The Boston Globe reported this weekend on a study from University of Chicago sociologist James Evans about the booming number of readily accessible journal articles online. The Globe notes that this has enabled academics and other researchers to find materials they might not otherwise have access to, but that there may be downsides to this trend as well.

A recent study suggests that despite this cornucopia, the boom in online research may actually have a “narrowing” effect on scholarship. James Evans, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, analyzed a database of 34 million articles in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities, and determined that as more journal issues came online, new papers referenced a relatively smaller pool of articles, which tended to be more recent, at the expense of older and more obscure work. Overall, Evans says, published research has expanded, due to a proliferation of journals, authors, and conferences. But the paper, which appeared in July in the journal Science, concludes that the Internet’s influence is to tighten consensus, posing the risk that good ideas may be ignored and lost – the opposite of the Internet’s promise.

“Winners are inadvertently picked,” says Evans. “It drives out diversity.”

Evans’ study contributes to a growning concern over the neutrality of web-based search tools, which most often privilege the popular and new. But these conclusions have been controversial, even in the academic community.

Yet there is vigorous debate over the Internet’s effects, and the Evans research has proved controversial. A University of Quebec researcher, Vincent Lariviere, has coauthored a forthcoming paper that challenges some of its conclusions. (Evans plans to publish a rebuttal.) Another researcher, Carol Tenopir at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, says that she has not studied citations, but that her surveys of reading patterns show the reverse of a narrowing effect.

“Electronic journals, I can say with confidence, have broadened reading,” says Tenopir.

Delve into the fray, here.

Inside Higher Education reported this week on a new national survey from the American Sociological Association, which found that sociology departments across the country have been able to expand their programs by attracting new students, but that growth in faculty lines has lagged behind. 

The survey — conducted in 2007 and updating a study from 2001 — came before the recent economic downturn that has crunched budgets at many colleges and is probably adding to the pressures documented in “What Is Happening in Your Department?,” written by Roberta Spalter-Roth, director of research for the association. Further adding to the concern is that graduate programs are reducing the percentage of applicants they admit, who would eventually add to the faculty base. While such an increase in selectivity could be considered a healthy sign, the two reasons given for it in the survey don’t suggest strength. The reasons are lack of funds for stipends and the declining quality of applicants.

The study included feedback from faculty members and chairs who voiced concerns surrounding expected retirements without replacements, rising numbers of undergraduate with too few resources, and the implications of the rising number of undergraduates who ‘double-major’ in sociology. 

Read the full story, here. Check the numbers.

Minnesota Public Radio‘s mid-morning broadcast yesterday included a fascinating piece about several new studies that suggest that infidelity is on the rise, especially for older men and younger women. MPR explores the changing nature of this trend, and the shift in emphasis from sex to intimacy.

The discussion featured two guests: Virginia Rutter, an assistant professor of sociology at Framingham State University, and Frank Pittman, a practicing family therapist and psychiatrist in Atlanta. Both have authored numerous publications on sexuality and infidelity.

LISTEN HERE.

Yesterday the Telegraph (UK) ran a story about Malcolm Gladwell, famous author of ‘The Tipping Point’ and ‘Blink,’ and pop sociologist extraordinaire. The article was based upon an informal interview with Gladwell to discuss his latest book ‘Outliers: The Story of Success,’ which has received critical acclaim here and abroad. Telegraph (UK) reporter Bob Williams writes about meeting Gladwell in his Greenwich Village apartment, and the pleasure of being greeted with a properly-prepared cup of tea — which is later criticized for its weakness.

Williams writes:

As with his previous books, Gladwell glides effortlessly across every subject imaginable to back up his theories with statistics – from the tendencies of Korean airline pilots to crash and of sportsmen born in January to do well, to why so many top lawyers are Jewish. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a theory about why he likes watery tea, as he has seems to have one for everything else. It would, by definition, be elegantly framed, somewhat left-field, but guaranteed – when snappily packaged as, say, The Pouring Point – to capture the zeitgeist instantly.

About the book itself:

Exceptional people – or “outliers” as [Gladwell] calls them – excel for rather more prosaic reasons. Geniuses are made, not born, benefiting from very specific advantages in their environment and putting in at least 10,000 hours of practice first. The premise is not exactly counter-intuitive. Indeed, some have carped that it is obvious.

“Hopefully it will be an anti-anxiety book,” says the author. “The route to success is ordinary – it’s not based on extravagant, innate gifts. I want to demystify.” He wants to “humble the successful and strip them of their illusions of their own virtue”.

Read the full story, here.

A Newswise press release posted on Friday about a study from University of Maryland sociologists has hit the headlines of papers around the world including the UK, India, and Bulgaria as well as the United States. The new study suggests that unhappy people watch more television, while happy people spend more time reading and socializing. The investigators at the University of Maryland analyzed three decades of data from time-use studies and social attitudes surveys (nationally representative). Their study indicates that spending more time watching TV contributes to happiness in the moment, but may result in fewer positive effects in the long term.

“TV doesn’t really seem to satisfy people over the long haul the way that social involvement or reading a newspaper does,” says University of Maryland sociologist John P. Robinson, the study co-author and a pioneer in time-use studies. “It’s more passive and may provide escape – especially when the news is as depressing as the economy itself. The data suggest to us that the TV habit may offer short-run pleasure at the expense of long-term malaise.”

Robinson suggests that we might see a significant increase in TV viewing over the coming months and years as the economy worsens…

“Through good and bad economic times, our diary studies, have consistently found that work is the major activity correlate of higher TV viewing hours,” Robinson says. “As people have progressively more time on their hands, viewing hours increase.”

But Robinson cautions that some of that extra time also might be spent sleeping. “As working and viewing hours increase, so do sleep hours,” he says. “Sleep could be the second major beneficiary of job loss or reduced working hours.”

Read the full story.

Temple University sociologist Matt Wray has identified new patterns in suicides in the Las Vegas area, Medical News Today reports. The study, titled “Leaving Las Vegas: Exposure to Las Vegas and Risk of Suicide,” examined rates of suicide in the Entertainment Capital of the World over a 30-year period and compared that data to the rest of the nation. Wray and his colleagues found:

residents of Las Vegas face a suicide risk that is significantly higher than the risk faced by residents elsewhere

people who die while visiting Las Vegas are twice as likely to die by suicide than are people who die visiting someplace else

visitors to Las Vegas face an even higher suicide risk than residents of Las Vegas

Wray offers some plausible explanations for this pattern, but encourages further study…

According to Wray, there a couple of scenarios that may explain the reasons for this geographical suicide cluster, but these need further research. “One would be ‘gambler’s despair’ – someone visits Las Vegas, bets his house away and decides to end it all. Another would be that those predisposed to suicide disproportionately choose Las Vegas to reside in or visit. And, finally, there may be a ‘contagion’ effect where people are emulating the suicides of others, with Las Vegas acting as a suicide magnet, much like the Golden Gate bridge. Some people may be going there intent on self-destruction.”

On a positive note, Wray’s study found that the suicide risk has actually declined over the past 30 years in the Las Vegas area in contrast to national rates, which have risen slightly in recent decades.

USA Today reports on statistics from the Census that indicate “the age at first marriage has been climbing steadily for all racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups. The median age is now the oldest since the U.S. Census started keeping track in the 1890s: almost 26 for women and almost 28 for men.”

There are general pros and cons for marrying at different times, but there seems to be little agreement…

And as young people wait longer to marry, there is growing debate over whether waiting is a good idea, and if so, how long is best. Those who advocate marriage in the early to mid-20s say that’s the age when the pool of possible mates is larger, it’s when couples can “grow up” together and it’s prime for childbearing. But others favor the late 20s or early 30s, saying maturity makes for happier unions and greater economic security — both of which make divorce less likely.

Sociologist Andrew Cherlin weighs in…

“It’s better not to get married as a teenager,” says sociologist Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University. “Beyond that, I don’t think there’s an ideal age.”

There does seems to be sociological evidence that earlier is better…

A study being drafted by sociologist Norval Glenn of the University of Texas-Austin finds that those who marry in the early to mid-20s are slightly happier and less likely to break up than those who marry in the later 20s, but are significantly more satisfied with their relationships than those who marry at 30 or older.

But marrying later might be best, according to Paul Amato…

But research by sociologist Paul Amato of Pennsylvania State University for a 2007 book he co-wrote suggests quite the opposite. The studies for Alone Together: How Marriage in America Is Changing used different data and different criteria and found distinct benefits to marrying older.

“We found that the delay in marriage was actually a good thing and it actually improved the average marital quality by a fair amount,” he says.

“Older marriages (30s vs. 20s) were more cohesive in the sense they did things more often together as a couple. And couples who married at older ages were less likely to report thinking about divorce or that their marriage was in trouble.”

But ultimately whether or not you are ‘ready’ does seem to matter…

“People are more concerned with their own self-development than they used to be,” [sociologist Andrew] Cherlin says. “People are postponing marriage until everything in their lives is working in order. The order means after you’ve finished your education, perhaps after beginning your career, and increasingly after you’ve lived with your partner. They’re postponing marriage until they think they’re ready for it.”

Read the full story.

The Chicago Tribune ran a story yesterday about the potential effects of Tuesday’s election results titled, “Transformed by Obama’s Win — Has the election of an African-American to the White House shattered stereotypes and changed the way Americans – black or white – view each other?” In addition to interviews with locals in Chicago, the Tribune calls in the sociologists to sort this out in greater detail…

One sociologist points out the remaining ‘structural issues’…

To be sure, few people said they believe Obama’s victory will be enough to transform race relations in the United States radically or instantly.

“There are structural issues that need to be addressed,” said Martin Sanchez-Jankowski, a professor of sociology at the University of California– Berkeley. He said it is much more difficult for people to transfer their attitude toward Obama to the people of color they encounter every day.

“That is not something that any single election will be able to make a major difference in,” Sanchez-Jankowski said.

But on a more optimistic note, sociologist Omar Roberts focuses on how Obama’s victory may be a starting point for future change…

Omar McRoberts, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, said he thinks the election has provided a forum for the kinds of discussion needed to effect change.

“This election doesn’t represent the erasure of race as an obstacle or as a point of tension,” McRoberts said. “What it marks is the opening of a new space for serious dialogue and hard work.”

Read the full story.

The American is now running a story titled, “The Long March of Racial Progress,” a piece that examines the story of race relations in America and the extraordinary changes that have come about. Sociological commentary is featured prominently in this story, specifically the work of sociologist Reynolds Farley.

The American reports: 

As University of Michigan sociologist Reynolds Farley points out in a new paper, there are now 41 African Americans serving in the House of Representatives, compared to only six when the Kerner Commission issued its famous report on race and poverty in 1968. During the years following the Kerner Report, “The slowly rising incomes of black men and the more rapidly rising incomes of black women produced an important economic change for African Americans,” Farley writes. “In 1996, for the first time, the majority of blacks were in the economic middle class or above, if that means living in a household with an income at least twice the poverty line.”

According to Farley, “Only three percent of African Americans could be described as economically comfortable in 1968. That has increased to 17 percent at present. This is an unambiguous sign of racial progress: one black household in six could be labeled financially comfortable.” He notes that the black-white poverty gap “is much smaller now” than it was in the late 1960s.

The story continues, as Reynolds notes, with a point of caution:

Of course, we should not be overly sanguine about black progress, which has been hindered in recent decades by social pathologies and family disintegration. Since the 1968 Kerner Report, “adult black men have fallen further and further behind similar white men in terms of being employed,” says Farley, emphasizing that “the white-black gap in personal income is not closing, nor is the white-black gap in household income getting any smaller.” Indeed, both the white-black income gap and the white-black gap in educational attainment remain “persistent and substantial.”

Read the full story.

The Boston Globe ran a story this morning about whether or not American racism is dead after the nation chose an African-American as the next president of the United States on Tuesday. The Globe reports, “The answer, coming as people began to digest the fact that a majority of Americans had chosen a black man, Barack Obama, to be the 44th president, was not nearly as straightforward. No, but sort of. Maybe, but probably not. While Obama’s achievement was profound, its psychological lift enormous for many, the impact on the rhythms of people’s everyday lives was revealing itself in subtler ways.”

The article includes commentary from researchers, lawyers and Boston residents. Sociologist Dan Monti weighs in…

“Are there racist people out there? Absolutely. Is our society racist? No,” said Dan Monti, a professor of sociology at Boston University whose specialty is race and ethnic relations in the United States. “I know there are people who will think that’s just wrong. But I think Barack Obama winning the presidency of the United States is the single clearest example that we are not. Because if we were, it wouldn’t have happened – period” …

In his sociology classes yesterday at BU, Monti told his students that everything – and nothing – changed on Tuesday night and that a series of changes, small and large, over the last century had laid the platform for Obama’s victory stage.

“With that said, what this represents, both domestically and internationally, is a coming of age of the American people,” Monti said.

Full story.