ASA+Section

Randy Hodson distributed a proposal to create a new ASA section on stratification on 1/6/2010. Below is his letter and a longer document describing the section. The original MS Word document is also available.

Dear Stratification Colleague:

We are proposing a new ASA section tentatively titled “Inequality, Poverty, and Mobility.” The draft proposal is attached (suggestions/edits/changes solicited). In spite of the centrality of stratification to the discipline, the ASA does not have a section dedicated to this core topic area. We need 100 signatures to become a “section-in-formation.” To sign in support of this proposal, simple reply to this email with an affirmation, such as “yes,” “I support this proposal,” or “Sign me up!”

Signing this petition is a commitment to join and pay dues to the section for at least two years. Section-in-formation dues are typically $5 (no guarantee). Enrollment becomes available the first year after the ASA executive committee accepts the proposal. [NOTE: section membership is available to ASA members only.]

Please also consider forwarding this email to colleagues who might be interested - especially to junior colleagues who are the future of any ASA section. As noted above, “signing” the petition is achieved by sending an affirmative note to hodson.8@osu.edu.

Sincerely, Randy Hodson

Professor Randy Hodson, Distinguished OSU Teacher and Distinguished OSU Scholar Department of Sociology, Townshend Hall 238 1885 Neil Avenue Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 http://www.sociology.ohio-state.edu/rdh/

=Inequality, Poverty, and Mobility= =Proposal for a New ASA Section=

Organizing Committee:
Emily Beller, Government Accountability Office-Seattle Yanjie Bian, Minnesota Richard Breen, Yale Tom DiPrete, Columbia Mariah Evans, Nevada-Reno David Grusky, Stanford –author of the draft proposal Bob Hauser, Wisconsin-Madison Randy Hodson, Ohio State – contact person for the initiative (hodson.8@osu.edu) Mike Hout, Berkeley Craig Jenkins, Ohio State Arne Kalleberg, North Carolina-Chapel Hill Lisa Keister, Duke Rob Mare, UCLA Leslie McCall, Northwestern Kathryn M. Neckerman, Chicago Devah Pager, Princeton Zhenchao Qian, Ohio State Art Sakamoto, Texas-Austin Matt Snipp, Stanford Mike Wallace, Connecticut Kim Weeden, Cornell Erik O. Wright, Wisconsin Yu Xie, Michigan

Foreword: “What’s in a Name?”
The focus of the //Inequality, Poverty, and Mobility// section will be on distributional issues. The section could reasonably be known by several different names. We have had a lively discussion of the options within and outside the Organizing Committee. Popular alternatives include: Given the centrality of distributional issues to sociology, other sections obviously address some of these issues, but generally through the lens of a particular institution or social group, e.g., education, work, gender or race. We settled on “Inequality, Poverty and Mobility” because we thought it combined the sharpest focus on distributional issues with the clearest delineation from other areas, while avoiding the pitfall of old debates about “class theories” versus “stratification theories.” Our goal is a section that embraces all theories, all institutions through which inequality and poverty are generated, and all groups that are advantaged or disadvantaged by inequality. The future of the section no doubt holds continued debate on the best name and may even hold, as was the case with ‘Organizations, Occupations and Work,” the possibility of a name change as the section identity grows and matures.
 * Stratification
 * Social Stratification
 * Class and Stratification
 * Stratification and Mobility
 * Social Stratification and Mobility
 * Inequality and Mobility

Proposal
The study of inequality, poverty, and mobility has long been understood as central to the discipline and has, if anything, come to be regarded as increasingly so in recent decades. There is a growing consensus among social scientists, indeed even economists, that inequality and poverty should no longer be treated as wholly secondary concerns best addressed only after tending to the “more fundamental matter” of maximizing total output. The most important sources of this newfound concern with inequality and poverty are (1) a spectacular increase in income inequality that challenges the conventional view that late industrialism will bring increasingly diffused affluence; (2) the persistence of various noneconomic forms of inequality (e.g., racially segregated neighborhoods, occupational sex segregation, gender pay gap) despite decades of quite aggressive egalitarian reform; (3) the mounting evidence that extreme income inequality, far from increasing a country’s economic output, may be counterproductive and in fact reduce total output; (4) an emerging concern that inequality and poverty may also have negative macro-level effects on terrorism, ethnic unrest, and other collective outcomes; (5) a growing awareness of the negative individual-level effects of poverty on health, political participation, and a host of other life conditions; (6) the rise of a “global village” in which spatial disparities in the standard of living have become more widely visible and hence increasingly difficult to ignore; (7) an idiosyncratic constellation of highly publicized news events in the last five years that have both exposed troubling inequalities (e.g., Katrina, the bank bailout debacle) and legitimated the presumption that we should care about them (e.g., the election of Barack Obama); (8) a growing commitment to a broader conception of human entitlements that encompasses “rights” to basic social amenities (e.g., housing) as well as rights to basic forms of social participation, such as employment; and (9) an economic crisis that has increased the ranks of the poor and unemployed and may continue to do so for some time.

We are, then, in the midst of a historic moment in which many forces have come together and quite suddenly raised the prominence of debates about inequality and poverty. If the long view of history is taken, issues of inequality appear to have regularly cycled in and out of fashion, with the last period of high concern occurring in the 1960s and 1970s and yielding a renewed commitment to civil rights (e.g., voting rights), equal opportunity (e.g., antidiscrimination law), and even equal outcomes (e.g., War on Poverty, affirmative action). We would appear to be entering again just such a period of heightened concern about inequality, poverty, and mobility.

If it was surprising 20 years ago that the ASA lacked a section on inequality, poverty, and mobility, it is now nothing short of astonishing. We propose to address this long-standing problem by organizing a new section that recognizes the centrality of inequality, poverty, and mobility scholarship within the discipline and provides an intellectual home for ASA scholars who have long lacked such a home. We hope that, once established, this section will counteract a disturbing tendency among inequality, poverty and inequality scholars to forego the ASA annual meeting and even the ASA more generally in favor of the PAA, RC28, and other associations that serve the inequality community. It is important, indeed crucial, for the future of ASA to reclaim this centerpiece field, and insofar as it doesn’t one can reasonably project a future in which economics completely colonizes inequality, an astounding turnabout given the intellectual heritage of inequality and poverty scholarship in sociology. We think that establishing this new section will play some small role in recognizing, publicizing, and celebrating the leading sociological scholarship in the field and hence stemming in part the tide.

Contribution of Inequality, Poverty, and Mobility Scholarship to Sociology
The lack of a designated home for inequality and poverty scholarship within the ASA is all the more striking given that such scholarship has, outside the ASA, come to be viewed as increasingly important and central. It is perhaps noteworthy that the SSSP’s largest section, by far, is ‘Poverty, Class and Inequality.’ Because it is a burgeoning field, we are only able to provide a brief introduction to the literature in this proposal.

The key components of inequality and mobility regimes are (1) the institutional processes that define certain types of goods as valuable and desirable, (2) the rules of allocation that distribute these goods across various jobs or occupations in the division of labor (e.g., doctor, farmer, homemaker), and (3) the mobility mechanisms that link individuals to jobs and thereby generate unequal control over valued resources. It follows that inequality is produced by two types of matching processes: The social roles in society are first matched to “reward packages” of unequal value, and individual members of society are then allocated to the positions so defined and rewarded. In all societies, there is a constant flux of occupational incumbents as newcomers enter the labor force and replace dying, retiring, or out-migrating workers, yet the positions themselves and the reward packages attached to them typically change only gradually.

What types of rewards are distributed via these two matching processes? It is increasingly recognized as necessary to recognize that inequality is “multidimensional,” that income is accordingly only one of many important resources, and that income redistribution in and of itself would not eliminate inequality. When a multidimensionalist approach of this sort is taken, it’s useful to distinguish between economic assets (e.g., income), political assets (e.g., power), civil assets (e.g., franchise), cultural assets (e.g., human capital), and social assets (e.g., advantageous networks). The distribution of each of these types of assets is a main topic of interest among scholars of inequality and poverty.

Although much inequality scholarship takes on such distributional issues, an equally important task within the field is that of understanding the rules by which individuals are allocated to the social positions so defined and rewarded (i.e., “social mobility”). The language of stratification theory makes a sharp distinction between the distribution of social rewards (e.g., the income distribution) and the distribution of opportunities for securing these rewards. In most of the resulting research, the liberal ideal of an open and discrimination-free system is treated as an explicit benchmark, and the usual objective is to expose any inconsistencies between this ideal and the empirical distribution of life chances. This objective underlies analyses of the gross effects of class origins on class destinations as well as analyses of the net effects of gender, race, and class background after controlling education and related measures of achievement or merit. Additionally, experimental approaches to measuring discrimination have recently become popular, most notably “audit studies” that proceed by sending employers resumes that are identical save for the applicant’s gender, race, or class, and then examining whether call back rates (for interviews) are nonetheless different across such groups.

Within this general understanding of inequality and mobility regimes, the field has developed around seven main research areas, each of which is briefly described below. For each of these areas, it’s only feasible to list the types of questions that have frequently been taken up, while the more daunting task of reviewing the vast literature that flows out of each these questions is well beyond our charge here. The following, then, are the types of questions that scholars of inequality, poverty, and mobility have frequently addressed.

//Forms and Sources of Stratification//: What have been the major forms of inequality in human history? Can the ubiquity of inequality be attributed to persistent and fundamental individual differences in talent or ability? Is some amount of inequality or poverty an inevitable feature of human life? Why is income inequality increasing in so many late-industrial countries? Why is it more extreme in some countries than in others?

//Structure of Contemporary Inequality//: Is inequality organized into a small number of social classes or occupational groups? Or does it take on a largely gradational form featuring wholly incremental differences of income or status? Which of these two forms became more prominent with the transition to late modernity? How is the structure of inequality among individuals different from that among families and households? What consequences does this hold for the future of inequality, poverty and mobility?

//Inequality at the Extremes//: Do political, economic, and cultural elites come together to form a single upper class? Is there likewise a well-formed “underclass” of the poor and dispossessed? Are elites principally drawn from long-standing elite families and the poor from long-standing poverty-stricken families? Is inequality becoming more of an “all or nothing” affair in which upper-class workers are advantaged on all dimensions of interest and lower-class workers are disadvantaged on all dimensions of interest? What national and global forces determine these (potentially changing) social and economic distances?

//Generating Inequality//: How frequently do individuals move into new classes, occupations, or income groups? Is the United States an especially mobile society? To what extent are occupational outcomes determined by such forces as intelligence, effort, schooling, aspirations, social contacts, and individual luck? What are the relative contributions of family structure, education, the labor market, the welfare state and the demographic structure of society to the structure of inequality and mobility? Will the rise of income inequality undermining the nation’s long-standing commitment to equal opportunity?

//Consequences of Inequality//: Does our class position determine our politics, attitudes, and behaviors? Are such effects of class weakening? Is a new individualistic regime emerging? Are economic resources increasingly becoming the main arbiter of life chances?

//Gender Inequality//: Why has the gender gap in educational attainment disappeared altogether in some countries? Why has occupational sex segregation proven, by contrast, to be so durable? What accounts for the gender pay gap? Why has the historic decline in the pay gap stalled of late? How are they dynamics related to dynamics influencing class inequality?

//Race and Ethnicity//: What accounts for racial and ethnic differences in grades, test scores, high school graduation, and college attendance? What accounts for racial and ethnic differences in hiring, promotion, and pay? Why are neighborhoods so deeply segregated by race and ethnicity? Why are interracial marriages becoming more common?

The answers to these questions may of course be changing with the transition to late industrialism. In the postwar period, many sociologists adopted a “benign narrative” about trends in inequality, benign in the sense that history was understood as operating in the main to reduce inequality (of outcome and opportunity), if only gradually and fitfully. This orientation to inequality is expressed in standard postwar narratives about three types of outcomes: (1) the distribution of income, power, and other valued resources; (2) the distribution of opportunities for securing income, power, and other valued resources; and (3) the formation of social classes and other institutionalized groups (e.g., racial groups, gender groups). The standard claim, in other words, was that income (and even wealth) inequalities were becoming less profound, that opportunities for mobility were becoming more equally distributed, and that class conflicts and interclass differences were becoming more attenuated.

If there is any theme to contemporary analyses of inequality, it’s that the benign narrative is not a credible position. Most notably, contemporary inequality scholarship is increasingly concerned with new forms of inequality, forms that were either ignored in the past or have been spawned by new technologies or institutions. This research involves typically an exposé of the extent to which seemingly basic human entitlements, such as living outside of prison, freely participating in “digital” culture, or living a long and healthy life, are unequally distributed in ways that sometimes amplify well-known differentials of income or education. The continuing attraction of such exposés may be attributed to our collective discomfort with an economic system that generates rather more inequality than is palatable under contemporary cultural standards. Although the equalizing reforms of social democracy have historically been a main solution to this tension, the declining legitimacy of such reform leaves the tension an increasingly unresolved one.

The rise of this exposé of inequality theme has been coupled, moreover, with increasing interest in developing narratives that explain why inequality has persisted or sometimes even grown more extreme. These narratives are typically less grand than the quite encompassing narratives of the postwar period; that is, specialized narratives have recently developed around many of the various unit trends of interest (e.g., the expansion of income inequality, the stalling decline in the gender wage gap), and rather little attention has been paid to developing some grand meta-narrative that links these specialized narratives together. The signature, then, of the contemporary narrative is this highly delimited focus, a commitment to developing a rigorously empirical foundation, and a special interest in identifying those more insidious social forces that undermine the benign narratives of the past. We are referring, for example, to (1) narratives of “globalization” that describe how the liberalization of financial and capital markets has harmed poor countries; (2) narratives of “deindustrialization” that describe the loss of inner-city jobs and the associated rise of an urban underclass; (3) narratives of “deunionization” that describe the loss of middle-class unionized jobs and the emergence of nonstandard forms of employment; (4) narratives of “segmented assimilation” that describe the relatively bleak prospects for at least some new immigrant groups; (5) narratives of “opting out” that have highly trained women eschewing stressful careers in favor of recommitting to their children, spouses, and domestic responsibilities; (6) narratives of “essentialist segregation” that describe how sex-typed occupational ghettos continue to be built around presumed differences in male and female aptitudes, (7) narratives of “nonconscious discrimination” that referring to subtle internalized prejudices that are especially difficult to extirpate; and (8) narratives of “spatial segregation” that emphasize the deeply-institutionalized forces generating racial enclaves and poverty-stricken neighborhoods. The key question of our time is whether the forces for equality featured in the older benign narratives are strong enough to overcome these various countervailing processes. Methodological Contributions. In addition to its many substantive contributions, the study of inequality, poverty and social mobility has been the locus for some of the key methodological advances in sociology, including mobility tables, path models, and advances in modeling selectivity. In recent years, scholars have extended the previous research on father-son mobility by including multiple forms of intergenerational mobility. Advancement in statistical methods and software allows new research to take into account covariates when fitting cross-classified mobility data to log-linear models. In addition, hierarchical regression models make it possible to examine individual mobility patterns in the context of structural constraints. These new developments have opened up new horizon for more extensive research in class inequality and social mobility. The section will be an important venue for intellectual development and for expanding scholarly networks in these areas.

Links and Overlaps with Other Sections
The foregoing scholarship, central though it is to the discipline, has not been represented effectively through the ASA section mechanism. Having an ASA section is essential for this area of scholarship in order to provide an intellectual venue for development and debate and a setting in which young scholars can find an intellectual home. There are of course many sections relevant to the study of inequality and poverty, perhaps most notably those that address (1) the inequalities that form around racial, ethnic, or gender lines (e.g., Sex and Gender; Racial and Ethnic Minorities; Race, Gender, and Class); (2) the institutions that play a role in generating inequality (e.g., Education, Family, Economic Sociology, Labor and Labor Movements; Organizations, Occupations, and Work); and (3) the various metatheories about the genesis of inequality (e.g., Marxist Sociology; Culture).

Although issues of inequality, poverty, and mobility are naturally relevant to these sections (and many others), they are brought in tangentially or as second order phenomena rather than given center stage; and hence scholars of inequality, poverty, and mobility have increasingly been drawn to other associations, like the PAA and ISA, that provide a more focused intellectual home for them. It appears to be increasingly common for scholars of inequality, poverty, and mobility to forego the ASA meetings altogether and to go to meetings that drive their field, especially the PAA, RC28, and EQUALSOC. This is a deeply troubling development given that inequality, poverty, and mobility are such core sociological issues. It is important that the ASA stems this tide and ultimately retains this field as one of its core foci. A dedicated section on inequality, poverty and mobility can serve as a central building block for the discipline with positive synergies with many other sections.

Section Activities
It is important, then, to move forward effectively and set up a full complement of section activities that reestablishes in a very prominent way ASA’s commitment to inequality and poverty scholarship. The section will, for example, organize paper presentation sessions at the Annual Meetings and sponsor an annual book award, a distinguished scholar award, a young scholar award, an article award, and a graduate paper award. The awards are each reviewed below.

//Outstanding Book Award//: The section will sponsor an award annually for an “Outstanding Scholarly Book” published in the last three years (e.g., for the 2010 meetings, books with a 2007, 2008, or 2009 copyright will be considered). The award will be named in honor of a central figure in the field (with the name to be determined later).

//Distinguished Scholar Award//: The Distinguished Scholar Award, to be awarded annually, provides an opportunity to define the field and to mark and celebrate its most fundamental accomplishments.

//Early Career Award//: It has proven useful in other fields to celebrate the accomplishments and promise of younger scholars (under age 40). We propose to follow that lead by setting up an “Early Career Award” to recognize scholars who have made major contributions early in their careers and hence show great promise.

//Outstanding Article Award//: The section will sponsor an award annually for the “Outstanding Article” on inequality, poverty, or mobility published in the calendar year preceding the annual meetings.

//Outstanding Graduate Paper Award//: The section will sponsor an award annually for an “Outstanding Graduate Paper” presented at the annual ASA meetings or at any of the regional sociology association meetings (or is otherwise nominated).

The section will convene annually during the ASA meetings. The governance structure will include elected positions of President (1 year appointment), Secretary-Treasurer (3 year appointment) and a six member Council (3 pairs of 3 year appointments with staggered start dates and with 2 new members elected each year). A student representative will be appointed by the council.

//Proposal includes contributions by:// Thomas DiPrete David Grusky – drafted the core proposal Randy Hodson Zhenchao Qian

=Selected Key Works in Inequality, Poverty, and Mobility=

Daniel Bell. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic

Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” The American Economic Review (September).

William T. Bielby. 1991. “The Structure and Process of Sex Segregation,” in New Approaches to Economic and Social Analyses of Discrimination, edited by Richard R. Cornwall and Phanindra V. Wunnava. Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Peter M. Blau & Otis Dudley Duncan, with the collaboration of Andrea Tyree. 1967. The American Occupational Structure.

Edna Bonacich. 1972. “A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labor Market,” American Sociological Review (October).

Pierre Bourdieu. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Richard Breen & John H. Goldthorpe. 1997. “Explaining Educational Differentials: Towards a Formal Rational Action Theory.” Rationality and Society 9 (August). Sage Publications.

Richard Breen. 1992. Social Mobility in Europe. Oxford University Press.

David Brooks. 2000. Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. Simon and Schuster.

Ronald S. Burt. 1997. “The Contingent Value of Social Capital.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (June).

Tak Wing Chan and John H. Goldthorpe. 2005. “The Social Stratification of Theatre, Dance, and Cinema Attendance.” Cultural Trends 14 (September).

Ralf Dahrendorf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Societies. Stanford University Press.

G. William Domhoff. 2002. Who Rules America? Power and Politics, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill.

Emile Durkheim. The Division of Labor in Society, with an introduction by Lewis A. Coser, and translated by W.D. Halls. MacMillan Publishers.

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore. 1945. “Some Principles of Stratification.” American Sociological Review 10 (April).

Barbara Ehrenreich. 2001. Nickel and Dimed. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Paula England. 1992. Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence. Aldine Press.

Robert Erikson & John H. Goldthorpe. 1992. The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies. Oxford University Press.

Gøsta Esping-Andersen. 1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford University Press.

Gil Eyal, Iván Szelényi, & Eleanor Townsley. 1998. Making Capitalism without Capitalists: The New Ruling Elites in Eastern Europe. Verso Press.

Joe R. Feagin. 1991. “The Continuing Significance of Race: Anti-Black Discrimination in Public Places.” American Sociological Review 56 (February).

David L. Featherman & Robert M. Hauser. 1978. Opportunity and Change. Academic Press.

David L. Featherman & Robert M. Hauser. 1976. “Prestige or Socioeconomic Scales in the Study of Occupational Achievement?” Sociological methods and Research 4 (May). Sage Publications.

Glenn Firebaugh. 2003. The New Geography of Global Income Inequality. Harvard University Press.

Claude S. Fischer, Michael Hout, Martín Sánchez Jankowski, Samuel R. Lucas, Ann Swidler, and Kim Voss. 1996. Inequality by Design. Princeton University Press.

Anthony Giddens. 1973. The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. HarperCollins.

Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse. 2000. “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians.” American Economic Review 90 (2000).

John H. Goldthorpe & Keith Hope. 1972. “Occupational Grading and Occupational Prestige.” The Analysis of Social Mobility: Methods and Approaches, edited by Keith Hope. Oxford University Press.

Alvin W. Gouldner. 1979. The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class. New York: Continuum Publishing.

Mark S. Granovetter. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (May). University of Chicago Press.

David B. Grusky & Jesper B. Sørensen. 1998. “Are There Big Social Classes?” American Journal of Sociology 103. University of Chicago Press.

Archibald Haller. 2009. “Empirical Stratification Theory: Ibn Khaldun (1377) to Today.” Population Review 48:2 1-31.

Robert M. Hauser & John Robert Warren. 1997. “Socioeconomic Indexes of Occupational Status: A Review, Update, and Critique.” Sociological Methodology (27) edited by Adrian Raftery.

Sharon Hays. 2003. Flat Broke with Children. Oxford University Press.

Arlie Russell Hochschild. 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Robert W. Hodge. 1981. “The Measurement of Occupational Status.” Social Science Research 10 (December). Academic Press.

Michael Hout and Benjamin Moodie. 2007. “The Realignment of U.S. Presidential Voting, 1948-2004.” In The Inequality Reader: Contemporary Readings in Race, Class, and Gender, edited by David Grusky and Szonja Szelenyi. Westview Press.

Jerry A. Jacobs. 1989. Revolving Doors: Sex Segregation and Women’s Careers. Stanford University Press.

Christopher Jencks, Marshall Smith, Henry Acland, Mary Jo Bane, David Cohen, Herbert Gintis, Barbara Heyns, & Stephan Michelson. 1972. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. Basic Books.

Clark Kerr, John T. Dunlop, Frederick H. Harbison, & Charles A. Myers. 1960. Industrialism and Industrial Man. Harvard University Press.

Melvin Kohn. 1980. “Job Complexity and Adult Personality.” In Themes of Work and Love in Adulthood, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Erik H. Erikson. Harvard University Press.

Alan B. Krueger. 2003. “Inequality, Too Much of a Good Thing.” In Inequality in America, edited by Benjamin M. Friedman. MIT Press.

Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Male ková. 2004. “Does Poverty Cause Terrorism?” The New Republic, June 24.

Annette Lareau. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. University of California.

Gerhard Lenski. 2001. “New Light on Old Issues: The Relevance of ‘Really Existing Socialist Societies’ for Stratification Theory.” Pp. 77-83 in Social Stratification, 2nd edition, edited by David Grusky. Westview Press.

Nan Lin. 1999. “Social Networks and Status Attainment,” Annual Review of Sociology 25. Annual Reviews.

Jay MacLeod. 1995. Ain’t No Makin’ It: Leveled Aspirations in a Low-Income Neighborhood. Boulder: Westview.

Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Harvard University Press.

John W. Meyer. 2001. “The Evolution of Modern Stratification Systems.” In Social Stratification, 2e, edited by David Grusky. Westview Press.

C. Wright Mills. 1956. The Power Elite. Oxford University Press.

Gaetano Mosca. 1939. “The Ruling Class.” In Arthur Livingston, ed., The Ruling Class, translated by Hannah D. Kahn. New York: McGraw Hill.

John Mullahy, Stephanie Robert, and Barbara Wolfe. 2004. “Health, Income, and Inequality.” In Social Inequality, edited by Kathryn M. Neckerman. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Victor Nee. 1996. “The Emergence of a Market Society: Changing Mechanisms of Stratification in China.” In American Journal of Sociology 101 (January).

Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro. 1997. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. Taylor & Francis.

Jan Pakulski and Malcolm Waters. 1996. The Death of Class. Sage Publications.

Frank Parkin. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. Taylor and Francis.

Anne R. Pebley and Narayan Sastry. 2004. “Neighborhoods, Poverty, and Children’s Well-Being.” In Social Inequality, edited by Kathryn M. Neckerman. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Trond Petersen and Laurie A. Morgan. 1995. “Separate and Unequal: Occupation-Establishment Sex Segregation and the Gender Wage Gap.” American Journal of Sociology 101 (September).

Alejandro Portes and Robert D. Manning. 1986. “The Immigrant Enclave: Theory and Empirical Examples.” In Competitive Ethnic Relations, edited by Susan Olzak and Joanne Nagel. Academic Press.

Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants.” In The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530 (November). Sage Publications.

Barbara F. Reskin. 1991. “Labor Markets as Queues: A Structural Approach to Changing Occupational Sex Composition.” In Micro-macro Linkages in Sociology, edited by Joan Huber. Sage Publications.

William H. Sewell, Archibald O. Haller, and Alejandro Portes. 1969. “The Educational and Early Occupational Attainment Process.” American Sociological Review 34 (February).

Aage B. Sørensen & Arne L. Kalleberg. 1981. “An Outline of a Theory of the Matching of Persons to Jobs.” In Sociological Perspectives on Labor Markets, edited by Ivar Berg. Academic Press.

Claude Steele. 2003. “Stereotype Threat and African-American Student Achievement.” In Young, Gifted, and Black: Promoting High Achievement Among African-American Students, edited by Theresa Perry, Claude Steele, and Asa Hilliard III.

Joseph E. Stiglitz. 2002. Globalization and its Discontents. W.W. Norton.

Tony Tam. 1997. “Sex Segregation and Occupational Gender Inequality in the United States: Devaluation or Specialized Training?” American Journal of Sociology 102 (May).

Donald J. Treiman. 1976. “A Standard Occupational Prestige Scale for Use with Historical Data.” The Journal for Interdisciplinary History (7). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Melvin M. Tumin. 1953. “Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis.” American Sociological Review 18 (August).

Ralph H. Turner. 1960. “Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System.” American Sociological Review 25 (December).

Thorstein Veblen. 1973. The Theory of the Leisure Class. Houghton Mifflin.

Immanuel Wallerstein. 1979. “Class Conflict in the Capitalist World Economy.” In The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mary C. Waters. 1999. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Russell Sage Foundation.

Bruce Western. 2001. “Incarceration, Unemployment, and Inequality.” Focus 21 (Spring).

William Julius Wilson. 1978. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. University of Chicago Press.

William Julius Wilson. 1999. “Jobless Poverty: A New Form of Social Dislocation in the Inner-City Ghetto.” In A Nation Divided: Diversity, Inequality, and Community in American Society, edited by Phyllis Moen, Donna Dempster-McClain, and Henry A. Walker. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Erik Olin Wright. 1984. “A General Framework for the Analysis of Class Structure.” Politics and Society 13. Sage.

=SIGNATORIES=

Sample solicitation letter
Dear Stratification Colleague:

We are proposing a new ASA section tentatively titled “Inequality, Poverty, and Mobility.” The draft proposal is attached (suggestions/edits/changes solicited). In spite of the centrality of stratification to the discipline, the ASA does not have a section dedicated to this core topic area. We need 100 signatures to become a “section-in-formation.” To sign in support of this proposal, simple reply to this email with an affirmation, such as “yes,” “I support this proposal,” or “Sign me up!”

Signing this petition is a commitment to join and pay dues to the section for at least two years. Section-in-formation dues are typically $5 (no guarantee). Enrollment becomes available the first year after the ASA executive committee accepts the proposal.

Please also consider forwarding this email to colleagues who might be interested – especially to junior colleagues who are the future of any ASA section. As noted above, “signing” the petition is achieved by sending an affirmative note to hodson.8@osu.edu.

Sincerely, Randy Hodson

=Contact List for Potential Signatories= Arthur Alderson aralders@indiana.edu Indiana Megan Andrew megdrew@umich.edu Michigan Robert Arnold arnoldr@uwindsor.ca Windsor Richard Arum richard.arum@nyu.edu NYU Peter Bahr bahr@wayne.edu Wayne State Dawn Baunach dbaunach@gsu.edu Georgia State John Beggs jbeggs@lsu.edu Louisiana State Emily Beller ebeller@berkeley.edu Government Accountability Office, Seattle Stephen Benard sbenard@indiana.edu Indiana Pamela Bennett pbennett@jhu.edu Johns Hopkins Yanjie Bian bianx001@umn.edu Minnesota Tim Biblarz biblarz@usc.edu USC David Bills david-bills@uiowa.edu Iowa Gunn E. Birkelund g.e.birkelund@sosgeo.uio.no Oslo Troy Blanchard troy@lsu.edu Louisiana State Christine Bose c.bose@albany.edu New York-Albany David Brady brady@soc.duke.edu Duke Jennie Brand brand@soc.ucla.edu UCLA Matt Brashears meb299@cornell.edu Cornell Richard Breen richard.breen@yale.edu Yale Ronald Breiger Breiger@arizona.edu Arizona Julie Brines brines@u.washington.edu Washington Mary Brinton brinton@wjh.harvard.edu Harvard Eric Brown browneric@missouri.edu Missouri Scott Brown sbrow@muohio.edu Miami Susan Brown skbrown@uci.edu California-Irvine Elizabeth Bruch ebruch@umich.edu Michigan Hannah Brueckner hannah.brueckner@yale.edu Yale Claudia Buchmann buchmann.4@osu.edu Ohio State Sarah Burgard burgards@umich.edu Michigan Vallon Burris vburris@uoregon.edu Oregon Paul Burstein burstein@u.washington.edu Washington Cameron Campbell camcam@ucla.edu UCLA Lori Campbell lcampbe@siue.edu Southern Illinois William Carbonaro wcarbona@nd.edu Notre Dame Deborah Carr carrds@rci.rutgers.edu Rutgers Jacqueline Carrigan carrigan@csus.edu CSU Sacramento Lisa Catanzarite lcatanzarite@wsu.edu Washington State Youngjoo Cha yc328@cornell.edu Cornell Camille Charles camille_charles@pop.upenn.edu Pennsylvania Maria Charles mcharles@soc.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara Feinian Chen fchen3@sa.ncsu.edu North Carolina State Robert Clark robclark@ou.edu Oklahoma William Clay wcclay@ou.edu Oklahoma Brown Cliff cliff.brown@unh.edu New Hampshire Philip N. Cohen pnc@unc.edu North Carolina-Chapel Hill Yinon Cohen yinonc@post.tau.ac.il Tel-Aviv Yinon Cohen yc2444@columbia.edu Columbia Cynthia Colen colen.3@sociology.osu.edu Ohio State Dennis James Condron dennis.condron@emory.edu Emory Dalton Conley dc66@nyu.edu NYU Lynne Prince Cook L.P.cooke@kent.ac.uk Kent, UK Ben Cornwell btc49@cornell.edu Cornell Mamadi K. Corra corram@ecu.edu East Carolina David Anthony Cort dcort@soc.umass.edu Massachusetts-Amherst Jeralynn Cossman cossman@soc.msstate.edu Mississippi Tawnya Adkins Covert TJ-AdkinsCovert@wiu.edu Western Illinois Kyle Crowder crowderk@email.unc.edu North Carolina Martha Crowley martha_crowley@ncsu.edu North Carolina State Mona Danner MDanner@odu.edu Old Dominion James Davidson davidsonj@purdue.edu Purdue Deborah Davis deborah.davis@yale.edu Yale Glenn Deane g.deane@albany.edu New York-Albany Richard Della Fave rick_dellafave@ncsu.edu NC State Paul DiMaggio dimaggio@princeton.edu Princeton Tom DiPrete tad61@columbia.edu Columbia Marc Dixon Marc.D.Dixon@dartmouth.edu Dartmount Karen Douglas kmd007@shsu.edu Sam Houston Doug Downey downey.32@sociology.osu.edu Ohio State Holli Drummond holli.drummond@wku.edu Western Kentucky Mikaela Dufur mikaela_dufur@byu.edu Brigham Young Susan A. Dumais dumais@lsu.edu Louisiana State Gregory Dunaway dunaway@soc.msstate.edu Mississippi Dana Dunn dunn@uta.edu Texas-Arlington Rachel Dwyer dwyer.46@osu.edu Ohio State Korie Edwards edwards.623@sociology.osu.edu Ohio State Felix Elwert felwert@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin-Madison David Embrick dembric@luc.edu Loyola Amon Emeka emeka@usc.edu USC Rodney Engen rod_engen@ncsu.edu North Carolina State Paula England pengland@stanford.edu Stanford Tan Ern Ser soctanes@nus.edu.sg Singapore Vanesa Estrada vanesa.estrada@ucr.edu California-Riverside Mariah D. R. Evans mevans@unr.edu Nevada-Reno William Falk wfalk@socy.umd.edu Maryland Elizabeth Fathman efathman@slu.edu Saint Louis David Featherman feathrmn@isr.umich.edu Michigan Glenn Firebaugh firebaug@pop.psu.edu Penn State Scott Fitzgerald sfitzger@uncc.edu North Carolina-Charlotte Jennifer Flashman flashman@ucla.edu UCLA Mark Fossett m-fossett@tamu.edu Texas A&M Marcel Frederick mfreder@luc.edu Loyola Vincent Fu vincent.fu@soc.utah.edu Utah Sylvia Fuller fullersy@interchange.ubc.ca British Columbia Andrew Fullerton andrew.fullerton@okstate.edu Oklahoma State Adam Gamoran gamoran@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin-Madison Markus Gangl mgangl@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin-Madison Ted Gerber tgerber@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin-Madison Rebecca Glauber rebecca.glauber@unh.edu New Hampshire Jennifer Glick Jennifer.Glick@asu.edu Arizona State John Goyder jgoyder@uwaterloo.ca Waterloo Kimberly Goyette kgoyette@temple.edu Temple Penny Green pennygreen@mail.utexas.edu Texas-Austin Emily Greenman ekg15@psu.edu Pennsylvania Larry J. Griffin ljg@unc.edu North Carolina-Chapel Hill Michael D. Grimes mgrimes@lsu.edu Louisiana State Eric Grodsky egrodsky@umn.edu Minnesota David Grusky grusky@stanford.edu Stanford Aaron Gullickson aarong@uoregon.edu Oregon Guang Guo guang_guo@unc.edu North Carolina-Chapel Hill Ayse Guveli aguveli@essex.ac.uk Essex Jacqueline Hagan jhagan@unc.edu North Carolina-Chapel Hill Chuck Halaby halaby@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin-Madison Archibald Haller haller@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin-Madison Lynn Hampton lhampton@mtsu.edu Middle Tennessee Michael Handel m.handel@neu.edu Northeastern Caroline Hanley carolinehanley1@gmail.com College of William and Mary Lingxin Hao hao@jhu.edu John Hopkins Constance Hardesty c.hardes@moreheadstate.edu Morehead David Harding dharding@isr.umich.edu Michigan Angel Harris angelh@princeton.edu Princeton David Harris deputyprovost@cornell.edu Cornell Deborah Harris Dh57@txstate.edu Texas State Kathleen Harris kathie_harris@unc.edu North Carolina Scott Harris harriss3@slu.edu Saint Louis Robert Hauser hauser@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin-Madison Heather A. Haveman haveman@berkeley.edu Berkeley Tim Heaton tim_heaton@byu.edu Brigham Young Peter Hedstrom peter.hedstrom@nuffield.ox.ac.uk Nuffield College, Oxford Ursula Henz u.henz@lse.ac.uk London School of Econ. and Pol. Science Andreas Hess a.hess@ucd.ie Dublin Barbara Heyns barbara.heyns@nyu.edu NYU Elizabeth Higginbotham ehiggin@udel.edu Delaware Charles Hirschman charles@u.washington.edu Washington Beth Hirsh hirsh@cornell.edu Cornell Randy Hodson hodson.8@osu.edu Ohio State Mike Hout mikehout@berkeley.edu Berkeley Kenneth Hudson ckhudson@usouthal.edu South Alabama Karen Hughes karen.hughes@ualberta.ca Alberta Canada Jeanne S. Hurlbert sohurl@lsu.edu Louisiana State John Iceland jiceland@pop.psu.edu Pennsylvania Margot Jackson margot_jackson@brown.edu Brown David Jacobs jacobs.184@osu.edu Ohio State Jerry Jacobs jjacobs@sas.upenn.edu Pennsylvania Jennifer Jarman jarman.jennifer@gmail.com Singapore Vincent Jeffries vincent.jeffries@csun.edu CSU Northridge Craig Jenkins jenkins.12@osu.edu Ohio State Gloria Jones Johnson gjj@iastate.edu Iowa State Will Johnson will.johnson@csueastbay.edu CSU East Bay Jan Jonsson janne.jonsson@sofi.su.se SOFI, Stockholm Arne Kalleberg arne_kalleberg@unc.edu North Carolina-Chapel Hill Robert Kaufman kaufman.3@sociology.osu.edu Ohio State Lisa Keister lkeister@soc.duke.edu Duke Jonathan Kelly director@international-survey.org Nevada-Reno Sean Kelly sean.p.kelly.206@nd.edu Notre Dame Jessica Kenty-Drane kentydranej1@southernct.edu Southern Connecticut Lane Kenworthy lane.kenworthy@arizona.edu Arizona Christel Kesler christel.kesler@nuffield.ox.ac.uk Nuffield, UK Paul Ketchum pketchum@ou.edu Oklahoma Changwan Kim chkim@ku.edu Kansas Paul Kingston pwk@virginia.edu Virginia Joshua Klugman joshua.klugman@temple.edu Temple Julie Kmec jkmec@wsu.edu Washington State Stan Knapp stan_knapp@byu.edu Brigham Young Thomas Koeing t.koenig@neu.edu Northeastern Melvin L. Kohn mel@jhu.edu Johns Hopkins Kathleen Korgen korgenk@wpunj.edu William Paterson Harvey Krahn harvey.krahn@ualberta.ca Alberta Canada Bob Kunovich kunovich@uta.edu Texas-Arlington Sheri Kunovich kunovich@smu.edu Southern Methodist Edward Laumann e-laumann@uchicago.edu Chicago Erin Leahey leahey@arizona.edu Arizona Kevin Leicht kevin-leicht@uiowa.edu Iowa Noah Lewin-Epstein noah1@post.tau.ac.il Tel-Aviv Dan Lichter dtl28@cornell.edu Cornell Nan Lin nanlin@duke.edu Duke Steve Lippmann lippmas@muohio.edu Miami John Logan logan@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin Madison Yao Lu yl2479@columbia.edu Columbia Sam R. Lucas lucas@demog.berkeley.edu Berkeley Ruud Luijkx r.luijkx@uvt.nl Tilburg, Netherlands Yvonne Luna Yvonne.Luna@nau.edu Northern Arizona Amy Lutz aclutz@maxwell.syr.edu Syracuse Freda B. Lynn freda-lynn@uiowa.edu Iowa Larry Lyon Larry_Lyon@baylor .edu Baylor Yingyi Ma yma03@syr.edu Syracuse Alair MacLean mclean@vancouver.wsu.edu Washington State-Vancouver Hadas Mandel hadasm@post.tau.ac.il Tel-Aviv Elgin Mannion E-Mannion@wiu.edu Western Illinois Vida Maralani vida.maralani@yale.edu Yale Rob Mare mare@ucla.edu UCLA Kris Marsh kmarsh@socy.umd.edu Maryland Andrew Martin martin.1026@osu.edu Ohio State Molly Martin mmartin@pop.psu.edu Pennsylvania Douglas Massey dmassey@princeton.edu Princeton Karl Ulrich Mayer karl.mayer@yale.edu Yale Leslie McCall l-mccall@northwestern.edu Northwestern Jane McCandless jmccandl@westga.edu West Georgia Lauri McCloud mccloud.34@sociology.osu.edu Ohio State Steve McDonald steve_mcdonald@ncsu.edu NC State Mark McKerrow mckerrm@mcmaster.ca McMaster, Ontario Patricia McManus pmcmanus@indiana.edu Indiana Stephen McNamee mcnamee@uncw.edu North Carolina-Wilmington Chadwick L. Menning clmenning@bsu.edu Ball State Peter Messeri pam9@columbia.edu Columbia Tatcho Mindiola tmindiola@uh.edu Houston Helen Moore hmoore1@unl.edu Nebraska-Lincoln Steve Morgan slm45@cornell.edu Cornell Juan Rafale Morillas j.r.morillas@durham.ac.uk Durham Martina Morris morrism@u.washington.edu Washington Ted Mouw tedmouw@email.unc.edu North Carolina-Chapel Hill Kelly Musick musick@cornell.edu Cornell Reza Nakhaie nakhaie@uwindsor.ca Windsor Kathryn M. Neckerman kneckerm@bsd.uchicago.edu Chicago, Ctr. for Health & the Soc. Sci. Katherine Newman knewman@princeton.edu Princeton Francois Nielsen Francois_Nielsen@unc.edu North Carolina-Chapel Hill Hiroshi Ono hono@tamu.edu Texas A&M Angela O'Rand aorand@soc.duke.edu Duke Devah Pager pager@princeton.edu Princeton Anthony Paik anthony-paik@uiowa.edu Iowa Alberto Palloni a-palloni@northwestern.edu Northwestern Hyunjoon Park hypark@sas.upenn.edu Pennsylvania Monique Payne mpayne6@depaul.edu DePaul John Pease pease@umd.edu Maryland Sylvia Pedraza spedraza@umich.edu Michigan Andrew Penner andrew.penner@uci.edu Irvine Clayton Peoples peoplesc@unr.edu Nevada-Reno Christine Percheski cpercheski@rwj.harvard.edu Harvard Christine Percheski c-percheski@northwestern.edu Northwestern Stephen Perkins stephen.perkins@okstate.edu Oklahoma State Trond Petersen trond@haas.berkeley.edu Berkeley, Business Becky Petitt bpettit@u.washington.edu Washington Jo Phelan jcp13@columbia.edu Columbia Martin Piotrowski piotrow@ou.edu Oklahoma Joy Pixley jpixley@uci.edu California-Irvine Stephen B. Plank splank@jhu.edu Johns Hopkins Reinhard Pollak pollak@wzb.eu WZB, Berlin Pamela Popielarz pamela@uic.edu Illinois-Chicago Janet Poppendieck janpop@verizon.net New York-Hunter Daniel Powers dpowers@austin.utexas.edu Texas-Austin Zhenchao Qian qian.26@osu.edu Ohio State Daisy Quarm daisy.quarm@uc.edu Cincinnati Amelie Quesnel-Vallee amelie.quesnelvallee@mcgill.edu McGill Lincoln Quillian l-quillian@northwestern.edu Northwestern Gordana Rabrenovic g.rabrenovic@neu.edu Northeastern Lawrence Raffalovich l.raffalovich@albany.edu New York-Albany Adrian Raftery raftery@stat.washington.edu Washington Edward Ransford ransford@usc.edu USC James Raymo jraymo@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin-Madison Laura Raynolds laura.raynolds@ColoState.edu Colorado Sean Reardon sean-reardon@stanford.edu Stanford Lesley Reid lesleyreid@gsu.edu Georgia State Linda A. Renzulli renzulli.uga.edu Georgia Barbara Reskin reskin@u.washington.edu Washington Robert Robinson robinson@indiana.edu Indiana Josipa Roksa jroksa@virginia.edu Virginia Patricia Roos roos@rutgers.edu Rutgers Vinnie Roscigno roscigno.1@osu.edu Ohio State Emily Rosenbaum rosenbaum@fordham.edu Fordham Jake Rosenfeld jakerose@u.washington.edu Washington Michael Rosenfeld mrosenfe@stanford.edu Stanford Mark Rousseau mrousseau@mail.unomaha.edu Nebraska-Omaha Dennis Rutledge rdenni1@gmu.edu George Mason Arthur Sakamoto asakamoto@austin.utexas.edu Texas-Austin Gary Sandefur sandefur@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin-Madison Rebecca Sandefur sandefur@stanford.edu Stanford Michael Sauder michael-sauder@uiowa.edu Iowa Evan Schofer schofer@uci.edu California-Irvine Paul Schollaert paul.schollaert@emich.edu Eastern Michigan Christine Schwartz cschwart@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin-Madison Moshe Semyonov moshes@post.tau.ac.il Tel-Aviv Robert Seufert seuferrl@muohio.edu Miami Pat Sharkey pts1@nyu.edu NYU Kim Shauman kashauman@ucdavis.edu UC-Davis Yossi Shavit ys@post.tau.ac.il Tel Aviv Beth Anne Shelton dunn@uta.edu Texas-Arlington Susan Short susan_short@brown.edu Brown Xiaoling Shu xshu@ucdavis.edu UC-Davis Ruth Sidel rsidel@hunter.cuny.edu New York-Hunter Hilary Silver Hilary_silver@brown.edu Brown Al Simkus albert.simkus@svt.ntnu.no University of Tromso (Norway) Joachim Singelmann joachim@lsu.edu Louisiana State Sheryl Skaggs slskaggs@utdallas.edu Texas-Dallas Maciek Slomczynski slomczynski.1@osu.edu Ohio State Vicki Smith vasmith@ucdavis.edu UC-Davis Sandra Smith sandra_smith@berkeley.edu California-Berkeley Matt Snipp snipp@stanford.edu Stanford Jesper B. Sorensen sorensen_jesper@gsb.stanford.edu Stanford, Business Kenneth Spenner kspen@soc.duke.edu Duke Sy Spilerman ss50@columbia.edu Columbia Trey Spiller mws24@cornell.edu Cornell Gregory Squires squires@qwu.edu George Washington Jeremy Staff jus25@psu.edu Pennsylvania Elizabeth Stearns mestearn@uncc.edu North Carolina-Charlotte Ross Stolzenberg r-stolzenberg@uchicago.edu Chicago Kate Strully kstrully@albany.edu SUNY-Albany Jessica Su jhs298@cornell.edu Cornell Dana Takagi takagi@ucsc.edu UCSC Clarence Talley ctalley@louisville.edu Louisville Hiromi Taniguchi hiromi.taniguchi@louisville.edu Louisville Sarah Thebaud set29@cornell.edu Cornell Darren Thiel djthiel@essex.ac.uk Essex Deborah Thorne thorned@ohio.edu Ohio Marta Tienda tienda@princeton.edu Princeton Jennifer Todd jjt24@cornell.edu Cornell Charles Tolbert charlie_tolbert@baylor.edu Baylor Don Tomaskovic-Devey Tomaskovic-Devey@soc.umass.edu Massachusetts-Amherst Dan Tope dtope@fsu.edu Florida State Florencia Torche florencia.torche@nyu.edu NYU Lisa Torres torres@gwu.edu George Washington Judith Treas jktreas@uci.edu California-Irvine Don Treiman treiman@ucla.edu UCLA Steven Tuch steven.tuch@gwu.edu George Washington Ruth Lopez Turley rturley@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin Christopher Uggen uggen001@umn.edu Minnesota Steve Vallas s.vallas@neu.edu Northeastern Reeve Vanneman reeve@umd.edu Maryland William Velez velez@uwm.edu Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milton Vickerman mv8d@virginia.edu Virginia Andres Villarreal avilla@prc.utexas.edu Texas-Austin Andy Walder walder@stanford.edu Stanford Mike Wallace michael.wallace@uconn.edu Connecticut Feng Wang fwang@uci.edu UC-Irvine Wen Chang Wang wwang@csun.edu CSU Northridge Sally Ward sally.ward@unh.edu New Hampshire Oswald Warner OS-Warner@wiu.edu Western Illinois Rob J. Warren warre046@umn.edu Minnesota David L. Weakliem david.weakliem@uconn.edu Connecticut Kim Weeden kw74@cornell.edu Cornell Tammy Werner TL-Werner@wiu.edu Western Illinois Bruce Western western@wjh.harvard.edu Harvard Amy Wharton wharton@wsu.edu Washington State Dawn Wiest dwiest@memphis.edu Memphis David Wiley wiley@msu.edu Michigan State Angela Willeto Angela.Willeto@nau.edu Northern Arizona Marion Willetts mcwille@ilstu.edu Illinois State George Wilson gwilson1@miami.edu Miami Kenneth Wilson knwilson@uab.edu Alabama-Birhmingham Thomas C. Wilson wilson@fau.edu Florida Atlantic Christopher Winship chris_winship@harvard.edu Harvard Roger Wojtkiewicz rwojtkie@bsu.edu Ball State Lloyd Wong lwong@ucalgary.ca Calgary Thomas Wong hrnswwp@hku.hk Hong Kong Erik Wright wright@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin Xiaogong Wu sowu@ust.hk Univ. of Sci. and Tech., Hong Kong Yu Xie yuxie@umich.edu Michigan Meir Yaish myaish@univ.haifa.ac.il Haifa Kazuo Yamaguchi kyamagu@uchicago.edu Chicago Wei-hsin Yu weihsin@prc.utexas.edu Texas-Austin Kaya Yunus kayay@uncw.edu North Carolina-Wilmington Milan Zafirovski zafirom@pacs.unt.edu Texas Jane Zavisca janez@email.arizona.edu Arizona Zhen Zeng zzeng@ssc.wisc.edu Wisconsin-Madison Wei Zhao wzhao1@uncc.edu North Carolina-Charlotte Lu Zheng zhenglu@tamu.edu Texas A&M Xueguang Zhou xgzhou@stanford.edu Stanford Li Zong li.zong@usask.ca Saskatchewan