joan Cassell claims that the activities of federal regulators, and their local offspring, Institutional Review Boards, have frequently been sufficiently misguided or irrelevant so as to confirm some researchers in their feelings of abused righteousness. Researchers are faced with what might be called ethical overkill. Kathleen Bond addresses the question as to why confidentiality is considered an important principle by social scientists. First, a concern for the "autonomy and integrity of persons," which Bradford Gray points to in his discussion of the conclusions of the Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects, dictates that researchers should not divulge information about respondents. Persons chosen to participate in a research project should not be exposed to the possibility of having information about them used for other than research purposes; similar persons not chosen to participate in research projects are not exposed to this risk. Second is a practical concern. It is usually assumed that people will not participate in social research if they suspect that their names will be published in research reports or that information about them as individuals will be passed on to other persons for decision-making or other purposes.

This article presents a commentary on an article about the protection of human subjects in field social science research. The paper raises some important questions regarding limitations place on field researchers in the form of policies concerning the protection of human subjects. Most social scientists would agree that field research strategies occupy an important role in attempts to explain and predict human behavior. The paper does little to enlighten readers about the reality of any such threats by such policies regarding human subjects protection in general, and policies concerning approval of field studies in particular. One common misconception held by many sociologists is that researchers must routinely obtain signed statements of informed consent. Alternatively, the requirement of informed consent may be waived when the existence of a signed consent document would be the only record linking the subject and the research and that the only significant risk would be potential harm resulting from breach of confidentiality. The protection of human subjects is a difficult and complex task. However, the importance of such issue for the discipline requires a careful examination of the facts and acquaintance with various procedures on a first-hand-basis.

The article discusses the journal space available to sociologists. The journal space available to sociologists has increased very substantially in the past decade or so, primarily through the founding of specialized sociological journals and interdisciplinary ones related to sociological specialties. There may be a scarcity of publication outlets for sociologists in some specialties and for those who write on some topics, but for most sociologists, there are ample outlets for most if not all of the reasonably good papers they can produce, including some rather offbeat, nonmainstream ones and those reporting replications. Of course, there is a scarcity of space in the most prestigious and conspicuous journals, as there will be as long as there is a distinct prestige hierarchy among sociological journals. The very high rejection rates of some sociology journals result not from an absolute scarcity of space available to the discipline but from the distinct prestige hierarchy of the journals and a widespread preference among sociologists to publish in general rather than specialized journals. Nevertheless, it is true that Ph. D.s in several other disciplines typically have longer publication lists than sociologists, for several reasons, one of which is a greater availability of journal space.

This article presents Robert A. Stebbins' reaction to several comments on his paper which appeared in a previous issue of The American Sociologist, which provided an account of professional and amateur sociology in the U.S. Stebbins states that he wishes only to offer a single clarification of a poorly communicated passage that caught Althauser's attention. It concerns the four conditions that encourage the emergence and persistence of an avocational interest in science. According to Stebbins, when he wrote the passage, he had Kuhn's concept of normal science in mind. Amateurism takes root in those sciences or areas of sciences that lack a dominant paradigm as the exclusive grade to scholarly research. These fields are in a preparadigm stage of development in which several schools of thought compete. Why then, is there no amateur sociology? Among the answers to this question, according to Stebbins, are that sociologists lack a tradition of amateurism, a vision that amateurs could help professionals with some of their research interests, and a willingness to organize nonprofessional assistance on any basis other than temporary. The same conclusions could likely be reached for other sciences.

This article presents a commentary on a paper by Paul Kay in a previous issue of The American Sociologist which addressed the growing number of unemployed and underemployed doctor of philosophy degree holders in the U.S. Kay implies that traditional training for academic employment is not ideological but rational in character. The commenters disagree with this idea. According to them, it is important to raise this issue because, in spite of very modest changes in employment patterns the vast majority of social scientists, even throughout the lean 1970s, did hold academic jobs. Training for research in graduate school regularly takes precedence over training for teaching, and yet most college faculty rarely if ever publish the fruits of their scholarship, while presumably all teach. Their lack of fit between training and work experience will increase as more and more doctor of philosophy degree holders bump down within academe from sociology to non-sociology departments, and/or from research to teaching institutions where they may find some rewards for competent teaching, but weak institutional and even interpersonal support for their research interests. However, according to the commenters, this is certainly not to say that training for critical analysis and scholarship ought to be abandoned, but rather that graduate education should include attention to the shifting realities of academic employment.

This article presents a commentary on a paper by Paul Kay in a previous issue of The American Sociologist which addressed the growing number of unemployed and underemployed doctor of philosophy degree holders in the U.S. According to the commenter, it is not clear whether Kay's comments should be responded to in terms of his presentation of a paradigmatic example of the growth of an ideology in Marx's sense or in terms of what he apparently sees as a trend that he thinks is an irrational belief and something that should not be. The commenter admits that he is not convinced that the switch to applied training is that massive in academia and he is not at all sure that Kay accurately represents the changes that have taken place. Rather, the shift that has gone on and is going on is from a concern with pure research whatever that is, to what is sometimes called applied research and more often is dignified by a euphemism like policy oriented research. Response to Kay's position boils down to a question or two. These questions include the following: If nonacademic employment for doctor of philosophy degree holders was not available, should people infer that somehow some other training could be given that would lead to employment.