Council Approves Revised Specialty Areas

On August 16, 2005, the 2004-2005 ASA Council approved a report by the Task Force to Revise the ASA Specialty Areas, presented by Task Force Chair James Ennis (Tufts University). Following the Task Force’s recommendations, Council directed the Executive Office staff to implement the recommended reorganization of the specialty areas currently listed on the ASA membership form. The Council agreed to a one-year experiment for the proposed revision. The revision, which groups the current 77 specialty areas (along with several sections missing from the specialty list) under 17 core categories, will replace the current list on the 2006 membership form. As part of this experiment, Council agreed that the membership form would include a “free field” for members to describe an area of interested not listed on the form (for example, African American studies is not currently listed on the form).

Currently, members are asked to rank four out of 77 specialty areas found on the membership form. Over the years new categories have been added, particularly ones that corresponded to newly-forming ASA sections—an indicator that there was a critical mass of people with that special interest. The list of sections is also on the form, however. The result is a hodge-podge of 77 categories that had grown like topsy over time. In 2003, Council appointed a task force to bring coherence and structure to the specialty areas.

The Task Force, which commenced its work in August 2003, included Ennis; Eszter Hargittai, Northwestern University; Joan Spade, State University of New York-Brockport; Kevin Vryan, Indiana University-Bloomington; Stephen Zehr, University of Southern Indiana; Lynn Smith-Lovin, Duke University, Council Liaison; Roberta Spalter-Roth, American Sociological Association, Staff Liaison. It was charged with answering three questions.

1. Can the current listing of 70+ specialties be organized so that they reflect a smaller list of broad or core categories, without losing the detail of the specialties? What are the structural relations among the specialties?
2. Are names for specialties current or outdated (and how can we best track changes over time)?
3. Can we devise a way for members to describe their own work in a more open-ended way?

To answer the first question, Ennis coded binary variables for each member’s interest areas, in addition to the binary coding of their current section memberships. He then formed a matrix reporting the degree of shared membership (via Yule’s Q), and ran SPSS’s hierarchical clustering algorithm. The 70+ specialties clustered with relative homogeneity under 17 major areas. The resulting revision preserves the detail of the existing system, while grouping specialties in a more coherent fashion. The results were sent to section chairs and to Council members who made additional changes to update the names of specialty areas in the categorization system. Finally, the Task Force proposed at least one open-ended category that can be used to analyze changes and additions to the 2006 system.

In presenting the revised system (see below) to Council, the Task Force agreed, “While no change will perfectly meet the preferences of all concerned, we believe that on balance the proposed changes are an improvement upon which further refinements can be built.” In directing that the changes be placed on the 2006 membership form, Council agreed.

Revised Areas of Sociological Interest

As part of a one-year Council- approved experiment, ASA’s areas of interest have been reorganized as grouped specialty areas under major headings. Members will select and rank four specific areas of interest from the following list. They will be able to provide details if none of the categories is appropriate by open-ended responses to update the existing list of specialties.