Objective and Reputational Rankings of Ph.D.-Granting Departments of Sociology, 1965–1982
David S. Webster, Clifton F. Conrad, Eric L. Jensen
Abstract
David S. Webster, Clifton F. Conrad, Eric L. Jensen
Abstract
From its inception in 1965 until 1975 when it stopped publishing such studies, The American Sociologist (TAS) published numerous quality rankings of Ph.D.-granting sociology departments and several articles that compared different rankings. During these years TAS published far more rankings of sociology departments than did any other journal This article reviews these studies as well as the rankings of sociology departments found in three major multi-disciplinary rankings (Cartter, 1966; Roose and Andersen, 1970; Jones, Lindzey, and Coggeshall, 1982). It discusses the major methodological approaches used in these studies and reviews the debate among scholars regarding the most appropriate ways to rank departments. An analysis of the various objective and subjective rankings reveals that there is an elite group of seven departments that consistently rank at the top regardless of the ranking method employed.
OpenAlex reports 13 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
From its inception in 1965 until 1975 when it stopped publishing such studies, The American Sociologist (TAS) published numerous quality rankings of Ph.D.-granting sociology departments and several articles that compared different rankings. During these years TAS published far more rankings of sociology departments than did any other journal This article reviews these studies as well as the rankings of sociology departments found in three major multi-disciplinary rankings (Cartter, 1966; Roose and Andersen, 1970; Jones, Lindzey, and Coggeshall, 1982). It discusses the major methodological approaches used in these studies and reviews the debate among scholars regarding the most appropriate ways to rank departments. An analysis of the various objective and subjective rankings reveals that there is an elite group of seven departments that consistently rank at the top regardless of the ranking method employed.
Key concepts: Elite, Sociology, Ranking (information retrieval), Rank (graph theory), Discipline, Journal ranking, Publishing, Reputation