Taking stock: exploring trends in the field of men's studies through a content analysis of the American Men's Studies Association (AMSA) annual conference programs (1993-2011).
Abstract: It is generally agreed that the field of men's studies has been growing at a rapid rate in the past few decades. However, as this field of study is still relatively new when compared to other disciplines, there are a lot of unknowns with regard to the directions of growth of the field. In response, the study reported in this article is an attempt to capture the growth of the field of Men's Studies through an exploratory content analysis of the annual conference presentations of the American Men's Studies Association from 1993 to 2011. The findings of this study are then used to draw tentative conclusions regarding the evolution of Men's Studies as an academic discipline over the past 19 years.

Keywords: men's studies, content analysis, American Men's Studies Association
Article Type: Report
Subject: Men's studies (Research)
Authors: Cohen, Jeffrey
Suen, Yiu-Tung
Pub Date: 01/01/2012
Publication: Name: The Journal of Men's Studies Publisher: Men's Studies Press Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Social sciences; Women's issues/gender studies Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 Men's Studies Press ISSN: 1060-8265
Issue: Date: Wntr, 2012 Source Volume: 20 Source Issue: 1
Topic: Event Code: 310 Science & research
Geographic: Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States
Accession Number: 283455189
Full Text: It is generally agreed that the field of men's studies has been growing at a rapid rate in the past few decades. However, as this field of study is still comparatively new there are a lot of unknowns with regard to the directions of its growth. The study reported in this article attempts to capture the growth of the field of men's studies through an exploratory content analysis of the American Men's Studies Association (AMSA) annual conference programs from 1993 to 2011. The content analysis described herein represents the first stage of a larger project. This larger project is intended to explore the current state of the discipline through a survey of the AMSA membership and interviews with a subset of survey respondents. The primary focus of this initial stage of the research is to gain a clearer sense of how the field of men's studies has evolved over the course of the past 19 years. Of course, the AMSA does not represent the entire field. However, it does represent one of the largest (inter)national organizations dedicated to the field of men's studies. Trends within the conference programs should, therefore, offer some insights into broader trends within men's studies. Ideally, the presentation of findings from this study will generate discussion regarding the evolution of our field and help inform its continued growth.

METHODOLOGY

The primary purpose of the current research was to analyze previous AMSA conference programs in order to identify trends in the field of men's studies over time. In order to accomplish this, we conducted a thematic quantitative content analysis of available programs from previous AMSA conferences. Data collected through the content analysis were specifically used to address three overarching research questions:

* What is the distribution of areas of inquiry reflected in the AMSA conference presentations?

* What trends exist in these areas of inquiry as reflected in the AMSA conference presentations?

* What implications do these trends have for the field of men's studies?

DATA COLLECTION

Data collection was accomplished through a thematic content analysis of all AMSA conference programs to date (1993-2011). Data collected during the content analysis were then used to identify trends across time. Initially, both researchers engaged in independent "grounded coding" of two programs (1994 and 1995) in order to identify emergent themes. Those themes were then compared between the researchers and a set of specific themes was established. Then, both researchers independently re- coded these same programs using the agreed set of themes. The two researchers then compared coding in order to generate a consistent coding procedure. Once both researchers were comfortable with the themes and application of the coding scheme, the remaining programs were distributed across both researchers. Throughout the coding process, when additional themes emerged, the researchers mutually decided on their inclusion in the analysis. In the end, 17 themes emerged through the data analysis process.

The themes listed in Table 1 represent areas of inquiry that emerged in the analysis of presentation titles. Although abstracts were available for one of the years, in order to maintain consistency we relied exclusively on presentation titles. This, however, means that if certain themes were contained in a presentation but not explicitly stated in the title, we would not have been able to capture them. This is an important limitation of the current analysis and should be kept in mind when attempting to draw conclusions based on the analysis presented here.

Also, it is important to keep in mind that each presentation may have been coded under multiple themes. For instance, "White Male Identity in James Baldwin's Literature" would have been coded under both race and representations. In addition to the presentation-level data, we also collected data at the conference-level, including the number of presentations and number of participants each year. The findings described in this paper include both the conference-level and presentation-level findings.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Conference-Level Findings

Table 2 includes the total number of presentations and presenters for each annual conference and the combined totals for all conferences included in the analysis. It is worth noticing that while both the number of presentations and presenters follow a similar path, this path is nonlinear. We would expect the total number of presentations and total number of presenters to follow a similar path since they are contingent on one another. It was a surprise, however, to notice that the totals did not follow a path of steady increase over time.

While it is clear that the size of the organization's conferences has grown from 1993 to 2011, that growth has been somewhat inconsistent. For instance, in 1995 there was a significant increase in the size of the conference followed by a significant decrease in 1996. A similar decrease occurred in 2001 and 2002, followed by a relatively steady increase from 2003 to 2011 (with the exception of a few years). Finally, there was a significant jump in both presentations and presenters in 2009. This was the first AMSA conference to take place outside of the U.S. (in Canada), which may indicate the need for the AMSA to consider additional opportunities for conference locations outside of the United States.

Tables 3 and 4 include data on "repeat presenters." Repeat presenters are individuals who presented at two or more conferences between 1993 and 2011. As Table 3 shows, a total of 143 individuals were identified as repeat presenters. This represents 16.4% of all presenters from 1993 to 2011. The majority of repeat presenters are those who presented at two conferences (51.0% of repeat presenters).

We were also interested in the trends in repeat presenters over time. As can be seen in Table 4, a portion of the presenters from each of the years included in this analysis returned for at least one additional conference. Similar to the total number of presenters displayed in Table 1, the number of repeat presenters does not follow a linear progression over time. In some years, the proportion of individuals who decided to present at a future conference was less than previous years. Although the number of new repeat presenters is not consistent, it is important to keep in mind that at least some repeat presenters were added each year to the conference.

We considered two interpretations of these trends. First, the relatively low proportion of repeat presenters suggests that the AMSA has not done enough to maintain a consistently high number of repeat presenters. Conversely, this may suggest that the AMSA has done relatively well in attracting new presenters, while maintaining a small core of repeat presenters over time. The recent drop in attendance among repeat presenters (2006-2008 and 2010) may be of particular interest. Again, this could be interpreted as a lack of retention or as an indication of the growing number of "new" men's studies scholars competing for space in the program.

In our experience, one of the strengths of the AMSA is the emphasis on mentorship and community building within the organization. Therefore, we tend to lean towards the latter of these two interpretations. We believe that the findings on repeat presenters highlight the notion that the AMSA conferences provide space in which individuals feel welcomed and supported; whether new or repeat presenters. Those who are interested in maintaining long-term connections with the AMSA (i.e., repeat presenters) find consistent support. At the same time, those who are "new" to the field or who feel unable to explore the critical study of men and masculinities within their own specific discipline-based conferences, find an outlet where they can meet scholars with similar research interests.

Presentation-Level Findings

In order to address the first two research questions, data on the areas of inquiry within men's studies were collected at the presentation level. Each presentation title was analyzed for keywords indicating specific areas of inquiry (see Table 1). Tables 5 and 6 display the results from the presentation-level analysis. There are several trends that are worth noting. Looking at Table 5, we can see that representations of men and masculinities in literature, art, media, and history (22.3%) was the most common area of inquiry across all of the years included in this analysis. This was followed by race/ethnicity/national identity (17.8%) and psychological/emotionality (15.8%).

In addition, presentations focusing on the representations of men and masculinities constituted the most common area of inquiry in 9 of the 18 years included in this analysis (see Table 6). It is clear, therefore, that this has been a primary area of inquiry in the annual conferences. We hypothesize that this reflects the relative new-ness of the field of men's studies. Specifically, the critical analysis of how men and masculinities are represented in various cultural and social media may reflect the early stages of a burgeoning field of study as scholars attempted to survey the landscape. This particular interpretation is bolstered by the findings. "Representations" was the most common area of inquiry in six of the first seven conferences, while this was the case in only three of the last eight conferences. Perhaps the field of men's studies is engaged in a second phase of evolution, within which additional areas of inquiry are beginning to take precedence (e.g., education and sexuality). This may also suggest a shift from understanding cultural images to exploring how men themselves define and interpret their lives.

The second most common area of inquiry was race (which also included ethnicity and national identity). This was the most common area of inquiry in four of the years included in this analysis. In two of these years, this area of inquiry tied for the most along with representations. In contrast to representations of men and masculinities, this area of inquiry was the most common in three of the last nine conferences and only once during the first nine. It should be noted, however, that this area of inquiry was consistently represented across all of the years (usually either first, second, or third). In any case, the continued growth of this area of inquiry provides some support for men's studies' recognition of racial, ethnic, and national diversity. This, in our view, is a positive trend and one that should continue to be supported by scholars.

Other areas of inquiry were the subjects of particular focus during particular years. Spirituality/religion was the most common area of inquiry in 1999 and 2000. Psychology was the most common area of inquiry in 2007 and 2011. Sexuality was the most common area of inquiry in 2009 and 2010. Education was the most common area of inquiry in 2010 (tied with sexuality). The focus on sexualities has largely been on gay men, with only a few presentations on bisexual men throughout the years. There has been little focus on transgender men and masculinities until more recently. We hypothesize that these two more recent foci (sexuality and education) may reflect broader trends in men's studies as scholars continue to recognize a wider range of masculine identities as well as a wider range of arenas within which masculinities have an influence.

For instance, the somewhat recent focus on the boy's crisis within educational systems may be part of the reason that this has become a more common area of inquiry over the past three or four years. In other words, presentations at the AMSA conferences tend to be both grounded in longstanding areas of inquiry (e.g., representations) and reflective of contemporary issues within the broader field of men's studies (e.g., education).

The tendency for men's studies scholars and practitioners at the AMSA conferences to present topical or timely papers was also reflected by the focus on gender relations (including relationships between men's and women's studies) in 1993 and 1994. This focus may have been an important part of the early work of men's studies scholars and practitioners. As the AMSA (and men's studies more broadly) emerged, it was important to ascertain its place within the already existing framework of feminism and women's studies. It may have also been important to explore what it is that the field of men's studies can offer to compliment the work already being undertaken by scholars and practitioners in those areas. Another example can be seen in the 2002 conference. Following the attacks on September 11th, 2001, the 2002 conference included a presentation and a panel discussion linking these acts to the broader contexts of men and masculinities.

One additional area of inquiry deserves attention in terms of consistent focus over time. Psychology/emotionality was consistently among the most common areas of inquiry across most of the conference years included in this analysis. We believe that this reflects the strong presence of practitioners (e.g., therapists) at the AMSA conferences. The inclusion of both academics and practitioners (and of course those of us who are both) has been a longstanding strength of the AMSA as an organization, and, we believe, of the field of men's studies. It also provides a space where theory meets practice and dialog across disciplinary boundaries emerges.

We turn now to areas of inquiry that did not emerge as consistent themes in the AMSA conferences included in the analysis. Perhaps most surprising was the overall lack of explicit attention paid to issues of violence within men's lives. Considering that violence is primarily a male domain, we expected that the intersections of violence and masculinities would have been a more prominent focus across the AMSA conferences. As can be seen in Table 6, however, this was not the case. Except for 2005, presentations including an explicit focus on violence in men's lives were relatively rare. We speculate that the lack of explicit focus on violence in men's lives may be related to the heavier focus that the AMSA places on exploring positive and healthy masculinities.

The theme "men's studies" provided an interesting area of discussion among the authors. One author feels as though the AMSA conferences analyzed in this study support the notion that the AMSA (and the field of men's studies) has indeed been very active in terms of self-reflection. He notes the inclusion of several presentations and panel discussions, beginning in 1996, which explicitly indicated a focus on the current state of men's studies. The other author suggests that the AMSA has yet to form a solid foundation of self-reflection within the field or organization. Perhaps the next stage of this overall research endeavor will provide greater context for this particular issue.

The remaining areas of inquiry seemed to get inconsistent attention across the conferences included in this analysis. Presentations focusing on male bodies and health have yet to receive consistent attention over time. The findings from 2009 to 2011 suggest, however, that these are two areas of inquiry may be gaining more attention within the field. Age, class, and law/politics also seem to have gained little consistent attention over time. While there seems to have been a rising interest on midlife as a "crisis" or "critical juncture" in men's lives, older men's lives still seem to have been generally neglected. We seem to know much more about boys/young men as compared to men as gendered beings in later life. Finally, presentations focusing on work and those focusing on the construction of theories of men and masculinities have also been relatively rare over time. It should be noted, however, that the lack of presentations addressing theory construction might be more of an analytic issue. This theme was difficult to conceptualize and may not hold the same validity as other themes included in this analysis. Again, the next stage of this overall research endeavor may shed more light on this particular issue.

We do not interpret these findings to suggest that these areas of inquiry are unimportant to the study of men and masculinities. Quite the contrary, we believe that these findings point to important areas of inquiry that have yet to be tapped. Perhaps the AMSA would benefit from constructing conference themes related to these specific areas of inquiry in the future. Moreover, these findings may suggest future areas of inquiry for emerging scholars in the field of men's studies.

DISCUSSION

From the analyses described in this article, it appears that the AMSA has progressed from an initial phase of exploration to a more fluid discourse that is capable of holding together a variety of inquiries grounded in a shared focus on the critical study of men and masculinities. Perhaps this can be described in terms of organizational identity formation. From 1993 to 2002, the AMSA seemed to be engaged in self-exploration. Attempts were made to gain a clear sense of where men and masculinities were situated within the broader contexts of men's studies, women's studies, and the academe. This is indicated by the heavy focus on presentations looking into the ways in which men and masculinities had been represented in various social and cultural media and historical contexts.

From 2003 to 2008, the focus of the organization seemed to shift towards a more diverse set of voices. This is indicated by the emergence of race, ethnicity, and national identities as areas of consistent inquiry within the presentations. Perhaps once the AMSA had formed a solid identity as an organization dedicated to the critical study of men and masculinities, additional voices were able to find space in which their contributions to this critical study could be heard. Although these areas of inquiry had certainly been present in previous years, they have become a more explicitly consistent focus since 2003.

Finally, 2009 seems to be the starting point of a third phase for the organization. Not only was this the first year an AMSA conference was held outside of the U.S., it was also the year that witnessed the largest one-year increase in presentations and presenters. From 2008 to 2009, the number of presentations increased from 56 to 104 (an 85.7% increase) and the number of presenters increased from 80 to 128 (a 60% increase). While the numbers did not remain at this level in 2010, they did remain higher than any year prior to 2009. And, in 2011, the upward trend in presentations and presenters re-emerged. It should be noted that one additional analysis points to the emergence of a third phase in the organizational development of the AMSA. Specifically, we also took note of any presentations that explicitly indicated an analysis of men and masculinities within a particular geographic context other than the U.S. The years with the most explicit references to analyses of men and masculinities in contexts other than the U.S. were 2009, 2010, and 2011. We believe that this further illustrates the beginning of another shift in the organizational identity of the AMSA, one that includes an increasing understanding of the importance of cross-national, inter-national, and intra-national analyses of men and masculinities.

One thing seems clear: the trends described in this paper suggest that the AMSA and the broader field of men's studies of which it is a part are well beyond their infancy. We do not suggest that the emergence of the American Men's Studies Association is synonymous with the beginning of men's studies. Many scholars, practitioners, and organizations were engaging in the critical study of men and masculinities long before the emergence of the AMSA and many continue to do so outside the boundaries of this organization or its annual conferences. This organization, however, does stand as a major contributor to the professional and academic discourses regarding men and masculinities.

It is our position, therefore, that the trends described in this paper may closely reflect trends in the broader field of men's studies. In order to support this position and address the third research question posed in this study, we invite critical reflections from those who have been and currently are actively engaged in the field of men's studies. We ask them to consider whether these trends across the AMSA conferences represent trends within the broader field of men's studies and, if so, what implications they have for the current and future state of our field.

DOI: 10.3149/jms.2001.73

JEFFREY COHEN (1) and YIU-TUNG SUEN (2)

(1) Portland State University.

(2) University of Oxford.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to JEFFREY W. COHEN, Portland State University, Criminology & Criminal Justice-JUST, PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751. Email: j.w.cohen@pdx.edu
Table 1
Themes

     Psychological/Emotional                  Body
        Gender Relations                     Health
Race/Ethnicity/National Identity     Spirituality/Religion
            Violence                       Sexuality
             Theory                        Education
              Work                            Age
          Men's Studies                      Class
             Family                 Law/Legal Systems/Public
                                        Policy/Politics
         Representations

Table 2
Conference-Level Data: Number of Presentations and Presenters

                         Presenters *
Year    Presentations *  (+) [dagger])  Location

1993           22            23          Stony Point, New York
1994           35            38            Dekalb, Illinois
1995           65            69            Dekalb, Illinois
1996           30            36             Washington, DC
1997           36            43          Nashville, Tennessee
1998           48            55            Youngstown, Ohio
1999           46            61          Nashville, Tennessee
2000           32            48            Buffalo, New York
2001           34            37         Albuquerque, New Mexico
2002           27            37           Nashville, Tennesse
2003           45            53           Nashville, Tennesse
2004           54            67            Aurora, Illinois
2005           54            66           Nashville, Tennesse
2006           47            56           Ypslianti, Michigan
2007           61            72          Kansas City, Missouri
2008           56            80          Winston-Salem, North
                                                Carolina
2009          104           128         Montreal, Quebec Canada
2010           88           108            Atlanta, Georgia
2011           93           121          Kansis City, Missouri
Total         977           870 (l)

* Does not include "film sessions" or "Keynote Addresses."

(+)  Includes Plenary and Panels.

([dagger]) Does not include hosts, moderators, discussants, or
chairs.

(l) Controls for individuals who presented at multiple
conferences and/or multiple times at a single conference.
Includes all presenters/authors listed for each presentation in
the program.

Table 3
Repeat Presenters by Number of Times Presented

Years Attended       Repeat     Percent of Repeat
                   Presenters      Presenters

2                      73           51.0
3                      30           21.0
4                      13            9.1
5                      10            7.0
6                       6            4.2
7                       5            3.5
8                       2            1.4
11                      2            1.4
12                      2            1.4
Total                 143
Percent of total                    16.4
 participants

Table 4
Repeat Presenters by Year

        Number of    Percent
Years   Repeat       of Repeat
        Presenters   Presenters

1993       4           17.4
1994      11           28.9
1995      12           17.4
1996       8           22.2
1997       8           18.6
1998      11           20.0
1999       6            9.8
2000       7           14.6
2001       6           16.2
2002       5           13.5
2003      11           20.8
2004       4            6.0
2005      12           18.2
2006       4            7.1
2007       9           12.5
2008       6            7.5
2009      16           12.5
2010       3            2.8

Table 5
Themes as Percent of Total Presentations from 1993-2011

Theme                   Total   % of Presentations: 1993-2011

Psychological            154                 15.8
Gender Relations          72                  7.4
Race                     174                 17.8
Violence                  68                  7.0
Theory                    54                  5.5
Work                      57                  5.8
Men's Studies             39                  4.0
Fathering/Family/Care     94                  9.6
Representations          218                 22.3
Body                      34                  3.5
Health                    43                  4.4
Spirituality              83                  8.5
Sexuality                109                 11.2
Education                 95                  9.7
Age                       41                  4.2
Class                     19                  1.9
Law/Politics              19                  1.9

Table 6
Thematic Analysis of Presentation Titles

                    1993     1994     1995     1996     1997     1998

Psychological       6        5        10       6        3        8
                    (27.3)   (14.3)   (15.4)   (20.0)   (8.3)    (16.7)

Gender              5        7        8        2        4        4
  Relations         (22.7)   (20.0)   (12.3)   (6.7)    (11.1)   (8.3)

Race                2        7        13       7        6        8
                    (9.1)    (20.0)   (20.0)   (23.3)   (16.7)   (16.7)

Violence            0        3        6        3        1        4
                    (0.0)    (8.6)    (9.2)    (10.0)   (2.8)    (8.3)
Theory              1        2        5        1        3        2
                    (4.5)    (5.7)    (7.7)    (3.3)    (8.3)    (4.2)

Work                0        2        1        1        0        0
                    (0.0)    (5.7)    (1.5)    (3.3)    (0.0)    (0.0)

Men's               2        3        2        2        0        1
  Studies           (9.1)    (8.6)    (3.1)    (6.7)    (0.0)    (2.1)

Fathering' Family   2        4        5        3        5        7
  Care              (9.1)    (11.4)   (7.7)    (10.0)   (13.9)   (14.6)

Representations     3        7        30       12       9        9
                    (13.6)   (20.0)   (46.2)   (40.0)   (25.0)   (18.8)

Body                0        0        1        1        2        0
                    (0.0)    (0.0)    (1.5)    (3.3)    (5.6)    (0.0)

Health              0        4        4        2        1        0
                    (0.0)    (11.4)   (6-2)    (6.7)    (2.8)    (0.0)

Spirituality        3        0        5        4        3        8
                    (13.6)   (0.0)    (7.7)    (13.3)   (8.3)    (16.7)

Sexuality           3        3        6        3        5        1
                    (13.6)   (8.6)    (92)     (10.0)   (13.9)   (2.1)

Education           1        4        1        0        1        5
                    (4.5)    (11.4)   (1.5)    (0.0)    (2.8)    (10.4)

Age                 (1       1        0        1        5        0
                    (0.0)    (2.9)    (0.0)    (3.3)    (13.9)   (0.0)

Class               (1       0        8        0        0        1
                    (0.0)    (0.0)    (12.3)   (0.0)    (0.0)    (2.1)

Law/Politics        2        0        1        1        1        1
                    (9.1)    (0.0)    (1.5)    (3.3)    (2.8)    (2.1)

                    1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004

Psychological       8        3        11       6        3        5
                    (17.4)   (9.4)    (32.4)   (22.2)   (6.7)    (9.3)

Gender              3        3        2        2        5        3
  Relations         (6.5)    (9.4)    (5.9)    (7.4)    (111)    (5.6)

Race                6        5        7        6        10       12
                    (13.0)   (15.6)   (20.6)   (22.2)   (22.2)   (22.2)

Violence            1        0        0        1        1        4
                    (2.2)    (0.0)    (0.0)    (37)     (2.2)    (7.4)
Theory              1        0        0        0        (1       6
                    (2.2)    (0.0)    (0.0)    (0.0)    (0.0)    (111)

Work                0        0        0        2        3        1
                    (0.0)    (0.0)    (0.0)    (7.4)    (6.7)    (1.9)

Men's               10       1        2        2        2        0
  Studies           (21.7)   (3.1)    (5.9)    (7.4)    (4.4)    (0.0)

Fathering' Family   4        1        2        2        3        9
  Care              (8.7)    (3.1)    (5.9)    (7.4)    (6.7)    (16.7)

Representations     10       4        15       9        8        8
                    (21.7)   (12.5)   (44.1)   (33.3)   (17.8)   (14.8)

Body                1        3        0        0        3        1
                    (2.2)    (9.4)    (0.0)    (00)     (6.7)    (1.9)

Health              3        1        0        1        1        0
                    (6.5)    (3.1)    (00)     (3.7)    (2.2)    (00)

Spirituality        13       6        7        3        7        6
                    (28.3)   (18.8)   (20.6)   (11.1)   (15.6)   (11.1)

Sexuality           7        1        2        3        7        8
                    (15.2)   (3.1)    (5.9)    (11.1)   (15.6)   (14.8)

Education           0        5        4        1        3        4
                    (0.0)    (15.6)   (11.8)   (3.7)    (6.7)    (7.4)

Age                 0        3        (1       0        1        1
                    (0.0)    (9.4)    (0.0)    (0.0)    (2.2)    (1.9)

Class               0        0        0        0        0        0
                    (0.0)    (0.0)    (0.0)    (0.0)    (0.0)    (0.0)

Law/Politics        0        0        0        0        2        0
                    (0.0)    (0.0)    (0.0)    (0.0)    (4.4)    (0.0)

                    2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010

Psychological       4        10       16       3        16       12
                    (7.4)    (21.3)   (26.2)   (5.4)    (15.4)   (13.6)

Gender              2        2        4        5        1        3
  Relations         (3.7)    (4.3)    (6.6)    (8.9)    (1.0)    (3.4)

Race                12       11       8        13       18       7
                    (22.2)   (23.4)   (13.1)   (23.2)   (17.3)   (8.0)

Violence            19       0        6        2        5        4
                    (35.2)   (0.0)    (9.8)    (3.6)    (4.8)    (4.5)
Theory              5        0        4        6        8        7
                    (9.3)    (0.0)    (6.6)    (10.7)   (7.7)    (8.0)

Work                1        3        4        7        18       6
                    (1.9)    (6.4)    (6.6)    (12.5)   (17J)    (6.8)

Men's               0        5        1        0        1        2
  Studies           (0.0)    (10.6)   (1.6)    (0.0)    (10)     (2.3)

Fathering' Family   5        3        7        5        10       8
  Care              (9.3)    (6.4)    (11.5)   (8.9)    (9.6)    (9.1)

Representations     12       16       5        13       21       11
                    (22.2)   (34.0)   (8.2)    (23.2)   (20.2)   (12.5)

Body                4        0        1        2        4        4
                    (7.4)    (0.0)    (1.6)    (3.6)    (3.8)    (4.5)

Health              1        1        3        2        9        4
                    (1.9)    (2.1)    (4.9)    (3.6)    (8.7)    (4.5)

Spirituality        5        0        4        1        1        3
                    (9.3)    (0.0)    (6.6)    (1.8)    (1.0)    (3.4)

Sexuality           7        7        1        1        22       13
                    (13.0)   (14.9)   (1.6)    (1.8)    (21.2)   (14.8)

Education           8        3        10       11       7        13
                    (14.8)   (6.4)    (16.4)   (19.6)   (6.7)    (14.8)

Age                 4        4        0        4        7        6
                    (7.4)    (8.5)    (0.0)    (7.1)    (6.7)    (6.8)

Class               1        0        2        2        0        0
                    (1.9)    (0.0)    (3.3)    (3.6)    (0.0)    (0.0)

Law/Politics        1        1        6        1        1        11
                    (1.9)    (2.1)    (9.8)    (1.8)    (1.0)    (12.5)

                    2011

Psychological       19
                    (20.4)

Gender              7
  Relations         (7.5)

Race                16
                    (17.2)

Violence            8
                    (8.6)
Theory              3
                    (3.2)

Work                8
                    (8.6)

Men's               3
  Studies           (3.2)

Fathering' Family   9
  Care              (9.7)

Representations     16
                    (17.2)

Body                7
                    (7.5)

Health              6
                    (6.5)

Spirituality        4
                    (4.3)

Sexuality           9
                    (9.7)

Education           14
                    (15.1)

Age                 4
                    (4.3)

Class               5
                    (5.4)

Law/Politics        2
                    (2.2)
Gale Copyright: Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.