Seventy-Five Years of Amish Studies, 1942 to 2017: A Critical Review of Scholarship Trends (with an Extensive Bibliography)

Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies

Anderson, Cory. 2017.

5(1):1-65.

Amish studies lacks critical self-reflection and cohesive organization of knowledge, instead displaying unusually high centrality of a few core scholars and works over its 75 year history.
This article analyzes citations from 983 peer-reviewed Amish studies works from 1942-2017 using measures such as degree centrality, authorities, hubs, and main path analysis.
The top 1% of cited works (10 references) account for nearly 20% of all citations in Amish studies; this is a very high concentration of influence, especially given Hostetler, Kraybill, and Nolt authored 8 of these 10 references. A Gini coefficient of 0.635, a coefficient on par with nations exhibiting high inequality, confirms highly unequal acknowledgement of Amish research.
These citation results suggest engagement with existing ideas is superficial, with scholars leaning on a narrow set of prominent names—the authoritative “throne” scholar—for legitimacy rather than substance. The consequence has been limited theoretical debates and limited branching into sub-areas.
Four Recommendations:

1. Develop focused research questions and subareas to permit knowledge accumulation/autonomy.
2. Scrutinize how citations substantively engage with relevant literature.
3. Resist framing Amish studies for popular/touristic curiosity and protect-the-Amish mentalities, which neglects clear research questions and slows theory-driven progress.
4. Engage debates beyond Amish studies by situating in broader theories and disciplines.

Access Related Content From The Project: "Patterns Of Knowledge Production"

Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies
Anderson, Cory. 2022.
10(1):vii-xxii.

Journal of Rural Social Science
Anderson, Cory, and Lindsey Potts. 2021.
36(1):Article 6.