The <i>British Journal of Sociology</i> at sixty

The British Journal of Sociology (BJS) turns 60 this year. To mark that diamond anniversary, the editors have chosen two articles from each of the Journal's six decades that, in their judgment, represent important contributions to sociology with continuing relevance today. Frances Heidensohn selected articles from the 1950s, Richard Wright took the 1960s, Fran Tonkiss, who originally suggested the idea, took responsibility for both the 1970s and the 2000s, Gillian Stevens did the 1980s, and Claire Moon was in charge of the 1990s. The twelve articles chosen, plus contemporary commentary, are reprinted in this virtual 60th Anniversary issue. While we could include only a tiny fraction of the many influential articles that the BJS has published over the years, we hope you will agree that they amply demonstrate the Journal's enduring impact on the sociological enterprise across a wide range of substantive areas and a diversity of theoretical and methodological approaches. When the Journal marked its 50th anniversary with a special issue in 2000 ‘Sociology facing the Millennium’, the focus was wholly on ‘original analyses of just what might “sociologically” be changing and how such changes are transforming the positioning of “sociology”, whatever might still be meant by that term as we enter . . . sociology's second century’ (Urry 2000: 1 our italics). This time we have chosen to celebrate our anniversary by looking to our past, present, and future. Between us, we have read every paper published in the BJS since our very first issue of March 1950; we also have searched the BJS archives held in the LSE Library. Our selection of ‘classic’ papers is intended to reflect the Journal's outstanding role in the development of sociology both in Britain and internationally. The choices for each ten year period are explained in the respective editorial introductions, which range in length and scope as perhaps is inevitable in any such collaborative venture. We have had many debates amongst ourselves, with our editorial and international boards, and with our invited commentators about what constitutes a ‘classic’ article. Broadly, we have looked for significance, impact, originality, and lasting importance. There have been many hard decisions to make over what to include and what to leave out. The articles selected, coupled with the related commentaries, represent our attempt to place sociology in the BJS in its historical context while at the same time highlighting the Journal's continuing importance today. Of course we might have chosen otherwise and we encourage readers to debate the merits of our preferences and the commentaries that accompany them. The origins of the BJS perhaps are surprising to modern scholars, but they help to explain some of the distinctiveness of the Journal. Most notably, the BJS was clearly established as a result of a London School of Economics (LSE)-wide initiative, championed by then Director, Sir Alexander Carr Saunders, himself a former professor of social science at Liverpool University (though he originally was a zoologist).There had been a pre-war journal ‘Politica’, published from the LSE, which had been discontinued and efforts began in the late 1940s to plan for its replacement. Carr Saunders dominated this planning, though the true intellectual leadership was provided by two professors from the Sociology Department – Morris Ginsberg and T.H. Marshall. The first correspondence relating to the proposed new journal begins in 1947. An early notion was for the School to take over the Sociological Review, already almost 40 years old, from the Institute of Sociology, but this was rejected, leaving the LSE Committee charged with considering the establishment of a new journal to conclude that it ‘should cover the field of Sociology in a broad sense, and should receive such contributions in Political Science, International Relations, Jurisprudence, and Psychology, as have specifically sociological aspect’ (Extract from Professorial Council Agenda, 12 May 1948, LSE BJS archive 122/5). While Ginsberg and Marshall represented quite diverse approaches to the subject, (see Platt, 2003: 17 wherein she notes that Ginsberg did not believe qualifications in sociology were necessary in order to teach it), they were clearly able to sink their differences and agree to act as joint editors of the new journal (Letter from Marshall to the Director, 8 March 1948, LSE archive 122/5).One curious aspect is that the proposed title of the Journal in most of the early papers – the discussions and planning went on for over two years – was ‘The London Journal of Sociology’ The British Journal of Sociology appears first in a letter from T.M. Ragg of Routledge & Kegan Paul, the appointed publishers. Later notes in the archive suggest that this title was the outcome of much discussion, ‘records of which are now lost’. Ginsberg and Marshall had notably catholic views about what the BJS should cover. Ginsberg sets out one vision, with a proposed list of topics such as special issues devoted to psycho-analysis, public opinion, and local surveys (Letter to the Director 7 Oct 1948 LSE archive 122/5). In his submission to the Publications Committee on 15 November of the same year, Marshall incorporates Ginsberg's psycho-analytic idea, but gives much greater detail, including potential authors for future issues. He also provides costings and deals with topics such as paper supply (this still being the era of postwar rationing, the Committee notes that they had contacted a body called ‘Paper Control’ about their desired allocation) and the question of a subsidy from the LSE or from other sources, in order to have the advantage ‘of stressing that the journal was a national and not purely a School publication’. When all these matters had been resolved, the new publication was launched with a flyer announcing that: The AIMS of the Journal are to provide a medium for the publication of: a. Original researches in the various fields of Sociology, Social Psychology and Social Philosophy b. Critical studies or discussions in the various fields of enquiry c. Surveys of developments and literature in specific fields d. Book Reviews. Recent years have seen very substantial developments in the field of social studies. In the absence of an international medium of publication it is very difficult for individual workers to learn what is being done outside their own countries, to serve as an international focus, and to further the development of comparative studies [sic.]. There are notable continuities with the Journal's foundational days, perhaps most notably its strong international focus. The BJS has been a decidedly international journal from its inception, with five of the 17 articles published in the 1950 volume having a first author based outside the UK – three from Europe (France and Denmark), one from the USA, and one from South Africa. Of course, British-based authors have perennially predominated (it is the British Journal of Sociology after all), but throughout its history the geographic spread of BJS authors consistently has been remarkable. Looking at the first volume of each decade, 1950 through 2000, plus 2008 (the last year for which data are complete) shows that across those seven years the Journal published articles written by authors based on five continents, including Europe (Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Wales), Asia (Israel, Turkey), Africa (Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa), Australia, and North America (Canada, the USA). For the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 North American-based authors constituted the single largest category of non-British authors in the BJS, whereas in 2008 the Journal published twice as many European-based authors (excluding those based in the UK) as it did North American ones. While clearly it is too early to know whether this represents a fundamental shift – the data for any given year can be notoriously misleading – it will be interesting to see what impact Britain's increasing integration into Europe has on the Journal in the years ahead. In addition to the Journal's enduring international focus, there are other continuities worthy of special note. For example, the BJS's close ties to the LSE have persisted throughout the decades. And while the Journal's content undoubtedly has narrowed some over the years to become more exclusively sociological, it continues to define the subject's boundaries quite liberally and to publish accordingly. While the BJS has focused increasingly on sociology, as the present volume demonstrates this has encompassed a diverse number of themes – politics and government, mobility and poverty, deviance and social theory, individual actors and the concept of agency, among others – and examined them from many perspectives, often innovative and challenging in themselves. The BJS has always been pioneering, ready to launch debates and present studies at the subject's cutting edge. In its maturity, these characteristics have grown stronger. The Journal is, as it enters its seventh decade, as vibrant, controversial, and sociologically significant as ever. Of course the BJS has seen notable changes over the past sixty years too, as has sociology itself. The gender composition of authors, for instance, has altered considerably (see Platt 2007). Looking again at the first volume of the Journal for each decade (plus 2008) reveals that the percentage of articles authored by women – which remained extremely low throughout the Journal's first three decades – has increased steadily since the 1980s and in 2008 represented about 40 per cent of the total (see Figure 1 and, for a fuller analysis, see Platt 2007). Percentage of articles by women in the British Journal of Sociology 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2008 * Percentages based on first author As an aside, it took a great deal of digging to determine the gender of the authors of many of the articles published in early years of the BJS, owing to the widespread use of initials in place of first and middle names, a practice that had virtually disappeared by the 1970s. In the end, we managed to ascertain that all but one of these authors were male, with a single outlier whose gender, Google notwithstanding, remains stubbornly indeterminate. The issue of gender strikes us as especially important for this volume for at least two reasons. First, along with race and ethnicity (which are far more difficult to examine with the data available to us), it has emerged as a central concern within and beyond sociology in the years since the Journal was founded. And second, the BJS has itself published some of the key sociological works in this area (see Claire Moon's commentary in this volume). Another striking change in the Journal over the years, though for many it will be a far less welcome one, is the increasing length of its articles. In 1950, an article published in the BJS averaged less than 16 pages. By 2008, BJS articles were averaging over 22 pages. And the upward pressure on page length continues; the BJS regularly receives – and often returns without review – manuscripts far in excess of the Journal's published word length guidelines. Much of the increase in page length can be explained by the sheer volume of sociological literature produced over the past six decades and by the evolution of a more demanding peer review process that often requires extensive revision – and almost inevitable lengthening – before an article is accepted for publication. But that is not the whole story. It is also true that many of the authors published during the early years of the BJS were masterful writers who expressed themselves with great economy and without resort to the jargon characteristic of so much of today's sociological literature. Prediction has never been sociology's strongest suit, but it is interesting to speculate a bit about what major changes the Journal might see in the decades ahead. Much, of course, almost certainly will remain the same, with the BJS retaining a strong international focus, a broad interpretation of the sociological enterprise, and a home at the London School of Economics. Certainly it is our hope that the Journal will continue to become increasingly inclusive and to pioneer ways of reaching diverse readers and authors across the globe. Perhaps this will be facilitated by one change that we view as all but inevitable, and is reflected in this volume, namely the eventual move of the BJS– and all academic journals for that matter – to an online publication platform. In that sense, this 60th Anniversary Virtual Issue, although putatively devoted to the past, might also provide a glimpse into the future of academic publishing. All references to the BJS Archives are to the holdings in the British Library of Political and Economic Science –‘The LSE library’ and specifically to File 122/5.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.