Quantifying the exclusionary process of canonisation, or How to become a classic of the social sciences

References

• Al-Hardan, A. (2018). The sociological canon reconfigured: Empire, colonial critique, and contemporary sociology. International Sociology, 33(5), 545–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580918791967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alatas, S. F., & Vineeta, S. (2001). Teaching classical sociological theory in Singapore: The context of Eurocentrism. Teaching Sociology, 29(3), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.2307/1319190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, J. C. (1987). The centrality of the classics. In A. Giddens & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Social theory today (pp. 11–57). Cambridge Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, M. L. (1988). Moving our minds: Studying women of color and reconstructing sociology. Teaching Sociology, 16(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/1317412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aron, R. (1934). Note sur l’objet et les divisions de la sociologie et ses rapports avec la philosophie. Review. Annales Sociologiques. Série A. Sociologie Générale., 1, 101–116. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27881863
   Google Scholar
• Baehr, P. (2016) [2002]. Founders, classics, canons. Modern dispute over the origins and appraisal of sociology’s heritage. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Barlösius, E. (2004). “Klassiker im goldrahmen” — Ein beitrag zur Soziologie der Klassiker. Leviathan, 32(4), 514–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11578-004-0034-4
   Google Scholar
• Becker, H. (1931). Review of Handwörterbuch der Soziologie by Alfred Vierkandt et al. In The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Vol. 156, pp. 180–181). Elements of an American Foreign Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Bhambra, G. K. (2014). A sociological dilemma: Race, segregation and US sociology. Current Sociology, 62(4), 472–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114524506
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847501400602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–256). Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (2001). Science of science and reflexivity. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boyers, J. S. (2000). Subversion and the sociological canon. Michigan Sociological Review, 14(3), 83–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40969049
   Google Scholar
• Carreira da Silva, F., & Brito Vieira, M. (2011). Books and canon building in sociology: The case of mind, self, and society. Journal of Classical Sociology, 11(4), 356–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X11415148
   Google Scholar
• Connell, R. W. (1997). Why is classical theory classical? American Journal of Sociology, 102(6), 1511–1557. https://doi.org/10.1086/231125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connell, R. (2019). Canons and colonies. The global trajectory of sociology. Estudos Históricos (Rio de Janeiro), 32(67), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1590/s2178-14942019000200002
   Google Scholar
• Coser, L. A. (1977). Masters of sociological thought. Ideas in historical and social context. Hartcourt Brace.
   Google Scholar
• Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, 80(2), 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deflem, M. (2003). The sociology of the sociology of money. Simmel and the contemporary battle of the classics. Journal of Classical Sociology, 3(1), 67–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X03003001695
   Google Scholar
• Fleck, C., & Müller, R. (2002). 50 Klassiker der Soziologie. Übersicht nach Basiswerken. http://agso.uni-graz.at/lexikon/klassiker/00cont/00_bw.htm
   Google Scholar
• Gerhards, J. (2014). Top Ten Soziologie: Welche soziologischen Texte sollen Studierende der Soziologie gelesen haben? Soziologie, 43(3), 313–321.
   Google Scholar
• Ginsberg, M. (1934). Book review: Handwörterbuch der Soziologie. The Sociological Review, a26(1), 84–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026134A2600101
   Google Scholar
• Go, J. (2020). Race, empire, and epistemic exclusion: Or the structures of sociological thought. Sociological Theory, 38(2), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275120926213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2001). Why is Werner Sombart not part of the core of classical sociology? From fame to (near) oblivion. Journal of Classical Sociology, 1(2), 257–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687950122232558
   Google Scholar
• Holzhauser, N. (2014). Ngram-analysis of inequalities in gender-specific job and academic titles for female and male sociologists in the German book discourse of the 20th century. Gender, 6(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.3224/gender.v6i1.18114
   Google Scholar
• Holzhauser, N. (2015). Warum die Flugzeuge nicht landen. Einige Bemerkungen zu "Top Ten Soziologie. Wissenschaft und Pseudowissenschaft. Soziologie, 44(1), 33–55.
   Google Scholar
• Holzhauser, N. (2018). Zur Marginalisierung von Frauen in der frühen deutschsprachigen Soziologie. In M. Endreß & S. Moebius (Eds.), Zyklos 4 (pp. 101–120). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Holzhauser, N., Ploder, A., Moebius, S., & Roemer, O. (2019). Handwörterbuch der deutschsprachigen Soziologie. Band 3. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Honegger, C., & Wobbe, T. (Eds.). (1997). Frauen in der Soziologie. Neun Porträts. C.H. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• International Sociological Association. (1998). Books of the XX Century. A survey by the International Sociological Association. https://www.isa-sociology.org/en/about-isa/history-of-isa/books-of-the-xx-century
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, G. (2009). Influence and canonical supremacy: An analysis of how George Herbert Mead demoted Charles Horton Cooley in the sociological canon. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 45(2), 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.20363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaesler, D. (Ed.). (1999a). Klassiker der Soziologie 1. Von Auguste Comte bis Norbert Elias. C.H. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Kaesler, D. (Ed.). (1999b). Klassiker der Soziologie 2. Von Talcott Parsons bis Anthony Giddens. C.H. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Käsler, D. (Ed.). (1976). Klassiker des soziologischen Denkens I. Von Comte bis Durkheim. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Käsler, D. (Ed.). (1978). Klassiker des soziologischen Denkens II. Von Weber bis Mannheim. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Käsler, D. (1984). Die frühe deutsche Soziologie 1909 bis 1934 und ihre Entstehungs-Milieus. Westdeutscher Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• König, R. (1981). Soziologie in Berlin um 1930. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Special Issue 23, 24–58.
   Google Scholar
• Krohn, C.-D. (1999). Bauer-Mengelberg, Käthe. In H. Hagemann & C.-D. Krohn (Eds.), Biographisches Handbuch der deutschsprachigen wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Emigration nach 1933. Band 1, 32f. Saur.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, D. (1995). Visions of sociological tradition. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24529203.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Madoo Lengerman, P., & Niebrugge, G. (1998). The women founders. Sociology and social theory 1830–1930. Waveland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marcucci, N. (2017). Between facts and wills: Tönnies, Durkheim, and the sociological critique of modern obligation. Journal of Classical Sociology, 17(4), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X17735993
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Münch, R., & Baier, C. (2012). Institutional struggles for recognition in the academic field: The case of University Departments in German Chemistry. Minerva, 50(1), 97–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-012-9189-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ollion, E., & Abbott, A. (2016). French connections: The Reception of French Sociologists in the USA (1970–2012). European Journal of Sociology, 57(2), 331–372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975616000126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Outhwaite, W. (2009). Canon formation in late 20th-century British sociology. Sociology, 43(6), 1029–1045. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509345696
   Google Scholar
• Owens, B. R. (2015). The status of the classics: A view from today. Journal of Classical Sociology, 15(4), 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X15572281
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, D. (1997). Viewpoint: Why bother with Durkheim? Teaching sociology in the 1990s. The Sociological Review, 45(1), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrucci, R., Perrucci, C., & Subramaniam, M. (2019). Publications in four sociology journals 1960–2010: The role of discipline demographics and journal mission. Sociological Focus, 52(3), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2019.1624232
   Google Scholar
• Reckwitz, A. (2002). Der soziologische ‘Kanon’: Disziplinierung oder Grenzüberschreitung?. Soziologische Revue, 25(3), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1524/srsr.2002.25.3.247
   Google Scholar
• Ritzer, G. (Ed.). (2000). The Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists. Blackwell Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, B. (1990). Integrating feminist and sociological thought: The life and work of Helena Znaniecka Lopata. The American Sociologist, 21(2), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692859
   Google Scholar
• Saram, P. A. (1998). Reflections on the Reception of Veblen and Weber in American Sociology. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 11(4), 579–605. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025101306346
   Google Scholar
• Sée, H. (1932). Handwörterbuch der Soziologie. Revue Historique, 169(2), 399–400. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40944853
   Google Scholar
• Shalin, D. N. (2015). Making the sociological canon: The battle over George Herbert Mead’s legacy. The American Sociologist, 46(3), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-015-9259-8
   Google Scholar
• Skrbis, Z., & Germov, J. (2004). The Most Influential books in Australian sociology (MIBAS), 1963–2003. Journal of Sociology, 40(3), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783304046282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stacey, J., & Thorne, B. (1985). The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Social Problems, 32(4), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/800754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Susen, S., & Turner, B. S. (2011). Tradition and innovation in classical sociology: Tenth Anniversary Report of JCS. Journal of Classical Sociology, 11(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X10391451
   Google Scholar
• Terry, J. L. (1983). Bringing women … In: A modest proposal. Teaching Sociology, 10(2), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.2307/1317115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. E., & Kukulan, A. (2004). “Why don't I know about these women?”: The integration of early women sociologists in classical theory courses. Teaching Sociology, 32(3), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X0403200301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vierkandt, A. (1931). Handwörterbuch der Soziologie. Enke.
   Google Scholar
• Willis, C. L., & McNamee, S. (1990). Social networks of science and patterns of publication in leading sociology journals, 1960 to 1985. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 11(4), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709001100401
   Google Scholar
• Wobbe, T. (1994a). Mathilde Vaerting (1884–1977). “Es kommt alles auf den Unterschied an (…) der Unterschied ist das Grundelement der Macht”. In B. Hahn (Ed.), Frauen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Von Lou Andreas-Salomé bis Hannah Arendt (pp. 123–135). C.H. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Wobbe, T. (1994b). Hanna Meuter (1889–1964). “ … und auf dem Soziologentag in Wien hatte ich als erste Frau ein Referat”. In B. Hahn (Ed.), Frauen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Von Lou Andreas-Salomé bis Hannah Arendt (pp. 189–203). C.H. Beck.
   Google Scholar