What is Happening in Your Department?...WHAT IS HAPPENING IN YOUR DEPARTMENT?: A Comparison of Findings from the 2001 and the 2007 Department Survey 4 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

What is Happening in Your Department?

A Comparison of Findings from the 2001 and the 2007 Department Surveys

B Y R O B E R TA S P A LT E R - R O T H

A S A R E S E A R C H A N D D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T

R E S E A R C H B R I E F / / November 2008

1AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Department chairs need comparative informationwhether they are requesting additional faculty lines,reduced teaching loads, new programs, or revampedcurricula. They depend upon data from “peer”departments and programs for compelling argumentsfor deans and other administrators about themagnitude of their concerns. This research briefprovides data to sociology chairs and otherstakeholders to help make peer comparisons.

The information is based on two AmericanSociological Association surveys of U.S. sociologydepartments and programs that awarded Bachelor’sdegrees. The first of these surveys was conducted inAcademic Year (AY) 2000/2001 and the second in(AY) 2006/2007. Departments are classified by theirtype of institution using 1994 Carnegie Codes.Institution types are collapsed into four largercategories—Research Universities, DoctoralUniversities, Master’s Comprehensive Universitiesand Baccalaureate-only Colleges. For peercomparisons, departments at each type of school arecompared to departments at like schools.

This research brief provides data on issues commonlyraised by department chairs at sociology meetings aswell as in responses to an open-ended surveyquestion about their concerns. They include hiringfreezes despite growth in majors; lack of classroomspace; competition with criminal justicedepartments; non-competitive stipends for graduatestudents; and what one chair describes as “theobsession with assessment.”

Direct quotations from chairs about their concernsinclude:

“Maintaining high levels of enrollment in themajor.”

“Too many students, too few resources.”

“We have nearly doubled in size with the influx ofeducation majors choosing sociology as their secondmajor. We have not had an increase in faculty…”

“Our Social Sciences Department includes majorsand has approximately 900-1000 students. Itshould be restructured as a college with five stand-alone departments including sociology.”

“We are being asked to seriously consider and likelydevelop a Criminal Justice major.”

“A decrease in sociology majors when a criminaljustice major began.”

“We face increasing demand to offer more courseswith fewer faculty.”

“Too high a ratio of majors to FTE faculty.”

“Looming retirements and uncertainty aboutposition replacement.”

“Financial Aid for graduate students remainingcompetitive”

I N T R O D U C T I O N

What is Happening in Your Department?A Comparison of Findings from the 2001 and the 2007 Department Surveys

WHAT IS HAPPENING IN YOUR DEPARTMENT? : A Comparison of Findings from the 2001 and the 2007 Department Survey


“Qualified graduate students

“Developing workable and effective assessmentprocedures.”

“We are concerned about how assessment informationwill be used both within the institution and by the state.”

Chairs’ concerns seem warranted based on survey datashowing that:

• The percentage of stand-alone departments hasincreased slightly, possible as much a result ofcriminal justice concentrations becomingindependent departments as with the building ofnew stand-alone sociology departments;

• The number of departments offeringconcentrations has increased, especially criminaljustice concentrations, although the majority ofdepartments report offering sociology only.

• The median number of sociology majors and thenumber of Bachelor’s graduates have perdepartment both increased, but the number offaculty has remained the same;

• The median number of Master’s degrees awardedper department has grown somewhat, while the median number of PhDs awarded hasremained stable.

• The percentage of students accepted to graduateschool declined compared to the number who applied.

• The percentage of departments hiring newtenured faculty compared to the faculty lost hasdeclined.

• The percentage of departments using assessmentsto evaluate undergraduate students hasincreased, despite chairs reporting dissatisfactionwith this practice.

In March 2008, the universe of chairs of stand-alonesociology departments and joint departments ordivisions that awarded at least one sociologyundergraduate degree received an online ASADepartment Survey. It requested AY 2006/2007information about department size and structure,numbers of undergraduate majors and graduates,graduate enrollments, faculty hires, studentevaluations, and other relevant information. Despite the questionnaire length, 60 percent of chairs and their staff took the time to answer, higherthan the 55 percent response rate for the previous ASA department survey for AY 2000/2001.

The ASA department survey is important to thediscipline because the sociology department is the unitof analysis. The survey focuses on questions thatspecifically address chairs’ need for information ontopics of concern to them for departmental research,policy-making, and planning. Many questions in theAY 2006/2007 survey were similar to those asked inthe previous survey to provide trend data.

To control for uneven response rates by type of school,responses are weighted to reflect their proportion in thetotal universe. Appendix Tables 1 and 2 provide thedistribution of responses by type of department bothweighted and unweighted. The Appendix also containsadditional information on the survey methods.

R E S E A R C H D E S I G N



D E PA R T M E N T S T R U C T U R E

Figure 1 shows an increase in stand-alone sociologydepartments between AY 2000/2001 and AY2006/2007, especially at Research and Doctoraluniversities, (88 percent and 75 percent,respectively). The percentage of stand-alonesociology programs at Master’s comprehensiveuniversities remained stable at 53 percent, while thepercentage at Baccalaureate-only schools increasedbut remained at less than half of all departments andprograms. Some of this growth is the result of stand-alone departments splitting off from “administrativemarriages” with other fields such as anthropology orsocial work or by pulling out of social sciencedivisions. Some may be due to the gain in studentsand resources of criminal justice programs comparedto parent sociology departments encouraging themto start separate departments. This "administrativedivorce" can force smaller sociology departmentsinto competition with their former colleagues,according to some chairs. One consequence may be apush to restructure some stand-alone sociologydepartments to train students for applied careers thatcan compete with the careers available to criminaljustice and social work majors.

While most sociology departments and programs do not offer specialties or concentrations, accordingto the survey, the proportion offering them hasincreased from 39 percent in AY 2000/2001 to 43percent in AY 2006/2007 (see Figure 2). This smallincrease suggests that there is no rush to specializewithin sociology departments, especially in thosewith few faculty and majors.

Table 1 shows the importance of crime, law, andsociety concentrations in sociology departments.Among the 43 percent of sociology departments or

programs that reported offering concentrations in AY2006/2007, crime, law, and society concentrationsare widespread compared to others. Although therewas a decline in the percentage of units offering thisconcentration since AY 2000/2001, it is stilldecidedly the most frequent concentration offered toundergraduate students, with almost 22 percent ofdepartments with concentrations offering it. Thedecline in departments offering this concentrationcould be a result of the splitting off of criminologyprograms into separate programs or departments, orthe growth of other specialties, since departmentscan offer more than one concentration. If “socialjustice, inequality, and social institutions” are addedto the crime, law, and society concentration, thepercentage of departments and programs offering aconcentration in this general area appears to haveremained relatively stable.

The second highest concentration is social services,which has remained stable since 2001 at about 14percent. It is the only specialty area found in at least10 percent of all departments. During the six yearssince the previous department survey, some of theother concentrations listed have increased slightly,while others have decreased. There are no dramaticchanges on the Table.

S T U D E N T S

Indicators of student growth in sociologydepartments between 2001 and 2007 include thenumber of majors, Bachelor’s degree recipients,Master’s degree recipients, PhD degree recipients,and the percentage of new students accepted tograduate school compared to those that applied.

F I N D I N G S



0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

FIGURE 1: The Percent ofFree StandingSociologyDepartmentsGrew at MostInstitutions

FIGURE 2: More SociologyDepartments OfferConcentrations

Source: ASA Departmental Survey, AY 2000/2001 and AY 2006/2007


AY 2000/2001

AY 2006/2007

RESEARCH

OFFERS AT LEAST 1CONCENTRATION

DOES NOT OFFER ANYCONCENTRATION

DOCTORAL MASTERS BACCALAUREATE

AY 2000/2001

AY 2006/2007

83%88%

39%43%

61%57%

68%75%

53% 53%

45%49%



TABLE 1. Concentrations Available in Sociology Departments

CONCENTRATION

Crime, Law & Society

Social Service

Gerontology

Family and Demography

Applied Sociology/Research

Medical or Healthcare

Anthropology

International, Global Development

Rural, Urban, Environment

Organizations, Business, Work, Occupations

Social Justice, Inequality, and Social Institutions

Race, Ethnicity, Diversity

Gender/Women's Studies

Social Policy

Other

TOTAL WITH CONCENTRATIONS

2000/2001N %

189 30.6%

84 13.6%

46 7.4%

42 6.8%

34 5.5%

26 4.2%

25 4.0%

23 3.7%

20 3.2%

19 3.1%

18 2.9%

18 2.9%

15 2.4%

14 2.3%

45 7.3%

618 100.0%

2006/2007N %

128 21.8%

83 14.1%

30 5.1%

39 6.6%

28 4.8%

21 3.6%

13 2.2%

24 4.1%

38 6.5%

13 2.2%

42 7.1%

31 5.3%

23 3.9%

13 2.2%

62 10.5%

588 100.0%

NUMBER OF PROGRAMS BY AY




FIGURE 3: The MedianNumber ofSociologyMajors Grew


AY 2000/2001

AY 2006/2007

RESEARCH DOCTORAL MASTERS BACCALAUREATE0

50

100

150

200

250

177.5

230.5

FIGURE 4:The MedianNumber ofBachelor’sDegree inSociologyAwarded byDepartmentsIncreased

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

RESEARCH DOCTORAL MASTERS BACCALAUREATE

27.8

44.062.0

72.0

96.3

124.6

10.014.0

19.021.2

31.235.0

56.0

71.0AY 2000/2001

AY 2006/2007




Department chairs’ comments suggest that thenumber of sociology majors is growing in manydepartments, despite a lack of growth in resources.Only a few chairs worry about decreasing numbersof students and its negative impact on their ability tosustain the sociology major. Figure 3 shows anoverall increase in the median number of majors perdepartment between 2001 and 2007. The largestpercentage increase (58 percent) in sociology majorsoccurred at Baccalaureate-only institutions,increasing from a median of 28 to 44 majors overthe six-year period. Research universities experienceda 30 percent increase from a median of 178 majorsto 231 majors per department. The number ofmajors in sociology departments at Doctoraluniversities increased at approximately the same rate(29 percent) as Research universities, althoughresearch universities had almost twice the number ofmajors as did Doctoral universities. Departments atMaster’s Comprehensive schools experienced thesmallest percentage increase in the number ofmajors, but even at these schools the median numberincreased from 62 to 72 per department. The growthin majors should be good news for sociologydepartments, yet the lack of corresponding growth infull-time faculty (see below), suggests that as onechair put it, “classrooms are bulging.” Another chairdescribed the situation as follows:

We have nearly doubled in size with the influx ofeducation majors choosing sociology as their secondmajor. We have not had an increase in faculty,classroom space, or other space.

Overall, the median number of sociologyBaccalaureates more than doubled since 1986 with alow of 12,397 graduates to a high of 28,541 in2006. See this trend table on the ASA Research andStatistics web page at http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/leftnav/research_and_stats/profession_trend_data/sociology_degrees_since_1966. Between 2001and 2007, the number of students awarded a

Baccalaureate degree in sociology increased at alltypes of schools (see Figure 4). The largest percentincrease (41 percent) was at Baccalaureate-onlyschools, although the median number of degreerecipients increased only from a low of 10 to 14graduates. The second largest increase (almost 27percent) and the largest absolute increase wasreported at Research universities, from a median of56 graduates to a median of 71 graduates. Theincreases at Doctoral and Master’s comprehensiveschools were more modest.

Changes in the median number of students perdepartment obtaining graduate sociology degrees was relatively small, compared to the increase insociology majors and Bachelor’s degree recipients. As one department chair commented, “A majorpriority for the discipline is to encourage talentedstudents to enter graduate school in sociology.”Although the median number of students perdepartment in the Master’s I institutions obtainingMaster’s degrees increased by 50 percent between2001 and 2007, the base number was small, from 4 to 6 students (see Figure 5).

While Doctoral I schools graduated the highestmedian number of Master’s students in 2007, thelargest increase was in departments at Research IIschools. In spite of larger department size, Research Ischools graduated the same median number ofMaster’s students than departments at Master’scomprehensive schools. Research I schools tend toemphasize going straight to a PhD, and not alldepartments award Master’s degrees except as a“consolation prize” for those who are not consideredsuccessful PhD candidates which may account forthe relatively small number of Master’s degreesawarded. While there has been an increased interestin developing Master’s programs that are vocationalin orientation over the last 6 years, many chairssuggest their departments do not have the facultyand resources necessary to develop such programs.



FIGURE 5:The MedianNumber ofMaster’s DegreesAwarded byDepartment Grew


AY 2000/2001

AY 2006/2007

RESEARCH I RESEARCH II DOCTORAL I DOCTORAL II MASTERS I

FIGURE 6:The MedianNumber of PhDsAwarded byDepartmentRemained Stable


AY 2000/2001

AY 2006/2007

RESEARCH I RESEARCH II DOCTORAL I DOCTORAL II

5.0 5.0

3.0 3.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

1

2

3

4

5

5.0

6.0

4.0

7.0 7.0

7.7

5.5

7.0

4.0

6.0

3.0

4.0

0.0

1.1



Although the labor market for sociology PhDsappears strong (see “Too Many or Too Few PhDs? at http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/PhDs%20Employment%20Brief%20(FINAL).pdf )the median number of new PhDs also remainedstable over the 6-year period (see Figure 6). This stability in the number of PhD recipients in sociology parallels figures provided by the National Science Foundation that show 572 PhDsawarded in 2000 and 578 degrees awarded in 2006(http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/leftnav/research_and_stats/profession_trend_data/sociology_degrees_since_1966). Research I schools graduated the highestnumber of PhDs in both years, a median of 5 peryear, and Doctoral II schools awarded the fewestdegrees, 0 in 2001 and 1 in 2007.

Does the recruitment of new graduate students inAY 2006/2007 suggest a change in the Master’s andPhD pipelines compared to the earlier academicyear? There are several stages in the recruitmentprocess. First, potential students are encouraged toapply. Figure 7 shows a declining percentage of thosewho applied to graduate departments admitted in AY2000/2001 compared to AY 2006/2007 in all typesof departments. Research I departments admitted thesmallest percentage of applicants in both years,although there was a decline from an admittance rateof about 1 in 4 to under 1 in 5. Doctoral II schoolsalso went from admitting about 67 percent of allapplicants to admitting fewer than half. Sociologydepartments at Master’s comprehensive schoolsadmitted the highest percentage of graduate students(77 percent in AY 2000/2001 and 66 percent in AY2006/2007). This high acceptance rate may beexplained by the fact that these schools admitstudents with fewer qualifications who are notnecessarily expected to obtain PhD degrees. Evenhere, there was an 11 percent decline in admissions.

Chairs identified two primary reasons for these drops in rates of admittance. First is the lack of

resources, especially stipends, for graduate students.The second is the perceived lessening of the qualityof applicants, especially in the ability to understandquantitative analysis.

F A C U LT Y

Indicators of change in the size of the faculty insociology departments include the median numberof full-time faculty and new assistant professors, aswell as department size.

Chairs’ reports that the number of students hasincreased while the number of faculty perdepartment has remained flat are borne out by thedata in Figure 8. The only notable increase in themedian number of full-time faculty membersoccurred at Research II universities, increasing froma median of 13 to 16 faculty members perdepartment between 2001 and 2007. The data showa small decline in full-time faculty at Research Ischools from a median of 18 to a median of 17. Thissuggests that over the 6 year period Research I andResearch II departments, on average, were becomingapproximately the same size. The median number offull-time faculty in all other types of departmentsremained stable, except for Baccalaureate II schoolswhich, on average, gained an additional slot.

The largest category of positions advertised in ASA’sJob Bank is in the category of assistant professor.Figure 9 suggests that the median number of newtenure-track faculty hired at all types of departmentshas remained flat over the 6-year period. Each typeof department hired a median of 1 new assistantprofessor in both survey years. In 2001 55 percent ofresearch departments reported hiring a new assistantprofessor during the year; it declined to 40 percentby 2007. The next largest decline was amongBaccalaureate-only schools, with a drop from 23


1 0AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

FIGURE 7:The Percentage of Applicants Who are Admittedto GraduateSociologyPrograms hasDeclined


AY 2000/2001

AY 2006/2007

RESEARCH I RESEARCH I DOCTORAL I DOCTORAL II MASTERS I

FIGURE 8: The MedianNumber of Full-time Faculty in DepartmentsHas RemainedStable


AY 2000/2001

AY 2006/2007

RESEARCH I RESEARCH II DOCTORAL I DOCTORAL II MASTERS I MASTERS II BACC I BACC II

18.017.0

12.5

16.0

12.0

8.0 8.0

6.0 6.0

3.0 3.04.0 4.0

2.03.0

12.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

25.2%

18.9%

39.8%

29.3%

57.5%

47.4%

66.9%

47.5%

76.5%

65.9%



percent to 16 percent. The percentage of Master’sschools hiring new assistant professors remainedrelatively stable. By contrast, in Doctoral universities29 percent of departments hired in 2001 and 35percent hired in 2007. Overall, these figures supportchairs’ claims that they are facing very limitedcapacity to hire.

Chairs were asked whether there were more, thesame, or fewer full-time tenure track or tenuredfaculty in their departments compared to one yearearlier. This number is calculated by subtracting thenumber of faculty that left the department, as aresult of retirement, failure to receive tenure, or othercauses, from the number of new hires. The majorityof departments reported either the same number offaculty or fewer faculty (Figure 10). While more thanone-third of Research I schools (37 percent) reporthaving more faculty in AY 2006/2007 than in theprior year, the proportion was much lower for othertypes of departments. The situation declined over the6 year period for the Doctoral I and II, Master’s Iand II, and Baccalaureate I departments. There was asmall increase among Research II schools andBaccalaureate II schools. This relative lack ofdepartment growth leads chairs to be concernedabout looming retirements and uncertain positionreplacement. Figure 10 suggests that overall theirfears may be well-founded.

A S S E S S M E N T

Chairs report that the time and resources needed toconduct assessments that evaluate undergraduatestudent learning are major concerns. Figure 11 showsthat almost all departments are conducting some

form of assessment, and the percentage engaged inthis activity has generally increased over the six yearsbetween department surveys. Research departmentswere the least likely to conduct assessments, but thepercent doing so increased from two-thirds to three-quarters of all departments. By 2007 more than 9 outof 10 departments in Master’s comprehensive schoolswere conducting assessments, as were more than 80percent of other departments. Chairs appear to beoverwhelmed by the amount of work required toconduct assessments, on the one hand, anddiscouraged by the lack of resources to implementcurriculum changes suggested by the assessmentresults. One chair responded to the open-endedquestion about major department concerns:

I believe the most important issue is assessment. We spend far too much time assessing students…Now we have double the regular work plus all thisassessment stuff.

Some are concerned that negative findings from anassessment will reflect poorly upon their departmentsand try to resist the process. Other chairs look atassessments as an opportunity to restructure theundergraduate major, but they are concerned aboutthe lack of resources to implement curricular changesthat assessments indicate will lead to improvedstudent learning, such as capstone courses,internships, and writing portfolios. For example:

Strengthening our department by doing a generalcurriculum review and planning new ways to serveour students in the future is currently underway. Weare presently under something very close to a hiringfreeze, so we must work within our existing pool ofresources while we strategize.



FIGURE 9: The MedianNumber of NewTenure TrackAssistantProfessors HiredHas RemainedStable AmongThose Departmentsthat Hired



AY 2000/2001

AY 2006/2007

FIGURE 10:The Percentageof DepartmentsReporting MoreTenure TrackFaculty hasDeclined Comparedto the PreviousYear

AY 2000/2001

AY 2006/2007

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0


RESEARCH I RESEARCH II DOCTORAL I DOCTORAL II MASTERS I MASTERS II BACC I BACC II

37% 37%

21%

25% 26%

22%

15%

7%

19%

11%

14% 13%

20%

13%

5%7%



These 11 Figures and Tables comparing sociologydepartments in different institutional settings providepeer data that can be used to inform chairs, deans, andother administrators about the absolute and relativeconditions in sociology departments. The key indicatorsof department well-being show that many sociologydepartments have been successful in increasing thenumber of majors and Baccalaureate degree recipients.Yet chairs have other concerns. They are concerned withtoo many or too few majors. They are concerned aboutgraduate student enrollments. There has been lesssuccess in increasing the number of qualified Master’sstudents than the number of Bachelor’s degrees. Thereare continuing concerns in some departments abouthow to handle criminal justice departmentsorganizationally. All these issues are occurring in acontext of few new hires, limited space, few resources(such as computer laboratories, travel monies, andclerical staff ), and rising administration-drivenmandates. There is concern that state higher education

budgets will decrease while state demands for facultyaccountability will increase. Both in spite of and becauseof the increase in majors and Bachelor’s degreerecipients, AY 2006/2007 appears to have been a moredifficult year for many chairs than AY 2000/2001.

ASA hopes that the data presented here and data thatwe will present in future research briefs and reportsfrom the department survey can be used by chairs andothers to persuade deans and administrators to investin those sociology departments and programs that wantto restructure curriculum, improve student learning,conduct more research, and recruit new faculty andgraduate students. At a time when the growth ofsociological research findings is contributing toenriching the well-being of societies, here and abroad,solving problems and improving our socialinfrastructure, these investments are vital to developingthe next generation of productive scholars andinformed citizens.

FIGURE 11:Percentage ofDepartments Using Assessmentsto EvaluateUndergraduateStudent Learningby Institution Type


AY 2000/2001

AY 2006/2007

0

20

40

60

80

100


66%

74%70%

81% 81%

92%

84% 83%

C O N C L U S I O N S



A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

This research brief is the product of a collaborative effort between thestaff of the ASA Department of Research and Development includingRoberta Spalter-Roth, Director, and Janene Scelza and Nicole VanVooren, Research Associates. The on-line survey was designed andfielded by the staff of the Indiana University’s Center for SurveyResearch, especially John Kennedy and Heather Terhune. We areespecially indebted to many sociology department chairs, departmentadministrative assistants, and directors of graduate programs, whohelped during the development and testing of the survey instrument.Anne Quito is responsible for the layout and graphics design. We hopethat it helps strengthen sociology departments and programs across thecountry as they prepare for the demands of the future.

M E T H O D O L O G I C A L A P P E N D I X

M E T H O D S

THE SURVEY UNIVERSE. To implement a surveythat responded to chairs’ and other users’ data needs,we used a continuously updated list of the universe ofsociology programs and departments that award aBaccalaureate degree in sociology. This list wasoriginally created from the National Center forEducational Statistics 1997–98 IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)Completions Survey. The universe selected fromIPEDS consisted of all institutions that had grantedat least one BA degree in sociology during AY1997–1998. This data file was merged with the ASA department file and then all the mismatcheswere verified and either included or excluded. Thismethod produced a universe of 1,010 programs thatgranted a minimum of a Bachelors-level degree insociology. This compared to the 1,093 programs inAY 2000-2001. Of these 1010 programs we couldnot find any contact information for 95 departments,despite a series of efforts. As a result, the surveyuniverse contained 915 departments or programs thatoffered a Baccalaureate degree in sociology.

THE SURVEY. The Survey was designed by the ASA Research and Development Department to becomparable to the earlier department survey and toreflect chairs’ and committees’ concerns. IndianaUniversity’s Center for Survey Research (CSR)designed the on-line survey and conducted much of the fieldwork. The final survey was mailed inMarch 2008 to department chairs. The datarequested were for the previous completed academicyear (AY 2006–2007), and for fall semester 2008,when a full year’s data was not appropriate.

RESPONSE RATES. As with most on-line surveys,initial respondents answered quickly, and we receivedthe bulk of responses during the first week. After that,responses came slowly, and between April 2008 andJune 2008, Arne Kalleberg, the 2007–2008 Presidentof the ASA, and Sally T. Hillsman, Executive Officerof the ASA, sent three reminder letters. The finalresponse rate of nearly 60 percent (549 departmentsor programs), overall, was higher than departmentsurveys sent by other disciplinary societies and washigher than the response rate for the AY 2000–2001survey (with a response rate of 56 percent). Theresponse rate varied by type of institution, with thelowest rate among Baccalaureate II and Master’s IIschools. As a result, responses were weighted.

REPORTED DATA. Despite weighting, the results do not represent the full universe of sociologydepartments and programs. Therefore, the totalcounts of students and faculty are undercounts andcannot be used to answer questions, such as the totalnumber of sociology faculty or the total number ofsociology majors. Rather we present the mediannumber per department by type of department (peer departments).

PEER DEPARTMENTS. The 1994 version of theCarnegie Classification of Institutions of HigherEducation was used to group departments into peergroups, while ensuring the promised confidentialityto individual departments. This classification methodwas selected over others, such as department size,because a convenience sample of chairs preferred thisapproach. Thus, in this report, all departments in aparticular type of institution are considered “peerdepartments.” These department types were thengrouped into a broader set of categories, Research,Doctoral, Master’s, and Baccalaureate, to avoid small cell sizes.





APPENDIX TABLE 1. Unweighted Institutional Characteristics of Programs Offering Baccalaureate Degrees in Sociology

INSTITUTION TYPE

Research I

Research II

Doctoral I

Doctoral II

Masters I

Masters II

Baccalaureate I

Baccalaureate II

ALL PROGRAMS

2000–2001

Number of %Programs

70 11.3%

31 5.0%

26 4.2%

41 6.6%

213 34.5%

42 6.8%

88 14.3%

106 17.2%

617 100.0%

2006–2007

Number of %Programs

62 12.6%

23 4.7%

27 5.5%

23 4.7%

183 37.0%

31 6.3%

71 14.4%

74 15.0%

494 100.0%


A P P E N D I X TA B L E S

APPENDIX TABLE 2. Weighted Institutional Characteristics of Programs Offering Baccalaureate Degrees in Sociology

INSTITUTION TYPE

Research I

Research II

Doctoral I

Doctoral II

Masters I

Masters II

Baccalaureate I

Baccalaureate II

ALL PROGRAMS

2000–2001

Number of %Programs

70 8.6%

31 3.8%

31 3.8%

41 5.0%

288 35.3%

51 6.3%

103 12.6%

201 24.6%

816 100.0%

2006–2007

Number of %Programs

79 9.7%

29 3.6%

39 4.8%

37 4.5%

307 37.6%

57 7.0%

121 14.8%

147 18.0%

816 100.0%


AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

As the national organization for sociologists, theAmerican Sociological Association, through its

Executive Office, is well positioned to provide a uniqueset of services to its members and to promote thevitality, visibility, and diversity of the discipline.

Working at the national and international levels, theAssociation aims to articulate policy and implementprograms likely to have the broadest possible impact

for sociology now and in the future.

ASA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

The ASA Research and Development Department isresponsible for developing and disseminating

knowledge on sociology both as a discipline and aprofession by collecting primary and secondary data, bybuilding and maintaining databases, and disseminatingfindings in a variety of formats so that members of theprofession to benefit can use them for research, policy,

and planning purposes.

American Sociological Association1430 K Street, NW

Suite 600Washington, DC 20005

Phone:(202) 383-9005FAX: (202) 638-0882TDD: (202) 638-0981

www.asanet.org

© American Sociological Association, 2008

Documents

What is Happening in Your Department?...WHAT IS HAPPENING IN YOUR DEPARTMENT?: A Comparison of Findings from the 2001 and the 2007 Department Survey 4 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION