Advertisement

The American Sociologist

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 356–372 | Cite as

The Op-ed Sociologists: The Matthew Effect in Op-ed Publication Patterns

  • Joshua WoodsEmail author
Article
  • 300 Downloads

Abstract

Many sociologists have discussed the pros and cons of writing op-eds for major newspapers, but little is known about how many sociologists are actually involved in this activity, who these people are, or how this group has changed over time. Although some related studies exist, none consider the historical dynamics of op-ed writing or theorize about why some sociologists publish op-eds and others do not. This study examines op-ed publications in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post over a 32-year period (1980 to 2011). In addition to estimating the total number of publications by sociologists, it presents a descriptive portrait of the authors themselves. The study also shows that the length and number of op-eds published by sociologists depend on the authors’ sex, professional rank, university affiliation and other elements of social status. Finally, supporting Merton’s Matthew effect, the findings reveal in part how the gap between the upper and lower levels of the academic hierarchy – as it pertains to op-ed publication – has widened in the last decades.

Keywords

Public sociology Op-ed writing Matthew effect Inequality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Larry Nichols and Jill Woods for their interesting feedback on earlier drafts of the manuscript. They helped me develop some of the ideas in this piece.

References

  1. American Sociological Association (2005). Public Sociology and the Roots of American Sociology: Re-Establishing Our Connection to the Public – Interim Report and Recommendations submitted by the ASA Task Force on Institutionalizing Public Sociologies to the ASA Council, July 2005.Google Scholar
  2. American Sociological Association. (2012). Guide to graduate departments of sociology. Washington DC: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: an integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(3), 655–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, D. (2000). Dreams of pure sociology. Sociological Theory, 18, 347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyns, D., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Reflections on public sociology: public relations, disciplinary identity, and the strong program in professional sociology. The American Sociologist, 36(3), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady, D. (2004). Why public sociology may fail. Social Forces, 82(4), 1629–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burawoy, M. (2004). Public sociologies: contradictions, dilemmas, and possibilities. Social Forces, 82(4), 1603–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burawoy, M. (2005a). For public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burawoy, M. (2005b). 2004 American sociological association presidential address: for public sociology. British Journal of Sociology, 56(2), 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burawoy, M. (2005c). The critical turn to public sociology. Critical Sociology, 31, 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burawoy, M., Gamson, W., Ryan, C., Pfohl, S., Vaughn, D., Derber, C., & Schor, J. (2004). Public sociologies: a symposium from Boston College. Social Problems, 51(1), 102–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clawson, D., Zussman, R., Misra, J., Gerstel, N., & Stokes, R. (Eds.). (2007). Public sociology: Fifteen eminent sociologists debate politics and the profession in the twenty-first century. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cook, T. E. (1998). Governing with the news. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cornies, L. (2002). Today, tomorrow: the raison d’etre. The Masthead, 54(4), 25–26.Google Scholar
  15. Crupi, J. (2003). First, define your page’s mission. The Masthead, 55(1), 7–8.Google Scholar
  16. Curran, J. (2010). The future of journalism. Journalism Studies, 11(4), 464–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dahl, R. A. (2005). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dubuisson, D. (1995). Pick readers who know how to write. The Masthead, 47(2), 13–14.Google Scholar
  19. Gamson, W. A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what’s news: a study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, newsweek, and time. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  21. Gans, H. J. (1989). Sociology in America: the discipline and the public American sociological association. American Sociological Review, 54(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gans, H. J. (1997). Best-sellers by sociologists: an exploratory study. Contemporary Sociology, 26, 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ghamari-Tabrizi, B. (2005). Can burawoy make everybody happy? Comments on public sociology. Critical Sociology, 31, 361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and Application: remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Habermas, J. (1995). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hall, T. (2013). Op-Ed and you. October, 13, 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Huffman, M. L., & Cohen, P. N. (2004). Occupational segregation and the gender gap in workplace authority: National versus Local labor markets. Sociological Forum, 19(1), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, J. M. (1987). Social impact theory: A social forces model of influence. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 111–124). New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jeffries, V. (2009). Handbook of public sociology. Lanham, Md., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Kenkel, W. F., & Gage, B. A. (1983). The restricted and gender-typed occupational aspirations of young women: can they be modified? Family Relations, 32(1), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2dth ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Kowalchuk, L., & McLaughlin, N. (2009). Mapping the social space of opinion: public sociology and the op-ed in Canada. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(3), 697–728.Google Scholar
  35. Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lawrence, J. F. (2002). Commit to and plan for diversity. The Masthead, 54(4), 17–18.Google Scholar
  37. Longhofer, W., Golden, S., & Baiocchi, A. (2010). A fresh look at sociology bestsellers. Contexts, 9(2), 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79, 606–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyer, P. (2009). The vanishing newspaper: Saving journalism in the information age. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
  41. Moseley, W. G., & Teske, D. (2011). Geographers in the public square: a comparative analysis of Op-Ed productivity. Applied Geography, 31(1), 232–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson, D. J. & Diana, C. R. (2005). A National Analysis of Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities. Diversity in Science Association and University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, January, 2005. Available on-line at: http://www.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec4-Nelson+Rogers_Report.pdf
  43. Nelson, D. J., Brammer, C. N. & Rhoads, H. (2007). A national analysis of minorities in science and engineering faculties at research universities, Diversity in Science Association and University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK., October 31, 2007. Available online at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/media/1031diversity_report.pdf
  44. Nichols, L. T. (2007). Public sociology: The contemporary debate. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Nielson, F. (2004). The vacant “we”: remarks on public sociology. Social Force, 82(4), 1619–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Brien, S. (2003). A former space hog sees the light. The Masthead, 55(1), 8–9.Google Scholar
  47. Parker-Poe, T. (2007). How scared should we be? New York Times(October 31).Google Scholar
  48. Partsch, F. (2003). Limited space, tough choices. The Masthead, 55(1), 4–5.Google Scholar
  49. Patterson, M. (1971). Alice in wonderland: a study of women faculty in graduate departments of sociology. The American Sociologist, 6(3), 226–234.Google Scholar
  50. Patterson, O. (2007). About public sociolgoy. In D. Clawson, R. Zussman, J. Misra, N. Gerstel, & R. Stokes (Eds.), Public sociology: Fifteen eminent sociologists debate politics and the profession in the twenty-first century. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reinken, C. (2004). Take a stronger stand against bogus letters. The Masthead, 56(1), 23–24.Google Scholar
  52. Revers, M. (2009). Sociologists in the press. American Sociologist, 40, 272–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rich, A., & Weaver, R. K. (2000). Think tanks in U.S. media. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 5(4), 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ringham, E. (1998). Make a case or tell a story in a new way. The Masthead, 50(3), 32–33.Google Scholar
  55. Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: theory wrestling with activism. Gender and Society, 18(4), 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sedikides, C., & Jackson, J. M. (1990). Social impact theory: a field test of source strength, source immediacy, and number of targets. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shipley, David (2004). And now a word from op-ed, New York Times, February 1, 2004.Google Scholar
  58. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content. White Plains: Longman.Google Scholar
  59. Siebert, F. S., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and Soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  60. Simmons, G. (1999). Good writing requires variety, seasoning. The Masthead, 51(3), 6–7.Google Scholar
  61. Smits, J., Ultee, W., & Lammers, J. (1996). Effects of occupational status differences between spouses on the wife’s labor force participation and occupational achievement: findings from 12 European Countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(1), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Socolow, M. J. (2010). A profitable public sphere: the creation of the New York times Op-ed page. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(2), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sommer, B., & Maycroft, J. R. (2008). Influencing public policy: an analysis of published Op-Eds by academics. Politics & Policy, 36(4), 586–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spalter-Roth, R., & Scelza J. (2008). Women Move up the Faculty Ladder Slowly, Footnotes, Volume 36, Issue 9, available online at: http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/dec08/ladder.html.
  65. Stacey, J. (2004). Marital suitors court social science spin-sters: the unwittingly conservative effects of public sociology. Social Problems, 51(1), 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Szelényi, S. (1992). Economic subsystems and the occupational structure: a comparison of Hungary and the United States. Sociological Forum, 7(4), 563–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tittle, C. R. (2004). The arrogance of public sociology. Social Forces, 82(4), 1639–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Turner, J. H. (2005). Is Public Sociology Such a Good Idea? The American Sociologist, 36(3), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weakliem, D. L., Gauchat, G., & Wright, B. R. E. (2012). Sociological stratification: change and continuity in the distribution of departmental prestige, 1965–2007. American Sociologist, 43, 310–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weber, M. (1949). On the Methodology and the Social Sciences. (Translated and edited by Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  71. Weeber, S. C. (2006). Elite versus mass sociology: an elaboration on sociology’s academic caste system. The American Sociologist, 37(4), 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations