The Methodological Divide of Sociology - Evidence From Two Decades of Journal Publications

Abstract

Past research indicates that Sociology is a low-consensus discipline, where different schools of thought have distinct expectations about suitable scientific practices. This division of Sociology into different subfields is to a large extent related to methodology and choices between qualitative or quantitative research methods. Relying on theoretical constructs of boundary work, taste for research, and the academic prestige economy, we examine the methodological divide in generalist Sociology journals. Using automated text analysis for 8.737 abstracts of papers published between 1995 and 2017, we find evidence for this divide, but also for an entanglement between methodological choices and different research topics. Moreover, our results suggest a marginally increasing time trend for the publication of quantitative research in generalist journals. We discuss how this consolidation of methodological practices could enforce the entrenchment of different schools of thought, which ultimately reduces the potential for innovative sociological research.