Platt Jennifer
Freeman Building, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QE, Sussex, UK.
Am Sociol. 2016;47(4):459-485. doi: 10.1007/s12108-016-9330-0. Epub 2016 Sep 14.
It has been common for studies presented as about American sociology as a whole to rely on data compiled from leading journals ( [ASR] and [AJS]), or about presidents of the American Sociological Association [ASA], to represent it. Clearly those are important, but neither can be regarded as providing a representative sample of American sociology. Recently, Stephen Turner has suggested that dominance in the ASA rests with a 'cartel' initially formed in graduate school, and that it favors work in a style associated with the leading journals. The adequacy of these ideas is examined in the light of available data on the last 20 years, which show that very few of the presidents were in the same graduate schools at the same time. All presidents have had distinguished academic records, but it is shown that their publication strategies have varied considerably. Some have had no ASR publications except their presidential addresses, while books and large numbers of other journals not normally mentioned in this context have figured in their contributions, as well as being more prominent in citations. It seems clear that articles in the leading journals have not been as closely tied to prestigious careers as has sometimes been suggested, and that if there is a cartel it has not included all the presidents.
一直以来，那些声称是关于美国社会学整体情况的研究通常依赖于从主要期刊（《美国社会学评论》[ASR]和《美国社会学杂志》[AJS]）汇编的数据，或者关于美国社会学协会[ASA]主席的情况来呈现美国社会学。显然，这些都很重要，但它们都不能被视为提供了美国社会学的代表性样本。最近，斯蒂芬·特纳指出，美国社会学协会中的主导地位由最初在研究生阶段形成的一个“卡特尔”把持，而且它青睐与主要期刊相关风格的研究。鉴于过去20年的现有数据，对这些观点的合理性进行了审视，这些数据显示，同时在同一所研究生院就读的主席寥寥无几。所有主席都有杰出的学术记录，但研究表明他们的出版策略差异很大。有些人除了主席演讲外没有在《美国社会学评论》上发表过文章，而书籍以及大量在此背景下通常未被提及的其他期刊在他们的贡献中占据重要地位，并且在被引用方面更为突出。很明显，主要期刊上的文章与享有声望的职业生涯之间的联系并不像有时所认为的那样紧密，而且如果存在一个卡特尔，它也并未囊括所有主席。
