ArticlePublisher preview available

(Why) is the Sociology of Religion Marginalized? Results from a Survey Experiment

October 2023
The American Sociologist 54(3):1-27

Authors:

By several metrics, the sociology of religion subfield and its specialists are marginalized within academic sociology. Though various reasons for that marginalization have been ventured, systematic evidence is limited. This study used a 2022 survey experiment to assess how academic sociologists perceive the sociology of religion and its specialists and the potential biases influencing their evaluations. Sociology faculty and trainees (N = 536) were randomly assigned to evaluate one of six sociology subfields and their respective specialists. Sociology of religion was rated as the least mainstream, but was rated middle-of-the-pack in scientific rigor, need within sociology departments, and interest to undergraduates. Though sociologists of religion were rated comparably to specialists in other subfields on characteristics indicating intellectual rigor, they were more often characterized as “religious” and “conservative,” and participants who characterized religion specialists as such downgraded the subfield on nearly every metric. Additional analyses show lower ratings were not due to generalized negativity toward “me-search.” And secular sociologists were more likely than religiously affiliated ones to downgrade the religion subfield when its specialists were perceived as “conservative.”

Number of Listings for the Most In-Demand Subfields and Religion on the American Sociological Association Jobs Board, 2016–2022. Source: American Sociological Association (2023)

…

Ratings of six subfields in academic sociology by rigor, need for departments, and interest to undergraduates. Source: Subfields in Academic Sociology Survey (N = 536). Note: Asterisks indicate significant difference from religion. + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

…

Rating Sociology of Religion By Whether Participants Labeled Sociologists of Religion as Religious, Male, or Conservative. Panel A: When religion scholars are labeled “religious.” Panel B: When religion scholars are labeled “male.” Panel C. When sociologists of religion are labeled “conservative.” Source: Subfields in Academic Sociology Survey (N = 83). Note: Asterisks indicate significant difference from comparison group. + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

…

Rating Sociology of Religion By Whether Participants Labeled Sociologists of Religion as Religious, But Not Conservative. Source: Subfields in Academic Sociology Survey (N = 53). Note: Asterisks indicate significant difference from comparison group. * p < .05

…

Rating Sociology of Religion By Whether Participants Labeled Sociologists of Religion as Nonreligious, Subjective, or Liberal. Panel A: When religion scholars are labeled “nonreligious.” Panel B: When religion scholars are labeled “subjective.” Panel C. When sociologists of religion are labeled “liberal.” Source: Subfields in Academic Sociology Survey (N = 83) Note: Asterisks indicate significant difference from comparison group. + p < .10; ** p < .01

…

Figures - available from: The American Sociologist

This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.

Learn more

Content available from The American Sociologist

This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

Vol.:(0123456789)

The American Sociologist (2023) 54:485–511

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-023-09597-w

1 3

(Why) istheSociology ofReligion Marginalized? Results

fromaSurvey Experiment

SamuelL.Perry1

Accepted: 8 September 2023 / Published online: 6 October 2023

Abstract

By several metrics, the sociology of religion subfield and its specialists are margin-

alized within academic sociology. Though various reasons for that marginalization

have been ventured, systematic evidence is limited. This study used a 2022 survey

experiment to assess how academic sociologists perceive the sociology of religion

and its specialists and the potential biases influencing their evaluations. Sociol-

ogy faculty and trainees (N = 536) were randomly assigned to evaluate one of six

sociology subfields and their respective specialists. Sociology of religion was rated

as the least mainstream, but was rated middle-of-the-pack in scientific rigor, need

within sociology departments, and interest to undergraduates. Though sociologists

of religion were rated comparably to specialists in other subfields on characteris-

tics indicating intellectual rigor, they were more often characterized as “religious”

and “conservative,” and participants who characterized religion specialists as such

downgraded the subfield on nearly every metric. Additional analyses show lower

ratings were not due to generalized negativity toward “me-search.” And secular

sociologists were more likely than religiously affiliated ones to downgrade the reli-

gion subfield when its specialists were perceived as “conservative.”

Keywords Sociology· Academia· Experiment· Religion Scholarship· Prejudice

It is a timeless refrain among sociologists of religion that both the subfield and religion

research more broadly are marginalized within academic sociology (Beckford, 1985;

Cavendish & Starks, 2021; Guhin, 2014; Markofski, 2015; Marti, 2014; Mills, 1983;

Perry, 2024; Reed, 1974; Schnabel etal., 2023; Smith etal., 2013; Wuthnow, 2014).

Though most support for this pervasive understanding is anecdotal (Wuthnow, 2014),

the notion is not without evidence (for an early analysis, see Mills, 1983). Analyses of

top sociology journals show religion seldom merits space as a central focus (Kettell,

* Samuel L. Perry

samperry@ou.edu

1 University ofOklahoma, Department ofSociology, 780 Van Vleet Oval, Kaufman Hall,

73019Norman, OK, USA

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Limited Attention to Climate Change in U.S. Sociology

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

Sofia Hiltner

Climate change is increasingly recognized as not only a biophysical and technological problem but also a social one. Nonetheless, sociologists have expressed concern that sociology has paid relatively little attention to climate change. This deficit threatens to limit the frames available to understand and imagine solutions to the climate crisis. In this paper I report the most up-to-date and expansive empirical assessment of attention to climate change in sociology in the United States (U.S.). I find little to no mention of climate change across leading sociology journal articles (0.89%), conference sessions (1.5%), and faculty biographies (2.8%) and course listings (0.2%) in the 20 top-ranked departments in the U.S. Two leading journals, the American Sociological Review and American Journal of Sociology, have cumulatively published just three articles focused on climate change to date. This level of disciplinary attention appears low compared to the field’s engagement with other important social problems. My findings thus suggest that climate silence is persistent and pervasive in U.S. sociology. I discuss the implications of this silence and outline opportunities for sociologists, funders, journalists, and policymakers to embrace social science perspectives in climate change teaching, research, and policymaking.

Sociology and Its (Limited) Publics: The Case of “Christian Nationalism”

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

Samuel L. Perry

This article considers the too-often limited reach of public sociology, focusing on the case of “Christian nationalism.” Despite growing media attention to Christian nationalism, partly reflecting current events along with considerable efforts to engage in public sociology on the topic, I anticipate public awareness of the term is concentrated in theoretically predictable ways. Given the growing conservative skepticism toward academics (particularly sociologists) and increasingly siloed media consumption, I theorize Americans most familiar with “Christian nationalism” would be sociologists’ “choir,” namely, those who are more educated, less religious, more liberal/Democratic, and who trust more liberal news sources. Drawing on two representative surveys fielded in mid-September and November/December of 2022, findings affirm the strongest predictors of Americans hearing/reading more about “Christian nationalism” were being more liberal, educated, being non-Christian (in one survey), and trusting more liberal news sources (in another survey). Interactions show exposure to the term among liberals, Democrats, and those who trust liberal news sources increases substantially with educational attainment. Despite the considerable amount of sociological research and public sociology addressing “Christian nationalism,” those most aware of the term in late 2022 were educated, liberal/Democratic, seculars most likely to already be exposed to and trust the work of sociologists. In other words, to the extent public sociologists have sought to inform the public about “Christian nationalism,” they have likely been “preaching to the choir” more than to those most susceptible to embracing the ideology (less educated, conservative/Republican, Christians). I conclude by discussing implications for sociology’s public impact as a discipline.

Why We Disagree about Inequality: Social Justice vs. Social Order

Article

Jul 2024

Musa al-Gharbi

Religious repertoires of sustainability: Why religion is central to sustainability transitions, whatever you believe

Article

Mar 2024

Timothy Stacey

“Value-Conditioned Interest”: Secularity, Institutional Support, and the Sociology of Religion in Graduate Departments

Article

Dec 2023

Religion Matters (And Doesn't Go Away When Sociologists Ignore It)

Article

Nov 2023

Samuel L. Perry

Religion remains among the most powerful and pervasive forms of social behavior around the world, including the United States. Yet academic sociology has long ignored its relevance and is consequently neglecting a responsibility to provide accurate and comprehensive explanations of social life to the world. I consider several reasons for this neglect, including the uncomfortable topic of anti‐religious bias within the discipline. I propose that correcting our collective suspicion toward religion, religious people, and the specialists who study them is not only ethical, but it helps us do better science, prevents us from excluding minorities who are also more likely to be religious, and helps us earn the trust of the wider public. I conclude by calling for a reprioritization of religion in the discipline.

Is Political Science (Still) Ignoring Religion? An Analysis of Journal Publications, 2011–2020

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023

Steven Kettell

Political scientists involved in the study of religion have expressed concerns that religious themes have yet to be fully integrated into the mainstream of the discipline. According to a study of articles published in leading political science journals during the first decade of the twenty-first century, papers engaging with religion were relatively few in number and highly concentrated in only a few thematic and disciplinary areas. This article presents an updated analysis of the extent to which political science has engaged with the topic of religion by examining journal outputs for the period 2011–2020. The study finds no significant change in the patterns identified by the earlier research. Despite an overall increase in the quantity of political science articles on the subject of religion, the overall proportion has been relatively static, and the thematic and disciplinary focus of outputs remains narrow.

An Invitation to the Sociology of Religion: Important Questions Answered by Scholars in the Field

Article

Full-text available

May 2023

What are the most important questions in the sociology of religion? And how would scholars answer them? This article explores what people consider the most important questions in the field. Sociologists tend to study what we can readily answer with data, but the questions that elicit the most interest turn out to be quite different. They are bigger, broader, and harder to answer empirically. A crowd-sourced poll identified what people consider the most important questions in the sociology of religion, which were then posed to scholars in the field. They provided nuanced and complex answers revealing a diversity of approaches involved in the study of religion. This unorthodox article invites the reader to listen in on dynamic conversations that bring scholars into dialogue with one another, revealing points of consensus, ongoing debate, areas where there are more questions than answers, and directions for future work.

When research is me-search: How researchers’ motivation to pursue a topic affects laypeople’s trust in science

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2021
PLOS ONE

Research is often fueled by researchers’ scientific, but also their personal interests: Sometimes, researchers decide to pursue a specific research question because the answer to that question is idiosyncratically relevant for themselves: Such “me-search” may not only affect the quality of research, but also how it is perceived by the general public. In two studies (N = 621), we investigate the circumstances under which learning about a researcher’s “me-search” increases or decreases laypeople’s ascriptions of trustworthiness and credibility to the respective researcher. Results suggest that participants’ own preexisting attitudes towards the research topic moderate the effects of “me-search” substantially: When participants hold favorable attitudes towards the research topic (i.e., LGBTQ or veganism), “me-searchers” were perceived as more trustworthy and their research was perceived as more credible. This pattern was reversed when participants held unfavorable attitudes towards the research topic. Study 2 furthermore shows that trustworthiness and credibility perceptions generalize to evaluations of the entire field of research. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Science Graduate Students’ Reports of Discrimination Due to Gender, Race, and Religion: Identifying Shared and Unique Predictors

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2021

Students from underrepresented groups face numerous challenges during their scientific education and training, including discrimination. Research tends to investigate student experiences with discrimination on the basis of a single characteristic, but an intersectional framework is necessary for understanding the complexity of discrimination. Using data from a survey of more than 1,300 U.S. graduate students in five natural and social science disciplines, the authors examine the predictors of reported discrimination across three different characteristics: gender, race, and religion. They find that nearly two thirds of students report discrimination on at least one characteristic, while almost 30 percent report discrimination along multiple characteristics. Multivariate analyses show that a student’s report of discrimination on any one characteristic is significantly associated with increased odds of reporting discrimination on each of the other two characteristics. This suggests that an individual’s experiences within one social location are often intertwined with and influence their experiences with in other social locations.

Black on Black: The Vilification of “Me-Search,” Tenure, and the Economic Position of Black Sociologists

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Jasmine Harris

In 2019, Black sociologists are still less likely to get published in discipline-specific peer-reviewed journals, less likely to hold tenured or tenure-track positions at predominately white institutions, and less likely to be awarded tenure than white sociologists. This is, in part, because the traditional positivist approach to sociology favors an epistemology rooted in world building from a white perspective and subsequently prefers white sociologists to do that work. Overvaluing empirical research emphasizing objectivity through marked distance between researcher and participants, in the tradition of the natural sciences, also undervalues the importance of investigators’ perceived connections to marginalized communities in the reliability of collected data, and the use of qualitative methods to scientific study. This conceptual paper connects public discourse on the devaluing of “me-search” done by Black sociologists, research studying communities of which the principal investigator is also a member, to professional advancement data to explore the economic penalties for Black sociologists whose “me-search” expands the limits of what is useful and noteworthy in the production of sociological knowledge while simultaneously impacting their professional advancement in the discipline. Patricia Hill Collins’ (Soc Probl. 33: S14–32, 1986) epistemological stance laments the positivist approach and attempts to move sociological research of the oppressed away from the gaze of the oppressors. The academy’s colonial focus on “objectivity,” and subsequent third person research writing, maintains a white normative framework for the entire discipline. But in the twenty-first century, a disciplinary focus on research about marginalized identities by white sociologists inherently devalues the scientific validity of research on Black communities by Black researchers, aiding in racialized gatekeeping in sociology. Low numbers of tenured Black faculty, promotion policies focused on the number of peer-reviewed publications, and low journal publication rates for Black researchers highlight the negative impact on professional outcomes for Black sociologists and illustrates a perpetual devaluation of the perspectives of Black researchers.

Stigmatizing Our Own: Self-Relevant Research (Me-Search) Is Common but Frowned Upon in Clinical Psychological Science

Article

Feb 2023

How often do clinical psychologists have a lived experience with, or close connection, to their research? Does the field of psychology accept this “me-search”? We undertook the first investigation of self-relevant research (aka “me-search”) and attitudes toward self-relevant researchers in a representative North American sample ( N = 1,776) of faculty, graduate students, and other individuals affiliated with doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, and school psychology. More than 50% of participants had conducted self-relevant research, and those from minoritized backgrounds were more likely to conduct self-relevant research. When judging experimentally manipulated vignettes, participants who had not engaged in self-relevant research made more stigmatizing judgments of self-relevant research and self-relevant research disclosure than did those who engaged in self-relevant research. Psychologists and trainees had more negative attitudes toward self-relevant research on mental health topics (suicide, depression, schizophrenia) than physical health topics (cancer). We discuss how prejudice toward self-relevant research and mental illness negatively impacts ongoing diversity and inclusion efforts from within clinical psychological science.

"Value-Conditioned Interest:" Religiosity, Institutional Support, and the Sociology of Religion in Top Graduate Departments

Preprint

Dec 2022

Although religion once played a central role in sociological inquiry, today it has fallen from prominence and now occupies a marginal space in the field. Sociologists of religion suggest that this neglect can be explained by the unusual irreligiosity of academia. However, some are hopeful that changes to graduate training and other institutional interventions can overcome this propensity and encourage more sociological engagement with religion, one of the most influential forces in contemporary society. Drawing on a new dataset of 473 sociology graduate students in the top-25 departments in the United States, we assess how personal religiosity and departmental support for religious inquiry predict sociological engagement in the field of religion. We show that sociology graduate students differ substantially from their age cohort in terms of religious affiliation and behaviors. Personal religiosity is a strong predictor of the decision to study religion and the overall perception of the relevance of religion in contemporary society. Coming from a department where religion is discussed, faculty pursue research on religion, and there are opportunities to specialize predicts the perception of religion’s relevance, but only for the least religious students. Our findings contribute to the understanding of sociological knowledge creation and how individual and institutional proclivities—together—shape what we deem important enough to study.

American Religion in the Era of Increasing Polarization

Article

Jul 2022

Samuel Perry

Americans are increasingly polarized by a variety of metrics. The dimensions, extent, causes, and consequences of that polarization have been the subject of much debate. Yet despite the centrality of religion to early discussions, the analytical focus on America's divides has largely shifted toward partisan identity, political ideology, race, and class interests. I show that religion remains powerfully implicated in all dimensions of American polarization, and sociologists must once again make religion more central to their analyses. After outlining research on American polarization, focusing on the role of religion, I survey findings within the burgeoning literatures on cultural transformation processes, (White) Christian nationalism, complex religion, and Americans’ attitudes toward science in order to underscore the centrality of ethno-religious identities, religious demography, and religious institutions for both shaping and exacerbating various forms of polarization. Lastly, I propose an agenda for elucidating religion's ongoing role in understanding polarization beyond public opinion research at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels. Though polarization research has been dominated by political scientists, leveraging religion in our analyses—not merely as a sui generis variable, but as a site of complex social behavior—facilitates novel sociological contributions to these literatures via our relative attention to multiple levels of analysis, theoretical eclecticism, and methodological fluidity.

How Social Science Got Better: Overcoming Bias with More Evidence, Diversity, and Self-ReflectionOvercoming Bias with More Evidence, Diversity, and Self-Reflection

Book

Oct 2021

Matt Grossmann

Social science research is facing mounting criticism, as canonical studies fail to replicate, questionable research practices abound, and researcher social and political biases come under fire. Far from being in crisis, however, social science is undergoing an unparalleled renaissance of ever-broader and deeper understanding and application—made possible by close attention to criticism of our biases and open public engagement. Wars between scientists and their humanist critics, methodological disputes over statistical practice and qualitative research, and disciplinary battles over grand theories of human nature have all quietly died down as new generations of scholars have integrated the insights of multiple sides. Rather than deny that researcher biases affect results, scholars now closely analyze how our racial, gender, geographic, methodological, political, and ideological differences impact our research questions; how the incentives of academia influence our research practices; and how universal human desires to avoid uncomfortable truths and easily solve problems affect our conclusions. To be sure, misaligned incentive structures remain, but a messy, collective deliberation across the research community is boosting self-knowledge and improving practice. Ours is an unprecedented age of theoretical diversity, open and connected data, and public scholarship. How Social Science Got Better documents and explains recent transformations, crediting both internal and public critics for strengthening social science. Applying insights from the philosophy, history, and sociology of science and providing new data on trends in social science research and scholarly views, it demonstrates that social science has never been more relevant, rigorous, or self-reflective.

Religiosity and identity interference among graduate students in the sciences

Article

Nov 2020

Individuals who hold an identity that is stigmatized in a particular social context will often, if possible, conceal that identity. While such concealment is intended to help the individual fit into that context, research has found that concealment often harms the individual's ability to form an identity and sense of belonging. The study presented here examines this dynamic as it relates to religious individuals in science. Past research suggests that being religious is a stigmatized identity within academic science and that many religious scientists conceal their religious identity to avoid that stigma. Using data generated from a survey of U.S. science graduate students and structural equation modeling, we examine concealment of religious identity among religious students and whether this concealment mediates a negative relationship between student religiosity and identification as a scientist. The analysis finds that religiosity is positively associated with concealment of religious identity, which itself is negatively associated with identification as a scientist. This study contributes to the sociological study of religion and science by shifting the focus away from epistemological conflicts and towards more social and cultural forms of religion-science conflict. These findings also contribute to research on identity conflict, stigma management, and the role of social identities in workplaces.

(Why) is the Sociology of Religion Marginalized? Results from a Survey Experiment

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Religion Matters (And Doesn't Go Away When Sociologists Ignore It)

“Value-Conditioned Interest”: Secularity, Institutional Support, and the Sociology of Religion in Gr...

Sociology and Its (Limited) Publics: The Case of “Christian Nationalism”

Critical Religion Scholars’ Data Denial: Their Odd Efforts to Downplay Bias Against and Contribution...