sign in sign up
<<
Home , Connecticut College, Furman University, Mount Holyoke College, Reed College, Sarah Lawrence College, Whitman College

at Liberal Arts

JAMES E. HARTLEY AND MICHAEL D. ROBINSON

This article examines the research activity in sociology by faculty at liberal arts col- leges. We used Sociological Abstracts to compile a list of journal articles published from 1960 to 1999 for which the first author’s affiliation was among the 161 schools classified as liberal arts colleges by the Carnegie Foundation. We rank the colleges by the number of journal publications over the whole time period as well as a subset of the last ten years, and provide information on which journals are the most frequent outlets for liberal arts faculty. Finally, we provide some evidence that this research output is linked to teaching effectiveness.

During the past fifty years there has been an amazing development of the colleges and of this country. They have grown in numbers, in size of faculties, in enrollments of students, in scope of work….It has seemed worth while to attempt to secure a rating of the graduate schools in the different lines of study based on the opinions of a considerable group of ….Such a rating also seems proper and desirable in printed form, so that any one interested can turn to it readily for a rough estimate of the work in a given field. (Hughes 1925)

The tradition of ranking schools is a long one. Since Hughes published his rankings of graduate programs in 20 different disciplines (including Sociology), there have been countless other studies of this sort.1 There is now a large literature ranking sociology programs by some measure of research output (e.g., Cartter 1966; Lewis 1968; Knudsen and Vaughan 1969; Glenn and Villemez 1970; Roose and Anderson 1970; Oromaner 1973; Roche and Smith 1978; Keith and Babchuk 1994). But all of this work has either focused exclusively on graduate programs or used only limited journal sets. There has been no system- atic exploration of the research activity going on at liberal arts colleges. In the past, perhaps there was good reason to ignore liberal arts colleges in discussions on research. Historically, the faculty at such colleges saw them- selves first as teachers, and only secondarily, if at all, as researchers. But, there has been a large and important change in the ethos at top-tier liberal arts colleges in recent years. As McCaughey (1994) demonstrates, scholarly activity

James E. Hartley is an Associate of Economics at College. Michael D. Robinson is a Professor of Economics at . Address for correspondence: Department of Economics, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA 01075; E-mail: [email protected]

60 The American Sociologist / Fall 2001 (in general) and publications (specifically) are being given much greater em- phasis than in the past. McCaughey (1994: 39) reports that nearly half of the liberal arts faculty he surveyed indicated that “their primary interests leaned more toward research [than teaching],” and that 90 percent believed it was difficult to attain tenure without research. McCaughey argues that the faculty of select liberal arts colleges are increasingly seeing themselves as scholars as well as teachers. It is in this environment of increased interest in the research at liberal arts colleges that we present a comprehensive ranking of all national liberal arts colleges based on publications in all journals catalogued by Sociological Ab- stracts from 1960 to 1997. The present study complements McCaughey’s (1994) work and other studies examining research publication in other fields by faculty (Bodenhorn 1997; Hartley and Robinson 1997; Schmauder, Robinson, and Hartley 1999; Robinson, Hartley, and Dunn forthcoming). McCaughey’s study was limited to 24 schools and looked at the social and as a whole. Our study is a much more extensive examination of the research output in a single field and among all national liberal arts colleges. We can thus address an important question that McCaughey leaves unanswered: to what extent has the changing ethos at the top liberal arts colleges permeated all liberal arts colleges? Given this increased interest among liberal arts colleges in research output, there is a need for some benchmark to which schools can compare themselves, because it may be unrealistic to evaluate the research productivity of liberal arts colleges by the standards of Ph.D. granting universities, particularly since fac- ulty often experience different distributions of teaching, service, and research demands at liberal arts colleges compared to graduate training universities (e.g., Champion and Champion 1973; Rich and Jolicoeur 1978). The rankings pre- sented later will thus be of use to sociology departments interested in the overall pattern of publications at liberal arts colleges as they evaluate the re- search volume of junior members of the department. Similarly, new Ph.D.’s on the job market might be interested in the research environment at liberal arts colleges in general or at particular colleges. Finally, departments at liberal arts colleges might be interested in knowing how their research output compares to that of comparable schools. Of course teaching remains an important focus of liberal arts faculty. Given this, some might argue that ranking liberal arts colleges by sociological research devalues the importance of teaching. However, McCaughey (1994) argues the contrary and demonstrates that there is a small positive correlation between scholarly activity and teaching effectiveness by professors at liberal arts col- leges. Boice (1984, 1992) argued that the positive correlation between schol- arly work and teaching effectiveness exists at colleges of all types. Teaching the latest discoveries in classes, supervising student theses and other research, and preparing students for graduate school are some of the teaching activities that may be enhanced by faculty research. While many of the previous publication-based rankings have focused on “top” journals, our rankings are based on all the journals covered in Sociological Abstracts. This procedure is very much like that advocated by other researchers in the field:

Hartley and Robinson 61 One technological advance is the advent of large bibliographic databases which cover hun- dreds of social (including social work) journals, which are readily accessible through manual searches, computer assisted searches, or via read-only videodiscs. As Baker (1989) has pointed out, more comprehensive searches of the literature may be possible using such databases, which would be a methodological improvement over selecting a small subset of professional journals, as has been reported in this and prior studies. (Thyer, Boynton, Bennis, and Levine 1994)

We searched for all journal articles in which the listed author affiliation is one of the 161 schools classified as a liberal arts college by the Carnegie Foundation (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1987). We found ar- ticles with liberal arts affiliations in over 800 different journals. We believe this more comprehensive base is particularly important for evaluating the work of faculty at liberal arts colleges because, as noted by Kasper et al. (1991), liberal arts faculty do not necessarily publish in the same set of journals as the faculty at research universities. Because this method only measures articles catalogued by Sociological Ab- stracts, these results should not be interpreted as equivalent to the total research output of members of Sociology departments. Given the nature of liberal arts faculty, we would expect a fair amount of both interdisciplinary research (which might be published in a journal not catalogued by Sociological Abstracts) and writings for non-academic publications, neither of which would be contained in our data set. Similarly, books and monographs are not included in our data set. Furthermore, Sociological Abstracts only lists the author affiliation of the first author. Thus, co-authored papers by faculty from liberal arts colleges on which the faculty member is not the first author are not included in the data set.

The Results

Table 1 presents the rankings of liberal arts colleges by number of journal articles published between 1960 and 1999.2 There are some interesting pat- terns here. Confirming McCaughey’s (1994) suspicion, the publishing activity at liberal arts colleges is highly concentrated among the top colleges; over the whole time period, the top 6 schools accounted for over 20 percent of the articles, while the top 24 schools accounted for 50 percent. Similarly, under 10 percent of the authors published over 25 percent of all the articles. In order to determine whether research activity at liberal arts colleges has increased, Table 2 shows the number of articles published in each five-year period between 1960 and 1999. There has been a notable rise in the amount of publishing done by faculty at liberal arts colleges. Forty-three percent of all the articles published between 1960 and 1999 were published in the last ten years of that time. Since there has been a noticeable increase in publishing, it is also possible that the school rankings may have changed in recent years. Table 3 thus pre- sents the same information as Table 1 for the last ten years of the sample, 1990 through 1999. The correlation between the rankings in Tables 1 and 3 is 0.94. There are, however, a few schools with large differences in their rankings between the two time periods. Oberlin falls from 5th to 23rd; Amherst falls from 9th to 15th, while Mount Holyoke rises from 15th to 10th. There has also

62 The American Sociologist / Fall 2001 Table 1

Rank in Total Pages and Total Articles Published in Journals Listed by Sociological Abstracts, 1960-1999

College Rank Total Pages Rank Total Articles 1 4399 1 268 2 3611 2 234 Wesleyan 3 3309 4 183 4 3009 3 204 5 2077 5 115 6 1907 9 109 7 1860 7 110 8 1855 5 115 9 1803 10 105 10 1719 12 92

Hobart and William Smith Colleges 11 1680 7 110 12 1533 13 91 13 1406 11 93 14 1393 14 85 Mount Holyoke College 15 1302 16 79 16 1239 22 66 17 1204 23 64 18 1157 15 83 Franklin and Marshall College 19 1091 18 73 20 1082 20 70

Connecticut College 21 1021 17 74 22 1009 21 69 Holy Cross College 23 999 23 64 University of Puget Sound 24 992 38 46 25 987 27 59 26 962 30 55 27 957 28 58 28 951 33 51 29 947 32 54 St. 30 943 25 63

Lewis and 31 908 34 50 32 840 25 63 33 838 36 49 Trinity College 34 833 34 50 35 801 30 55 36 791 38 46 37 786 28 58 38 778 43 41 Richard Stockton College 39 746 18 73 40 708 45 37

Lake Forest College 41 687 36 49 42 642 38 46 43 639 42 42 Wheaton College, MA 43 639 41 44 45 635 50 32 46 625 45 37 47 591 49 35 48 580 61 28 49 576 55 30 50 531 52 31

Hartley and Robinson 63 Table 2

Articles per Five-Year Period

Years Number of Articles 1960-1964 220 1965-1969 315 1970-1974 408 1975-1979 605 1980-1984 594 1985-1989 799 1990-1994 1044 1995-1999 1184

been very little change in the concentration of publication among the top schools; the top five schools account for over 20 percent of the articles and the top 23 for over half. Comparing the results in Tables 1 and 3 with other measures of an academic institution’s quality, we see some highly ranked schools here that are not as highly ranked elsewhere. For example, Skidmore, Hobart and William Smith, Hampshire, Saint Lawrence, Lewis and Clark, University of Puget Sound, Rich- ard Stockton State College, Pitzer, and Drew all appear in the top 40 in Table 3, but are not listed among the top 40 schools by the 1999 U.S. News and World Report college ranking guide. The correlation between the ranking in Table 2 and the 1999 academic quality ranking measure used in U.S. News and World Report is 0.79. A further comparison of the subjective academic quality ranking used by U.S. News and World Report with other objective measures of academic quality would be interesting. Tables 1 and 3 both give the details on the quantity of articles published, but they obviously tell us nothing about the quality of the articles. To get some idea of quality, Table 4 ranks the colleges by the number of pages published in journals listed as “high impact sociology journals” by Cronin, Snyder, and Atkins (1997) and the journals published by the American Sociological Association.3 Interestingly, publication in this set of journals across departments shows the same concentration as in the whole set of journals. The top 6 departments published over 20 percent of the articles, and the top 20 departments over 50 percent. While the ranking in Table 4 shown on page 66, is broadly similar to that in Table 1, there are some noticeable differences. For example, three of the top ten schools in Table 4 are not in the list of top 20 schools in Table 1, indicating that these schools have a relatively high percentage of their research output being published in high-impact journals. These schools are , moving from 21st to 2nd; Dickinson, moving from 35th to 10th; and Middlebury, mov- ing from 33rd to 10th. On the other side, Colgate falls from 6th to 41st; Vassar from 7th to 37th; Williams from 8th to 14th; Amherst from 9th to 77th; and Swarthmore from 10th to 19th.

64 The American Sociologist / Fall 2001 Table 3

Rank in Total Pages and Total Articles Published in Journals Listed by Sociological Abstracts, 1990-1999

College Rank Total Pages Rank Total Articles Smith College 1 2161 1 129 Bryn Mawr College 2 2026 2 112 Wellesley College 3 1557 3 95 Colgate University 4 1275 5 67 5 1231 4 70 Vassar College 6 871 6 47 Swarthmore College 7 835 8 41 Williams College 8 812 7 43 Barnard College 9 709 15 34 Mount Holyoke College 10 696 10 40

Skidmore College 11 693 8 41 Pomona College 12 660 17 33 Bowdoin College 13 640 12 37 Franklin and Marshall College 14 630 13 36 Amherst College 15 627 15 34 Hobart and William Smith Colleges 16 625 11 39 Colby College 17 602 17 33 Bucknell University 18 596 14 35 Occidental College 19 571 22 29 Macalester College 20 568 24 28

Hampshire College 21 534 21 30 Hamilton College 22 517 25 27 Oberlin College 23 516 32 24 Bates College 24 513 28 25 St. Lawrence University 25 511 25 27 Grinnell College 25 511 35 21 Lewis and Clark College 27 485 33 23 Middlebury College 27 485 28 25 Union College 29 471 20 31 Holy Cross College 30 461 22 29

Trinity College 31 434 28 25 Haverford College 32 433 44 16 University of Puget Sound 33 417 40 18 Richard Stockton College 34 410 19 32 35 391 25 27 Pitzer College 36 352 28 25 Kenyon College 37 351 36 20 Whitman College 38 347 44 16 Drew University 39 339 34 22 Dickinson College 40 327 37 19

Gettysburg College 41 325 37 19 Reed College 42 304 56 13 and Lee University 43 299 44 16 Lafayette College 44 280 41 17 Wheaton College, MA 45 278 41 17 46 266 37 19 Bard College 47 265 56 13 U. of North Carolina, Asheville 48 263 44 16 Illinois Wesleyan University 49 258 51 14 Sarah Lawrence College 50 256 44 16

Hartley and Robinson 65 Table 4

Rank in Total Pages and Total Articles Published in High Impact and American Sociological Association Journals Listed by Sociological Abstracts, 1960-1999

College Rank Total Pages Rank Total Articles Oberlin College 1 290 3 16 Connecticut College 2 228 1 21 Wellesley College 3 201 2 20 Bryn Mawr College 4 196 3 16 Skidmore College 5 195 7 13 Smith College 6 184 5 15 Barnard College 7 169 8 12 Wesleyan University 8 153 9 11 Hobart and William Smith Colleges 9 150 5 15 Dickinson College 10 128 12 10 Middlebury College 10 128 15 8

DePauw University 12 122 15 8 Gustavus Adolphus College 13 114 15 8 Williams College 14 104 9 11 Trinity College 14 104 15 8 Pitzer College 14 104 19 7 Franklin and Marshall College 17 103 22 6 Drew University 18 102 13 9 Swarthmore College 19 101 22 6 Holy Cross College 20 100 9 11

College of Wooster 21 92 13 9 Bowdoin College 22 89 22 6 Hollins College 23 81 19 7 University Puget Sound 24 78 36 4 25 77 19 7 26 74 22 6 27 73 22 6 Washington and Lee University 28 71 30 5 Bucknell University 29 68 22 6 30 62 22 6

Pomona College 31 56 58 2 Wheaton College, IL 32 55 36 4 Mount Holyoke College 33 54 22 6 Macalester College 34 51 30 5 Hamilton College 35 49 30 5 36 48 30 5 Vassar College 37 45 36 4 Colby College 37 45 36 4 37 45 36 4 Gordon College 37 45 36 4

Colgate University 41 44 36 4 Whitman College 41 44 36 4 Reed College 41 44 51 3 Haverford College 44 43 58 2 45 42 36 4 Carleton College 46 41 36 4 Gettysburg College 47 40 36 4 Denison University 48 39 36 4 49 38 51 3 Grinnell College 50 37 51 3

66 The American Sociologist / Fall 2001 Table 5

Top 25 Journals

Journal Articles Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 84 Teaching Sociology 73 Sex Roles 62 Journal of Marriage and the Family*59 Smith College Studies in Social Work 55 American Anthropologist 50 Sociological Analysis*48 Social Forces* 47 Review of Religious Research*43 Sociological Inquiry 43 Ethnology 42 Anthropological Quarterly 42 Law and Society Review 40 Humanity and Society 40 The Sociological Quarterly 39 Society 39 Social Problems*39 Sociological Focus 37 Signs 37 Social Research 36 Sociology and Social Research 35 The Journal of Social Issues 34 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 33 The Annals of the American Acad. of Political and 33 The American Sociologist 33 *Indicates journal listed as High Impact Sociology Journal in Cronin, Snyder, and Atkins (1997)

Since we have all publications in all journals catalogued by Sociological Abstracts, we can see where faculty at liberal arts colleges did publish. Table 5 lists the 25 journals having the largest number of articles published by liberal arts faculty during the years 1960-1999. One particularly interesting result is that Teaching Sociology is the second most frequent publishing outlet for liberal arts faculty. This relative frequency of a journal devoted to the teaching of the discipline was also seen in studies of liberal arts faculty in economics, psychol- ogy, and geoscience (Hartley and Robinson 1997; Schmauder, Robinson, and Hartley 1999; Robinson, Hartley, and Dunn forthcoming). It is not the case that liberal arts faculty publish only in obscure and low-quality journals; five of the top 25 journals are high impact journals as listed in Cronin, Snyder, and Atkins (1997). Research and Teaching

The sociological research done at national liberal arts colleges, while valu- able in and of itself, would be more valuable if, as McCaughey (1994) and

Hartley and Robinson 67 Axtrell (1998) argue, it was connected to the teaching effectiveness of the college. Measures of teaching effectiveness are notoriously hard to compute. However, one readily available measure of teaching quality is the number of students from a liberal arts college who go on to graduate work. McCaughey (1994: 94) discusses the educational research that “links certain kinds of aca- demic environments with one kind of good teaching, ‘mentoring,’ teaching that encourages students to aspire to the professional study of the subject and even- tually to teach it.” With our generated measure of research output, the number of scholarly publications, it is straightforward to examine the relationship of faculty research and student achievements. Data were collected on the number of Ph.D.’s in sociology granted between 1989 and 1994 to the graduates of the liberal arts colleges in our sample.4 We estimated a linear regression of the number of Ph.D.’s received by the graduates of a liberal arts college on the total number of publications of the faculty of that college. We controlled for the quality of the institution as measured by the 1999 U.S. News and World Report ranking (assum- ing more highly rated colleges will attract better students more capable of graduate work). The results of the regression are in row (1) of Table 6. The first regression shows that an increase in the number of publications does increase the number of students going on to do graduate work in Sociology. These results indicate that McCaughey was correct in connecting the graduate school accomplishments of students to the research output of the faculty. This result also confirms that at least one measure of teaching effectiveness is connected to research and thus that there is at least some teaching information contained in publication-based rankings. One interpretation of this result is that there is a “mentor effect.” The mentor effect was documented for graduate students in Sanders and Wong (1985: 164), who found that “Studying under a well-cited mentor was also associated with postdoctoral appointments for women, but placement in high status academic jobs was even more strongly related to mentor citations,” and for men “only Table 6

Effect of Publications on Number of Students Who Earn Sociology Ph.D.s

Dependent Constant Total US News Number of Variable Articles Academic Sociology Reputation Graduates (1) Ph.D.s -3.37 0.03 1.54 0.003 R2 = 0.44 (-3.19) (3.71) (4.68) (0.90) N = 157

(2) Ph.D.s -5.64 2.42 0.005 R2 = 0.39 (-6.30) (7.65) (2.40) N = 157

(3) Ph.D.s 0.61 0.04 0.003 R2 = 0.38 (1.71) (7.47) (1.16) N = 157

(4) Number of Sociology 100.66 1.34 R2 = 0.30 Graduates (11.46) (8.10) N = 157

68 The American Sociologist / Fall 2001 credentials clearly linked to the mentor independently predicted employment.” Keith and Moore (1995) show that faculty mentoring has a substantial impact on Ph.D. students’ socialization. The results in this article give reason to suspect that this sort of mentor effect also holds for undergraduate . Furthermore, this connection between the research activity of the faculty and the number of students going to graduate school is not unique to sociology. Previous research established the same connection in economics and psychol- ogy (Hartley and Robinson 1997; Schmauder, Robinson, and Hartley 1999; Robinson, Hartley, and Dunn forthcoming). Clearly, further research on the connections between teaching and research would be valuable. However, there is another interesting result in the first regression in Table 6: An increase in the number of Sociology majors does not increase the number of students who go on to earn Ph.D.’s This result is surprising, since it seems that departments with a larger number of majors have a larger pool from which future Ph.D.’s are drawn. To investigate this result, we dropped total publica- tions from the second regression in Table 6. Without total publications in the regression, the number of sociology majors is significant. The third regression drops the number of majors, which does not affect the significance of total publications. One possible interpretation of these results is that the number of majors is affected by the number of publications. We tested this connection in the fourth regression in Table 6. As that regres- sion shows, an increase in the number of faculty publications increases the number of sociology majors. This suggests that there may be a more direct link between research and teaching; a faculty that publishes attracts more students to the major.

Conclusion

“The greatest obstacle to habitual scholarship is the perceived tension be- tween it and teaching” (Axtrell 1998: 58). Axtrell makes that observation in the midst of enumerating “twenty-five reasons to publish,” twelve of which are related to the beneficial effects scholarship has on one’s teaching. While fac- ulty at liberal arts colleges traditionally place greater emphasis on teaching than on research, the results in this article suggest that the environment at these colleges has substantially changed. Why has it changed? There is much that separates liberal arts colleges from research universities, and there is little chance that the best liberal arts colleges will compete with the best research universities for prestige based on research prowess. The faculty sizes and resources devoted to research are both much lower at liberal arts colleges than at the research universities. Why don’t liberal arts colleges then specialize in teaching, leaving research to the research uni- versities? One answer is that it is wrong to think about teaching and research as separable, competing activities. Teaching and research are inextricably linked, and not merely because one’s research can aid one in understanding the subject being taught. More importantly, some of the very characteristics that impel a person to want to engage in research (e.g., a desire to study and learn) are characteristics that make a person a good teacher. A person without the intel-

Hartley and Robinson 69 lectual curiosity necessary to make research an enjoyable occupation is going to have a difficult time persisting at being a good teacher.5 In other words, the question here is often phrased too simply. The question is not just “Does research enhance one’s teaching?” but also, “Is a person who does not do re- search more or less likely to be a good teacher than one who does?” To put it in terms of the sort of decisions liberal arts colleges actually must make: If faced with two job candidates, both of which show some promise as teachers, but one seems to enjoy doing research and one just wants to “focus on teaching,” the college should hire the former, even if it does not care about research per se. However, liberal arts colleges do have a desire for faculty engaging in re- search independent of their desire for good teaching. Liberal arts colleges care about prestige in exactly the same way that research universities do. At first glance this seems odd, since as noted earlier, liberal arts colleges have no hope of ever competing with research universities in a race for research prestige. However, research universities are not the competitors in this race, other liberal arts colleges are. Within the subset of liberal arts colleges, prestige matters a great deal, for attracting both students and alumni donations. Prestige and “aca- demic reputation” depend partly, and perhaps largely, on research activity at a college; the quality of a college’s teaching is very difficult to measure in a way that the number of National Book Award Winners or number of times the faculty’s research is mentioned on National Public Radio are not. This is not to say that a liberal arts college can gain an immediate increase in prestige with the addition of a few researchers. As Keith and Babchuk (1998) found for research universities, current prestige depends largely on past reputation. How- ever, insofar as the academic reputations of liberal arts colleges do change over time, research productivity is one of the important determinants of the direction of movement. While there has clearly been a trend toward increasing emphasis on research at liberal arts colleges fostered by a desire for prestige, the desirability of this change is a different question. On the question of desirability, both the faculty at liberal arts colleges and independent observers of trends in academia are split. To detractors, the emphasis on research is coming at the expense of teach- ing. This argument stems from a belief that teaching and research are substitutes, not complements, that an hour spent in research is necessarily an hour spent not teaching or interacting with students. Moreover, anecdotal evidence can always provide a list of names of great researchers who are horrible teachers. However, these detractors are missing the essential nature of the question. The comparison is not the great teacher who does no research versus the great researcher who is a terrible teacher. Few people fall into either of these ex- treme categories. The question is rather one of the margin: At the margin does a desire to do research indicate a higher probability that the person will be a good teacher now and in fifteen years? If so, and we believe it is so, then even if all one cares about is the quality of teaching, one should care about research.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Lawrence Nichols for helpful suggestions and Sarah Gamble and Danielle Omasta for assistance with the research.

70 The American Sociologist / Fall 2001 Notes

1. For readers interested, the ranking of graduate programs in Sociology in 1925 was: Chicago, Columbia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Harvard, Missouri, Pennsylvania, North Caro- lina, Yale, Illinois, Ohio State, Cornell, Bryn Mawr. 2. Only the top 50 schools are listed on each table. The complete table is available from the authors. 3. The journals listed by Cronin, Snyder and Atkins (1997) are: American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Canadian Review of Sociology and , Contemporary Sociology, Ethnology and Sociobiology, Journal of Human Resources, Journal of Leisure Research, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Journal of Math- ematical Sociology, Review of Religious Research, Rural Sociology, Social Compass, Social Forces, Social Networks, Social Problems, Sociologia Ruralis, Sociological Analysis, Sociologi- cal Methods and Research, Sociological Review, Sociology, Sociology of Education, Sociology of Health and Illness, Work and Occupations. The American Sociological Association journals are: American Sociological Review, Social Psychology Quarterly, Contemporary Sociology, Sociological Methodology, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Sociological Theory, Sociol- ogy of Education, Teaching Sociology. 4. The Ph.D. data are from the Computer-Aided Science Policy Analysis and Research database system, National Research Council Doctorate Records File. The timing of this correlation is somewhat problematic because the students attending the undergraduate institution at the time of our research data are not the same as the students receiving their Ph.D.’s at the time of our Ph.D. data. 5. There will obviously be individual exceptions to this rule. However, the argument here is not that it is impossible to be a good teacher and not want to engage in research, but rather that the exceptions are rare.

References

Axtrell, James. 1998. The Pleasures of Academe: A Celebration and Defense of . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Baker, D. 1989. “Measuring the Productivity of Graduate Schools of Social Work: An Alternative to Content Analytic Methods,” Social Work Research and Abstracts, 25, 3. Bodenhorn, H. 1997. “Teachers and Scholars Too: Economic Scholarship at Elite Liberal Arts Colleges,” Journal of Economic Education, 28, 323-336. Boice, R. 1984. “Reexamination of traditional emphases in Traditional Faculty Development,” Research in Higher Education, 21, 195-209. ______. 1992. The New Faculty Member: Supporting and Fostering Professional Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1987. A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: Author. Cartter, Allan M. 1966. An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Champion, L. J. and D. J. Champion. 1973. “A Comparative Study of Large University and Small College Faculty,” Southern Journal of Educational Research, 7, 114-126. Cronin, Blaise, Herbert Snyder, and Helen Atkins. 1997. “Comparative Citation Rankings of Au- thors in Monographic and Journal Literature: A Study of Sociology,” Journal of Documenta- tion, 53, 263-273. Glenn, Norval and Wayne Villemez. 1970. “The Productivity of Sociologists at 45 American Uni- versities,” The American Sociologist, 5, 244-251. Hartley, James E. and Michael D. Robinson. 1997. “Economic Research at Liberal Arts Colleges: School Rankings,” Journal of Economic Education, 28, 337-349. Hughes, R. M. 1925. A Study of the Graduate Schools of America. , OH: Miami University. Kasper, H. et al. 1991. “The Education of Economists: From Undergraduate to Graduate Study,” Journal of Economic Literature, 29, 1088-1109. Keith, Bruce and Nicholas Babchuk. 1994. “A Longitudinal Assessment of Productivity in Promi- nent Sociology Journals and Departmental Prestige,” The American Sociologist, 25, 4-27.

Hartley and Robinson 71 ______. 1998. “The Quest for Institutional Recognition: A Longitudinal Analysis of Scholarly Productivity and Academic Prestige among Sociology Departments,” Social Forces, 76, 1495- 1533. ______and Helen A. Moore. 1995. “Training Sociologists: An Assessment of Professional Social- ization and the Emergence of Career Aspirations,” Teaching Sociology, 23, 199-214. Knudsen, D. D. and T. R. Vaughn. 1969. “Quality in Graduate Education: and Elevation of the Rankings in the Cartter Report,” The American Sociologist, 4, 12-19. Lewis, Lionel S. 1968. “On Subjective and Objective Rankings of Sociology Departments,” The American Sociologist, 3, 129-131. McCaughey, R. A. 1994. Scholars and Teachers: The Faculties of Select Liberal Arts Colleges and Their Place in American Higher Learning. , NY: Barnard College, Dean’s Office. Oromaner, Mark. 1973. “Productivity and Recognition of Sociology Departments,” Sociological Focus, 6, 83-89. Rich, H. E. and P. M. Jolicoeur. 1978. “Faculty Role Perceptions and Preferences in the Seventies,” Sociology of Work and Occupations, 5, 423-445. Robinson, Michael D., James E. Hartley, and Steven R. Dunn. Forthcoming. “Geoscience Re- search at National Liberal Arts Colleges: School Rankings,” Journal of Geoscience Education. Roche, Thomas and David Lewis Smith. 1978. “Frequency of Citations as Criterion for the Ranking of Departments, Journals, and Individuals,” Sociological Inquiry, 48, 49-57. Roose, D. and C. J. Andersen. 1970. A Rating of Graduate Programs, Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Sanders, Jimy M. and Herbert Y. Wong. 1985. “Graduate Training and Initial Job Placement,” Sociological Inquiry, 55, 154-169. Schmauder, A René, Michael D. Robinson, and James E. Hartley. 1999. “Psychology Research at Liberal Arts Colleges,” Teaching of Psychology, 26, 95-100. Thyer, B., K. E. Boynton, L. Bennis, and D. L. Levine. 1994. “Academic Affiliations of Social Work Journal Article Authors: A Publication Productivity Analysis from 1984-1988,” Journal of Social Service Research, 18, 153-167.

72 The American Sociologist / Fall 2001