Do We Need Sociology Binders Full of Women?

Based on Urban Demographics’s post, it would appear so:

The diversity, it is grossly lacking. Also, how many of them are still alive?

It may be related to this (also from Urban Demographics):

At the same time, it is expected that peer-reviewed publications to refer to the existing body of knowledge in each sub-field of the discipline and some “classical” concepts are bound to come up over and over (e.g.:  “strength of weak ties” hence the presence of Granovetter in the list above).  It is a bit distressing to see that even the few big women names don’t appear in the list (Sassen, Hochschild, etc.).

Unfortunately, I am not sure that us socbloggers have done such a bang up job in citing “out of the box”. We do touch upon a variety of topics, but do we actually cite or refer to more recent research by underrepresented categories? I don’t know but from my totally-unscientific readings, not all that much.

4 thoughts on “Do We Need Sociology Binders Full of Women?

  1. Pingback: The Global Sociology Blog - Do We Need Sociology Binders Full of Women? | Sciences sociales des religions |

  2. Great piece. I’ve been thinking about it overnight and I’ll be writing it up for Sociology at Work. I wonder if the issue relates to the ways in which we teach sociology or the way in which academic publishing is set up? I suspect it’s probably both. We are criticised if we don’t cite particular “classic” texts. Sociology courses probably still privilege the voices of our “founding fathers” not our founding mothers, trans and queer pioneers. Your point about who we cite when we blog is sobering and it’s worth further analysis. Thanks!

  3. Pingback: Sociology’s Gendered “Ritual Nods” | Sociology at Work

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *