Investigating the Intellectual Bifurcation Between Feminist Theory and Sociology of Religious Leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite rich theoretical developments occurring within feminist theory, Avishai and Irby (2017) have identified that a problematic ‘intellectual bifurcation’ (652) exists between the fields of ‘feminism’ and ‘sociology of religion.’ This means that developments in feminist knowledge and theorising may not be being used by sociologists of religion to frame their work on gender. The present study elaborates on the work of Avishai and Irby (2017) by conducting a literature review which considers empirical sociological journal publications in the area of religion, gender and leadership between January 2001 to December 2021. Using a combination of citation analysis and the analytical codes developed by Avishai and Irby<i> </i>(2017), the findings of this article suggest that the existence of the intellectual bifurcation subtly persists, as scholars in the subdiscipline of sociology of religion doing work on gender and leadership include some gender or feminist citations in background or literature review sections, but these are rarely substantial or timely, nor do they trickle down to influence the conceptual frameworks used to situate analyses or discussions. The article concludes by presenting some considerations on using citation analysis to better understand patterns of knowledge transmission and bifurcation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".