Changes in the stratification structure of sociology, 1964–1992

Early sociological studies of the American higher education system noted that despite a widespread ideology of egalitarianism, both individuals and departments are highly stratified. Their main findings were that 1) the distribution of Ph.D. departments in any given field tended to cluster at the low end of the prestige hierarchy; 2) a few elite graduate programs graduated the vast majority of all Ph.D.’s awarded in the United States; 3) downward mobility for all but a handful of Ph.D.’s was inevitable; and 4) elite graduate programs protected their prestige through inbreeding. Since those studies there have been few attempts to document changes in the structure of stratification in scientific disciplines in general, and sociology in particular. I use longitudinal data on departments and individual data on recent sociology Ph.D.’s to study changes in the structure of the stratification system in sociology over the past 30 years. My results reflect a mixed picture of change and stability; while the distribution of departmental prestige, the production of Ph.D.’s, and inbreeding mechanisms have shifted since 1964, the pattern of placement of new Ph.D’s in doctorate-granting departments has changed very little.

[1]  Allan M. Cartter,et al.  An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education , 1966 .

[2]  L. Wolfle,et al.  A latent-variable causal model of faculty reputational ratings , 1987 .

[3]  S. Lipset The state of American Sociology , 1994 .

[4]  Lowell L. Hargens,et al.  Sponsored and Contest Mobility of American Academic Scientists , 1967 .

[5]  I. Horowitz The decomposition of sociology , 1994 .

[6]  Reece McGee The Function of Institutional Inbreeding , 1960, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  B. Reskin Scientific Productivity and the Reward Structure of Science , 1977 .

[8]  R. Perrucci,et al.  Market conditions, productivity, and promotion among university faculty , 1983 .

[9]  Harriet Zuckerman,et al.  Stratification in American Science , 1970 .

[10]  J. S. Long,et al.  Productivity and Academic Position in the Scientific Career , 1978 .

[11]  L. Baird,et al.  What characterizes a productive research department? , 1986 .

[12]  Diana Crane,et al.  The Academic Marketplace Revisited: A Study of Faculty Mobility Using the Cartter Ratings , 1970, American Journal of Sociology.

[13]  Charles J. Andersen,et al.  A rating of graduate programs , 1970 .

[14]  Lowell L. Hargens,et al.  An Examination of Recent Hypotheses About Institutional Inbreeding , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[15]  L. Hargens,et al.  Determinants of Disciplinary Discontent , 1994 .

[16]  W. Hagstrom Inputs, Outputs, and the Prestige of University Science Departments , 1971 .

[17]  J. S. Long,et al.  DEPARTMENTAL EFFECTS ON SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTIVITY , 1990 .

[18]  Dolores L. Burke,et al.  A New Academic Marketplace , 1988 .

[19]  James A. Davis,et al.  What's wrong with sociology? , 1994 .

[20]  D. Crane Scientists at major and minor universities: a study of productivity and recognition. , 1965, American sociological review.

[21]  P. Allison,et al.  Entrance into the Academic Career , 1979 .

[22]  M. Saunier Objective measures as predictors of reputational ratings , 1985 .

[23]  Bernard Berelson,et al.  From Graduate Education in the United States , 1961 .

[24]  Lowell L. Hargens,et al.  Patterns of Mobility of New Ph.D.'s among American Academic Institutions. , 1969 .

[25]  Lowell L. Hargens,et al.  Scientific Consensus and Academic Status Attainment Patterns. , 1982 .

[26]  Barbara F. Reskin,et al.  Academic Sponsorship and Scientists' Careers. , 1979 .

[27]  Theodore Caplow,et al.  The Academic Marketplace , 1959 .