Empirical Studies in the Sociology of

Religion: An Assessment of the

Past Ten Years ~

Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
Jeffrey K . H a d d e n
and
E d w a r d F. H e e n a n

Tulane University

The empirical study of religion has made progress in the past decade;
nevertheless, there are reasons why this progress was not greater and why
the prognosis for the next decade is not as optimŸ as the assessment of
past accomplishments. A review of empirical studies over the past ten
years assesses what they have accomplished in investigating: (l ) the
structure or dimensionality of religion, (2) religious belie[s, (3) religious
behavior, (4) the nature and dynamics of religious belie[s, and (5) re-
ligious instŸ as compIex organizations. However, in spite of ad-
vancing understanding of these aspects of religion, sociologists who have
devoted themselves to empirical study have frequenthr been impeded
by resistance [rom religionists, suspicion from their fellow sociologists,
and littIe support [rom [unding agencies. The attitudes of these three im-
portant reference groups toward empirical study of relŸ are examined,
and the possibilities of their coming to regard study of religion more [a-
vorably are assessed. Finally, it is suggested that a shi[t of emphasis from
the study of religion to the broader study of values wouId bring sociol-
ogists closer to the critical problems of a society and world in t,rmoil.

INTRODUCTION into the future and where they are going.

As we close out a decade of tumul-
tuous developments, a decade the media
has called the "unbelicvable" decade
(Look, 1969), few disciplines will by-
pass this opportunity to check where
they are and from whence they came
and to venture at least a timid glance
* Revision of a paper presented at the joint
session of the American As~oeiation for the Ad-
vancement of Science and the Society for the
Scientific Study of Religion, December 28, 1969,
Boston.
153
Leaving aside the incredible deve]op-
ments of this decade, it should be recog-
nized that there is perhaps an inherent
tendency for homo sapiens to ritualize
inventorying with the calendar.
But there are reasons other than the
end of a year, a decade, o r a century
to send us to the warehouse to take
stock. Gazing at the inventory seems less
likely to occur both when business is
brisk and when it is so slow that we
know things remain in the same order
154 SOC/OLOGICAL A N A L Y S l S
as they were yesterday. Frequent in.
ventories, on the other hand, seem more
likely to occur at those times when there
has been an investment in the enterprise
and we are anxious to know ff the mer-
ehandise has yet begun to more. Sim-
ilarly, increased aetivity in the store
aeross the street may tend to send us
nervously to the back room to assess our
own accomplishments.
This latter factor seems to have played
a major role in producing several assess-
ments of the sociology of religion dur-
ing the past deeade. All of the reviewers
l a v e conveyed a highly eonsistent
theme: the sociology of religion is still
a minor league operation. For example,
in 1961, Yinger eoneluded that "the
bread-and-butter of any seienee--the
testing of theoretŸ signifieant propo-
sitions by the use of eontrolled observa-
tion--has been in short supply" (p. 7).
In 1965, Glock and Stark noted "that
nene of the work done to assess the state
of religion in America eurrently or his-
torieally meets even the minimum of
seientifie inquiry" (p. 84). In 1968, Hill
and Rymph concluded it is premature to
be optimistie about the future of the
sociology of religion. They carne closest
to being kind to the enterprise when they
pointed out "that more or less the same
dismal description could be applied to
most, ir not all, of the general phe-
nomenal interests of sociologists." But
then they hasten to point out that there
are a number of substantive issues about
which sociologists know a good deal
more than they do religion.
In a 1969 issue of Sociological InquŸ
Bellah unleashed a blistering indictment
against the sociology of religion: "At a
time when there is more vitality and
excitement in the area of religion than
there has been in several generations,
why is "sociology of religion' so dull?"
(p. 93) He goes on to say that " . . .
sociologists have eoneerned themse/ves
mainly with the minutiae . . . nothing
has really galvanized the field in recent
years or made it seem worth the troublo
to most of the brighter students and
researchers in sociology" (p. 94).
The analysis presented (in this issue)
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
by Bouma is no more optimistie than the
other critics of the field. 1 It is under-
standable, therefore, that when a pair
of yeoman laborers in this enterprise
have a fundamentally different coneep-
tion of the status of the field, they make
their views known with a certain sense
of fear and trepidation. We recognize
the possibility of blindness to the ob-
vious, ethnoeent¡ observational bias,
and delusions of grandeur regarding ac-
eomplishments in a field of whieh we
are a part. Yet, recognizing these ~pos-
sibilities, it still sectas to us that there
has been a rather substantial reinvest-
ment in the field and that we may be
about to reap some of the fruit of the
labor.
In attempting to review the empirŸ
literature of the past decade, we quiekly
discovered three things. First, there is
no simple of single framework around
whieh one can easily organize the lit-
erature that emerged during the 60's.
Second, the amount of literature is so
vast as to make a systematie and com-
prehensive review the topic for a book
rather than a paper. Third, we diseov-
ered that the milieu in which empi¡
studies of religion emerged is equally as
fascinating as the literature itself.
Given these realities, it became neces-
sary for us to radieally reorient our ini-
tial intentions of eomprehensiveness.
AccordŸ we have narrowed our
scope to two tasks. The first is to demar-
cate five areas of research in the soci-
ology of religion which, we believe, give
1 For another perspeetive on the develop-
ment of an empirical soeiology of religion, see
Rodney Stark ( unpublished manuscript).
 ASSESSING THE EMIPIRICAL STUDIES
evidence of significant development dur-
ing the past decade. The second is to
examine the milieu from which em-
pirical studies of religion have emerged
--if you will, a kind of sociology of the
sociology of religion. We hope that this
approach wiU provide a perspective for
understanding some of the weaknesses
of the field as well as point the way to
some likely developments for the future.
LITERATURE REVIEW
While the sociology of religion has a
rich and respectable heritage, empirical
studies of religion p¡ to the 50"s were
few and lar between. Empirical sociology
itself is only a few decades old, but
early empirical sociology tended to by-
pass religion. The reasons for this are
on the surface understandable. On the
one hand, science and particularly the
socŸ sciences were couched in assump-
tions and theories that tended to see re-
ligion asa declining influence in modero
society. In fact, many social scientists
thought it only a matter of time before
religion would die out. As the late Gor-
don Allport put it, " . . . the persistente
of religion in the modern world appears
as an embarrassment to the scholars of
today" (1950: 1). On the other hand,
soeiology was struggling to obtain legit-
imacy a s a science, and religion loomed
too complex and loaded with nuances of
meaning to be taekled. StiU another fac-
tor contributing to a neglect of religion
was the reluctance of the government to
fund research dealing with religion of to
ask any questions about religion in the
census.
But religion did not go away. In fact,
the dominant cultural mood of the 50"s
perceived our socicty as experiencing a
phenomenal religious revival. What kind
of religious awakening, ff any, we expe-
rienced in that decade will probably
never be known because the available
data are sparse and thoroughly suspi-
15~Ÿ
cious (See Demerath, 1968). However,
this widespread mood of religious re-
vival did play a critical role in arousing
the cu¡ of social scientists to ex-
plore an area they had previously largely
neglected.
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
The 50's witnessed several develop-
ments that can be seen as important
precursors to the emergente of ah em-
pirical sociology of religion in the 60's.
In 1953, Lenski published a paper on
the social correlates of religious interests
utilizing data collected in 1941 by the
Committee on the Social and Psychologi-
cal Factors Affecting Fertility. In 1955,
Herberg attempted to provide a the-
oretical explanation of the "religious re-
rival." In 1957, the tMreau of the Census
conducted a survey of religious a~lia-
t-ion, although political pressures for the
separation of church and state resulted
in censoring publication of the data be-
yond a preliminary report. 2 Schneider
and Dornbusch's content analysis of in-
spirational books (1958) contributed
much to our understanding of this im-
portant function of religion. And Camp-
bell and Pettigrew's study (1959) of the
response of Little Rock clergy to the
school desegregation crisis was a sig-
nificant forerunner to a large body of
literature on religion and civil rights in
the 60's.
Late in the 50's, Lipset published a
skeptical paper entitled, "What Religious
RevivalŸv" in which he essentially raised
the questions of what is religion and
how do you measure it. Glock raised the
same point (1959) but went on to con-
z These data were eompared with those
gathered by the Survey Research Center (La-
zarwitz, 1961: 567-79). A similar report utiliz-
ing National Opinion Research Center survey
data appeared in Donald J. Bogue (1959:
688-709). While the Bureau of the Census sur-
vey did not add significantly to our knowledge,
ir does stand as a sign~eant indicator of the
emerging interest in gaining empirical knowl-
edge about religion.
156 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

eeptualize religion in terms of five di-
mensions. Both of these papers did much
to shatter simpler notions of religion as
a dichotomous of trichotomous coneept
(religious vs non-religious, or Protestant,
Catholic and Jew, etc. ).
Fichter, in his study of a Southern urban
parish (1951), developed a four-fold con-
ceptua! framework that can also be
viewed as a precursor to the Glock
formulation. 5 Paralleling Glock's work
is Lenski's study (1961) which treated

Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
These several developments both fore- traditional orthodoxy, devotionalism, and
told and, in a profound way, dominated communal and associational involvement
the nature and scope of the issues ex- as distinct facets of religiosity.
~ lored in the 60's. Our review covers
ve important issues: (1) the structure
It should be recognŸ that there is
nothing sacred about these five dimen-
or dimensionality of religion, (2) reli- sions of religiosity. King found eleven
gious beliefs, (3) religious behavior, dimensions suggested in a review of the
(4) the nature and dynamics of religious literature. He constructed items to mea-
beliefs, and (5) religious instŸ as sure these dimensions and with the use
eomplex organŸ of factor analysis found nine faetors with
1. The Dimensionality of Religion. As sut~cient variante to warrant further
we have mentioned, a ma]or Ÿ to examŸ (1967:173-185).6 Neither
the emergence of an empirical sociology has Glock stayed with the tire dimen-
of religion was curŸ regarding the sions. In American Piety (1968), he and
contradictory evidence of the post-World Stark utilize nine Ÿ (dimensions)
War II religious revival. Glock felt that of religious commitment. Only one index,
a clear conceptualization of the different "orthodoxy," eorrelates at .5 or greater
ways that religiosity can be manffest with any of the other Ÿ (see also
would lead to a clarifieation of the fae- Stark, 1970).
tors for and against such a renewed in- At the present time, our understanding
terest, and thus he proposed a five of the strueture of religiosity is far from
dimensional structure: experience, ritual, being complete. But we have moved con-
ideology, knowledge, and consequenee, a eeptually beyond a unidimensional for-
Prior to Glock's coneeptualization, mulation and all of the existing research
empirieal studies largely relied on a sin- supports the existence of a multi-dimen-
gle item such as membership or fre- sional structure. We have also learned
queney of ehureh attendance as ah that researchers can not simply "throw
indicator of religion. This was not, how- any old (eonvenient)" indieator of re-
ever, the first time that a multi-dimen- ligiosity into a research project and
sional approach to religiosity had been utilize it as either ah independent or
suggested in the literature. In The dependent variable. 7
Nature oŸ Pre]udice (1954), Allport His formulation did not include the "ex-
distinguishes between "institutionalized" periential" or "consequential" dimension of
and "inte¡ religious outlooks. 4 Glock. (For a discussion of how Fichter views
his own earlier work in relationship to the
a Glock's first formulation included only four Glock formulation, see 1969: 169-177.)
dimensions. The knowledge or inteUectual 6 King presents a bibliography of literature
dimension was added later at the suggestion of dealing with the measurement of religiosity in
Yoshio Fukuyama. In a paper that appeared the same issue, pp. 186-190.
two years later, Fukuyama called this the 7 In addition to the studies mentioned in
cognitive dimension. this discussion of the dimensionality of religion,
4 Allport later used the concepts "extrinsie" see Putney (1961:285-290); Faulkner (1966:
and "'intrinsic' value to describe this distinetion 246-254 ); Davidson (1966); Clayton (1968);
(1960). Weigert (1969: 260-263).
 ASSESSlNG TI-IE EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Three important research tasks of the
next decade seem apparent: (1) to de-
velop a clear empirical formulation of
the underlying structure of religiosity;
(2) to discover how these dimensions
are empirically related to each other;
and (3) to explore the empirical rela-
tionships between these dimensŸ and
other important dimensions of social at-
titudes and behavior.
2. Religious Beliefs. In 1961 Lenski
published bis classic study, The Religious
Factor, which not only challenged the
imagination and vision of the discipline,
but also established new standards
in scope, methodologieal sophistication,
and integration of empirieal research
with theory. In a very profound way this
study paved the way for and stimulated
much empirical research in this decade.
Lenski's work remains important for at
least four reasons: (1) Lenski, like
Glock, treated religiosity as a multi-
dimensional concept; (2) The Religious
Factor was the most ambitiotts and
sophistieated study of religion utilizing
survey research; (3) Lenski attempted
to utilize survey research to empi¡
test two important theoretical ideas in
the literature (Weber's Protestant Ethic
thesis and Herberg's three generational
hypothesis); and finally, (4) he explored
the relationship between religious atti-
tudes and beliefs and a wide range of
secular values including attitudes toward
work, political preference, social mobil-
ity, freedom of speech, family size,
and intellectual autonomy. That some
of Lenski's findings have been put to
the test of more empirical scrutiny and
found lacking is n o t a criticism but a
tribute to this pioneering work taken
seriously by other scholars (Babbie,
1965; Greeley, 1964; 1969).
Given impetus by The ReIigious Fac-
tor, a number of surveys were developed
to measure the extent of religious be-
lŸ and the effect of relŸ beliefs
157
and attitudes on secular issues. The most
comprehensive of these surveys were
those conducted by Glock and Stark
(1968) for the laity and Hadden (1969)
for the clergy. First of all, these surveys
aecumulated a plethora of basic sys-
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
tematic data which was beyond the
methodological techniques of earlier gen-
erations of sociologists of religion. Sec-
ondly, these studies revealed that re-
ligious beliefs were not a matter of
consensus within the churches; in fact,
ah important discovery was the great
divergence of belief within Protestantism
both among the clergy and the laity.
Finally, they demonstrated that intensity
of belief within Protestantism was re-
lated systematieally to denominational
afl~liation and to certain social issues.
Unlike earlier studies, which largely
utilized single Ÿ indicators of reli-
giosity, these surveys found that there
were maior differences within Protestant-
ism itself as well as differences between
Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism.
Others have contributed to this emerg-
ing literature. For example, Kersten (in
press) draws conclusions similar to the
studies mentioned above in his investiga-
tion of clergy and laymen in the four
major branches of Lutheranism in Mich-
igan. Demerath and Lutterman (1969)
have replicated these findings in a study
of Wisconsin college students and at the
same time added to our understanding
of the context and milieu of religious
expression on campus (also Feldman,
1969; 1970). Similar findings also appear
in QuŸ study (1970) of clergy
attitudes toward the Vietnam war (more
extensively, 1969). In addition, numerous
unpublished reports of research con-
ducted by denominatŸ research de-
partments further substantiate the find-
ings of the research we have mentioned.
3. ReIigŸ Behavior. In addition to
studies of religious attitudes, sociologists
have begun to separately investigate re-
158 SOCIOLOGICAL &NALYSlS
ligious behavior as it is manifested in
religious experience, devotional prae-
tices, and ritualism. The work of Stark
is outstanding in this regard. He has at-
tempted to conceptualize one type of
religious behavior, namely religious ex-
perience (1965: a, b; Glock, 1965). Stark
not only finds that religious experience
is more common than previously ex-
pected, he also demonstrates the pres-
ence of at least four gradations of
religious experience capable of consti-
tuting a Guttman-like scale.
There are two further reasons why
Stark's work on the behavioral dimen-
sion of religiosity is irnportant. First, he
recognizes a conceptual differenee be-
tween belief and behavior. Second, he
finds that the nature and extent of re-
ligious expe¡ ah individual under-
goes is intimately related to bis participa-
tion in religious situafions. Religious
experienee is related not only to the
denomination in which an individual
finds himself, but also to the broader
matrix of social interaetion. This socio-
logical interpretation of religious ex-
perienee contrasts sharply with the psy-
ehologieal explanations of earlier scholars
such as Lueba (1925), Starbuck (1899),
and James (1958), a n d a s such repre-
sents a major breakthrough in our under-
standing of religious experience.
L0fland's study (1966) of a religious
sect has added significantly to our un-
derstanding of the importanee of ongo-
ing group reinforcement to sustain
eommitment to a "deviant" religious
perspective (see also Festinger, 1964).
Hadden and Rymph (1966) also demon-
strate the importanee of group interae-
tion and social structure for predieting
behavior. They found the behavior of a
clergyman's roommate in a training pro-
gram and the type of position the elergy-
man occupied were better predietors of
submission to arrest than attitudes about
civil rights issues. Similar behavioral
dimensions are found in Quinley's study
(1969) of "hawks" and "doves" among
the clergy.
The separation of attitudes and be-
havior is an important development in
the study of religion wbich parallels sita-
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
fiar emphasis in other areas of sociology
(see Johman, 1954; Warriner, 1958;
Fendrich, 1967; Dean, 1958; Kutner,
1952). By looking directly at behavior,
rather than attitudes, we have been able
to see more clearly the effeets of social
structure on behavior. The research re-
sults have chaUenged the supremacy of
psychologieal concepts to explain be-
havior. We are also beginning to under-
stand that the process of commitment
to any world view or ideology parallels
our earlier eoneeptualizations of how one
becomes committed to deviant ideologies
and roles. 8
4. Nature and Dynamics of Religious
Beliefs. Another achievement of the so-
eiology of religion in this decade is a
concern for the coneeptualization of re-
ligious beliefs. Under the inspiration of
the work of Brown (1962, 1964, 1966)
and Rokeach (1960; 1968) researehers
have begun to eoneeptualize religious
beliefs systematieally, asking questions
such as the following: what structural
qualities do religious belief systems have
in common; are there subsystems of
belief and how do they differ; how do
religious belief systems relate to secular
behavior; and, what eonditions faeilitate
or hinder changes in religious belief
systems?
Rokeaeh began to research this vein
without specifie emphasis on religious
beliefs. He conceptualizes beliefs by first
indicating that they are systernic. He
then places them on a eentral-peripheral
8 For a further discussion of this point, see
Hadden (1969: 190-2). Also, corn~.are the
model suggested here with Beckers discussion
(1968) of the process of becominga marijuana
USel'.
 ASSESSING 'rIIE EMPIRICAL STUDIES
continuum in regard to importante; im-
portante being defined in terms of eon-
neetedness. Rokeach says that " . . . the
more a given belief is functionally eon-
neeted or in communieation with other
beliefs, the more implications and eon-
sequences it has for the other beliefs
and, therefore, the more central the be-
lief~ (1968:5). He makes ah important
distinction: beliefs might be held at the
same degree of intensity (something
which recent studies have explored in
their strongly-agree to strongly-disagree
format), but they might not be at the
same position regarding centrality (aja
area which has been unexplored).
Rokeach (1969) specifies five factorally
distinct types of belief in bis system, each
type being less central and, therefore,
more susceptible to change. He then
shows systemic relationsbips between be-
liefs and the religious value systems
wbich underlie them (see aIso Rokeach,
1970). The values of salvation and for-
giveness are central to the Christian who
is a frequent church attender and defines
himself as religious. These same indi-
viduals ranked the values of pleasure,
independence, intellectuality, and logie
lower than those who defined themselves
as non-religious.
Rokeach goes on to find that those who
place a high value on salvation are con-
servative, anxious to maintain the status
quo, and unsympathetic with the plight
of the student, the black, and the poor.
In short, he finds that the religious per-
son has a distinct system of beliefs and
values (ideology), and that these systems
are related to other attitudinal systems.
The conceptualization of religious be-
liefs and values is an important aehieve-
ment not only because it provides more
precision in the search for the dynamics
of religious belief, but also because it
promises to help us better understand
the nature of ideological conflict within
the churches and its relationsbip to both
]-59
religious beliefs and the institutional ar-
rangements of the churches.
5. The Religious Institution as a Com-
plex Organization. Religion in the United
States has undergone an organizational
revolution in this century as a result of
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
the tremendous increase in church mem-
bership. Nevertheless, the religious orga-
nizations as institutions or complex bu-
reaucracies have, for the most part, been
neglected by sociologists. There seem to
be three possible reasons for this over-
sight. First, sociologists, on the basis of
their current findings, have not estab-
lished a great deal of rapport with
those who control access to church ree-
ords, imperative for this type of analysis.
Secondly, sociologists who are interested
in religion seem to be disposed both by
training and by temperament to psycho-
sociological rather than orgar¡
research. Thirdly, the records of churches
have left something to be desired in
terms of their availability, reliability, and
scope (see Knuckman, 1968: Southard,
1969).
In spite of the relative paucity of re-
search on the organizational dimension
of religion, a small but increasingly sig-
nificant body of research has begun to
emerge during the past decade.
Demerath (1968) has documented
two broad organizational trends wbich
have emerged in American churches.
These trends are differentiation and bu-
reaucratization. Moreover, a great deal
of research other than Demerath's sup-
ports the existence of these trends.
Differentiation is the tendency for ley-
els of church organizations to become
distinct and to be occupied with different
attitudes and goals. This tendency has
been documented between the clergy
and the laity by Hadden ( 1969: 101-159)
and between parish dergy and church
specialists by Hammond and Mitchell
(1965). In-addition, a secondary analysis
of data gathered by Trimble (1969) has
 160 SOCIOLOGICAL A N A L Y S l S
shown that attitudes differ at all three
levels of the organization. On specifie
issues, attitudes become increasingly
more liberal as one moves from the laity,
to the parish clergy, to the level of
ehurch executives.
The second trend, bureaueratization,
is a eomplementary trend which seems
to have developed as ah organizational
prerequisite for coordinating the dispa-
rate organs of the church organization.
Bureaucratization was a phenomenon la-
tent in the earlier work of Blizzard (1956)
which indicates that ministers spend
more of their time on bureaucratic-ad-
ministrative tasks than their training
]ustifies and their pa¡ desire. It
has been further explored in Harrison's
impressive study of the bureaueratization
of the Baptist Church (1959), and has
been supported by data on the Presby-
terian Church (1967). However, the most
thorough documentation of bureaucrati-
zation in the churches has been d~ne by
Winter (1967). His work is unique for
two reasons: first, unlike most research
in this area Winter did not restrict him-
self to an analysis of a single denomina-
tion and, seeond, he uses different and
varied sources of data to support his hy-
pothesis. Until this deeade, the churches
were seldom studied as organizations.
Previously sociologists simply relied on
the global conceptualization of the
church-sect dichotomy to study the re-
ciprocal effects of organization and ide-
ology (see Johnson, 1963, Parsons, 1965).
However, during this decade sociologists
have grown skeptical of the empirical
utility of this typology (see Gustafson,
1967; Goode, 1967; Demerath, 1967;
Eister, 1967) and have begun to apply
a broader range of organizational con-
cepts and theories to the church.
Two examples of this trend can be
cited. White (1969) applies a mathemat-
leal model to predict the evolution of
]obs and personnel in several Protestant
denominations. In spite of the irmovative
quality of bis research on the problem
of the flow of men and ]obs in church
bureaucracies, the results of the research
are sparse. He finds that the evolution of
suela bureaueracies is erratie and that
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
they do not lend themselves to rational
control. In faet, bis eonelusion is that
large systems of men and jobs evolve in
eomplex paths responsive mainly to in-
puts of new ]obs and the deaths of men.
Wood and Zald (1966) approach the
organizational church from another per-
spective. Their problem is how a volun-
tary organization, in this case the Meth-
odist Church, introduces policies with
low consensus (integration of the
churches, especially in the South) when
national and local leaders have few sane-
tions relative to the membership. They
found that in the South churches have
developed a counter-policy of resistance
to integration, and that the extent of the
resistance eorrelates with the percent of
non-whites in a particular district. This
resistance is reflected in a deerease of
contributions to race relations pro]eets
and the accommodation of the local
leadership to the forces in the ehurch
who resist national policy.
The charaeter of this researeh differs
signifieantly from the research done on
organizational aspects of the churches in
the past. First, it relies much less on
global theoretical eoncepts, and second,
it is a great deal more empirical in the
sense that it utilizes sources of data in
the churches to test middle range orga-
nizational theories.
CONCLUSlON
In the introduction to this paper we
noted that most scholars who have at-
tempted to assess the status of the so-
ciology of religion have reached rather
pessimistic, some even cynical, conclu-
sions regarding the field's development.
While a comprehensive review of the
 ASSESSING ~ EMZPIRICAL STUDIES
emerging literature is impossible in a
single paper, our examination of five
issues or areas in the field suggests more
room for optimism than others have seen.
The past decade has seen more sys-
tematie investigation of religious beliefs
and religious institutions than any pre-
vious period in the history of social phi-
losophy or social seienee. Soeiologists of
religion, armed with survey techniques,
have gathered some basic and systematic
data previously unavailable. It has also
been a time in whieh we have become
skeptical of the intellectual bequests of
earlier sociologists. We have more pre-
cisely conceptualized religiosity and re-
ligious involvement, and have begun to
follow suit with regard to systems of
religious belief. We have made a critieal
distinction between religious attitudes
and religious behavior, and we have seen
differences within religious traditions as
well as among them. Also, we have made
some significant first steps to analyze
religious institutions within a broader
theoretical framework of complex orga-
nizations.
Our review has not chosen to empha-
size methodological issues. Perhaps such
an approach would have led us to more
sober conclusions. The methodological in-
adequacies of the last decade are obvious
and often glaring. Sociology of religion
has not been the birth place of innova-
tive methodologies in social science. At
the same time, the level of methodolog-
ical sophistication is now sufl~ciently
strong to escape the label of a weak
step-sister in the social scientific enter-
prise. Bouma's paper (in this issue) is
enormously important bccause it under-
scores a basic weakness in the field and
points the way to one kind of research
that is imperative in the future. We
would only point out that Bouma might
have investigated any number of areas
within the discipline of sociology and
arrived at similar conclusions, but this,
161
of course, is only a reflection on the
development of the discipline and not a
defense of those working in the area of
religion.
Our general feeling of optimism over
the developments during this past deeade
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
is not untempered. In fact, we see some
compelling reasons to question whether
the developments of the 70's will match
the progress of the decade we have just
concluded. In our more pessimistie mo-
ments, we see the possibility of all for-
ward movement grinding to a silent halt.
The reasons for this grito view of the
future do not grow out of anything fun-
damentally wrong with what sociologists
are doing, but rather emerge, according
to a sociology of knowledge perspective,
from examination of the cultural milieu
wherein the scientists labor. The next
section of the paper addresses itself to
this issue.
MILIEU AND T H E SOC'IOLOGY OF R E L I G I O N
Sociologists have written a great deal
thŸ past decade about status and role
ambiguity. In a very real scnse, the so-
ciologist himself occupies ah ambiguous
status in a highly psychologized culture
(see Hadden, 1969: xx-xxiv). This is
especially true of the sociologist of re-
ligion. He has three important reference
groups who significantly affect the nature
of bis work: the religious community,
the academic community, and various
funding agencies. If he identifies too
close]y with the interests of the religious
world, bis academic colleagues suspect
bim, and sometimes quite appropriately
so, of not being objective. If, on the
other hand, he does not manifest sym-
pathy and genuine respect for the re-
ligious community, he risks rapport and
access to bis subject matter. Finally,
funds for research in the area of religion
are extremely limited, and sociologists
have at best had only modest success in
convincing funding agencies that re]igion
1~9. $OCIOLOC1CAL AN'ALYSIS
merŸ systematie study (see Smelser,
1969: 101-11/7).
Again, as the ea.se with our review of
literature, our discussion is neeessarily
less than eomprehensive of the issues.
We hope, however, that this diseussion
wfll provide some insight and lead others
to explore more systematieally the milieu
wherein the soeiology of religion has
emerged as well as how this milieu may
shape the diseipline in the future.
The SocŸ and the Religious Com-
munity. The history of eonfliet between
religion and science is rather well known
(see White, 1965). While the battle has
largely subsided, compeUing evidenee
exists to indicate that there has not been
total rapproehement (Glock & Stark,
1965). While religion is founded in mys-
tieism and faith, seienee has its origins
in logie, reason, and empirical observa-
t-ion. Granted that neither scienee nor
religion can be viewed as monolithie
structures, it is dit/icult to find a eommon
ground where the two approaches have
completely compatible assumptions and
images of man (See Cloek, 1969). What
has emerged is a truee grounded in
tolerante for different values in a plural-
istie world. Many religionists and sci-
entists alike have compartmentalized the
two systems of thought and hence have
chosen not to explore underlying assump-
tŸ Some schools of theology have
shffted their thinking rather dramatically
in an attempt to reeoncile or accommo-
date incompatibflities. Some believe that
as seienee and religion are both better
understood the differences will tend to
disappear. But on both sides there ate
those who hold values that basically deny
the legitimacy of the other and who tend
to be suspieious of those on the other
side. For the most part, however, the
cortfliet between relŸ and science is
latent, ff for no other reason than that
eontaet is minimal.
At the same time, there are many
within the religious establishment who
believe that the impact of seienee plaees
a burden on religion to earefully and
eritieally re-examine every aspeet of the
Christian faith. Moreover, they tend to
believe that the Christian faith should
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
not limit itself to theologieal retteetion
to gain knowledge, but that it should
employ all the resourees of the natural
and behavioral seienees as well.
This attitude finds a sympathetic ear
from sociologists who feel that religious
institutions have played a eritical role in
the creation, sustenance, transmission,
and legitimization of human values, and
as such need to be better tmderstood.
Thus, mutual interest has tended to
open u p a dialogue between religionists
and sociologists in ah effort to better
understand the nature and meaning of
religious values and institutions. But in
doing so, both have experieneed some
estrangement from their own kind.
To many church seholars, the scientifie
or obieetive study of religion is a mis-
nomer. The), hold that religion (and its
various aspeets that are manifest through
the church) is fundamentally a spiritual
quality that transcends understanding in
the same way that one may understand
other belief systems and institutions (See
Whitley, 1964). Thus, the sociologists'
work is at best irrelevant and at worst
dangerous beeause it will inevitably dis-
tort the subieet matter.
Other religior¡ have taken a "wait-
and-see" attitude but have privately
feared that sociological investigations
would rniss the most significant phenom-
enologieal dimensions and hence distort
what religion is all about. Still others
have responded with enthusiasm because
they felt that the results of sociological
inquiry cotdd be used to encourage what
the), considered to be much needed re-
forms in the chureh.
While the findings of sociologists in
this decade have been something short
 ASSESSlNGaX-IEEMPmlCAX, SaX/DIES
of faith-shattering, it can be conserva-
tively stated that the results of systematie
inquiry have been disappointing and
disturbing. For example, religiosity, no
matter how it has been measured, does
not seem to be a deterrent to prejudiee.
A certain type of religiosity is, in fact,
associated with anti-Semitism, and Glock
and Stark have presented a theoretieal
argument suggesting that the religious
view causes the anti-SemitŸ Also,
while religious seholars have suspected it
for some time, sociologists have informed
the general public that large segments of
the Christian world (laity and elergy
alike) reject religious views that were
once thought essential to the faith. More-
over, there is considerable evidente to
suggest that the rejection of Biblieal
literalism or orthodoxy is associated with
the total drift from publie as well as
personal religious involvement.
From the religionists' perspective,
these are not very encouraging findings.
In fact, the impact of much of the soeio-
logical inquiry of this decade has been to
give religionists mueh to be eoncerned
with, while uncovering little which gives
eomfort or reassurance.
Some religionists have responded with
alarm and have attempted to use the
results of soeiologieal inquiry to encour-
age reforms in the ehurch. Others, pre-
dŸ have responded with skeptieism
and doubt as to the validity of the find-
ings. The past few years have seen the
emergente of a number of self-styled
eritics of empi¡ soeiology and it seems
sale to predict that we can antieipate a
significant growth both in theŸ number
and the vocfferousness of their charges.
Stark, who along with bis colleague
Glock, has been the major target of at-
tack, recently made two poignant obser-
vations regarding this group. First, most
of the eritics from the religious establish-
ment don't really know much about
empirieal methods. Second, "relatively
163
little attenª (would have been) paid
to methodological questions if the sign of
most of the correlations recently reported
were reversedmthat is, ir the news were
good" (1970: 151).
The second point, of eourse, is open to
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
some eonjecture, but in our judgrnent ir
seems to have considerable merit. We
base this judgrnent on two observations.
First, the methodologieal criticism of the
religionists has essentially been directed
at studies that have produeed findings
eontrary to what they would like to be-
lleve. Second, several obvious method-
ologieal eritŸ have been missed in
other studies that were "Ÿ
neutral" (see Hfll, 1968).
Thus, the sociologist of religion has at
best been reeeived in religious eircles
with mixed feelings. To a few, he brings
ammunition in the struggle for ehurch
renewal. To others he is cautiously wel-
comed though not totally trusted. To yet
others, he is unwelcome and threatening.
The sociologist cannot afford to ignore
the erities within the religious establish-
ment. To do so is tantamount to admit-
ting that their criticisms are justifiedmat
least insolar as the religionist who is not
knowledgeable about research methods
is concerned. To alienate the religious
establishment by ignoring their response
would thus cut the sociologist off from the
audience he seeks to study. But answer-
ing the critics results in a draining of
time and energy from the sociologists'
task of eonducting research. Perhaps
even more important, the very fact that
the religionists constitute a reference
group he can ill afford to ignore has im-
portant implications for the tasks he se-
lects as well as how he goes about his
work. The influenee of the religionists
has already been felt and will likely be
even more influential during the eoming
decade.
The Sociologist and the Academic
Establishment. The historieal struggle
164 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
between religion and science also left its
mark in the academic establishment. For
many scientists, their commitment to
the empirŸ observable leaves little
or no room for cosmologieal considera-
tions. While there is still no definitive
study, there is considerable evidence
which suggests that scientists are much
less inclined toward religious persuasions
than other groups in society, and this
orientation is probably even more pro-
nounced among social scientists (Hajda,
1961; Stark, 1963; Thalheimer, 1965;
Anderson, 1968).
Sociology emerged in the midst of and
was profoundly influenced by Social
Darwinism. The world was in transition
from a simple agrarian to a complex
urban society. Sociologists developed
complex theories of change that em-
braced almost every attribute of society.
While each theorist h a d a somewhat
different emphasis, many of them saw
the world in transition from a religiously
based tradition to an order based on in-
terest, reason, and science. Structure-
functional theory might have led social
scientists to different eonelusions about
the destiny of religion, but the dom-
inanee of evolutionary thought led many
to conclude that the historical functions
of religion were rapidly disappearing in
a seeularizing world.
If the sociologist's theories were not
enough to convince hito of the irrel-
evance of religion, his personal experi-
ente served to reinforce the theory. This
is perhaps one of the elearest examples
of what Hughes (1961) labeled ethno-
centrie sociology.
But there was yet another important
factor that tended to draw the sociologist
away from Ÿ in religion. This was
the struggle of the discipline to become
a legitimate science. In some schools the
desire to acquire legitimacy a s a science
reached proportions of obsession, not
only in terms of external acceptance but
also in terms of one's own self-image.
The study of a topic as loadcd with
nuances of meaning as religion did not
fit the bill.
All of this is not to say that sociologists
abandoned interest in religion. Rather,
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
we are saying simply that early empirical
sociology was much less Ÿ in
religion than were the classical theorists.
Moreover, we believe that the work mi-
lieu of sociology had much to do with
this. While our review of the earlier lit-
erature is less systematŸ it is our im-
pression that much of the work occurred
in seminaries and church-related colleges
--hence, segmented from the main
stream of sociology. There also tends to
be ah emphasis on the study of cults
and sects rather than the "main-line"
Prostestant and Catholie traditions, and
this can probably be explained by the
afl~nity and toleranee of the sociological
enterprise to study deviance---the off-
beat, esote¡ and trivial.
The sociologist who was interested in
religion, thus, was placed on the defen-
sive, having to explain this interest to
his skeptical eolleagues. The empirically
oriented sociologist didn't find much sup-
port in the historical-philosophical dis-
ciplines that were interested in religion
either, for they tended to view hito a s a
charlatan encroaehing on their own pri-
vate domain.
Perhaps one could push this point too
lar, but to ignore it or elaim that it didn't
exist would be to miss an important ob-
servation on the structural factors that in-
hibited the development of an empirical
sociology of religion. ~
This subtle pressure has diminished to
a considerable extent du¡ the past
o This year marked the twentieth anniversary
of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reli-
gion. At the annual meetin~Ÿthe charter mem-
bers reminiseed about coUeague reactions to
their interest in religion, and their observations
support this argument.
 ASSESSlNG THE EMPIRICAL STUDIES
deeade. I-Iowever, it is interesting to note
that a substantial number of the most
productive sociologists in this field do
not think of themselves as sociologists
of religion, and, in fact, their work has
not been restricted to this area. It is per-
haps not too wide of the mark to suggest
that they have hedged their bets--if the
sociology of religion doesn't make it as
a legitimate and respected field, they
have other areas to fall back on. But this
has not been functional to the develop-
ment of sociology of religion. Many of
these scholars have substantial amounts
of data waiting to be analyzed while
they devote a proportion of their energy
to other professional interests.
Any body of scholarly literature wŸ
draw into it a body of scholarly critics.
Perhaps the best indicator we have that
the socŸ of religion is making some
progress Ÿ that it has begun to attract
critical examination from withŸ the field
of sociology. While some scholars cele-
brate the role of criticism for its own
sake, the role of the critic has generally
been productive of more solid scholar-
ship. Unlike Gresham's Iaw in the money
market, critics in the academic market-
place tend to drive out the weak and
raise the level of the discipline to a
higher plane. The critics of the sociology
of religion will likely have this effect.
However, we have one uneasiness about
their presence: they may lend credibility
and add fervor to those critics within the
religious community who are largely un-
qualified to criticize. This could have
serious consequences at three levels: ( 1 )
it could limit the sociolog• access to
the religious groups he Ÿ interested in
studying; (2) it could make research
monjes even more difficult to obtain; and
(3) the sociologist of religion may achieve
more sophisticated measuring techniques
and pay greater attention to questions
of validity and reliability, but lose his
ability to address ]lis interests to "sig-
165
nificant" or "relevant" issues--the factor
which has added great vitality to the
discipline this past decade.
The Sociologist and the Funding Es-
tablishment. There is yet a thŸ refer-
ence group which the sociologist cannot
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
ignore---he who pays the bill. Probably
no other area in sociology has suffered
more for lack of financial support. At
the same time, probably no group of
scholars has spent more time traipsing
down blind alleys with tin cups.
The delicacy of the separation of
church and state has virtually eliminated
the federal government a s a source of
support except in the area of mental
health. Many individual and organized
efforts have been made to alter this pol-
ley of the single most important funding
source for social science research. One
small National Science Foundation grant
was awarded this decade for secondary
analysis and it appeared that a precedent
had been established. But the hard cuts
in federal spending for research greatly
reduced the probability of the govem-
m e n t a s a viable source of support, at
least for the immediate future.
A number of large foundations also
have restrictive policies on funding re-
search in the area of religion. Aside from
the issue of priorities, they seem reluctant
to get into an area with a high prob-
abŸ of producing controversy. The
studies of this decade will not diminish
this fear.
A few foundations are primarily in-
terested in religious institutions and re-
ligious causes; they too have been reluc-
tant to support sociological research.
Part of this reluctance is based on the
suspicions of science discussed above.
Others feel that they are not qualified
to judge the capabilities of social sci-
entists so they don't fund any research
projects. Still others have had the un-
fortunate experience of funding poorly
designed and executed projects which
166 SOCIOLOGICAL A_NALYSIS
produeed trivial results. In some ceses
the foundations bear the responsibility
for this, inasmuch as they have been
more eoncemed with the religious qual-
ifieations of the prospective researcher
than with his eompeteney as a social
scientist.
The major fimding souree for researeh
has been the religious institutions them-
selves, but even here the funds have been
lar from adequate. ActuaUy, the churehes
in America have spent a substantial
amount of money on research this past
deeade---probably several rnillion dollars.
A large number of researeh departments
are maintained by the Prostestant de-
nominations and every denorninatŸ
has commissioned studies of first one
thing and then another. These studies
lend legitimacy to the goals of chureh
administrators, but they seldom add
much in the way of empirical under-
standing to the problems in question.
The research departments are largely
staffed by clergymen or ex-clergymen
who are more o.ften than not inad-
equately trained to eonduct social sei-
ente researeh- As a result, most of the
ehurches' money is spent for researeh
that is tmseientific, unimaginative, trivial
and, in many eases, redundant, lo
Ir is one thing f o r a group of soei-
ologists who are interested in obtaining
research monjes to teU the churehes that
they ought to pool their resourees to ac-
lo This observation should be tempered b~,
noting that the general quality of 'in house
research has improved over the past deeade.
This is in part a funetion of an upgrading of
the personnel, but is also a latent funetion of
use of research instruments and replication of
studies developed by aeademie seholars. A
small group of in house researehers have
beeome eontributors to seholarly journals. On
balan 91 however, the "in house" research
leaves mueh to be des/red. Unfortunately, re-
st¡ polieies and pressures to move on to
other pr~]ects prevent some of the best researeh
firom flnding tts way tnto professional journals.
eomplish meaningful researeh on religion
in Ame¡ It is quite another thing for
them to realize they have little to lose,
given the dismal quality of "in house ~
research, and possibly a good deal to
ain. And it would be yet something else
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
r them to eut through the bureaucratie
decision making proeess necessary in
order to accomplish this.
The results ofsociological inquiry dur-
ing the past decade have not enhaneed
the probabilities of getting a greater
share of the churches' research funds.
In fact, several other directions seem
more likely. First, the next decade wiU
likely see less money available for re-
seareh as religious institutions feel the
results of the growing confliet over the
meaning and purpose of the ehurehes.
Second, given the faet that many of the
soeiologists' findings have ra/sed, rather
than lowered, the anxŸ of ehurch
administrators, it is ]ikely that some of
them will put their in-house researchers
to work to see ff they can come up with
more comforting findings.
This is n o t a very optirnistie analysis.
It is not presented glibly or without
mueh thought. Without a substantial
souree of funding, the soeiology of re-
1/g/on w/ll make little progress during
the next deeade. As we close out this
deeade there is no apparent souree for
this funding. Beeause this is so, it takes
on the highest p¡ for the field.
Bootstrap research projects can be car-
ried only so far. The absence of funds
will result in the movement of seholars
presently working in this field into other
areas. Moreover, we will not be able to
attraet young scholars into the arca.
Thus, it seems to us that the soeiology
of religion eloses out this deeade on
much the same note as our societymwith
mueh promise, but great uneertainty es
to how we resolve some immediately
pressing problems. Like Ameriean soci-
ety itself, money will not solve all our
 ASSESSlNGTrm EMrmlCAL STUVmS
~roblems, but it is diflleult to imagine
ow we can move forward without it.
Even assuming that finaneial resourees
will be fortheoming, we have some dif-
ficult terrain to traverse. We eannot ig-
nore the criticism within the religious
establishment, not sirnpIy because they
control access to our subieet matter, but
beeause this response is a kind of datum
itself. Nor can we expect to make great
progress unless we see our own lirnited
research interests within the broader
eontext of the religious milieu. Neither
can we ignore the methodological eritics
within sociology. Clearly, there is room
for greater methodological sophistica-
t'ion. At the same time, we must avoid
over-reacting to the point that we have
beeome inereasingly eompetent at mea-
suring less and less. There is also the
danger that sparse funds will lead us
down the same path that social psy-
ehology followed in an earlier decade,
wherein we will learn a great deal about
the religious values of introductory so-
eiology students, but have no idea of
the generalizability of our findings.
After beginning our paper with the
eritieal views of others, we attempted
to see the sociology of religion in a more
optimistic light. It may now appear that
we have gone full cycle back to the
views of those who have been highly
eritical of the field. It is not our intent
to cast gloom, but rather to reflect what
we believe is a sense of realism. Unless
we recognize the problems and poten-
tial hazards, someone else may very well
assess the field ten years hence and re-
port that the sociology of religion has
suffered the same fate as the cosmologi-
cal figure whose passing was announced
by Hamilton and Altizer earlier this
decade.
We do see some basis for a more op-
timistie foreeast. However, this involves
the need for a shift of emphasis. With
the secularization of society, religion is
167
no longer the only institution providing
meaning and legitimaey to the social
order. To be sttre, ff we take Berger's
arguments in The Sacred Canopy seri-
ously, this is at the heart of man's con-
temporary crisis of meaning and au-
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
thofity. But Berger's work, as well as
Means' provocative commentary in his
reeent book, The Ethical Imperative,
have broader implieations for the direc-
t-ion and emphasis in sociological inquiry.
Both point to the need to understand
more clearly the nature, sources, and sus-
tenanee of human values.
Perhaps those of us who have criti-
eized the paroehialism of "religious so-
eiologists" have ourselves been guilty of
defining the scope of our inquiry too
narrowly. Perhaps our crifical point of
departure ought not to be religion but
rather the study of values. Several cfiti-
cal shifts of emphasis oceur from this
perspecfive. First, by plaeing religion in
the broader eontext of the study of
values, it becomes more apparent that
the literature here is also sparse. Soci-
ologists and psychologists have developed
literally hundreds of instruments to mea-
sure various attitudinal concepts or "di-
mensions," but the more fundamental
task of understanding the nature, sources,
and structure of human values has re-
eeived much less attention. There is a
need for both theoretical and empirical
breakthroughs at this level.
Sueh a shfft in emphasis also indicates
the need to devote greater attention to
values in a cross-cultural perspective.
Most of the research in the sociology of
religion during the past decade has been
terribly ethnocentric. The very fact that
most of our research instruments do not
seem applicable to non-Western socio-
religious cultures should suggest the
potential theoretical pay-off of broader
cross-eultural perspeetives.
The potential rewards of a shift in
emphasis eould be developed at some
 168 SO~OLOGIC.~ ANALYSXS
length, but perhaps the most critical
point is that sueh a shift would bring
us eloser to the eritical problems of a
soeiety and world in turmoil. We are
beginning to understand a great deal
about the nature of the problems created
by the world's exploding population, the
unleashing of energy and seientific-tech-
nologieal development, the exploitation
of natural resources, etc. Scientists and
politicians alike are coming around to the
view that solutions to our many problems
are not technological but social. It is
increasingly diflqcult to hear or read any-
one addressing themselves to the issue
of social change without encountering
references to a need to "reorder our pri-
orities," "rethink our values," etc. But
this is an extremely difllcult thing to do
when, in fact, our scientifie understand-
ing of the nature and structure of values
is very crude. We have long made con-
eeptual distinctions between attitudes
and values, but in our research the dis-
tinetion is muela fuzzier. Perhaps we
have identified some underlying value
dimensions, but even this is not at all
elear. And how can we ehange that
which we do not understand?
This shift of emphasis we propose
does not negate the importanee of study-
ing religion. In fact, it broadens the
scope of questions we ought to be ask-
ing about religion. What is the historical
role of religious values, authority, and
institutions? How are these ehanging
and why? What are the possibilifies and
limitations of religion a s a source of so-
cial ehange, as an inhibitor of ehange
and as an integrating foree in human
society? How do religious values fit into
the broader matrix of emerging and
changing values? Adequate answers to
these questions take us beyond the
present empirieal and theoretieal in.
sights of the sociology of relig/on. But
perhaps such a change of emphasis will
have the latent eonsequence of altering
the milieu and reference system within
whŸ we have operated in the past. We
may also escape the false but neverthe-
less real dichotomy between "relevant"
and "pure" scientific inquiry.
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
REFERENCES
Allport, Gordon W.
1950 The Individual and His Religion. New
York: The Maemillan Gompany.
1954 The Nature of Prejudice. New York:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
1960 Religion in the Developing Person-
ality. New York: New York University
Press.
Anderson, Charles H.
1968 "Religious Gommunality among Aea-
demies." Journal for the Seientifie
Study of Religion 7 (Spring): 87-96.
Babbie, Earl R.
1965 "The Religious Factor: Looking For-
ward." Review of Religious Research
7 (Spring) : 42-51.
Becker, Howard S.
1968 Outsiders. New York: The Free Press.
Bellah, Robert N.
1969 "Japan, Asia, Religion." Soeiologieal
Inquiry 89 (Winter): 98.
Berger, Peter.
1967 The Sacred Ganopy. New York:
Doubleday and Company.
Blizzard, Samuel.
1956 "Role Cortflicts of the Urban Protes-
tant Parish Minister." The Gity
Church 7 (September).
Bogue, Donald J.
1959 "Religious Afl]liation." The Population
of the United States, Gleneoe, Illinois:
Free Press.
Bouma, Gary D.
1970 "Assessing the Impact of Religion: A
G¡ RevŸ Sociological Analysis
31 (Winter) : 172-179.
Brown, L. B.
1962 "'A Study of Religious Beliefs." British
Journal of Sociology 18 (September):
259-272.
1964 "Classifications of Religious Orienta-
tion." Journal for the Seientifie Study
of Religion 4 (Spring) : 91-99.
1966 "The Structure of Religious Belief."
Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 5 (Fall) : 259-272.
Campbell, Emest Q., and Thomas F. Pettigrew.
1959a Christians in Racial Crisis. Washing-
ton D.C.: Public Affairs Press.
1959b "Racial and Moral Crisis: The Role
 ASSESSmG "rrm EM~'rrttCAL STt~mS
of Little Rock Ministers." Ame¡
Journal of Sociology 64 (March):
509-516.
Clayton, Richard R.
1968 "'Religiosity in 5-D: A Southern Test."
Social Forces 47 (December): 260-8.
Davidson, James D.
1986 The Relationship between Social Class
and Five Dimensions of Religious
Afl~tiations, Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Notre Dame.
Dean, Lois.
1958 "Interaction, Reported and Observed:
The Case of One Loca/ Union." Hu-
man Organizaª 17 (Fa/l): 36-46.
Demerath, N. J. III.
1967 "In a Sow's Ear." Journal for the Sci-
entifie Study of Religion 6 (Spring):
77-84.
1968 "Notes and Anti-notes on Patterns of
Religious Change in America," in Wil-
bert E. Moore and Eleanor Bernert
Sheldon (eds.) Toward the Measure-
ment of Socia/ Change. New York:
Russel Sage Foundation.
1969 (with Kenneth J. Lutterman) "The
Student Pa¡ Radical Rhetoric
and Traditional Reality," in Kenneth
Underwood, The Church, the Uni-
versity, and Social Polic_y. Middle-
town, Conneeticut: Wesleyan Uni-
versity Press, Vol. II, pp. 92-144.
Eister, Allan W.
1967 ''Toward a Radieal Critique of Church-
Seet Typologizing.'" Joumal for the
Scientific Study of Beligion 6
(Spring) : 85-90.
Faulkner, Jo~eph E. and Gordon F. Devong.
1966 "'Religiosity in 5-D: An Empirical
Analysis,'" Social Forees 47 (Septem-
ber) : 80-3.
Feldman, Kenneth A.
1969 "Change and Stability or ,,Religious
Orientations During College. Review
of Religious Research, Part I in Vol.
11: 40-60; and Part H in Vol. 11:
108-128.
Fendrich, James M.
1967 "A Study of the Association among
Verbal Attitudes. Commitment, and
Overt Behavior in Different Experi-
mental Situations." Socia/ Forces 45
(March) : 847-55.
Festinger, Leon, Henry W. Riecken, and
Stanley Schachter.
1964 When Prophecy Fails. New York:
Harper and Row.
169
Fichter, Joseph M.
1951 Dynamics of a City Church. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
1969 "Soeio]ogical Measurement of Reli-
giosity." Review of Religious Researeh
10 (Fall) : 169-77.
Fukuyarna, Yoshio.
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
1961 "'The Maior Dimensions of Church
Membership." Review of Religious
Research 2 (Winter) : 154-61.
Glock, Charles Y.
1959 "The Religious Reviva/ in Ameriea?"
in Religion and the Face of America.
Berkeley: University of Calffornia.
1965 with Rodney Stark, Religion and So-
ciety in Tension. Chicago: Rand Mc-
Nafly.
1969 "Images of "God,' Images of Man, and
Social Stmcture," Presidential Address
before the annual meetings of the
Society for the Scientifle Study of
Religion, October, 1969, Boston.
Goode, Erich.
1967 "Some Critical Observations on the
Church-Seet DimensŸ Journal for
the Seientific Study of Religion 6
( Spring ) : 69-77.
Greeley, Andrew M.
1964 "`The Protestant Ethic: Time f o r a
Moratorium." Sociological Analysis 9.5
(Spring) : 20-88.
1969 "Continuities in Research on the "Reli-
gious Factor." American Journal of
Soeiology 75 (November) : 855-859.
Gustafson, Paul M.
1967 "UO-US-PS-PO: a Restatement of
Troeltsch's Church Typology." Joumal
for the Scientific Study of Religion 6
(Spring) : 64-68.
Hadden, Jeffrey K.
1986 with Raymond C. Rymph, "Social
Structure and Civil Rights Involve-
ment: A Case Study of Protestant
Ministers." Social Forces, 45 (Septem-
ber) : 51-61.
1969 The Gathering Storm in the Churehes.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday
and Company.
Hajda, Van.
1961 "Alienation and Integration of Student
Intel]eetua|s." Ameriean Soeiological
Review 26 (Oetober) : 758-777.
Hammond, Phi]lip E., and Robert E. Mitehell.
1965 "Segmentation of Radiealism: The
Case of the Protestant Campus Minis-
ter." American Jouma/of Sociology 71
(July) : 188-148.
170 SOClOLOGI~ ANALYSIS
Harrison, Paul M.
1959 Authority and Power in the Frec
Church Tradition: A Social Case
Study of the American Bapª Con-
vention. Frinceton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Henderson, Paul M.
1967 "Some Faetors to Consider in Regard
to Candidates," mimeographed re-
search report, Division of Vocation,
Board of Christian Education, United
Presbyterian Church. (Cited in De-
merath, 1968)
Herberg, Will.
1955 Protestant-Catholic-Jew. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday and Company.
Hill, Bichard J., and Raymond C. Bymph.
1968 "Methods in the Sociology of Religion:
The State of the Art,'" unpublished pa-
per, Purdue University, Department
of Sociology.
Hughes, Everett C.
1961 "Ethnocent¡ Soeiology." Social
Forces 40 (Spring) : 1-4.
James, William.
1958 The Varieties of Beligious Experienee.
New York: Mentor Books.
Johnson, Benton.
1963 "On Church and Seet." American So-
ciologieal Review 28 (August) : 539-
549.
Kersten, Lawrenee K.
In press. The Lutheran Ethie. Detroit:
Wayne State University Press.
King, Morton.
1967 "Measuring the Beligious Variable:
Nine Proposed Dimensions." Joumal
for the Scientifie Study of Beligion 6
(Fall): 173-185.
Knuckman, C]aarlene St¡
1968 Inter-Regional Migration of Methodist
Ministers. M.A. Thesis, Department
of Soeiology, Purdue University.
Kutner, Bemard, C. Wilkins, and P. B. Yarrow.
1952 "Verbal Attitudes and Overt Behavior
/nvolving Racial Prejudice." Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology
47: 649-652.
Lazarwitz, Bemard.
1961 "'A Comparison of Major United States
Religious Groups." Journal of the
American Statistical Association 56
(September) : 568-579.
Lensld, Gerhard.
1953 "Social Correlates of Religious Inter-
est. American SociologicalReview 18
(Oetober) : 533-543.
Lipset, Seymour M.
1959 "Religion, in America: What Religious
Bevival?' Columbia University Forum
9. (Winter) : 17-21.
Lofland, John.
1966 Doomsday Cult. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
Lohman, Joseph D., and Dietrich Beitzes.
1954 "Deliberately Organized Groups and
Racial Behavior." American Soeio]og-
ieal Rev/ew 19 (June): 342-348.
Lueba, James H.
1925 The Psychology of Rel/gion. New
York: Harcourt Brace.
Means, tª L.
1969 The Ethical Imperative. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday and Company.
Parsons, Anne.
1965 "The Pentecostal Immigrants: A Study
of an Ethnic Central City Church.'"
Joumal for the Scientifie Study of
Religion 4 (Fall) : 183-197.
Putney, Snell, and Russell Middleton.
1961 "Dimensions and Correlates of Reli-
OUS Ideology." Social Forces 30
ecember): 285-290.
Quinley, Harold E.
1969 "Hawks and Dores among the Clergy:
Protestant Reactions to the War in
Vietnam." Ministry Studies 3.
1970 '~fhe Protestant Clergy and the War in
Vietnam." Public Opinion Quarterly
34 (Spring) : 43-52.
Rokeach, Milton.
1960 The Open and Closed Mind. New
York: Basie Books.
1968 Beliefs, Attitudes, aud Values. San
Francisco: Jassey-Bass.
1969 "The H. Paul Douglass leetures for
1969: Part I, value systems in reli-
gion, and Part II, religious values and
social compassion," Review of Reli-
~ous Research 11 (Spring) : 3-39.
1970 'Faith, Hope and Bigotry." Psychology
Toda),, April.
Schneider, Louis, and Sarfford M. Dornbuseh.
1958a Popular Religion. Chieago: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
1958b "Inspirational Religious Literature:
from Latent to Manffest Functions of
Religion." Ameriean Joumal of Soei-
ology 62 (January) : 476-481.
Smelser, Neil J., and James A. Davis (eds.).
1969 Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Southard, Samuel.
1969 "Second Chance for Church Records.'"
 ASSESSI2qG ~
Review of Religious Research 10
(Spring) : 180-185.
Starbuck, Edwin Diller.
1899 The Psychology of Religion. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Stark, Rodney.
1963 "'On the I_ncompatibility of Religion
and Seience. Journal for the Scien-
tific Study of Religion 8 (Spring) :
8-20.
1965a "Social Contexts and Religious Experi-
enee." Review of Religious Research
7 (Spring) : 17-27.
1965b "A Taxonomy of Religious Experience."
Journal for the Scientifie Study of
Religion 5 (Spring): 97-116.
1968 with Charles Y. Glock, American
Piety: the Nature of Religious Com-
mitment. Berkeley: University of
Calffomia Press.
1970 "Rokeach, Religion and Reviewers:
Keeping ah Open Mind." Review of
Religious Researeh 11 (Summer) :
151.
undated "Af-ter the Resurrection: Some Appre-
hensions about Contemporary Social
Science Studies of Religion." Survey
Research Center, UniversŸ of Cal-
ffornia, Berkeley. (Unpublished man-
uscript. )
Tlaalheimer, Fred.
1965 "Continuity and Change. in. Religiosi,,~..
A Study of Academlclans. Pacific
Sociological Review 8: 101-108.
Warriner, Charles K.
1958 "The Nature and Ftmctions of Official
EIVEPIRICAL STUDIES 171
Morality." American Joumal of Sociol-
ogy 64 (july): 165-168.
United States Bureau of the Census.
1957 "Religion Reported by the Civilian
Population of the United States:
March, 1957," Current Population Re-
ports, Series P-20, no. 70.
Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org at Universiti Teknologi MARA - Shah Alam on September 30, 2010
Weigert, Andrew, and Darwin L. Thomas.
1969 "Religiosity in 5-D: A Critical Note."
Social Forees 48 (December) : 260-
263.
White, Andrew Dickson.
1965 A History of the Warfare of Science
with Theology in Christendom, New
York: The Free Press.
White, Harrison C.
1969 "Control and Evaluation of Aggregate
Personnel: Flows of Men and Jobs."
Administrative Science Quarterly 14
(Spring) : 5-11.
Whitley, Oliver R.
1964 Religious BehavŸ Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentiee-Hall.
Winter, Gibson.
1967 "Religious Organization," in the Emer-
gent American Society, Vol 1: Large-
Scale Organizations, W. Lloyd Warner
(ed.). New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Wood, James R., and Mayer N. Lald.
1966 "Aspects of Racial Integration in the
Methodist Church: Sources of Resis-
tance to Organizational Policy." Social
Forces 45 (September): 255-265.
Yinger, J. Milton.
1961 Sociology Looks at Religion. New
York: The Macrnillan Company.