Soc 6332 The Sociology of Religious Organizations
Baylor University, Spring 2008
Wednesday, 2:00-4:50 pm, Burleson 311

Description
A sociological approach to religion places primary attention on the collective, social nature of religion.  Consequently, religious organizations are an important area of investigation for sociologists.  The quantity and quality of research in this area have improved dramatically in the past two decades.  Soc 6332 is an introduction to this burgeoning area of research.  The seminar explores organizational aspects of religion, including organizational forms, prominent theories, and common methodologies. 

Instructor
Kevin D. Dougherty, Ph.D.
Burleson 318B, 710-6232
Kevin_Dougherty@baylor.edu

Objectives
At the completion of the seminar, students should be able to:
1.Describe common forms of religious organizations.
2.Identify methodological strategies for studying religious organizations.
3.Explain the relevance of prominent organizational theories to religious organizations.

Readings
Becker, Penny Edgell. 1999. Congregations in Conflict: Cultural Models of Local Religious Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chaves, Mark. 2004. Congregations in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ellingson, Stephen. 2007. The Megachurch and the Mainline: Remaking Religious Tradition in the Twenty-First Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Additional journal articles and book chapters will be provided electronically by the instructor.

Requirements
Seminar requirements are designed to push students intellectually and professionally.  Assigned readings, synthesis papers, and a discussant provide a framework for class sessions.  A book review, research proposal, and peer-review promote analysis and foreshadow professional responsibilities.

Synthesis Papers. Students will be responsible for writing a 2-3 page synthesis paper in response to assigned readings each week.  These papers are a place to react to and think through each set of readings.  A few questions to get started are: What overarching themes emerged?  What theoretical or methodological insights were encountered?  What new questions/ideas were sparked?  Weekly synthesis papers should be emailed to the class by Monday evening. 

Discussion Leader. One student per week will serve as discussion leader.  The discussion leader should come prepared to guide class conversation.  Assigned readings, outside readings, and classmates’ synthesis papers should be used to develop questions for class consideration.

Book Review. Book reviews are a standard feature in scholarly journals.  Students will have an opportunity to write a book review for possible publication.  A list of titles will be provided, although students are not restricted to this list.  Instructor approval is necessary for any selected book.  The book review is to be 800-1000 words in length and adhere to guidelines established by the journal for which it is written.  The book review is due April 9.

Research Proposal. A 15-20 page research proposal will culminate the semester.  Whether earning a graduate degree or seeking grant funding, research proposals are another ubiquitous element of academic life.  For Soc 6332, the proposal should outline a feasible study on some type of religious organization; it should demonstrate familiarity with relevant organizational literature, theories and methodology; and it should contribute something new to this literature.  A rough draft of the research proposal is due to the instructor and the classmate assigned as “peer reviewer” at least 72 hours before the in-class presentation.  A final (revised) draft is due by May 14.

Proposal Presentation. Akin to an academic conference, students will make a 15 minute presentation of their research proposal.  The presentation is a chance to gain wider feedback on the project.  The feedback from classmates, including one designed reviewer (see below), should be used to improve the final draft of the proposal.

Peer Review. The credibility of academic research depends on a rigorous review process.  Scholarship is a collaborative enterprise.  It will be a collaborative enterprise in the seminar as well.  Each student will be assigned to serve as a reviewer for a classmate’s research proposal.  The reviewer is responsible for evaluating the merit of the idea, quality of the literature review, strength of the theoretical argument, appropriateness of the methodology, and potential scholarly contribution.  The review will be delivered orally in class following the proposal presentation.  A written review is due to the classmates and instructor at this time as well.

Evaluation
It is expected that students will fulfill all requirements described above.  As a general guide, the following criteria will determine final course grades.

A All work submitted on time and of high quality.
B Timeliness and/or quality of some work fails to meet graduate level expectations.
C Work is consistently late or incomplete; work is consistently of low quality.

Any extenuating circumstances affecting student performance should be discussed with the instructor directly.

 
Schedule
Every effort will be made to follow the schedule as outlined.  The instructor does reserve the right to make adjustments.  Students are responsible for any schedule changes announced in class or electronically.  Readings from journal articles and book chapters will be provided on Blackboard, with the exception of the three required books (Becker 1999, Chaves 2004, and Ellingson 2007) and chapters from Acts of Faith (Stark and Finke 2000).

January 16: Introductions

January 23: Defining Religious Organizations
•Hall, Peter Dobkin. 1998. “Religion and the Organizational Revolution in the United States.” Pp. 99-115 in Sacred Companies: Organizational Aspects of Religion and Religious Aspects of Organizations, edited by N.J. Demerath III, Peter Dobkin Hall, Terry Schmitt, and Rhys H. Williams. New York: Oxford University Press.
•Chaves, Mark. 2002. “Religious Organizations: Data Resources and Research Opportunities.” American Behavioral Scientist 45:1523-1549.
•Scherer, Ross P. 1988. “A New Typology for Organizations: Market, Bureaucracy, Clan and Mission, with Application to American Denominations.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 27:475-498.
•Chaves, Mark. 1993. “Denominations as Dual Structures: An Organizational Analysis.” Sociology of Religion 54:147-169.
•Harris, Margaret. 1998. “A Special Case of Voluntary Associations? Towards a Theory of Congregational Organization.” British Journal of Sociology 49:602-618.
•Bromley, David G. 1998. “Transformative Movements and Quasi-Religious Corporations: The Case of Amway.” Pp. 349-363 in Sacred Companies: Organizational Aspects of Religion and Religious Aspects of Organizations, edited by N.J. Demerath III, Peter Dobkin Hall, Terry Schmitt, and Rhys H. Williams. New York: Oxford University Press.

January 30: Defining Religious Organizations, continued
•Chaves, Mark. 2004. Congregations in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

February 6: Church-Sect and Market Theories
•Johnson, Benton. 1961. “On Church and Sect.” American Sociological Review 28:539-549.
•Iannaccone, Laurence R. 1988. “Why Strict Churches are Strong.” American Journal of Sociology 99:1180-1211.
•Stark, Rodney and Roger Finke. 2000. “Religious Group Dynamics” (chapter 6) in Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
•Warner, R. Stephen. 1993. “Work in Progress towards a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 98:1044-1093.
•Stark, Rodney and Roger Finke. 2000. “A Theoretical Model of Religious Economies” (chapter 8) in Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
•Finke, Roger and Rodney Stark. 2001. “The New Holy Clubs: Testing Church-to-Sect Propositions.” Sociology of Religion 62:175-189.

February 13: Systems Theory
•Stern, Robert N. and Stephen R. Barley. 1996. “Organizations and Social Systems: Organization Theory’s Neglected Mandate.” Administrative Science Quarterly 41:146-162.
•Negandhi, Anant R. and Bernard C. Reimann. 1973. “Correlates of Decentralization: Closed and Open System Perspectives.” Academy of Management Journal 16:570-582.
•Weick, Karl E. 1976. “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.” Administrative Science Quarterly 21:1-11.
•Davidson, James D., Alan K. Mock, and C. Lincoln Johnson. 1997. “Through the Eye of a Needle: Social Ministry in Affluent Churches.” Review of Religious Research 38:247-262.
•Davidson, James D. and Jerome R. Koch. 1998. “Beyond Mutual and Public Benefits: The Inward and Outward Orientations of Nonprofit Organizations.” Pp. 292-306 in Sacred Companies: Organizational Aspects of Religion and Religious Aspects of Organizations, edited by N.J. Demerath III, Peter Dobkin Hall, Terry Schmitt, and Rhys H. Williams. New York: Oxford University Press.
•Koch, Jerome R. and Evans W. Curry. 2000. “Social Context and the Presbyterian Gay/Lesbian Ordination Debate: Testing Open-Systems Theory.” Review of Religious Research 42:206-214.

February 20: Institutional Theory
•Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan. 1977. “Institutional Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83:340-363.
•DiMaggio, Paul and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and the Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48:147-160.
•Selznick, Philip. 1996. “Institutionalism ‘Old’ and ‘New’.” Administrative Science Quarterly 41:270-277.
•Greenwood, Royston and C. R. Hinings. 1996. “Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing Together the Old and the New Institutionalism.” Academy of Management Review 21:1022-1054.
•Chaves, Mark. 1996. “Ordaining Women: The Diffusion of an Organizational Innovation.” American Journal of Sociology 101:840-873.
•Swartz, David. 1998. “Secularization, Religion, and Isomorphism: A Study of Large Nonprofit Hospital Trustees.” Pp. 323-339 in Sacred Companies: Organizational Aspects of Religion and Religious Aspects of Organizations, edited by N.J. Demerath III, Peter Dobkin Hall, Terry Schmitt, and Rhys H. Williams. New York: Oxford University Press.

February 27: No class

March 5: Institutional Theory, continued
•Becker, Penny Edgell. 1999. Congregations in Conflict: Cultural Models of Local Religious Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

March 12: No class

March 19: Organizational Ecology Theory
•Carroll, Glenn R. 1984. “Organizational Ecology.” Annual Review of Sociology 10:71-93.
•Hannan Michael T. and John Freeman 1977. “The Population Ecology of Organizations.” American Journal of Sociology 83:929-984.
•McPherson, J. Miller. 1983. “An Ecology of Affiliation.” American Sociological Review 48:519-532.
•Hannan, Michael T., Glenn R. Carroll, and László Pólos. 2003. “The Organizational Niche.” Sociological Theory 21:309-340.
•Popielarz, Pamela A. and Zachary P. Neal. 2007. “The Niche as a Theoretical Tool.” Annual Review of Sociology 33:65-84.
•Scheitle, Christopher P. 2007. “Organizational Niches and Religious Markets: Uniting Two Literatures.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 3: Article 2.
•Christerson, Brad and Michael Emerson. 2003. “The Costs of Diversity in a Religious Organization: An In-Depth Case Study.” Sociology of Religion 64:163-181.

March 26: Organizational Ecology Theory, continued
•Ellingson, Stephen. 2007. The Megachurch and the Mainline: Remaking Religious Tradition in the Twenty-first Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

April 2: Resource Dependence Theory
•Emerson, Richard. 1962. “Power-Dependence Relations.” American Sociological Review 27:31-41.
•Aldrich, Howard E. and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1976. “Environments of Organizations.” Annual Review of Sociology 2:79-105.
•Dunford, Richard. 1987. “The Suppression of Technology as a Strategy for Controlling Resource Dependence.” Administrative Science Quarterly 32:512-525.
•Kotter, John P. 1979. “Managing External Dependence.” The Academy of Management Review 4:87-92.
•Jun, Sung Pyo and Gordon M. Armstrong. 1997. “The Bases of Power in Churches: An Analysis from a Resource Dependence Perspective.” Social Science Journal 34:105-130.
•Finke, Roger and Christopher P. Scheitle. Forthcoming. “Understanding Schisms: Theoretical Explanations for their Origins” in Sacred Schisms, edited by James W. Lewis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

April 9: No class
Book review due

April 16: Presentations
Peer review due

April 23: Presentations
Peer review due

April 30: Conclusion