“An Earnest Desire for the Truth despite Its Possible Unpleasantness”: A Comparative Analysis of the Atlanta University Publications and American Journal of Sociology,1895 to 1917

Abstract

The authors examine the methodological sophistication of the research conducted by the W.E.B. Du Bois–led Atlanta Sociological Laboratory (ASL), the first American school of sociology, and Albion Small–edited American Journal of Sociology (AJS). Comparative analysis of the ASL publications and scholarly articles in AJS between 1895 and 1917 is undertaken to identify articulations of the method(s) of research offered in both. The authors conclude that the articulation of research methods by the ASL is superior to those from AJS. Moreover, the authors propose that Du Bois’s school was the first to institutionalize the presentation of a methods section in its research publications. Despite the ASL’s contributions to the discipline, the authors argue that scientific racism, institutional racism, and the blacklisting of Du Bois because of his embrace of communism and socialism contribute to the laboratory’s 100-year sociological marginalization. Ultimately, the authors propose that the ASL, in its entirety and not as an addendum to its relationship to Du Bois, be incorporated into the sociological canon as vigorously as the Chicago School.

Keywords

race history professions racism African Americans

Since the late 1990s, literature on the contributions and significance of the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory (ASL)—the moniker bestowed on scholars engaged in sociological inquiry at Atlanta University between 1895 and 1924—to the discipline of sociology has increased. Examinations into the school’s theoretical offerings, impact on the development of the discipline, and significance in topical areas including, but not limited to, criminal justice, race, and religion are more readily available now than ever before. One area that remains fertile for further examination is the ASL’s methodological offerings. Although the literature includes a number of favorable examinations of the school’s methodological sophistication, a comparison of the school against its contemporaries does not currently exist. This query fills that gap. We expand the literature by offering a comparative analysis of the articulation of the methodological practices of the ASL, as presented in the yearly monographs produced by the school that are collectively known as the Atlanta University publications, against the American Journal of Sociology (AJS). Accordingly, the objective of this endeavor is to ascertain if the methodological articulations of the works produced in the Atlanta University publications are more, less, or equally as sophisticated as those produced in AJS.

Literature Review

Although the existing literature on the exploits of the ASL, led for 16 years by W.E.B. Du Bois, has expanded since the late 1990s, the amount of literature remains relatively small and includes original works by only a handful of scholars.¹ These works frame the contributions of the school and its leader as significant to the discipline and worthy of canonization. The only exception is the first scholarly article to focus exclusively on the school. Elliott Rudwick (1957) examined the school’s 20-year research program and concluded that the school did not make any significant contribution to the discipline. He did propose, however, that the major accomplishment of Du Bois’s Atlanta investigations was the enhancement of the morale of blacks in America. Nearly 40 years later, Shaun L. Gabbidon (1996, 1999) challenged Rudwick’s conclusion and posited that the school did offer significant contributions to the field, specifically in the substantive areas of criminology and criminal justice. Gabbidon was ultimately unsuccessful at proving his argument that Du Bois’s school, not the Chicago School, was the first American school of sociology. Although Gabbidon was unsuccessful in his attempt to prove that Atlanta predated Chicago, his intensive study on the ASL led him to conclude that Du Bois’s accomplishments as director of the annual Atlanta University studies are sufficient for him to be rightfully designated the father of criminology and criminal justice studies. Phil Zuckerman (2000, 2002, 2004) expanded this literature a few years later when he argued that Du Bois’s Atlanta University study on religion was the first purely sociological endeavor conducted in the United States and should be recognized accordingly in the literature. Although these studies are significant contributions to the body of knowledge on Du Bois, the ASL, and the history of the discipline, the most substantive and voluminous works on the ASL were produced immediately after Gabbidon’s research.

Earl Wright II (2000, 2002b) successfully argued that the ASL was the first American school of sociology and should be recognized accordingly. Wright also argued that the ASL was the first institutionalized program of urban sociological research in the United States (Wright 2000, 2002b) and the first institutionalized program of sociology of the south research (Wright 2014). Notwithstanding his finding that Atlanta, not Chicago, was the first American school of sociology, possibly Wright’s most important findings center on the school’s contributions to the discipline, specifically, and social sciences, generally, in research methods. According to Wright, the ASL is the first American sociological program to institutionalize (1) the practice of employing insider researchers (Wright 2002b, 2002c, 2006, 2016), (2) the practice of acknowledging the limitations of its research (Wright 2002b, 2002c, 2006, 2016), and (3) method triangulation (Wright 2002b, 2002c, 2006, 2016). Most recently adding to this body of research is Aldon Morris (2015), who argued that Du Bois’s Atlanta University efforts are significant enough to warrant him distinction as the father of scientific sociology. As a collective, this small but growing body of literature provides support for the increasing number of voices calling for the ASL to be canonized as vigorously as the Chicago School of Sociology. To date, the ASL is not canonized. A reasonable question to ask prior to reviewing the AJS literature is, why?

One way to gauge the significance of a sociologist or an idea to the discipline is inclusion in introductory sociology textbooks. A growing number of introductory sociology textbooks now acknowledge Du Bois as a pioneering sociologist (Wright 2012). Unfortunately, references to the ASL are nonexistent or superficial. Most introductory sociology textbooks include narratives on Du Bois’s life and career, in which Atlanta University is inserted as an addendum to note his institutional home (Wright 2012). His tremendous contributions to the discipline as director of the Atlanta University studies are not recognized.

Wright (2002c) outlined the numerous contributions of Du Bois’s school to the discipline and offered multiple explanations for its marginalization by the mainstream (White) sociological enterprise. He suggested that the school’s sociological invisibility is caused by factors including (1) the misperception that its findings are ungeneralizable, (2) the misperception that its methods of research were unsophisticated and of low quality, (3) the misperception that it omitted theory from its analyses, and (4) the incorrect idea that its scholarly products are mired in academic obscurity. The final, and strongest, explanation of the school’s marginalization is institutional racism (Carmichael and Hamilton 1967).

Institutional racism is the primary cause of the school’s invisibility because it centers on the idea that it was anathema for Whites of the early twentieth century to believe that Blacks, only 30 years removed from slavery, could engage in scholarly and scientific activities at levels equal to, if not greater than, their White peers. This notion is supported by recent studies on scientific racism and its impact on the ASL (Morris 2015; Wright 2016). The dismissal of Du Bois’s school by White male gatekeepers caused its banishment to the discipline’s hinterlands during sociology’s formative years in this nation. All of the available evidence suggests that this marginalization was a racially motivated action. Extending beyond Wright’s explanation, we argue that another component of Du Bois’s erasure from the sociological literature is his perceived anti-American activity as a supporter of communism and socialism during the middle twentieth century.

Near the end of his life, Du Bois became increasingly disillusioned at the possibility that Blacks would not obtain complete freedom and justice within the system of American capitalism. This frustration left him open to embracing alternative philosophies, such as communism and socialism. At this point in his life, he believed that “the only hope of American Negroes is socialism” (Lewis 2000:558). The embrace of these philosophies not only made him loathsome in the eyes of the general American public and placed him on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s surveillance list, it provided an opportunity for his peers to further bury his supposedly anti-American scholarly accomplishments beneath a rubble of national pride and patriotism. The backlash against Du Bois was so intense that many libraries across the nation removed his books from their shelves. Du Bois’s despair at a nation he long believed could live up to its written creeds was on display when he lamented, “I would have been hailed with approval if I had died at fifty. . . . At seventy-five my death [is] practically requested” (Lewis 2000: 553). Summarily, we propose that institutional and scientific racism of the early twentieth century and the midcentury belief that his anti-American ideology disqualified him from canonization combine to explain, at least partially, the 100-year sociological marginalization of the ASL.

The existing literature on the methodological sophistication articulated in the early volumes of AJS is also limited (Becker 1930, 1932; Champion and Morris 1973; Kinloch 1984, 1988; Karides et al. 2001; McCartney 1970; Platt 2016). E. A. Ross (1945) noted that evidence of sociological research was virtually invisible in early volumes of the journal. Ross argued that early volumes of AJS “show impatience with trite, handed-down notions and assumptions as to things social” (p. 489), with little to no research method articulation. He concluded that the journal did not present consistent articulations of research methodology until the early 1940s. Timothy Rouse (1991), whose article focuses on AJS writings on prohibition, supported Ross’s contention that the methodology articulated in early AJS volumes was unsophisticated, at best. Rouse concluded that the articles in his study did not uniformly articulate a research methodology. When a methodology was presented, according to Rouse, it was less rigorous than the accepted conventions of the day. Linda Grant, Marybeth C. Stalp, and Kathryn B. Ward (2002) contributed to this literature by offering a comparative analysis of the writings of female contributors against their male counterparts prior to World War II. Grant et al. concluded that the articles written by women were more likely to include articulations of research methods and were more likely to be data driven. They noted in their article that Amy Hewes was one of the first AJS authors to use mathematical modeling and that female authors were “four times as likely as men to publish data-based articles, as opposed to theoretical/interpretative articles, literature reviews, or other types of works” (p. 75). If one expands the literature on examinations into AJS’s methodological sophistication to reflect the tremendous number of early offerings from the journal’s home institution, the University of Chicago, additional light can be shed on its attention to methodological detail.

There is a dearth of writings on the history of research methods in the United States. Sadly, “the first book on the general history of U. S. sociological research methods” was not published until nearly the turn of the twenty-first century (Platt 1996:i). In her notable book on the history of research methods in the United States, Platt (1996) contended that it was not until around 1920 “when university sociologists started to carry out empirical work and to write about research methods” (p. 2). Platt offered a stinging critique of the discipline’s attention to research methods:

The sense that the weight of empirical conclusions rested on the merit of the methods by which they had been reached was not yet clearly established in the 1920s, and even at the University of Chicago, where much important research was done, the publications based on it were often extremely vague about the status and origins of their data. (p. 34)

Clearly, early American sociologists in general and Chicago sociologists specifically lacked the necessary methodological sophistication to draw accurate knowledge conclusions in ways similar to, as discussed later, the Du Bois–led ASL. In many ways, this deficiency slowed the development of the discipline in this nation. Platt (1987) provided a concluding statement on the sociology practiced at Chicago:

When we look at the Chicago studies it seems clear that . . . it was regarded as relatively unimportant who obtained the material, whether it was originally oral or written, and whether it reported scientific incidents or generalizations. What seems to have been taken as of overriding significance is that the documents have “objective existence” in written form. (p. 3)

Although the failings of the methodological offerings of early Chicago sociology are not presented in full here, for lack of space, noteworthy examinations of this topic can be found in the exiting literature (see Bulmer 1984; Hammersley 1989; Platt 1987, 1996).

To summarize, this article expands existing literature because it offers the first direct comparison of AJS with any of its periodical contemporaries of the era. Second, and more germane to this inquiry, this article offers the first direct comparison of the works produced by the first American school of sociology, the predominately Black- and W.E.B. Du Bois–led ASL, against the sociological artifacts of the supposed leading sociological organ of the era, AJS.

Methods

The data analysis technique used in this examination is content analysis. The specific content item under examination is articulation of the method(s) of data collection. Manifest coding is used because it allows a clean analysis of data that are either clearly present or not (Neuman 2003). Twenty volumes of the Atlanta University publications and 848 articles from AJS are examined to identify articulations of the method(s) of data collection used by each author. Concerning AJS, all non-research-grounded contributions such as volume information, front matter, obituaries, news and notes, minor editorials, and book reviews are not included in the analysis, as they are not considered original sociological research contributions. We calculated an intercoder reliability coefficient of .929. If a publication includes a direct or indirect articulation of a method of data collection, it is positively coded. If a publication does not include a direct or indirect articulation of a method of data collection, it is negatively coded. Once a publication is positively coded, the type of data collection technique is recorded. Publications coded negatively are not further analyzed.

Many of the articles coded affirmatively do not include clear and distinguishable articulations of the method(s) of data collection. In such cases, and in an attempt to not penalize past scholars on the basis of advances in the discipline practiced in full today, we offer leeway to AJS contributors by going to extreme lengths to tease out from the articles evidence of the articulation of methods of data collection.

The period of investigation for this study is 1895 to 1917. We selected 1895 as the starting point for analysis because it represents the year Atlanta University administrators approved the annual investigation into the social, physical, and economic condition of Blacks in America titled the Atlanta University Study of the Negro Problems. Coincidentally, AJS was established in 1895. The concluding year, 1917, represents the final publication of the 20-volume set of sociological investigations conducted by the ASL. That both entities were established in 1895 allows a clean starting point for the comparison of their methodological articulations, and the end point represents the concluding publication of the ASL.

“A Scheme of Inquiry”

Because the primary focus of this investigation is on articulation of the methods of research used by early contributors to AJS and the Atlanta University publications, it is important that an understanding of the research method and process of data collection of that era is contextualized appropriately and not influenced by current advances in the discipline. Stated more clearly, the ways one may understand the research method or data collection techniques today may or may not be consistent with use during the discipline’s formative years in this nation. Therefore, instead of relying exclusively on a contemporary understanding of what research method(s) mean, this effort is informed by an understanding of this concept through the writings of an early sociologist who served as editor of AJS during the period investigated.

Albion Small, founder of the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago and of AJS, offered an understanding of methodology and method(s) of data collection that inform this study. In a 1900 AJS article titled “The Scope of Sociology. II. The Development of Sociological Method,” Small expressed concern that current research must demonstrate a method of sociological research investigation leading to the acquisition of objective social facts. Although his use of the term method was quite broad in many ways, it is clear that data collection, at least theoretically, was an important component of his criteria for sociological research investigations. Acknowledging that philosophers and sociologists of the era suffered from the use of unscientific methods of research and data collection, Small (1900) reflected on the scientific community’s desire to “plan methods of research by which we may know actual facts, to take the place of irresponsible fancies with which social philosophers have been content to speculate. One outcome of this movement is sociology” (p. 617). Insistent that sociologists develop a “scheme of inquiry into societary [sic] fact” (p. 641), Small argued that the “complete conception of societary [sic] relationships, and corresponding investigation and arrangements of facts about those relationships, are the essential upon which the sociological methodologists insists” (p. 647). Although not fully developed and, admittedly, in an infantile state, Small’s insistence that sociologists “develop a scheme of inquiry into societary [sic] fact,” or objective research methodology, is consistent with the discipline’s increasing attention to securing more objective, rigorous, and scientific techniques for studying society. Certain that past and contemporary understandings are consistent, the concepts methodology and method(s) of data collection are understood here as “the rules, principles, and practices that guide the collection of evidence and the conclusions drawn from it” (Persell 1990:27). Before we provide evidence of the articulation of research methods produced in articles published in AJS and the Atlanta University publications between 1895 and 1917, we briefly highlight a possible limitation of this investigation.

Limitation

A possible limitation of this inquiry is the comparative analysis of one yearly scholarly product by a sociological research unit against a volume of contributions from a variety of authors from different institutions and from various regions of the nation. Although we acknowledge that comparing the ASL’s works with a single school’s publications is ideal, between 1895 and 1917 the Du Bois–led school did not have an institutional contemporary of equal stature against which a comparison can be made. The closest institutional, or school, equal is the set of publications offered by sociologists from across the nation to the primary and leading organ of the discipline, AJS. The articles AJS publishes, arguably, represent the most advanced scholarship in the discipline and, as a collective, constitute, at least theoretically, the most up-to-date statements and examples of articulations of research methods in the United States. We argue that an analysis of the articulation of the data collection techniques used by the wide variety of scholars by region, institution type, and gender in AJS offer a solid understanding of the importance, or lack thereof, early sociologists placed on this important component of sociological research. Given that AJS, theoretically, represents the exemplar of sociological excellence during the discipline’s formative years in this nation, it seems quite logical that the discipline’s flagship journal should be the ideal comparative model against which the ASL is judged.

AJS, 1895 to 1917

To contextualize, AJS articles published between 1895 and 1917 read like a “who’s who” list of early and important figures in American sociology including, but not limited to, Jane Addams (Hull House), L. L. Bernard (University of Missouri), Frank Blackmar (University of Kansas), Emory Bogardus (University of South Carolina), Florence Kelley (Hull House), and Georg Simmel (University of Berlin). Although the number and breadth of contributors to AJS is tremendous, it should not come as a surprise that the most published scholar in the journal during this period was affiliated with the home institution of the outlet, the University of Chicago. Albion W. Small published more articles than all but one person during the period investigated. Small’s 44 articles are equal to the number of fellow past ASA president Edward A. Ross (Stanford University, University of Nebraska, and University of Wisconsin) and more than those by C. R. Henderson (University of Chicago) with 32 and Lester F. Ward (University of Chicago) with 25 publications. When one considers that these four sociologists combined to account for 17 percent, or nearly one in every five of the scholarly articles published in AJS during the period identified, their impact on and representation of the advances and institutionalized methodological practices in the discipline during this era is noteworthy. Similar to the dominance of authorship by a relatively small number of individuals, the institutional affiliations of contributors to AJS during this period also reflects the dominance of an elite few.

Of the 848 scholarly articles published between 1895 and 1917, 234 authors listed the University of Chicago as their institutional affiliation. This total far exceeds all other institutions. This number is influenced by the fact that the publication was housed at the University of Chicago and may explain why the first four volumes of AJS include scholarly articles authored primarily by University of Chicago faculty members and affiliates. The institutions with the next highest levels of author publications were the University of Wisconsin (30) and the University of Missouri (17). We note here that the settlement house movement–centered Chicago School of Civic Philanthropy, now known as the University of Chicago School of Social Administration, is listed as the institutional affiliation for 12 authors. As evidenced above, in addition to the strong representation of University of Chicago authors, institutions located in the Midwest were significantly represented in the journal. Of the top seven institutions with the largest total number of author publications in AJS, Columbia University (10 articles) is the only one located outside the Midwest. When Columbia is removed from consideration and the impact of the remaining top six, Midwest-located institutional contributors to AJS is assessed, we find that Chicago (234), Wisconsin (30), Missouri (17), the Chicago School of Civic Philanthropy (12), Michigan (11), and Hull House (9) combine to represent more than 38 percent of the institutional affiliations of scholarly contributors to AJS between 1895 and 1917.

When we examine the geographic representation of AJS authors, we find that more authors listed affiliations from institutions located in the Midwest than any other region. Of the 848 scholarly articles examined, 471 (55 percent) of the total number of persons identified by institutional affiliation were located in the Midwest. The Northeast follows with 202 scholarly articles, 24 percent of the total, while international affiliations, with 86 scholarly articles, accounted for 10 percent of the total contributions to AJS between 1895 and 1917, with the majority of these from German universities such as the University of Berlin and the University of Leipzig. Contributions from western U.S. institutions accounted for 40 scholarly articles (4 percent of the total), while the South recorded only 12 scholarly contributions (1 percent of the total).

It is intriguing that the South was barely represented in early volumes of the discipline’s leading and primary publication organ during its formative years in this nation, because, as reported by L. L. Bernard (1948), “As the known facts now stand, it is apparent that sociology was first accepted by the smaller institutions of the South and by the Negro colleges” (p. 14). Existing research proposes that although AJS contributors and, possibly, the majority of mainstream (White) sociologists were busy developing theories of life in America and attempting to make the discipline the positivistic equal to its sister branches in the hard (physical) sciences, southern Black and White institutions and sociologists were focusing on conducting objective scientific investigations into social, economic, and physical issues concerning race and racism via practical and applied aspects of sociology (Wright and Calhoun 2006). Nevertheless, the region is not the only area for which a dearth of diversity existed in early AJS articles.

The lack of diversity in AJS during its early years is reflected not only in its individual, institutional, and regional homogeneity but in its limited inclusion of sociologists by gender and race as well. The overwhelming majority of AJS authors between 1895 and 1917 were, unsurprisingly, White men. White men authored 90 percent (761) of the 848 AJS articles between 1895 and 1917. White women authored 10 percent (88) of AJS articles during the same period. If articles by women that were coauthored with men are added into the equation, the number of articles penned by women increases by 4. Only two scholarly articles were penned by non-White sociologists, with one being Monroe N. Work, an African American graduate student at the University of Chicago. Finally, no scholarly articles were published, to our knowledge, by black women, Asians, or Hispanics during the period identified.

That the contributors to AJS during this period were overwhelmingly White men representing institutions largely from the midwestern United States should come as no surprise to the knowledgeable sociological community. What may be surprising, however, is the level of articulation, or not, of the methods of data collection by said contributors. In the following section, the articulation of the method(s) of data collection in AJS articles between 1895 and 1917 is examined.

AJS and Research Method(s) Articulation

It is customary in contemporary scholarly publications to include a section or statement on one’s method of data collection. Between 1895 and 1917, the vast majority of sociologists whose works were published in AJS did not do so. In lieu of a section or a detailed statement on their method(s) of data collection, often brief statements, vague references, or no mention at all on how information was collected was offered. Of the sample of 848 AJS articles examined between 1895 and 1917, 78 percent (n = 684) do not state methods of data collection. This means that only 22 percent of the articles are coded as stating methods of data collection. It must be stated as clearly as possible that although 22 percent of AJS articles are coded as articulating methods of data collection, if the operationalization of this concept is guided exclusively by contemporary conventions, this number is reduced substantially. What cannot be overstated enough is the high degree of latitude provided to many authors, such that their articulations of data collection methods are affirmatively coded as such. If AJS authors are bound by the articulation of data collection methods as practiced today, or by those practiced by the Du Bois–led ASL that is discussed in the following section, the number of articles explicitly articulating methods of data collection drops from 22 percent to less than 10 percent (n = 84).

Articles are thoroughly mined to ascertain if, per Persell (1990), AJS authors articulated, whether directly or indirectly, the means by which data were collected. Although this task may seem simple, it is made difficult by ambiguity in the presentation, or lack thereof, of method(s) of research inquiry sections in the overwhelming majority of the articles. The primary difficulty in identifying the method(s) of data collection in AJS articles is formatting and presentation. Unlike the clearly stated method of data collection sections in contemporary articles, the authors of most AJS articles did not explicitly articulate methods of data collection in sections titled “Methodology.” Instead, a great number of early AJS articles are presented as succinct write-ups or summaries of research investigations, and they may, or may not, include direct or indirect references to how the data were collected, if at all. It is difficult at various points to discern if and/or what method(s) of data collection were used. In such cases, we offer educated guesses. A few examples follow.

A representative example of the challenge in noting whether an early AJS article articulates a method of data collection is found in an offering from T. D. Cockerell (1906). In an article titled “Municipal Activity in Britain,” the data collection method is deduced from vague references by the author. Cockerell (1906) notes, “I spent the summer of 1904 in my native country, England, after an absence of about thirteen years” (p. 817). Does this statement indicate or suggest engagement in participant observation? Ethnography? Interviews? Something else? Who knows! Although the full answers to these questions will never be known, this article is coded positively as articulating a method of data collection. This decision is based on references within the body of the article that hint at interactions with and observations gleamed from select townspeople. If one holds this author to the methodological criteria of today, this article does not qualify as having a clear articulation of a method of data collection. Below are additional examples of the articulation of the methods of data collection in AJS articles.

Albion Small’s (1896:407) article titled “The State and Semi-public Corporations” examines the relationship between an “organized people . . . represented by government” and semipublic (private) corporations. Although Small acknowledged major shifts in economic activity that affected societal organizations, he failed to directly articulate his data collection method(s). In a footnote, however, Small wrote, “This paper is a by-product of the seminar in sociology conducted by the author. It has made special use of work done by Messrs. J. D. Forrest, Paul Monroe and H. W. Thurston” (p. 398). In addition to Small’s contribution, a number of other articles are similarly lacking in the articulation of a method of data collection.

B. H. Meyer authored a 1901 investigation on the significance of fraternal beneficiary societies in the United States. Meyer found that although fraternal beneficiary societies contained elements of strength and weakness, these organizations played a vital role in contributing to the social, economic, and physical betterment of American society. While making his argument, Meyer pointed to principles and practices espoused by specific organizations and identified specific amounts of their philanthropic gifts. However, he articulated no method of data collection. The only reference to data collection is a footnote that reads, “The investigation of which this paper is a by-product was conducted under the auspices of the Ethical Subcommittee of the Committee of Fifty. This publication is by permission of that body” (p. 646). One is left to wonder if the data were collected via secondary sources, questionnaires, interviews, or some other manner. Moreover, one is also left to question, given the influence of the Committee of Fifty, the objectivity of the researcher and reliability of the findings.

A final example of the difficulty in ascertaining the articulation of a method of data collection is found in an article by Fay-Cooper Cole (1916) titled “Relations between the Living and Dead.” In this article, she attempted to understand how the people of a single pagan tribe of the northern Philippines negotiated the period after death, when it is believed that reincarnation takes place. Because the method of data collection is not clear, we assume the method to be participant observation or survey questionnaire because Cole states, “Our survey of Tinguian beliefs and customs leads us to give a different explanation for the acts and ceremonies” (p. 621). Beyond this vague statement, nothing else concerning data collection is mentioned. Despite the vague reference to a survey of some kind, this article is positively coded as having an articulation of a method of data collection. To be clear, we do not suggest that every AJS article published during this period of investigation suffers from the challenges described here. Instead, and as discussed later, the primary argument in this piece is that the methodological sophistication of the ASL is more advanced than the overwhelming majority of AJS articles during the same period. Also, we do not suggest that AJS does not include some articles with clear articulations of the method(s) of data collection. In fact, a few representative articles by noteworthy sociologists are highlighted below because of their, comparatively speaking, high degree of methodological sophistication.

Jane Addams provides an example of methodological clarity in an 1896 article in which she includes a footnote on how she collected data for this study. Addams (1896) wrote, “The opinions in [this study] have been largely gained through experiences in a Woman’s Labor Bureau, and through conversations held there with women returning from the ‘situations,’ which they had voluntarily relinquished in Chicago households of all grades” (p. 536). An argument can be made, via the insight Addams provided, that her methods of data collection were participant observation and unstructured interviews. Beyond arguments over the sophistication of the methods used, it is noteworthy that she offered a statement on how the data were collected in 1896, whereas, as noted earlier, most prior and subsequent AJS authors did not.

In 1912, W. I. Thomas authored an article titled “Race Psychology: Standpoint and Questionnaire, with Particular Reference to the Immigrant and the Negro.” This represents the first time a contributor to AJS included a methods section in an article. In the lead section of the paper, titled “Problem and Method,” Thomas (1912) wrote,

The following plan for viewing and collecting materials is one which I have been using in connection with some investigations among the peasants of Europe and among the Negroes, and I present it [here], not as a contribution to theory, but as a tool. (p. 725)

Thomas specifically indicated that he employed untrained citizen researchers to gather data for his investigation via schedules, known today as questionnaires. Speaking to this directly, Thomas noted,

It is apparent that a number of persons, many of them not students by profession, are in a position to make valuable records on these questions and that they could make use of a scheme containing some formulation of standpoint and suggestions for the selection and arrangement of materials. (p. 726)

It must be acknowledged here that the use of citizen researchers was first institutionalized by the ASL at its inception in 1895 (Wright 2002c). Du Bois (1899), upon assuming leadership of America’s first school of sociology two years later, noted that “by calling on the same persons [as researchers] year after year, a body of experienced correspondents had been gradually formed, numbering . . . about fifty” (p. 4). Speaking directly to the rationale for and importance of using unbiased citizen researchers, Atlanta University (1897) officials noted in a pre–Du Bois publication that

all the data gathered by this body of trained colored leaders, are believed to be, perhaps, more than usually accurate because of the investigators’ knowledge of the character, habits, and prejudices of the people, and because of the fact that they were not hindered by the suspicions which confront the white investigator, and which seriously affect the accuracy of the answers to his questions. (p. 5)

Despite Thomas’s distinction as the first author of a AJS article to include a section with method, perhaps the clearest articulation of the method(s) of data collection in an early AJS article is presented by, University of Chicago student and future founder of the Department of Sociology at the Booker T. Washington–founded Tuskegee Institute, Monroe Nathan Work.

Work (1900) wrote in “Crime among the Negroes of Chicago: A Social Study” that “this study was begun in the month of November, 1897, and was carried on during the month of December, 1897, and the months of January, February, and May, 1898” (p. 204). Work also indicated that the methods of data collection included fieldwork and secondary analysis. Perhaps Work’s penchant for scholarly excellence extends from his admiration of W.E.B. Du Bois and his participation with the Atlanta University Study of the Negro Problems. Linda McMurry (1980) noted, “Perhaps the greatest influence on Work was his research association with W. E. B. Du Bois through the Atlanta Studies” (p. 334). McMurry further suggested that Work’s decision to accept a position at Savannah State University in Georgia was an effort to be in close proximity to Du Bois’s Atlanta-based research efforts. What is clear is that Work contributed substantive chapters to the Du Bois–led Atlanta University publications in 1903, 1904, and 1917 (Wright 2009) and authored the most clear articulation of the method(s) of data collection of any AJS article between 1895 and 1917.

Although it is clear that most AJS articles do not explicitly cite a method(s) of data collection, some clearly do. Overall, we find the methodological sophistication of AJS articles to be of low quality. Equally clear is that the practices of the W.E.B. Du Bois–led ASL were more sophisticated than those practiced by the majority of their mainstream (White) contemporaries whose articles appeared in AJS between 1895 and 1917. Evidence for this assertion is found in the following section.

Atlanta University Publications and Research

Method(s) Articulation

In 1895, approximately 30 years after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, outlawing slavery, Atlanta University administrators and faculty members were flooded with communications from alumni and community leaders from around the South informing them of the need for scientific inquiry into the conditions affecting Blacks in America. From these sources, school officials learned of the pressing need to better understand the transitions blacks were making from slavery to freedom and rural to urban life. No institution in the nation was better situated, geographically, demographically, or intellectually at this time to lead this research effort than the predominately Black university located deep in the American South. Accordingly, in the spring of 1895, the board of trustees at Atlanta University approved a request for the establishment of an annual scientific investigation into the social, economic, and physical conditions of Blacks in America. Two years after its establishment, W.E.B. Du Bois was chosen to direct the yearly studies and to elevate the scientific rigor of the investigations. At the end of his 17-year tenure, Du Bois’s achievements at the school included significant, yet largely ignored, contributions to the discipline of sociology and the social sciences including, but not limited to, being the first American sociological program to (1) institutionalize the practice of using insider researchers, (2) institutionalize the practice of acknowledging the limitations of its research, (3) institutionalize method triangulation, (4) establish the first American school of sociology, (5) establish scientific sociology, (6) conduct the first sociological study of religion, and (7) establish the field of criminology and criminal justice (Gabbidon 1996, 1999; Morris 2015; Wright 2000, 2002b, 2002c, 2006, 2016; Zuckerman 2000, 2002, 2004).

Each spring between 1895 and 1924, conferences were hosted at Atlanta University at which data from the previous year’s investigation were presented. Although the conferences were held until 1924, the school released only 20 scholarly monographs during its life span, the last published in 1917. Of the 20 monographs released by the school, 18 were scholarly publications, one a review of the school’s previous 10 years of research, and one a collection of essays by leading scholars on race and racism. In each of the school’s 18 scholarly monographs, the method(s) of data collection are articulated. More specifically, 17 of 18 monographs include clear articulations of the school’s data collection protocol.

The Atlanta University publications include identifiable sections in which the method(s) of data collection are articulated, with the exception of two volumes that only offer summaries of the previous 10 years of research. A fascinating discovery in this examination is that, in addition to the significant contributions to the discipline made by the ASL cited earlier, this school is the first to institutionalize the practice of including a methods section in its scholarly publications. The institutionalization of a methods section began in 1896 with the release of the first Atlanta University Study of the Negro Problems report, titled Mortality among Negroes in Cities. The method of data collection is articulated in a section titled “Occasion and Purpose of the Conference: And [sic] an Outline of the Plan of Work.” Upon Du Bois’s arrival in 1897, the section was relabeled “Scope of Inquiry (and Methods).” “The Scope of Inquiry (and Methods)” section clearly outlines, in most Atlanta University studies, the data collection techniques used and limitations of the investigation. As already stated, in 1912, W. I. Thomas was the first to include a methods section in an AJS article, but the uniform use of a methods section for the journal did not come until after 1917. At a minimum, we propose that the methodological sophistication of sociologists at the predominately Black school in Atlanta with regard to this specific technique exceeded that of the majority of contributors to AJS who were representative of the most respected sociologists from the most elite institutions in the nation during this time. Below are five representative examples of the methodological articulations of the first American school of sociology, the ASL.

Contrary to the existing narrative, W.E.B. Du Bois was not the founder of the Atlanta University Study of the Negro Problems, otherwise referred to as the ASL. George G. Bradford, school trustee and director of the first two investigations, and President Horace Bumstead established this research program in 1895 as a result of the conditions articulated earlier (Wright 2000, 2002a). Although Du Bois elevated the scientific rigor of the research enterprise upon his arrival, Bradford and Bumstead institutionalized the practice of articulating the method(s) of data collection in the publications. The inaugural 1896 monograph includes a section titled “Occasion and Purpose of the Conference, and an Outline for the Plan of Work.” This is where Bradford presented the methods of data collection for the first Atlanta University study. Although Du Bois criticized the Bradford-led investigations conducted prior to his arrival as lacking scientific rigor, it is noteworthy that Bradford acknowledged that the data were obtained from U.S. Census Bureau data and questionnaires distributed to Atlanta University graduates serving as citizen researchers, in contrast to the relative absence of such articulations within the pages of AJS in 1896. Bradford directly stated that he examined census data from 1890 to ascertain “mortality for the white and colored population of five of our largest cities” (Atlanta University 1896:8) and noted that the cities included in this investigation were Baltimore, Maryland; Louisville, Kentucky; New Orleans, Louisiana; St. Louis, Missouri; and Washington, D.C. He also stated that citizen researchers were given blanks, known today as questionnaires, such that data were obtained from black households. Via this method, data were gathered from subjects in Atlanta, Georgia; Savannah, Georgia; and Washington, D.C. Bradford also provided detailed descriptions of the types of data sought. According to Bradford,

Blanks No. 1 and 2 [served] the purpose of a permanent record by which to measure the progress of each city community from year to year [and] Blank No. 3, called the Family Budget blank, provides for a more intimate inquiry into the conditions of life existing in a particular community. (p. 9)

Admittedly, the findings of the first Atlanta University study were not groundbreaking. However, the 1896 publication served as the starting point for objective and scientific studies on blacks in America and the institutionalization of one’s methods of data collection in their study.

W.E.B. Du Bois’s first investigation as director of the Atlanta University Study of the Negro Problems is an 1898 effort called Some Efforts of American Negroes for Their Own Social Betterment. Similar to the inaugural effort, this publication includes a section articulating the method of data collection and an outline of the rationale for the investigation, titled “The Scope of the Inquiry.” According to Du Bois (1898), “The method followed therefore was to choose nine Southern cities of varying size and to have selected in them such organizations of Negroes as were engaged in benevolent and reformatory work” (p. 4). Because of the dearth of Black trained social scientists, Atlanta University officials employed citizen researchers as data collectors. “The cities from which returns were obtained were: Washington, D.C., Petersburg, Va., Augusta, Ga., Atlanta, Ga., Mobile, Al., Bowling Green, Ky., Clarkesville, Tenn., Fort Smith, Ark., and Galveston, Tex.” (p. 4). In addition to being the first American sociological unit to institutionalize the articulation of its methods of data collection, the ASL was the first unit in the United States to institutionalize the practice of acknowledging the limitations of its research. In his first Atlanta University investigation, Du Bois (1898) openly acknowledged,

No attempt was made to catalogue all charitable and reformatory efforts but rather to illustrate the character of the work being done by typical examples. In one case, Petersburg, Va., nearly all efforts of all kind were reported in order to illustrate the full activity of one group. The report for one large city, Washington, was pretty full, although not exhaustive. In all of the other localities only selected organizations were reported. The returns being for the most part direct and reduced to a basis of actual figures seem to be reliable. (p. 4)

A third example of the methodological practices of the ASL is the study Economic Co-operation among Negro Americans. Although the method(s) of data collection is discernable, this study does not include a section devoted to its clear presentation. Instead, the 1907 study includes a section titled “The Scope of This Study” in which only the rationale for the investigation is offered. As for the AJS articles discussed previously, the method(s) of data collection are teased out of the body of the publication. According to Wright (2016), “An examination of the [publication] indicated that some data were collected via personal correspondences with businesspersons and social societies throughout the southern United States, conference reports citing economic data from various churches and an analysis of the existing literature” (p. 48).

The 1897 investigation is similar to yet different from the previously discussed 1907 study because it also lacks a clear articulation of the method(s) of data collection. However, a mitigating factor is that the 1897 effort is a continuation of the 1895 investigation and 1896 publication. They report that “[this] investigation was begun [in 1895] by an inquiry on the part of three graduates of Atlanta University into the causes of the excessive mortality among Negroes” (Atlanta University 1897:3). Thus, the lack of a detailed articulation of the methods of data collection in a specific section is explained by the fact that this information is found in the previous year’s publication. According to Wright (2016), “It can be discerned, however, that data were obtained through the use of blanks, reports from Boards of Health and an investigation into the social and physical conditions that obtained in various southern cities” (p. 24).

A final example of the articulation of the method(s) of data collection by the ASL is found in the 1902 investigation The Negro Artisan. This study is the school’s finest example of methodological sophistication (Wright 2016). In a section titled “Scope and Method of the Inquiry,” Du Bois indicated that the data collection techniques included secondary analysis, questionnaires, schedules, correspondences, and a collaborative investigation with a Tennessee newspaper, the Chattanooga Tradesman. Specifically, secondary data were obtained from the Conservative Review, Freedman’s Bureau, Hampton University Negro Conference, U.S. Census Bureau, and the United States Department of Labor. Questionnaires, schedules, and correspondences were received from 1,300 skilled laborers, more than 200 labor groups from cities across the nation, nearly 100 national trade unions, and numerous trade schools across the country. Teaming with the Chattanooga Tradesman, Du Bois’s school gathered data from local labor groups and black public school children. Questions directed at the students included, but were not limited to, their use of tools at home and career ambitions. So meticulous was Du Bois’s attention to methodological detail that the 1902 publication is considered by the leading scholars on this topic to be the school’s finest example of methodological sophistication.

Between 1895 and 1917, it is clear that the articulation of the method(s) of research in publications by the Du Bois–led ASL surpassed those published in AJS. That such an achievement was accomplished by predominately black scholars prior to the elite sociologists located in America’s Midwestern and East Coast is noteworthy given the racial milieu, within which theories of black inferiority were the norm. Another achievement highlighted here is the fact that the ASL was the first school to institutionalize the publication of clearly identifiable sections in which the method(s) of data collection are presented. Altogether, the methodological advances identified in this endeavor point to the excellent quality of research conducted by the largely Du Bois–led school and provide additional ammunition for the growing number of voices calling for the canonization of this school.

Conclusions

The objective of this endeavor is to ascertain if the methodological articulations of the works produced in the Atlanta University publications are more, less, or equally as sophisticated as those produced in AJS during the period from 1895 to 1917. The findings of this investigation conclusively indicate that the ASL’s articulation of data collection techniques is superior to and more modern than those in AJS. Whereas every eligible Atlanta University publication includes an articulation of the method(s) of data collection method, only 22 percent of AJS contributions achieve this objective. It bears repeating here that if we had not provided a high degree of latitude in the operationalization of the concept of articulation of data collection, the number of AJS articles positively designated as such would have fallen to less than 10 percent.

Although the primary objective of this article centers on a comparison of the articulation of research methods as presented in the Atlanta University publications and AJS, a secondary objective is to expand the existing literature by offering additional evidence supporting the canonization of the ASL. In so doing, this query does not depart from Du Bois’s charge to engage in objective and scientific research and report findings as discovered even if they are unfavorable to one’s perceived subjective position (Wright and Calhoun 2006). We propose that if early White sociologists had held this position, the sociological accomplishments of Du Bois and the ASL would not have been hidden over the past 100 years but as engrained into the sociological curriculum as the Chicago School is now. Learning from the mistakes of past sociologists, current and future scholars will benefit greatly from the insight offered by W.E.B. Du Bois ([1899] 1967) in his now classic book The Philadelphia Negro:

There are social problems before us demanding careful study, questions awaiting satisfactory answers. We must study, we must investigate, we must attempt to solve; and the utmost that the world can demand is, not lack of human interest and moral conviction, but rather the heart-quality of fairness, and an earnest desire for the truth despite its possible unpleasantness. (p. 3)

Footnotes

Notes

Author Biographies

Kalasia Shqueen Daniels is a fourth-year doctoral student and 2017–2018 Charles Phelps Taft Dissertation Fellow at the University of Cincinnati in the Department of Sociology. She completed her BA in sociology from Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and her MA in the sociology of education from Teachers College, Columbia University, in New York. Her current research activities include an investigation of the economy’s impact on millennials’ educational, occupational, and overall status attainment and a project on the development of sociology in the southern United States.

Earl Wright, II is a professor of sociology at the University of Cincinnati. He received his PhD from the University of Nebraska in 2000. He is a past president of the Association of Black Sociologists and the Mid-South Sociological Association. His research interests include W.E.B. Du Bois and the contributions of early black sociologists and departments of sociology to the discipline. He recently authored The First American School of Sociology: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory and is nearing completion on his follow-up book, Jim Crow Sociology: HBCUs and the Rise of American Sociology.

References

Addams

Jane

. 1896. “A Belated Industry.” American Journal of Sociology 1(5):536–50.

Atlanta University. 1896. Mortality among Negroes in Cities: The Atlanta University Publications, No. 1. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta University Press.

Atlanta University. 1897. Social and Physical Condition of Negroes in Cities: The Atlanta University Publications, No. 2. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta University Press.

Becker

Howard P.

1930. “Distribution of Space in the American Journal of Sociology, 1895–1927.” American Journal of Sociology 36(3):461–66.

Becker

Howard

P. 1932. “Space Apportioned 48 Topics in the American Journal of Sociology, 1895–1930.” American Journal of Sociology 38(1):71–78.

Bernard

L. L.

1948. “Sociological Trends in the South.” Social Forces 27(1):12–19.

Bulmer

Martin

. 1984. The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity, and the Rise of Sociological Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Carmichael

Stokley

Hamilton

Charles V.

1967. Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. New York: Random House.

Champion

Dean

Morris

Michael F.

1973. “A Content Analysis of Book Reviews in the AJS, ASR, and Social Forces.” American Journal of Sociology 78(5):1256–65.

10.

Cockerell

T. D.

1906. “Municipal Activity in Britain.” American Journal of Sociology 11(6):817–29.

11.

Cole

Fay-Cooper

. 1916. “Relations between the Living and Dead.” American Journal of Sociology 21(5):611–22.

12.

Du Bois

William Edward Burghardt

. 1898. Some Efforts of American Negroes for Their Own Social Betterment: The Atlanta University Publications, No. 3. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta University Press.

13.

Du Bois

William Edward Burghardt

. [1899] 1967. The Philadelphia Negro. New York: Schocken.

14.

Du Bois

William Edward Burghardt

. 1899. The Negro in Business: The Atlanta University Publications, No. 4. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta University Press.

15.

Gabbidon

Shaun L.

1996. “An Argument for Including W.E.B. Du Bois in the Criminology/Criminal Justice Literature.” Journal of Criminal Education 7(1):100–12.

16.

Gabbidon

Shaun L.

1999. “W.E.B. Du Bois and the ‘Atlanta School’ of Social Scientific Research, 1897–1913.” Journal of Criminal Education 10(1):21–38.

17.

Grant

Linda

Stalp

Marybeth C.

Ward

Kathryn B.

2002. “Women’s Sociological Research and Writing in the AJS in the Pre–World War II Era.” American Sociologist 33(3):69–91.

18.

Green

Dan S.

Wortham

Robert A.

2015. “Sociology Hesitant: The Continuing Neglect of W.E.B. Du Bois.” Sociological Spectrum 35(6):518–33.

19.

Hammersley

Martyn

. 1989. The Dilemma of Qualitative Method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago Tradition. New York: Routledge.

20.

Karides

Marina

Misra

Joya

Kennelly

Ivy

Moller

Stephanie

2001. “Representing the Discipline: Social Problems Compared to ASR and AJS.” Social Problems 48(1):111–28.

21.

Kinloch

Graham

. 1984. “The Development of American Sociology as Reflected in Journal Debates.” International Journal of Contemporary Sociology 21(1):65–81.

22.

Kinloch

Graham

. 1988. “American Sociology’s Changing Interests as Reflected in Two Leading Journals.” American Sociologist 19(2):181–94.

23.

Lewis

David L.

2000. W.E.B. Du Bois: The Fight for Equality and the American Century, 1919–1963. New York: Owl.

24.

McCartney

James L.

1970. “On Being Scientific: Changing Styles of Presentation of Sociological Research.” American Sociologist 5(1):30–35.

25.

McMurry

Linda O.

1980. “A Black Intellectual in the New South: Monroe Nathan Work, 1866–1945.” Phylon 41(4):333–44

26.

Meyer

B. H.

1901. “Fraternal Beneficiary Societies in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 6(5):646–61.

27.

Morris

Aldon D.

2015. The Scholar Denied: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Birth of Modern Sociology. Oakland: University of California Press.

28.

Neuman

W. Lawrence

. 2003. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

29.

Persell, Caroline

Hodges

. 1990. “Doing Social Research.” Pp. 26–36 in Understanding Society: An Introduction to Sociology. 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row.

30.

Platt

Jennifer.

1987. “The Chicago School and Firsthand Data.” Presented at the annual conference of CHEIRON (The European Society for the History of Behaviourial and Social Sciences).

31.

Platt

Jennifer

. 1996. A History of Sociological Research Methods in America, 1920–1960. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Platt

Jennifer

. 2016. “Recent ASA Presidents and ‘Top’ Journals: Observed Publication Patterns, Alleged Cartels and Varying Careers.” American Sociologist 47(4):459–85.

33.

Rabaka

Reiland

. 2010a. Against Epistemic Apartheid: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Disciplinary Decadence of Sociology. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

34.

Rabaka

Reiland

. 2010b. W.E.B. Du Bois. Farnham, United Kingdom: Ashgate.

35.

Ross

Edward A.

1945. “Fifty Years of Sociology in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 50(6):489–92.

36.

Rouse

Timothy

. 1991. “Sociologists and American Prohibition: A Study of Early Works in the American Journal of Sociology 1895–1935. American Sociologist 22(3):232–43.

37.

Rudwick

Elliott

. 1957. “W.E.B. Du Bois and the Atlanta University Studies on the Negro.” Journal of Negro Education 26(4):466–76.

38.

Small

Albion

. 1896. “The State and Semi-public Corporations.” American Journal of Sociology 1(4):398–410.

39.

Small

Albion

. 1900. “The Scope of Sociology. II. The Development of Sociological Method.” American Journal of Sociology 5(4):506–26.

40.

Thomas

W. I.

1912. “Race Psychology: Standpoint and Questionnaire, with Particular Reference to the Immigrant and the Negro.” American Journal of Sociology 17(6):725–75.

41.

Work

Monroe N.

1900. “Crime among the Negroes of Chicago: A Social Study.” American Journal of Sociology 6(2):204–23.

42.

Wortham

Robert A.

2005. “Du Bois and the Sociology of Religion: Rediscovering a Founding Figure.” Sociological Inquiry 75(4):433–52.

43.

Wortham

Robert A.

2009. “W.E.B. Du Bois, the Black Church and the Sociological Study of Religion.” Sociological Spectrum 29(2):144–72.

44.

Wright

Earl

II . 2000. “Atlanta University and American Sociology, 1896–1917: An Earnest Desire for the Truth Despite Its Possible Unpleasantness.” PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

45.

Wright

Earl

II . 2002a[c]. “The Atlanta Sociological Laboratory, 1896–1924: A Historical Account of the First American School of Sociology.” Western Journal of Black Studies 26(3):165–74.

46.

Wright

Earl

II . 2002b[a]. “Using the Master’s Tools: Atlanta University and American Sociology, 1896–1924.” Sociological Spectrum 22(1):15–39.

47.

Wright

Earl

II . 2002c[b]. “Why Black People Tend to Shout: An Earnest Attempt to Explain the Sociological Negation of the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory Despite Its Possible Unpleasantness.” Sociological Spectrum 22(3):325–61.

48.

Wright

Earl

II . 2006. “W.E.B. Du Bois and the Atlanta University Studies on the Negro, Revisited.” Journal of African American Studies 9(4):3–17.

49.

Wright

Earl

II . 2009. “Beyond W.E.B. Du Bois: A Note on Some of the Lesser Known Members of the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory.” Sociological Spectrum 29(6):700–17.

50.

Wright

Earl

II . 2012. “Why, Where and How to Infuse the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory into the Sociology Curriculum.” Teaching Sociology 40(3):257–70.

51.

Wright

Earl

II . 2014. “W.E.B. Du Bois, Howard Odum and the Sociological Ghetto.” Sociological Spectrum 34(5):453–68.

52.

Wright

Earl

II . 2016. The First American School of Sociology: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory. New York: Routledge.

53.

Wright

Earl

II Calhoun

Thomas C.

2006. “Jim Crow Sociology: Toward an Understanding of the Origin and Principles of Black Sociology via the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory.” Sociological Focus 39(1):1–18.

54.

Zuckerman

Phil

. 2000. Du Bois on Religion. Oxford, United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield.

55.

Zuckerman

Phil

. 2002. “The Sociology of Religion of W.E.B. Du Bois.” Sociology of Religion 63(2):239–53.

56.

Zuckerman

Phil

. 2004. The Social Theory of W.E.B. Du Bois. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.