The I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f Gender Scholarship into Sociology DAVID V. WALLER 1 DANA DUNN JOAN WATSON
T h e p r o s p e c t s of an i n t e l l e c t u a l r e v o l u t i o n in sociology i n f o r m e d in part b y a f e m i n i s t p e r s p e c t i v e l o o m e d large in the early 1970s. F o l l o w i n g W a r d a n d G r a n t ' s (1985) e m p i r i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n of g e n d e r a n d f e m i n i s t s c h o l a r s h i p in sociology j o u r n a l s b e t w e e n 1974 a n d 1983, o u r r e s e a r c h p r o v i d e s a n empirical a s s e s s m e n t of the " s e c o n d t e n years" after the f e m i n i s t c r i t i q u e of the discipline, 1984-1993. Specifically, w e e x a m i n e the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of g e n d e r c o n t e n t s c h o l a r s h i p i n t o m a i n s t r e a m sociology journals. O u r r e s e a r c h also assesses the e x t e n t to w h i c h g e n d e r - c o n t e n t s c h o l a r s h i p p u b l i s h e d in these j o u r n a l s is f e m i n i s t - o r i e n t e d or n o t a n d the e x t e n t to w h i c h this is i n f l u e n c e d b y the sex of authors, the type of journal, and the sex c o m p o s i t i o n of editorships a n d editorial boards. O u r findings i n d i c a t e that a l t h o u g h t h e r e w e r e m o r e g e n d e r - a n d f e m i n i s t - o r i e n t e d articles p u b l i s h e d in the r e c e n t ten-year p e r i o d , p r o p o r t i o n a l l y t h e r e w e r e f e w e r f e m i n i s t - o r i e n t e d articles t h a n in the previous ten-year period. O u r f i n d i n g s suggest that a f e m i n i s t r e v o l u t i o n in sociology is n o t likely to o c c u r a n y t i m e soon, a l t h o u g h the a s s i m i l a t i o n of f e m i n i s t s c h o l a r s h i p i n t o sociology is o c c u r r i n g along the lines of o t h e r critical intell e c t u a l m o v e m e n t s i n r e c e n t decades.
Introduction The treatment of women in sociological scholarship has received much attent i o n a n d c r i t i c i s m o v e r t h e last 2 5 y e a r s . I n t h e e a r l y 1 9 7 0 s , t h e p r o s p e c t s o f a n David V. Waller is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Arlington. His c u r r e n t research focuses on intellectual and social changes in the social sciences including the impact of electronic journals on c o m m u n i c a t i o n among scientists, and on the geopolitical and economic determinants of change in the contemporary world system. Dana D u n n is Associate Dean of Liberal Arts and Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Arlington. She has authored articles o n gender stratification, sex-based earnings inequality, and w o m e n in political office, and is editor of Workplace~Women's Place, a textbook addressing w o m e n ' s experiences in the workplace. Joan Watson is a graduate student at the University of North Texas in the School of Library and Information Science. Waller, D u n n , a n d Watson
43
intellectual revolution in sociology informed in part by a feminist perspective l o o m e d large (Bernard 1987; Daniels 1975). Yet, by the late 1980s, such optimism waned, as was evidenced by Stacey and T h o r n e ' s (1985) p r o m i n e n t article, "The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology." Recent views on the impact of feminist theory on sociology's treatment of w o m e n are w i d e ranging (Alway 1995; Devault 1996). Today, although few observers w o u l d disagree that g e n d e r scholarship has spread t h r o u g h o u t the discipline, there is little consensus over w h e t h e r this makes the disciplinary glass "half-full or half-empty" (Roberts 1981). While informal discussions of this issue are frequent in the academy, m a n y are based more on personal observations than on systematic empirical research. Thus, to date, limited empirical research exists w h i c h systematically assesses the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of gender-content scholarship into sociology, w i t h the notable e x c e p t i o n of Ward and Grant's (1985) and Grant and Ward's (1991) examination of g e n d e r and feminist scholarship in sociology journals b e t w e e n 1974 and 1983. Following the research of Ward and Grant (1985), our research is, in a sense, designed to provide an empirical assessment of the "second ten years" after the feminist critique of the discipline in the early 1970s. We e x a m i n e the incorporation of gender-content scholarship into sociology journals in a more r e c e n t time period, 1984 to 1993, than did Ward and Grant. Professional peer-reviewed journals are a good indicator of the intellectual life of a discipline for m a n y reasons. Professional journals are a central part of the c o m m u n i c a t i o n system in a discipline. The level of competition to publish in scholarly journals and peer control over the journals more or less ensure that meritorious research is disseminated to and recognized by peers (Hagstrom 1965; Fuchs 1992). Articles in the most prestigious journals are more widely read and cited than articles in less prestigious journals, and are generally perceived to be c o n c e r n e d w i t h the most i m p o r t a n t issues in a discipline. Journal articles are also widely used as a means to measure the productivity of scholars. Contributors to high-status journals receive the greatest c o m p e n s a t i o n as well as p r o m o t i o n and tenure (for summaries see Cole and Zuckerman 1987; Fox 1983), and are v i e w e d as c o n t r i b u t i n g to the cognitive g r o w t h of the discipline. For these reasons, examining the n u m b e r of gender-content articles in professional journals in sociology will provide information on the impact of such scholarship on the discipline. Methods: Operationalization Issues and Data Source Our research is designed to determine the e x t e n t to w h i c h g e n d e r - c o n t e n t scholarship published in mainstream sociology journals is feminist-oriented or not and the e x t e n t to w h i c h this is influenced by the sex of authors, the type of journal, and the sex composition of editorships and editorial boards. We begin by d o c u m e n t i n g the n u m b e r of gender-content articles in fifteen professional journals and assess fluctuations over a ten-year period. The 1984-1993 time period was selected because the only other empirical study of the incorporation of gender-content scholarship into sociology journals covered a ten-year period ending in 1983 (see Ward and Grant 1985). 44
The American Sociologist/Fall 1998
To d e t e r m i n e the e x t e n t of feminist-oriented scholarship in sociology journals, each article in our data set was evaluated to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r or n o t it c o u l d be classified as ~feminist-oriented." T he distinction b e t w e e n gender-cont e n t scholarship and feminist-oriented scholarship has b e e n a central c o n c e r n to scholars at least since Ward and Grant (1985) c a t e g o r i z e d g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles in their r es ear c h as "additions," "modifications," or "recasts." In their w ork, an article was classified as an "addition" if it m e r e l y c o n t r o l l e d for sex b u t failed to e l a b o r a t e o n w h y sex differences existed or on the m e c h a n i s m t h r o u g h w h i c h sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n f l u e n c e d the o u t c o m e u n d e r study. This t y p e o f gender-cont e n t r e s e a r c h c o r r e s p o n d s to w h a t ot her s have labeled "sex as a variable" (Stacey and T h o r n e 1985) or "add w o m e n and stir" studies (Andersen 1988). A n d e r s e n (1988:13) argues that such studies fail to " r e c o n c e p t u a l i z e p r o b l e m s and t opi cs in a w a y that takes g e n d e r to be f unda m ent al in t he organization o f soci et y and social life." In contrast, the articles Ward and Grant (1985) classify as modifications begin to r e f o r m u l a t e paradigms, c o n c e p t s , models, and m e t h o d s to e x p l a i n w o m e n ' s e x p e r i e n c e s , and often focus on t hose aspects of social life m ost rele v an t to w o m e n . T he third c a t e g o r y of g e n d e r - c o n t e n t scholarship in Ward and G r an t' s (1985) s c h e m e , "recasts," is the f ur t hest along the "feminist c o n t i n u u m , " in that r e s e a r c h of this t ype offers an overt critique of a n d r o c e n t r i c models and p r o p o s e s major r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s of r e s e a r c h i n f o r m e d by a feminist p e r s p e c tive. We agree that a meaningful assessment of the i nfl uence of fem i ni st -ori ent ed s c h o lar s h ip on s oci ol ogy must c o n s i d e r the " t r e a t m e n t of g e n d e r , " n a m e l y in t e r ms of its centrality to the work. T he m e t h o d w e e m p l o y involves classifying g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles into a t w o - c a t e g o r y s c h e m e as ei t her "gender-issue" articles or as "feminist-oriented" articles. To be classified as feminist-oriented, articles had to m e e t at least one of the following criteria: (1) place w o m e n ' s e x p e r i e n c e s or issues at the c e n t e r of inquiry, (2) reject the use o f male exper i e n c e s as the n o r m , or (3) r e c o n c e p t u a l i z e k n o w l e d g e and t he tools of i nqui ry (e.g., c o n c e p t s , models, m e t hods , and t h e o r y ) so as to a c c o u n t for the experie n c e o f w o m e n . 2 Sex as a variable scholarship, w hi l e it addresses g e n d e r , d o e s n o t qualify as feminist-oriented scholarship in o u r r e s e a r c h and w o u l d thus be p l a c e d in the g e n d e r d s s u e category. We did n o t distinguish b e t w e e n articles that Ward and Grant (1985) label "modifications" and ~recasts" in our analysis for several reasons. First, w e believe that b o t h modifications and recasts have the pot ent i al to r e p r e s e n t signific a nt c o n t r i b u t i o n s to g e n d e r scholarship in that t he t r e a t m e n t of g e n d e r is n o t marginal. Second, o u r initial a t t e m pt s to distinguish b e t w e e n the t w o t ypes o f articles in the c o u r s e of d e v e l o p i n g o u r c od i ng s c h e m e resul t ed in serious interc o d e r reliability pr obl em s . Moreover, the i n t e r - c o d e r reliability p r o b l e m s w o u l d likely b e magnified w h e n c o m p a r i n g the classification of articles across the time p e r i o d s c o v e r e d by Ward and Grant and o u r research. While t h e r e are m a ny potential factors that affect the p u b l i c a t i o n of feministo r i e n t e d scholarship in sociology journals, w e believe that t he a u t h o r ' s sex and e v e n the o r d e r of a u t h o r s h i p by sex is particularly salient. 3 Since t he 1970s, Waller, Dunn, and Watson
45
i n c r e a s e d a t t e n t i o n to g e n d e r and feminist scholarship in s o c i o l o g y has b e e n a c c o m p a n i e d b y a n o t h e r t r e n d - - w o m e n ' s i n c r e a s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t he discipline (Ross and J ones 1993). T h e r e are reasons to suspect that t h e s e t w o t r e n d s are related. During this period, w o m e n ' s attraction to and clustering in disciplines like s o cio l ogy may be the result of the discipline's a t t e n t i o n to genderrelated s u b ject m a t t e r w h i c h w o m e n p e r c e i v e to be m o r e central to t h e i r lives. To the e x t e n t that w o m e n ' s i nt er e s t in g e n d e r is maintained after t h e y e n t e r the profession, th e i nc r eas e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of w o m e n should result in an i ncrease in th e p r o d u c t i o n of g e n d e r - c o n t e n t scholarship. Thus, o t h e r factors bei ng equal, w e e x p e c t that authors of g e n d e r - c o n t e n t and feminist-oriented articles are m o r e likely to be w o m e n than men. H o w e v e r , m e n are m o r e likely to be t e n u r e d and have g r e a t e r seniority than w o m e n . Since m o s t sociology d e p a r t m e n t s have b e e n d o m i n a t e d by m e n w h o e n t e r e d the field during the p e r i o d of e x p a n s i o n o f the mid-1960s and early 1970s, m e n benef i t f r o m the "Matthew effect" and e n j o y an " a c c u m u l a t i o n of advantage" (see Z u c k e r m a n 1988). Since m e m b e r s of these d e p a r t m e n t s are the most likely c o n t r i b u t o r s to sociology journals, w e e x p e c t s e n i o r m e n to be the first a u t h o r if an article has multiple aut hors (for a discussion see En d er s b y 1996; see also Singley and Chase 1998). As w o m e n e n t e r the discipline t h e y also make inroads into the editorial process. Th e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of w o m e n on journal editorial boards has g r o w n significantly since th e early 1970s, al t hough c o m p a r a b l e c h a n g e has n o t o c c u r r e d in c h i e f editorial positions. In 1972, for e x a m p l e , w o m e n filled only 16 p e r c e n t of editorial b o a r d positions (Ad H oc C o m m i t t e e on the Status of W o m e n in the P ro f es s io n 1973); b e t w e e n the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s, the p e r c e n t a g e of w o m e n on editorial boards i nc r eas e d to a b o u t 21 p e r c e n t (Ward and Grant 1985). Crane (1967) suggests that the gate-keeping role pl ayed by editors and editorial b o ar d s is an i m p o r t a n t one. Several r e s e a r c h e r s (Ward and Grant 1985; S p e n d e r 1981) argue that as w o m e n play a m o r e active role in the editorial p r o ces s , m o r e p u b l i s h e d articles will address gender. To evaluate t he possible role o f w o m e n as gate-keepers, w e g a t h e r e d data on the g e n d e r c o m p o s i t i o n of e a c h journal's editorial boar d and on the sex of the pri m ary e d i t o r for e v e r y year o f th e study. T h e journals e x a m i n e d in o u r study w e r e s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e of t h e i r strong identification as disciplinary journals in sociology. Specialty journals including t h o s e f o c u s e d on g e n d e r such as Gender a n d Society w e r e d e l i b e r a t e l y e x c l u d e d f r o m the analysis b e c a u s e o u r focus is on "mainstream" journals and n o t t h o s e d e v o t e d to g en der . T he journals w e e x a m i n e d include: the A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f Sociology (AJS), the American Sociological Review (ASR), The A m e r i c a n Sociologist (TAS), th e J o u r n a l o f Health a n d Social Behavior (JHSB), t he J o u r n a l o f Marriage a n d the Family (JMF), Social Forces (SF), Social Problems (SP), Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ), Social Science Quarterly (SSQ), Sociological Forum (SForum), Sociological Perspectives (SPerspectives), Sociological Quarterly (SQuarterly), Sociological Spectrum (SSpect rum ), Sociological Theory (STheory), and Sociology o f Education (SOE). The A m e r i c a n Sociologist was n o t p u b l i s h e d b e t w e e n 1982 and 1987, and Sociological F o r u m began publica46
The American Sociologist/Fall 1998
tion in 1986. (Hereafter we may refer to an individual journal by its full or abbreviated title and to t h e m collectively as "the journals.") ~ Many of the journals w e included have high prestige ratings (Allen 1990), and are high-impact journals in the discipline (Institute for Scientific Information [ISI] 1991). G e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles were identified by searching the Sociofile database, 5 an i n d e x of the periodical literature in sociology, and by visual e x a m i n a t i o n of the titles and abstracts of all articles in the journals selected for this study. Articles were c o u n t e d as gender-content articles if in their title or abstract m e n t i o n was made of a variation of at least one of the following search terms: w o m e n , w o m a n , girl, sex, sexuality, gender, female, and feminism. 6 We c o u n t e d all articles, notes, and research notes in our study as the population of research articles. We e x c l u d e d from the population of articles book reviews, letters to the editors, c o m m e n t a r i e s and replies, and short i n t r o d u c t o r y notes w r i t t e n by regular journal editors. As the standard of presentation of c o n t e n t varies w i t h each journal, the two senior authors judged on a case-by-case basis w h e t h e r or not to include or exclude as an article any questionable journal item. 7 Results
Gender content articles. Data collection yielded a cumulative ten-year total of 1,826 gender-content articles. Table 1 indicates the n u m b e r and p e r c e n t a g e of total g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles by journal rank included in our study along w i t h comparable data from the Ward and Grant (1985) study covering the previous decade. For the ten-year period, 1974-1983, Ward and Grant (1985) f o u n d only 19 p e r c e n t of the total articles in their review addressed gender. 8 In our sample b e t w e e n 1984 and 1993, 34 p e r c e n t of the total articles published addressed gender. The increased proportion of articles addressing g e n d e r is not merely the result of differences in the journals examined. For the nine journals our study has in c o m m o n w i t h Ward and Grant's (1985), the n u m b e r of g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles increased from 651 articles in the 1974-1983 period to 885 articles in the 1984-1993 period. For individual journals, the n u m b e r of g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles increased in AJS from 48 to 87, in ASR from 99 to 122, in SF from 76 to 123, in SP from 93 to 114, in SPQ from 87 to 126, in Sociological Perspectives from 38 to 60, in Sociological Quarterly from 62 to 90, and in SOE from 46 to 65. The only journal w i t h fewer gender-content articles during the most r e c e n t period was JHSB, in w h i c h there was a slight decline from 102 to 98 articles. Journal sponsorship. A b r e a k d o w n of articles by journal sponsorship indicates that the five ASA-sponsored journals in our sample published 23.4 p e r c e n t of the total gender-content articles and that the five journals s p o n s o r e d by regional associations published 26.7 p e r c e n t of the total. The remaining five journals a c c o u n t e d for 49.8 p e r c e n t of the total gender-content articles (note that JMF, a m e m b e r of this set of journals, a c c o u n t e d for 32.5 p e r c e n t of total articles). The percentage of total gender-content articles published each year by all journals in c o m b i n a t i o n ranged from a low of 9.1 p e r c e n t in 1993 to a high of 11.2 p e r c e n t in 1992. 9 There is a reasonable a m o u n t of year-to-year fluctuation Wailer, Dunn, and Watson
47
Journal
TABLE 1 R a n k , 1 N u m b e r . a n d Percentage o f G e n d e r - C o n t e n t 1974-1983 and 1984-1993 1974-19832
Journal Name
Rank
American Sociological Review (ASR) American Journal of Sociology (AJS) Social Forces (SF) Social Problems (SocProb) Sociology of Education (SOE) Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) Sociological Quarterly (SQ) Journal of Health and Social Behavior (JHSB) Sociological Perspectives (SocPersp) Journal of Marriage and the Family (JMF) Social Science Quarterly (SSQ) The American Sociologist (TAS) Sociological Forum (SocForum) Sociological Spectrum (SocSpect) Sociological Theory (SocTheory) Total Number of Articles
1 2 3 4 8 9 10 15 20 23 35 59 __5 __ __
#
(%)3
99 48 76 93 46 87 62 102 38 __~
(15.2) (7.4) (11.7) (14.2) (7.1) (13.4) (9.5) (15.7) (5.8)
651
Articles.
1984-1993 # 122 87 123 114 65 126 90 98 60 594 149 38 64 83 13 1826
(%)3 (6.7) (4.8) (6.7) (6.2) (3.6) (6.9) (4.9) (5.4) (3.3) (32.5) (8.2) (2.1) (3.5) (4.5) (0.7)
1. Journal rank is derived from Mitchel Allen (1990), The Ranking of Sociology Journals, ASA Footnotes 9 (Nov.): 4-5. 2. 1974-1983 data are from Ward and Grant (1985). 3. Values represent the percentage of all gender-content articles in the ten-year period, not the percentages of a journal's articles that are gender-content. 4. No value in this column means the journal was not included in Ward and Grant (1985). 5. No value in this column means the journal was not included in Allen (1990).
in t h e total n u m b e r o f g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles p u b l i s h e d , b u t t h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e n o t r e n d o t h e r w i s e . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e m o s t r e c e n t y e a r c o v e r e d in o u r s a m p l e , 1993, h a d t h e s e c o n d f e w e s t g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles p u b l i s h e d . An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f an individual j o u r n a l ' s g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles p u b l i s h e d e a c h y e a r o v e r t h e t e n - y e a r p e r i o d also s h o w s m o d e r a t e y e a r - t o - y e a r f l u c t u a t i o n , w i t h i n c r e a s e s in o n e y e a r f o l l o w e d b y d e c r e a s e s in t h e n e x t a n d v i c e versa. F e m i n i s t - o r i e n t e d a r t i c l e s . Less t h a n o n e - t h i r d (544 articles) o f t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles e x a m i n e d w e r e c o d e d as f e m i n i s t - o r i e n t e d articles ( s e e T a b l e 2). As w a s i n d i c a t e d in t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n o f t h e p a p e r , w e d o n o t i n c l u d e "sex-as-a-variable" articles o r w h a t W a r d a n d G r a n t ( 1 9 8 5 ) l a b e l e d "add i t i o n s " articles in o u r f e m i n i s t - o r i e n t e d c a t e g o r y . W e classify t h e s e as g e n d e r issue articles. For t h e d e c a d e p r i o r to o u r s t u d y W a r d a n d G r a n t ( 1 9 8 5 ) f o u n d a m u c h h i g h e r p e r c e n t a g e , 52 p e r c e n t ( 3 7 7 ) o f t h e total g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles e x a m i n e d , to b e f e m i n i s t - o r i e n t e d ( c a t e g o r i z e d as r e c a s t s o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s in t h e i r study). Surprisingly, w h e n the n i n e c o m m o n j o u r n a l s f o r t h e t w o timep e r i o d s are c o m p a r e d , t h e overall n u m b e r o f f e m i n i s t - o r i e n t e d articles also dec l i n e d f r o m 337 in W a r d a n d G r a n t ' s ( 1 9 8 5 ) s t u d y to 229 articles in o u r study. W e s u s p e c t that this d e c l i n e results f r o m c h a n g i n g n o r m s in t h e d i s c i p l i n e w h i c h
48
The American Sociologist/Fall 1998
increasingly require that sex, or minimally that sex as a control variable, be included in empirical research. Thus, the changing norms of empirical research may a c c o u n t for the higher overall n u m b e r of gender-content articles observed for the period we e x a m i n e d and the resulting lower p r o p o r t i o n of feministo r i e n t e d articles. Not surprisingly, the journal JMF contained the highest n u m b e r of genderc o n t e n t articles (32.5 p e r c e n t of all gender-content articles), with an N of 594. Five additional journals published over 100 gender-content articles each: ASR (122), SF (123), SP (114), SPQ (126), and SSQ (149). The p e r c e n t a g e of the total g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles published in these journals ranged from 6.2 to 9.2 percent. Seven of the remaining journals published b e t w e e n 50 and 100 genderc o n t e n t articles each, ranging b e t w e e n 3.3 and 5.4 p e r c e n t of the total n u m b e r of g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles. Only two journals published less than fifty genderc o n t e n t articles over the ten-year period: TAS (38 articles, 2.1 p e r c e n t of the total) and ST (13 articles, less than 1 p e r c e n t of the total). The interpretation of statistics for these two journals should, however, be treated cautiously due to interruptions and variations in the publication schedule. Feminist-oriented articles constituted the largest share of gender-content articles in the following journals: ST (61.5 percent), Sociological Spectrum (48.2 percent), Sociological F o r u m (50 percent), Social Problems (45.6 percent), and SOE (44.6 percent). With the e x c e p t i o n of the journal Social Problems, these five journals published less than 5 p e r c e n t each of the total n u m b e r of gender-content articles. Feministoriented articles r e p r e s e n t e d the smallest share of g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles in the following journals: SPQ (10.3 percent), ASR (17.2 percent), AJS (18.4 percent), and JHSB (18.4 percent), all highly ranked journals (see Table 1). Editors a n d editorial boards. The majority of articles in our dataset, 1,477 or 80.9 percent, w e r e published in journals w i t h male editors. However, w e f o u n d no significant relationship (as indicated by chi-square tests) b e t w e e n the sex of a journal's editor and w h e t h e r or not the gender-content articles w e r e feministoriented. Examination of the g e n d e r composition of journal editorial boards yields different results. For the gender-content articles, 66.8 p e r c e n t w e r e published in journals with editorial boards c o m p o s e d of at least 30 p e r c e n t w o m e n . 1~ The relationship b e t w e e n the sex composition of the editorial board and the n u m b e r of feminist-oriented articles was significant, with knowledge of the editorial board's sex composition resulting in a 22 p e r c e n t r e d u c t i o n in the p r e d i c t i o n errors for w h e t h e r or not the article was classified as feminist-oriented (eta = .229). Data on female editorial board representation are provided in Table 3. While it might be tempting to conclude from this association that editorial boards p e r f o r m a gate-keeping function for feminist-oriented research, it is i m p o r t a n t to recognize that there is often a significant lag time b e t w e e n the a c c e p t a n c e of an article and its publication date. Consequently, the sex c o m p o s i t i o n of an editorial board may be markedly different from its c o m p o s i t i o n w h e n an article was submitted for review and w h e n it was a c c e p t e d for publication. Moreover, it is i m p o r t a n t to note that editorial board m e m b e r s do not necessarily review every article submitted for publication in a given journal. For these reasons, the findWaller, Dunn, and Watson
49
Qo
t.t
O
1. 1974-1983 data are from Ward and Grant (1985).
(3.8)
12
314
(13.4) (5.4) (9.9) (8.3) (10.5) (19.7) (5.7) (23.2)
42 17 31 26 33 62 18 73
American Sociological Review (ASR) American Journal of Sociology (AJS) Social Forces (SF) Social Problems (SocProb) Sociology of Education (SOE) Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) Sociological Quarterly (SQ) Journal of Health and Social Behavior (JHSB) Sociological Perspectives (SocPersp) Journal of Marriage and the Family (JMF) Social Science Quarterly (SSQ) The American Sociologist (TAS) Sociological Forum (SocForum) Sociological Spectrum (SocSpect) Sociological Theory (SocTheory) Total Number of Articles
(%)
#
1974-1983 t
101 71 92 62 36 113 55 80 46 424 99 23 32 43 5 1282
#
(7.9) (5.5) (7.2) (4.8) (2.8) (8.8) (4.3) (6.2) (3.6) (33.1) (7.7) (1.8) (2.5) (3.4) (0.3)
(%)
1984-1993
Gender-Content Articles
TABLE 2 and Percentage of Gender-Content and Feminist-Oriented 1974-1983 and 1984-1993.
Journal Name
Number
337
57 31 45 67 13 25 44 29 26
#
(16.9) (9.2) (13.4) (19.9) (3.9) (7.4) (13.1) (8.6) (7.7)
(%)
1974-1983
21 16 31 52 29 13 35 18 14 170 50 15 32 40 8 544
#
(3.9) (2.9) (5.7) (9.5) (5.3) (2.4) (6.4) (3.3) (2.6) (31.2) (9.2) (2.7) (5.9) (7.3) (1.5)
(%)
1984-1993
Feminist-Oriented Articles
Articles by Type,
ings r e p o r t e d in Table 3 regarding the sex composition of the journal editorial board must be i n t e r p r e t e d cautiously. As Ward and Grant (1985) note, it is quite possible that this association exists because the authors of feminist-oriented articles deliberately target such journals for submission of their work, assuming that a higher representation of females on the board is an indication of greater receptivity to feminist-oriented scholarship. Authorship. W h o are the authors of g e n d e r - c o n t e n t articles? Not surprisingly, the majority of articles had two or more co-authors (59 percent). Roughly equal p e r c e n t a g e s of articles w e r e authored by single and double authors (41 p e r c e n t and 40.1 percent, respectively). As indicated in Table 4, 13 p e r c e n t of all articles had three or more authors. As w e hypothesize, w h e n authorship is broken d o w n by sex, it is a p p a r e n t that slightly more of the single-author articles are a u t h o r e d by w o m e n ( w o m e n 49.4 percent; m e n 47.1 percent). W h e n articles have t w o authors, first authors are slightly more likely to be m e n ( m e n 51 percent; w o m e n 45.4 percent). Similarly, in articles with three or more authors, the first a u t h o r is more likely to be a man. Discussion
In this article w e e x a m i n e d the incidence of gender-content articles and the p r o p o r t i o n of feminist-oriented articles in sociology journals b e t w e e n 1984 and 1993. Many scholars since the 1970s anticipated that the intellectual c o n c e r n s of the discipline w o u l d turn increasingly toward questions of g e n d e r and incorporate a feminist perspective. Such a turn toward g e n d e r c o n t e n t and feminist perspectives should result in peer-reviewed journals becoming increasingly "feministoriented." While more gender-content and feminist-oriented scholarship in sociology could result from the logic of discovery and innovation, scholars also e x p e c t e d these to increase (a) as more w o m e n became authors and (b) as more w o m e n participated in the editorial decision-making process of the journals. Our findings indicated that there were more gender-content and feministo r i e n t e d articles in peer reviewed sociology journals b e t w e e n 1984 and 1993 than in the previous ten-year period. Proportionally, however, there w e r e f e w e r feminist-oriented articles b e t w e e n 1984 and 1993 than b e t w e e n 1974 and 1983. As the above analysis of journals included in our study and Grant and Ward's study indicates, the proportional decline is not attributable to our inclusion of m o r e journals than w e r e e x a m i n e d by Ward and Grant (1985) in the earlier period. In fact, there were proportionally f e w e r feminist-oriented articles in the journals c o m m o n to both studies c o m p a r e d to the additional journals analyzed in our study. Increasingly, the authors of gender-content scholarship are w o m e n . Increasingly, too, w o m e n o c c u p y important roles as gate-keepers in the p r o d u c t i o n of sociological knowledge. Some journals appear to be more "feminist-oriented" than other journals. Feminist-oriented scholarship does not enjoy a p r o m i n e n t position in any journal considered "mainstream." Our findings only enable us to speculate as to w h y feminist-oriented scholar-
Waller, Dunn, and Watson
51
tO
1. Missing values indicate journal was not in print. 2. Missing values denote years with no gender-content articles.
46 -
-
32 0
-
33 17 20 40 25 24 24 33 40 39 23
-
21 13 16 25 29 20 14 33 40 33 24
American Sociological Review (ASR) American Journal of Sociology (AJS) Social Forces (SF) Social Problems (SocProb) Sociology of Education (SOE) Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) Sociological Quarterly (SQ) Journal of Health and Social Behavior (JHSB) Sociological Perspectives (SocPersp) Journal of Marriage and the Family (JMF) Social Science Quarterly (SSQ) The American Sociologist (TAS) 1 Sociological Forum (SocForum) ~ Sociological Spectrum (SocSpect) Sociological Theory (SocTheory) 2
1985
-
1984
Journal Name
26 33 -
-
38 19 21 47 36 21 38 42 28 44 26
39 17 21 47 38 19 38 35 29 44 25 35 25 33
1987 35 21 20 44 36 23 38 42 29 49 26 35 17 46 -
1988
Female by Year
1986
TABLE 3 Editorial Board Percentage
33 18 21 41 40 23 38 50 29 52 25 35 14 46 20
1989 33 25 22 38 27 23 38 53 33 51 25 35 14 50 33
1990
42 24 26 45 25 32 35 47 50 52 26 35 14 36 33
1991
39 22 26 41 25 32 35 38 50 46 26 45 15 36 33
1992
36 16 28 42 36 42 52 41 24 38 25 56 46 36 25
1993
TABLE 4 Authorship o f G e n d e r - C o n t e n t Authorship Single Two Authors Three Authors Four or More
Frequency
Articles Percentage
749 733 233 111
41.0 40.1 12.8 6.2
353 370 26
47.1 49.4 3.5
374 333 26
51.0 45.4 3.5
398 308 25
54.4 42.1 3.4
121 104 8
51.9 44.6 3.4
127 95 10
54.7 40.9 4.3
125 94 11
54.3 40.8 4.8
Sex Single Author Male Female Don't Know Two Authors First Author Male Female Don't Know Second Author Male Female Don't Know Three Authors First Author Male Female Don't Know Second Author Male Female Don't Know Third Author Male Female Don't Know
s h i p t o d a y is n o t b e t t e r r e p r e s e n t e d in m a i n s t r e a m s o c i o l o g y journals. T o w n s e n d ' s ( 1 9 9 3 ) d e s c r i p t i o n o f f a c t o r s w h i c h c a u s e f e m i n i s t a u t h o r s to a v o i d s u b m i t t i n g m a n u s c r i p t s to c o r e e d u c a t i o n j o u r n a l s m a y also a p p l y to f e m i n i s t a u t h o r s in s o c i o l o g y . A c c o r d i n g to T o w n s e n d ( 1 9 9 3 ) , as an a l t e r n a t i v e p a r a d i g m , f e m i n i s t s c h o l a r s h i p m a y b e r e j e c t e d b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t r e f l e c t t h e c o m m o n l y a c c e p t e d a s s u m p t i o n s o f a field; e d i t o r s a n d r e v i e w e r s m a y r e j e c t it if t h e y b e l i e v e feminist r e s e a r c h is i d e o l o g y r a t h e r t h a n t r u e r e s e a r c h . F e m i n i s t a u t h o r s , c o n c e r n e d about such biases, may fear exclusion from the mainstream journals and thus s u b m i t t h e i r w o r k e l s e w h e r e . T h e e m e r g e n c e in r e c e n t y e a r s o f s o c i o l o g i c a l l y o r i e n t e d s p e c i a l t y j o u r n a l s , s u c h as Gender a n d Society, m a y a c t as a s a f e t y - v a l v e f o r r e s e a r c h u n a b l e to p e n e t r a t e t h e s o c i o l o g i c a l m a i n s t r e a m . M o r e o v e r , t h e p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f e x p l i c i t l y i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y w o m e n ' s s t u d i e s j o u r n a l s s u c h as Sex
Roles, W o m e n a n d Health, F e m i n i s t Studies, W o m e n ' s Studies I n t e r n a t i o n a l F o r u m , a n d Frontiers m a y p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e p u b l i s h i n g o u t l e t s f o r f e m i n i s t - o r i e n t e d r e s e a r c h o u t s i d e t h e t r a d i t i o n a l d i s c i p l i n a r y b o u n d a r i e s o f soc i o l o g y . It is likely t h a t s o m e f e m i n i s t a u t h o r s d e l i b e r a t e l y t a r g e t t h e s e o u t l e t s Waller, Dunn, and Watson
53
for their research as a form of voluntary separatism rather than in response to perceived exclusion from the sociological mainstream. The incorporation of feminist scholarship into the traditional social science disciplines has been varied. Feminist scholarship has fared better in some academic fields than in others. As Stacey and Thorne (1985) note, history, literature, and anthropology were hospitable early on to the aim of developing gendered understandings. More recently, g e n d e r e d interpretations have appeared in such diverse fields as archaeology (Gilchrist 1991; Engelstad 1991), international relations (see selection in Peterson 1992; W h i t w o r t h 1994), and, to a limited extent, e c o n o m i c s (see for example Selz, 1993; Folbre, 1993; Woolley, 1993; Strober, 1994; Strassmann, 1994). The e x t e n t to w h i c h feminist scholarship has had a positive impact on sociology, it w o u l d seem, is optimistically m o d e r a t e - certainly s o m e w h a t less than in a n t h r o p o l o g y yet greater than in political science, international relations, and economics. Early assessments of the impact of feminism on sociology have stressed the various ways in w h i c h feminism has been "contained" within the discipline. Stacey and Thorne (1985: 306) have argued that the c o n t a i n m e n t of feminism o c c u r r e d in three ways: (1) by the co-optation of g e n d e r by traditional perspectives, (2) by the inclusion of gender as a variable rather than as a central theoretical c o n c e p t , and (3) by marginalization. As Stacey (1995) n o w argues, even if feminism w e r e to have achieved a revolution in sociology it necessarily w o u l d have challenged the discipline's traditional positivistic boundaries. At its core, she says, sociology remains a positivistic field of knowledge. From a broader perspective, rather than the "marginalization of feminism," it may be more accurate to describe the "marginalization" or fragmentation of methodologies, theories, and orienting perspectives within the discipline. Our examination of h o w theories and methodologies were utilized in gender-content research supports such an interpretation: there exists a wide plurality of theories, theoretical perspectives, and methodological orientations emphasized within gender-content research. 11 That no single theoretical perspective, feminist-oriented or otherwise, dominates g e n d e r discourse in sociology today is not surprising. To the e x t e n t that there is a "feminist-oriented" perspective, 12 it is but one of m a n y perspectives in the discipline. This line of analysis is similar to Becker's (1979) conclusion that sociology is a fragmented field w i t h o u t a center, a situation that, according to H o w a r d (1987), makes a "feminist revolution" an unlikely event. Lengerman and Neibrugge-Brantley (cited in Ritzer 1992) argued that sociology has been slow to incorporate feminist scholarship into its mainstream because it seems so n e w and radical, because so many feminist scholars are not sociologists, because feminist t h e o r y is not a n c h o r e d in any established sociological paradigm, and because of suspicions about the scientific credentials of a scholarly undertaking closely linked to political activism. Howard (1987) suggests that the ontological and epistemological diffuseness of the discipline also p r e s e n t barriers to the incorporation of feminist perspectives. Lemert (1988: 806) characterizes feminist scholarship as a "theoretical revolution i n d e p e n d e n t of (and aggressively hostile to) the bureaucratic disciplines." He argues that 54
The American Sociologist/FaU 1998
w h i l e perspectives critical of the disciplines like Mill's p o w e r elite thesis launch their criticisms from a secure position within them, feminist scholarship emerges from a history of exclusion. These factors may all c o m b i n e to explain w h y feminist scholarship is considered by many to be a rather serious challenge to sociological orthodoxy. It is questionable that any discipline can assimilate app r o a c h e s that repudiate its core knowledge. Interestingly, some scholars once quite pessimistic about the potential for integrating feminist scholarship into sociology, n o w express c o n c e r n about sociology subsuming and thus circumscribing feminist thought. Stacey (1995: 312) n o w states that sociology's "diverse qualitative, interpretive, and theoretical schools have, in varying degrees, a c c o m m o d a t e d themselves to feminist inquiry w i t h o u t m u c h evidence of conceptual turmoil." Her c o n c e r n s that the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of feminist scholarship into the discipline may limit or c o r r u p t it is c o u n t e r e d by Fitzgerald et al. (1995), w h o express the view that the transformational quality of marginalized feminist scholarship has e n h a n c e d the sociological mainstream. Does w h a t w e n o w k n o w about feminism and gender-issue research published in the sociological mainstream help inform our understanding of change in the social sciences more generally? Might it be that the structure of the discipline itself is responsible for the fate of the feminist "revolution" in sociology? C o u c h e d in these terms, the question of feminist scholarship in sociology b e c o m e s a question for the "theory of scientific organizations" (Fuchs, 1992, 1993). Understood as a question of change in the social sciences, it is useful to note the characteristics of the fields in w h i c h feminism has been most successful. Many fields in the humanities and social sciences in w h i c h feminism has had the greatest s u c c e s s e s - - f o r example, literature, parts of anthropology, and h i s t o r y - are organizationally similar. Fuchs (1992, 1993) understands scientific change to be driven by c o m p e t i t i o n among k n o w l e d g e producers that takes place u n d e r the conditions of high or low mutual d e p e n d e n c e among k n o w l e d g e p r o d u c e r s and high or low task uncertainty of the w o r k process. The particular form of the innovation w h i c h results from the c o m p e t i t i o n among p r o d u c e r s is d e t e r m i n e d by the social relationships among them. In fields w h e r e task u n c e r t a i n t y is low and mutual d e p e n d e n c e is high, scientific w o r k takes the form of normal science and innovations result in increased specialization that reinforces the paradigmatic integrity of the field by producing cumulative advances in k n o w l e d g e . The social sciences and humanities only rarely resemble such a w o r k organization. 13 For the most part, the structure and organization of these fields are w e a k and the resources to p r o d u c e knowledge are widely dispersed. Consequently, mutual d e p e n d e n c e among practitioners within a field is low while task u n c e r t a i n t y is high. Such organizations p r o d u c e k n o w l e d g e that is highly c o n t e x t u a l i z e d and certainly non-cumulative. Change does occur, but innovations do not spread t h r o u g h o u t the entire discipline w h e n i n t e r d e p e n d e n c i e s a m o n g scholars in a field are weak and w h e n scholars have little confidence in the possibility of objective social science; indeed, innovations are likely to spread t h r o u g h networks a c r o s s similarly organized disciplines as in the case of interdisciplinary feminism. If one hopes for a "great transformation" or a "feminist revolution" in Waller, Dunn, and Watson
55
s o c i o l o g y (or in the social s c i e n c e s more generally), then, from the p e r s p e c t i v e of the theory of scientific organizations, w e are led to c o n c l u d e that s u c h a r e v o l u t i o n is unlikely if not impossible in s o c i o l o g y today. But this is n o t to say that the assimilation of feminism into the sociological mainstream is n o t occurring. It is only to say that the path of c h a n g e is o n e of absorption through particular networks of practitioners in the discipline. As such, w e are led to argue that the impact of feminist theory o n s o c i o l o g y is likely to c o n t i n u e o n a trajectory similar to that of other critical theoretical perspectives in recent decades such as Marxism, symbolic interactionism, and e t h n o m e t h o d o l o g y . Notes 1. Please d i r e c t all c o r r e s p o n d e n c e to D a v i d V. Waller, A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r o f S o c i o l o g y , D e p a r t m e n t o f Socio l o g y a n d A n t h r o p o l o g y , B o x 19599, U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, A r l i n g t o n , TX 7 6 0 1 9 o r to W a l l e r @ u t a . e d u . 2. W a r d a n d G r a n t ' s ( 1 9 8 5 ) c a t e g o r y s c h e m e c a n b e m a p p e d i n t o o u r s c h e m e as follows: t h e i r c a t e g o r y ~additions" is e q u i v a l e n t to o u r c a t e g o r y " g e n d e r - i s s u e " a n d t h e i r c a t e g o r i e s " m o d i f i c a t i o n s " a n d " r e c a s t s " a r e e q u i v a l e n t to o u r c a t e g o r y " f e m i n i s t - o r i e n t e d . ~ 3. W a r d a n d G r a n t ( 1 9 9 1 ) f o u n d t h a t f e m a l e a u t h o r s w h o w r o t e a b o u t g e n d e r w e r e m o r e likely to p r o d u c e j o i n t - a u t h o r e d r a t h e r t h a n s o l o - a u t h o r e d articles. This m a y b e i n d i c a t i v e o f a b r o a d e r t r e n d in s o c i o l o g y a n d t h e social s c i e n c e s in g e n e r a l (see E n d e r s b y 1996). 4. Five o f t h e j o u r n a l s a r e p u b l i c a t i o n s o f t h e A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n (ASA); six a r e p u b l i c a t i o n s o f t h e m a j o r r e g i o n a l s o c i o l o g i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n s ; a n d o n e is p u b l i s h e d b y t h e S o c i e t y for t h e S t u d y of Social P r o b l e m s (SSSP) a n d o n e b y the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o n Family R e l a t i o n s (NCFR), r e s p e c t i v e l y . W e i n c l u d e d t w o j o u r n a l s w h i c h w e r e n o t s p o n s o r e d b y p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s b u t are s t r o n g l y i d e n t i f i a b l e as Usocio l o g y " j o u r n a l s : AJS a n d TAS. It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t TAS w a s an official p u b l i c a t i o n o n t h e ASA u n t i l 1982. T h e p u b l i c a t i o n c y c l e o f t h e j o u r n a l AJS, ASR, a n d SF b e g i n s in m i d y e a r so t h e r e is n o t a d i r e c t c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n y e a r a n d v o l u m e f o r t h e s e j o u r n a l s . T h e s a m e is t r u e f o r Social Problems d u r i n g t h e late 1980s. Sociological Forum, t h e official j o u r n a l o f t h e Eastern S o c i o l o g i c a l Society, w a s first p u b l i s h e d in 1986. T h e ASA b e g a n p u b l i s h i n g Sociological Theory (ST) w i t h v o l u m e t h r e e in 1985. T h e first t w o v o l u m e s o f ST w e r e p u b l i s h e d b y Josey-Bass Inc. ST w a s p u b l i s h e d b i a n n u a l l y f r o m 1 9 8 5 until 1 9 9 3 w h e n it b e g a n to b e i s s u e d t h r e e times a y e a r . W e e x c l u d e d f r o m s t u d y t w o ASA j o u r n a l s , Contemporary Sociology (CS), a j o u r n a l of s c h o l a r l y r e v i e w s , a n d Teaching Sociology ( I S ) , a j o u r n a l d e v o t e d m a i n l y to pedagogy. 5. Sociofile, p u b l i s h e d b y S o c i o l o g i c a l A b s t r a c t s , Inc., is a r e f e r e n c e tool available in m a n y a c a d e m i c libraries. 6. T h e s e a r c h t e r m s w e u s e to i d e n t i f y g e n d e r - c o n t e n t a r t i c l e s f o r a n a l y s i s are s u f f i c i e n t b e c a u s e t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r an a r t i c l e ' s i n c l u s i o n is t h a t it c o n t a i n " o n e o r m o r e " o f t h e s e a r c h t e r m s listed. T h u s , a r t i c l e s a b o u t m a l e o r m e n ' s sexuality o r sex r o l e s w o u l d b e i n c l u d e d . Similarly, a r t i c l e s a b o u t m a s c u l i n i t y t y p i c a l l y d i s c u s s femininity, a r t i c l e s a b o u t m a s c u l i n e r o l e s d i s c u s s feminine roles, a n d a r t i c l e s a b o u t b o y s d i s c u s s girls, etc. M o r e o v e r , w e are n o t t r o u b l e d t h a t this s e a r c h t e c h n i q u e m a y h a v e o m i t t e d a small n u m b e r o f a r t i c l e s f o c u s e d e x c l u s i v e l y o n m e n as o u r f o c u s in o n t h e i m p a c t o f s c h o l a r s h i p a b o u t w o m e n o n t h e discipline. 7. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e UInformation N o t e , " " G e n d e r Roles a n d W o m e n ' s Issues as a n A r e a o f I n t e r e s t A m o n g Sociologists, 1 9 7 5 - 1 9 8 5 " b y Wolf, S k i p p e r , Steed, a n d A l p a u g h in Sociological Inquiry, is c o u n t e d as a n article, b u t a ~Review Essay" in AJS s u c h Alan Sica's " T h e P o w e r o f Talk" is not. 8. It is i m p o r t a n t to n o t e t h a t o u r p o p u l a t i o n o f s o c i o l o g y j o u r n a l s differs f r o m W a r d a n d G r a n t ' s ( 1 9 8 5 ) . W e i n c l u d e d n i n e o f t h e t e n j o u r n a l s t h e y e x a m i n e d in o u r s t u d y . Unlike W a r d a n d G r a n t , w e d i d n o t i n c l u d e Work and Occupations in o u r set o f j o u r n a l s . 9, D a t a c o l l e c t i o n is c u r r e n t l y u n d e r w a y w h i c h will e n a b l e t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f e a c h j o u r n a l ' s total a r t i c l e s t h a t a d d r e s s g e n d e r - c o n t e n t . 10. W i t h t w o e x c e p t i o n s , t h e j o u r n a l s s h o w e d a n overall i n c r e a s e f r o m 1 9 8 4 to 1 9 9 3 in t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f f e m a l e e d i t o r i a l b o a r d m e m b e r s . T h e p e r c e n t a g e o f f e m a l e editorial b o a r d m e m b e r s r e m a i n e d c o n s t a n t f o r t h e j o u r n a l Social Science Quarterly a n d d e c r e a s e d f o r the j o u r n a l Sociological Perspectives. 11. W e e x a m i n e d t h e u s e o f t h e o r i e s a n d t h e t y p e s o f m e t h o d o l o g i e s e m p l o y e d in g e n d e r - c o n t e n t a r t i c l e s in o u r original r e s e a r c h b u t d o n o t r e p o r t d e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s h e r e . 12. O f c o u r s e t h e e n t i r e d e b a t e a b o u t a ~ s t a n d p o i n t t h e o r y ~ w i t h i n f e m i n i s m q u e s t i o n s t h e utility o f i d e n t i f y i n g ~the ~ f e m i n i s t p e r s p e c t i v e . T h i s i n t e r n a l d e b a t e is b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f t h e c o n c e r n s o f this article. 13. E.g., t h e field o f e c o n o m i c s is a s u c c e s s f u l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f this t y p e ( F u c h s , 1992; see also H o w a r d , 1987).
56
The American
Sociologist/Fall
1998
References Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession 1973 The Status o f W o m e n in Sociology, 1968-1972. Washington, D.C.: The American Sociological Association. Allen, Michael 1990 "The Ranking of Sociology Journals." ASA Footnotes 9 (November): 4-5. Alway, Joan 1995 "The Trouble with Gender: Tales of the Still-Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociological Theory." Sociological Theory 13, no. 3 (November): 209-228. Andersen, Margaret L. 1988 Thinking A b o u t Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex a n d Gender. N e w York: Macmillan. Becker, Howard S. 1979 "What's Happening to Sociology?" Society 15, no. 5: 19-24. Bernard, Jesse 1987 "Reviewing the Impact of Women's Studies on Sociology." In Christie Farnham, ed., The I m p a c t o f Feminist Research in the Academy. Bloomington, IN; University of Indiana Press. Cole, Jonathan and Harriet Zuckerman 1987 ~Marriage, Motherhood, and Research Performance in Science. ~ Scientific American 255 (February): 119-125. Crane, Diana 1967 "The Gatekeepers of Science; Some Factors Affecting the Selection of Articles for Scientific Journals." The American Sociologist 2, no. 4: 195-201. Daniels, Arlene Kaplan 1975 A Survey o f Research Concerns on Women's Issues (ed. Laura Kent). Washington: Association of American Colleges. Devault, M. L. 1996 "Talking Back to Sociology - Distinctive Contributions of Feminist Methodology. ~ A n n u a l Review o f Sociology 22: 29-50. Endersby, James W. 1996 "Collaborative Research in the Social Sciences: Multiple Authorship and Publication Credit." Social Science Quarterly 77, no. 2 (June): 375-392. Engelstad, Ericka 1991 "Images of Power and Contradiction - Feminist Theory and Post-Processional Archaeology." A n t i q u i t y 65, no. 248 (September): 502-514. Fitzgerald, Tina et al. 1995 "What's Wrong Is Right: A Response to the State of the Discipline." Sociological Forum 10, no. 3: 493498. Folbre, Nancy 1993 "How Does She Know - Feminist Theories of Gender Bias in Economics." History o f Political E c o n o m y 25, no. 1 (Spring): 167-184. Fox, Mary Frank 1983 "Publication Productivity Among Scientists: A Critical Review." Social Studies o f Science 13: 285-305. Fnchs, Stephan 1991 The Professional Quest f o r Truth: A Social Theory o f Science a n d Knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 1993 "A Sociological Theory of Scientific Change." Social Forces 71, no. 4 (June):933-953. Gilchrist, Roberta 1991 "Women's Archaeology - Political Feminism, Gender Theory and Historical Revision. ~ A n t i q u i t y 65, no. 248 (September):495-501. Grant, Linda and Kathryn B. Ward 1991 "Gender Publishing in Sociology." Gender a n d Society 5, no. 2 (june): 207-233. Hagstrom, Warren O. 1965 The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books. Howard, Judith A. 1987 "Dilemmas in Feminist Theorizing: Politics and the Academy." Current Perspectives in Social Theory 6: 279-312. Institute for Scientific Information [ISI] 1992 S S C I J o u r n a l Citation Reports. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Scientific Information, Inc. Lemert, Charles 1988 "Future of the Sixties Generation and Social Theory." Theory a n d Society 17: 789-807. Peterson, V. Spike 1992 Gendered States: Feminist (Re)visions o f lnternational Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Waller, Dunn, and Watson
57
Ritzer, George 1992 Sociological Theory. 3rd ed. New York: MacGraw-Hill. Roberts, Helen 1981 ~Some of the Boys Won't Play Any More; The Impact of Feminism on Sociology." In Marcia Millman and Rosabeth Moss Kanter, eds., Another Voice: Feminist Perspectives on Social Life a n d Social Sciences. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Ross, Patricia A. and Katherine W. Jones 1993 "Shifting Gender Boundaries: Women's Inroads into Academic Sociology." Work a n d Occupations 20, no. 4 (November): 395-428. Seiz, Janet 1993 "Feminism and the History of Economic Thought." History o f Political Economy 25, no. 1 (Spring): 185-201. Singley, Susan and Anna Chase 1998 ~American Sociological Review Authorship Patterns: Are There Gender Differences?" Footnotes 26, no. 4 (April): 1+. Spender, Dale (ed,) 1981 Men's Studies Modified: the lmpact o f Feminism on the Academic Disciplines. New York: Pergamon Press. Stacey, Judith 1995 "Disloyal to the Disciplines: A Feminist Trajectory in the Boarderlands." In Donna C. Stanton and Abigail Stewart, eds., Feminism in the Academy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Stacey, Judith and Barrie Thorne 1985 "The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology." Social Problems 32, no. 4 (April): 301-316. Strassmann, D. L. 1994 "Feminist Thought and Economics - Or, What Do the Visigoths Know?" American Economic Review 84, no. 2 (May): 153-158. Strober, M. H. 1994 "Rethinking Economics Through a Feminist Lens." American Economic Review 84, no. 2 (May): 143147. Townsend, Barbara K. 1993 "Feminist Thought in Core Higher Education Journals." The Review o f Higher Education 17, no. 1 (Fall): 21-41. Ward, Kathryn B. and Linda Grant 1985 "The Feminist Critique and a Decade of Published Research in Sociology Journals." The Sociological Quarterly 26, no. 2: 139-157. 1991 "Coauthorship, Gender, and Publication Among Sociologists." In Mary Margaret Fonow and Judith Cook, eds., Beyond Methodology." Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Whitworth, Sandra 1994 Feminism and International Relations: Towards a Political Economy of Gender in Interstate a n d Non-Governmental Institutions. New York: St. Martin's Press. Woolley, Frances 1993 ~The Feminist Challenge to Neoclassical Economics." Cambridge Journal o f Economics 17, no. 4 (December): 485-500. Zuckerman, Harriet 1988 "The Sociology of Science." In Nell J. Smelser, ed., Handbook o f Sociology, pp. 511-574. Newbury Park: Sage.
58
T h e A t n e r t c a n Sociologist/Fall 1998
