28 Robert Wuthnow
appropriate set of research skills. To evaluate such work also requires a similar focusing
of time and energy.
Disciplinary boundaries are, for this reason, arbitrary but also necessary. They are
arbitrary because many different clusters of specialization and expertise are conceivable.
The ones that happened to take shape did so for historical and institutional (as well as
intellectual) reasons, but others could have developed under other circumstances. They
are necessary, however, because scholarship is always a social enterprise, rather than
purely the work of isolated individuals. Scholars draw ideas from others with whom
they interact intellectually, professionally, and socially, and these networks become the
basis for evaluating one another’s work.
For all its diversity, sociology of religion is a well-institutionalized subfield within
the discipline of sociology (which is also well-institutionalized). Its practitioners con-
duct much of the best work available on such topics as the social correlates of reli-
gious belief and participation, religious movements, the social characteristics of con-
gregations, and the emergence and functioning of diverse religious subcultures. Their
interests frequently overlap with scholars in religious studies, anthropology, political
science, psychology, history, and theology. Yet the work of sociologists of religion draws
distinctively on its own intellectual traditions, mentoring relationships, and social
networks.
Intradisciplinary interaction between sociologists of religion and sociologists with
interests in other fields is also encouraged – and should be encouraged – by the ex-
istence of such institutional configurations as departments, disciplinary majors, and
disciplinary graduate programs. Unlike religious studies programs, where research of-
ten concentrates entirely on the texts and practices of particular religious traditions,
sociology of religion functions primarily at the intersection of religious factors and
other aspects of social life (such as family, political behavior, communities, work, sex-
uality, the arts, and leisure). The best research often combines insights about religion
with new developments in these other specialty areas. Indeed, one clear mark of the
effectiveness of sociology of religion as a subfield is the fact that studies of other social
phenomena increasingly include measures of religion as a factor to consider, just as
they do measures of social class, gender, and race.
If this argument for disciplinary integrity emphasizes convenience more than some
might like, its value lies in defending disciplinary boundaries without elevating them
too high. Networks among peers, mentors, and students within sociology should be
cultivated, as they currently are, but not to the point of discouraging interdisciplinary
work. Furthermore, the networks that bind sociologists of religion to one another are
likely to be stronger than those that develop between sociologists of religion and soci-
ologists with other areas of specialization – a possibility that grows with the expansion
of e-mail, the Internet, and other forms of electronic communication. Thus, students
who come to professors seeking help in making their studies of religion more socio-
logical are likely to find themselves referred to books, articles, and opportunities for
direct contact with specialists at other universities as much as with faculty in other
departments at their own university.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY EXCHANGE
Although disciplinary boundaries need to be preserved, opportunities for sociologists of
religion to interact with scholars in other fields have increased over the past few decades