Show simple item record

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.18061/1811/81076

dc.creatorAnderson, Cory
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-24T21:17:29Z
dc.date.available2017-07-24T21:17:29Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies v. 5, no. 1 (2017), p. 1-65.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2471-6383
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.18061/1811/81076
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1811/81076
dc.description.abstractAfter 75 years, Amish studies has received no field reviews, an oversight I rectify using several citation analysis techniques. I offer criteria for defining Amish research, which results in 983 references. Amish studies has a very highly centralized core; the top one percent of cited references account for 20% of every citation in Amish studies, with Hostetler, Kraybill, Nolt, and Huntington dominating the top list. Few consolidated subareas exist, exceptions being language and health/population research. Analyzing Amish studies chronologically, the field early on accepted the definitive-sympathetic-authoritative-comprehensive-insider research approach, which legitimated "The Throne" (so-called) in Amish studies, i.e., a central scholar, a few close to him, and the irrelevant hinterlands. The seat was first occupied by Hostetler, then Kraybill. The absence of driving research questions, theory developments, and debates creates place for The Throne, whom scholars often cite to legitimize a given study emerging from an otherwise fragmented field, this field failing to provide scholars self-legitimization. Other troubles with The Throne model are also presented. My call to Amish studies is (1) to develop honed research questions that address specific sub-areas and to consider how any given reference fits into the literature, and (2) to distance our empirical work from fence-straddling popular/scholarly models, e.g. rejecting "the Amish" as a brand name, approaching the Amish as purely scholars and not partially tourists, and foregoing a protective- or reformist-mentality toward the Amish.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherOhio State University. Librariesen_US
dc.rightsThe author retains copyright ownership of this article. Permission to reuse, publish, or reproduce beyond the bounds of Fair Use or other exemptions to copyright law must be obtained from the author.en_US
dc.subjectCitation network analysisen_US
dc.subjectMain path analysisen_US
dc.subjectReference-network graphen_US
dc.subjectVOSVieweren_US
dc.subjectDonald Kraybillen_US
dc.subjectJohn Hostetleren_US
dc.subjectSteven Nolten_US
dc.subjectGertrude Enders Huntingtonen_US
dc.subjectYoung Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studiesen_US
dc.subjectWalter Kollmorgenen_US
dc.subjectAnnotated bibliographyen_US
dc.subjectBibliometric analysisen_US
dc.titleSeventy-Five Years of Amish Studies, 1942 to 2017: A Critical Review of Scholarship Trends (with an Extensive Bibliography)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

Items in Knowledge Bank are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record