Sociation Today®
ISSN 1542-6300
The Official Journal of the
North Carolina Sociological
Association
A Peer-Reviewed
Refereed Web-Based
Publication
Spring/Summer 2013
Volume 11, Issue 1
An
Ecological Examination of North
Carolina's Amendment One Vote to Ban
Same Sex Marriage by Elizabeth L.
Davison
On May 8th, 2012, North Carolina voters overwhelmingly (61%) passed a state amendment that constitutionalized the definition of marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. With the passage of the amendment, no other domestic family arrangement is entitled to legal recognition and benefits of spouses and their dependents. As with the majority of states passing similar constitutional amendments, the legal action did not change the non-existent marital rights of same-sex couples who were already prohibited from marriage, but was a protective measure against future efforts to legalizing gay marriage. With the passage of Amendment One ballot measure, the only way same sex marriage will ever be legally recognized in the state of North Carolina is passage of another referendum to strike down the recently passed amendment or passing federal legislation that supersedes the state's ability to regulate marriage (Humes 2011). Whereas only eight counties did not have a majority of voters supporting the amendment, the range of support for the amendment varied from 21% of votes in Orange County to 88% of the votes in Graham County. Although there were no exit polls administered for the 2008 North Carolina May primary election that included Amendment One, the media speculated that the vote in favor of the amendment was driven by religious, rural, older, less educated, and non-White populations. Media Analysis of
N.C. Amendment One Vote
Media sources unquestionably pigeon-holed
Amendment One as the “Gay Marriage Ban”
instead of incorporating the effects the
amendment would have for both heterosexual
and same-sex domestic partnerships.
For instance, in January, WRAL news
released their first article regarding the
amendment titled “Campaign to Reject Gay
Marriage Vote Begins” (Robertson
2012). After the election, CBS
released an article titled, “North
Carolina passes amendment banning same-sex
marriage.” Few media outlets
addressed the full story of how the
amendment would impact both heterosexual
and same-sex domestic partnerships.
In 2006 Arizona defeated a similar
referendum, because the debate was framed
to include the impact of the resolution on
unmarried, heterosexual, senior citizens
and the impact of the amendment on their
property rights and living arrangements
(Egan and Sherrill 2006).
Overall, there was very little media analysis of the actual North Carolina vote. Without exit polls, there is no way of knowing the demographics of individuals who supported the amendment. Nevertheless, we found a few interesting suggestions about how the vote transpired among North Carolina voters. The Blaze website posted an article that linked to a widely circulated map that visualized the correlations between percent of 25 years or older county residents with bachelor's or higher degrees and the vote for the amendment, suggesting counties with the most educated population were more like to have voted against the measure (Holt, 2012). The same article also commented on an unsubstantiated statistic being circulated on the blogosphere that African Americans were twice as likely to vote for the amendment. A Politico article published after the May election reported "Public Policy Polling projected 60-65% of African-Americans would vote in favor of the ban" (Williams 2012). Regarding the race factor in understanding the amendment vote, Lyttle (2012) from the Charlotte Observer wrote, "Many African American churches took strong positions in favor of Amendment One, putting them at odds with the rest of the traditional Democratic Party base." Gordon (2012) reported in the Charlotte Observer that predominantly African-American neighborhoods voted 2 to 1 in support of Amendment One. In his article he wrote of the racial divide, "While the NAACP campaigned hard against the amendment, many Black voters continued to see same-sex marriage not as a civil rights issue, but as a lifestyle choice with which they don’t agree." We questioned this assertion and did an analysis of Mecklenburg election results (not shown in this paper) and found a weak and non-significant correlation (r=.135) between percent of registered Black voters and percent of votes for the amendment among the 195 Mecklenburg precincts. In fact, of the 8 precincts with 90 percent and above Black registered voters, all 8 precincts reported more votes against the amendment. Age and geography were also considered by the news media as important determining factors in the North Carolina vote. Waggoner (2012) with the Associated Press wrote an article published widely in North Carolina newspapers and the Huffington Post, stating "Older voters, who tend to be more reliable voters, were expected to back the amendment." She also noted that N.C. House Speaker Tillis predicted the amendment would be overturned in the future when today's younger populace matures and comes into political power. CNN also reported that the amendment was supported widely in rural areas (Sutton, Ariosto, Steinhauser and Marrapodi 2012). The Charlotte Observer echoed the age and geographical divides "...Amendment One also revealed generational and urban-rural divisions in the state" and ”Returns on Tuesday night showed the issue winning in rural counties, as expected. It was losing in places like Buncombe, Guilford and Wake counties, in the more urban areas; and in Orange and Watauga counties, populated by large numbers of younger voters” (Lyttle 2012). History of Same Sex
Marriage Bans in the United States
In 1998, Alaska became the first state to
pass an amendment banning same-sex
marriage. Nevada and Nebraska
followed suit in 2000. From 2004-2008,
another 26 states adjusted their
constitutions to define marriage. On
May 8, 2012, North Carolina became the
30th state banning legal recognition of
same-sex unions. Of the states seeking
input from citizens on the legislation
affecting a minority population, the range
of votes for this discriminatory action
has varied from 52% (California in 2008
and South Dakota in 2006) to 86%
(Mississippi 2004). Southern states
historically pass same-sex marriage bans
by a much larger margin than their
counterparts (Hume 2011; Burnett and Salka
2009).
As of May 2012, only one state successfully voted against banning same-sex marriage. In 2006 Arizona voters opposed Proposition 107 banning same-sex marriage with 52% of the votes. However, a mere 2 years later, Arizona voters passed Proposition 102, repealing Proposition 107, and banning same-sex marriage with 56% of the vote. The initial proposition would have eliminated the domestic partnership status of heterosexual and same-sex partnerships alike, however the 2008 proposition focused only on same-sex unions (Vance 2008). The November 2012 general election finally saw a reversal of the voting trend to ban same sex marriage with Maine, Maryland and Washington residents voting to allow same sex marriage in their states. Methods
Past studies have found community
characteristics explain variation in
support for same-sex marriage bans among
counties (e.g., Burnett and Salka 2009;
Fleischman and Moyer, 2009). North
Carolina has 100 counties divided among
coastal, piedmont and mountainous
regions. Counties demark geographic
boundaries that connect people to a layer
of community bound by different budgetary
allotments, regulations, taxes and
heritage. Fleischmann and Moyer
(2009) found county characteristics had a
significant and profound effect in their
analysis of same-sex marriage bans across
22 states as did Burnett and Salka's
(2009) examination of the 7 states in 2006
that passed legislation prohibiting
same-sex marriage.
Data for this study was
compiled from the most recent years (2010
and 2011) of the U.S. Census Bureau
including the American Community Survey
(ACS), North Carolina May 8, 2012 election
results, and the 2010 U.S. Congregational
Membership Data. Although our
analysis does not explain individual
patterns of voting on the referendum, as
much of the media speculated on, the
county-level data provides an
environmental context that surrounds
voters (e.g., Smith et al., 2006).
We look at demographic factors that differ
among counties in regards to differences
in age structure, urbanisms, race,
religion and education to explain the
variation in support for Amendment One
among the 100 North Carolina
counties.
Race
Recent national polls
are mixed regarding racial/ethnic
differences of support for same sex
marriage at the individual level. An
ABC News/Washington Post poll shows
Blacks slightly less (7%) likely to
support legalization of gay marriage than
their White counterparts, but among
Non-Whites, they are twice as likely to
support than oppose legalization of same
sex marriage (Cohen 2012; Hartfield, 2012;
WP Politics 2012). The most recent
Pew Foundation (2012) poll on gay marriage
found similar results with Whites 9%
(Whites 48% and Blacks 39%) more likely to
support gay marriage than their Black
counterparts.
At the organizational level, controlling for racial composition of counties in marriage amendment studies has yielded inconsistent results. Fleischman and Moyer (2009) found a greater number of Black residents in a county increased support for banning same-sex marriage. Smith et al. (2006) found greater density of African American residents in a county decreased support for anti-gay marriage bans. Burnett and Salka (2009) found inconsistent results in using county rates of Black populations in their analysis of seven states that passed anti-gay marriage legislation. Among the seven counties, the race variable was both significant and insignificantly related as well as inversely and directly correlated. Burnett and Salka (2009) explain the mixed result are due to a state's minority composition in regards to other ethnic groups. For our study, we included the census measure of percent Black Residents for each county. Religion
Protestants are more
supportive of banning same-sex marriage,
especially among individuals with strong
ties to a religious organization (Olson et
al., 2006). Stepan-Norris and Southworth
(2007) find Protestants vote more
conservatively on political issues.
In their analysis of neighborhood churches
influences in the political process they
note "churches provided networks,
institutional resources, and physical
space where similarly situated congregants
could meet, establish contacts, and
discuss political issues" (Stepan-Norris
and Southworth 2007:368). Finlay et al.
(2003) also found religious affiliation
and attendance matters in opinions on
civil rights for homosexuals. The
more a person attends religious services,
the more likely he or she is to acquire an
anti-gay bias (Barth et al., 2009; Egan
and Sherrill, 2006; Fisher et. al, 1994;
Finlay et al. 2003; Olson et al., 2006).
The Pew Forum on
Religion & Public Life poll
numbers in July 2012, regarding attitudes
toward Gay marriage (The Pew Forum, 2012),
shows a shift toward increasing support
for same sex marriage among all religious
backgrounds. Since 2000, those who
are religiously unaffiliated, Catholics
and White Mainline Protestants show the
most support (over 50%) while Black
Protestants and White Evangelical
Protestant show the least support.
We test to see if these
individual religious factors are also true
at a larger aggregate level. To
critically analyze religious influence, we
used data from the U.S. Congregational
Membership to consider the number of
congregations and rates of adherence per
1000 residents for Evangelical, Mainline
and Black Protestants. Our initial
correlation analysis provided interesting
results. The number of congregations
in a county had no significant impact on
Amendment One votes. The Rates of
Evangelical Protestant adherence had the
greatest impact on percent of votes for
the amendment among NC counties
(r=.440). Findings were the greater
the presence of Evangelical Protestants in
a county, the greater the overall support
for Amendment One. Interestingly,
the greater number of Mainline Protestant
in a county, the less support for
Amendment One (r=-.270). Rates of
adherence for Black Protestants did not
significantly correlate to votes for
Amendment One among the counties (r=.054).
Based on our initial analysis, we used the
county rate (per 1000) of Evangelical
Protestants as a possible explanation of
support for the amendment.
Education
Education is a
salient factor for most studies
analyzing attitudes toward gays (e.g.,
Barth et al 2009; Egan and Sherrill,
2006; Smith et al., 2006). We conducted
a preliminary correlational analysis of
multiple educational measures including
enrollment of college students and rates
of advanced degrees per county. We
created a unique variable measuring the
presence of “mega-colleges” in a
county. We defined a mega-college
as a Public or Private University with
more than 6,000 students. Six out
of eight of the counties that voted
against Amendment One are host to one of
North Carolina’s largest colleges.
In 2004, Michigan’s proposal banning
same-sex marriage passed by 59% of the
votes. Of Michigan’s 83 counties,
only 2 voted against the amendment,
Washtenaw County, where the University
of Michigan is located, and Ingham
County, home of the Michigan
State. In 2008, Arizona’s same-sex
ban passed with only one county opposing
the Amendment; Pima County home to the
University of Arizona. In 2004,
Oregon voters passed a measure banning
same-sex marriage in which Benton County
was one of two opposing counties, not
surprisingly Oregon State University is
located in Benton County (CNN
2004).
All measures of
educational influences were highly
correlated with votes for Amendment
One. Counties with more
institutions of higher education, mega
colleges, more residents currently
attending college and higher overall
populations of college educated
residents, were significantly less
likely to support the amendment.
For our final analysis we used a common
and robust measure of percent of county
residents, 25 years of age and older,
with bachelor's or greater degrees, to
analyze votes on Amendment One. Like
Fleischmann and Moyer's (2009) county
level analysis of public referendums on
same-sex bans, we expected to find
similar county-level results for North
Carolina that the percent of county
residents with college degrees will
inversely impact support for Amendment
One.
 Bring up Larger Images in New Window For more information, check out this link. As
previously discussed, the post
Amendment One election media
analysis highlighted a potential
rural/urban split in support of the
referendum. Burnett and Salka (2009)
found controlling for the
rural/urbanism of a county was a
significant factor for some states
in understanding support for
amendments banning same-sex
marriage. In our
analysis we used a measure of
percent of rural county residents.
In general, younger voters (under 30) are less supportive of same sex marriage ban amendments (Egan and Sherrill, 2006). Burnett and Salka (2009) found age population characteristics were not a significant factor in explaining support for anti-gay marriage amendments for all seven states in their analysis, but for two states (Colorado and South Dakota), the higher the proportion of 18 to 34 year olds, the less support for banning gay marriage. We used county percentage of 18-24 year old residents as our age measure. Analysis and Hypotheses We
provide descriptive univariate
information for the measures used in
our study. Using percent of
votes in favor of Amendment One for
each of the 100 Counties as our
dependent variable, we provide OLS
regression results to show the
cumulative strength of these measures
in explaining county variance in votes
for Amendment One. To take in
account the differences in population
sizes among the counties, percentages
and rates (per 1000) are used for the
measures.
Based on our previous discussion of demographical influences, we expected to find the following relationships between county characteristics and support for Amendment One. H1: Counties with greater densities of higher educated population will show less support for Amendment One. H2: Percent of Black residents in a county will impact the votes on Amendment One. H3: Counties with larger rates of Evangelical Protestants will have greater support for Amendment One. H4: Counties with larger proportion of voters under 25 will show less support for Amendment One. H5: Counties with greater rural populations will show more support for Amendment One. Findings Table 1: Descriptive Statistics
Table
One shows the range of suport for
amendment one varied from a low of
21% of votes in Orange County to a
high of 88% of county votes in
Graham County. Watauga
County’s population is skewed toward
a younger adult population with the
presence of mid-sized university
(Appalachian State University) in a
relatively rural county.
Bertie County has the largest
percent of Black residents, while
Clay County has the most Evangelical
Protestant adherents. The most
urban North Carolina county (as
measured by the least percent rural
population) is Mecklenburg
County. As noted earlier
Orange county reported the least
amount of votes for Amendment One,
but also has the distinction of
having the greatest number of county
residents with a bachelor's or
graduate degree. Anson County
has the least amount of county
residents with college degrees. OLS Results Table 2 displays the results of two OLS regression models in explaining the variation in percentage of votes for Amendment One among North Carolina counties. Without the education measure (Model 1) around 37% of the variance in votes for the amendment among NC counties was explained by the measures of age, percent rural population and Evangelical Protestant adherences. The significant measures responded as expected, the higher rates of Evangelicals in counties and the larger percentage of rural populations, the greater the overall support for Amendment One. Counties with larger younger adult populations were less likely to support the amendment. The measure of race did not significantly contribute to the regression model. The second model adds the educational measure, percent of county residents with a Bachelor's or greater degree, into the regression equation. Education is an important factor in distinguishing support for Amendment One among North Carolina counties as seen by the increase of 48% in the overall explained variance of votes for Amendment One among the counties. In Model 2, all independent variables, except percent of 18-24 year old residents, significantly contributed to the explanation of variance in votes for Amendment One among counties. The measure of Evangelical adherences performed in the same direction as Model 1 (greater Evangelical rates generates more overall support for Amendment One). Controlling for education showed that a greater percent of Black residents and rural residents in a county decreased support for the amendment. The greater the overall educational attainment in counties also diminished support for the amendment. With such a high r-square value in Model 2, we ran multicollinearity diagnostics and found all tolerance and VIF values were well within acceptable levels.
Using Model 2 standardized
regression coefficients as an
indicator of which explanatory
variables had the greatest and
weakest impacts on percentage of
votes for Amendment One among NC
counties, the measure for percent of
college degrees had the greatest
overall impact on the amendment vote
while percentage of age had the
least impact (not
significant). The next salient
factor was the measure of racial
composition in a county, followed by
the measure of rural
populations. Factors that were
identified in the post-election news
analysis as important (i.e.,
religion, rural populations, young
adults and Black populations), were
found significantly weaker factors
compared to education. Percent
Black and age were both significant
and insignificant across the
models. Percent rural
population was inversely and
directly correlated to the amendment
vote across models. Table
2: OLS Regression.
Dependent Variable:
Percentage of Votes for
Amendment One.
Conclusions
Despite increase in public support for gay rights (Brewer and Wilcox, 2005), when asked to vote on specific referendums to enshrine marriage as permissible only between one man and one woman, state referendums were always publically supported as of May 2012 (with the only exception being Arizona's temporary failure to pass their anti-gay marriage amendment in 2006, but two years later passing such a ban in 2008). This was also the case for North Carolina on May 8, 2012 when the majority of voters (61%) passed Amendment One prohibiting any legal recognition to alternative family arrangements other than one woman and one man.
We noticed a large variance (67%
range) in support of the amendment
among North Carolina counties.
Out of 100 North Carolina counties,
only eight counties reported a
majority vote against the
amendment. Based on previous
county level studies (i.e., Burnett
and Salka 2009; Fleischman and
Moyer, 2009), we speculated that
counties with less college educated
residents, more older residents,
more Evangelicals and greater rural
areas, were hypothesized to have
supported the Amendment. The
percentage of Black residents in a
county had mixed results in past
studies and we did not predict a
direction for this study. Our
study tested these hypotheses and
reports the following
findings. H1 SUPPORTED: Counties with greater densities of higher educated populations showed less support for the Amendment One. H2 INCONCLUSIVE:
Greater percentages of Black
residents in a county did not
significantly explain variance in
the support for Amendment One among
counties until controlling for
education which showed a greater
percentage of Black residents
decreased support for Amendment. H3 SUPPORTED: Counties with larger rates of Evangelical Protestants showed greater support for Amendment One. H4 INCONCLUSIVE: Counties with larger proportion of voters under 25 showed less support for Amendment One until controlling for education attainment when the variable seemed irrelevant. H5 MIXED:
Greater rural populations led to
more support for Amendment One until
controlling for education and then
exhibited a weaker inverse
explanation of variance in county
support for Amendment One. Our analysis shows very predictable voting patterns emerged at the county level regarding the North Carolina amendment vote on May 8, 2012. Our study highlights the importance of community context in understanding the passage of Amendment One in North Carolina. What stands out from our analysis is the presence of a more highly educated population matters the most in determining votes against the amendment. We found mixed support for our hypotheses that greater concentrations of Black and older populations were more supportive of banning same sex marriage. Urban populations supported the amendment less until controlling for education when a weaker measure showed urban areas with more support for the amendment. The greater presence of an Evangelical population in a county consistently increases support for the amendment.
As with any study, there are
limitations to our findings.
By only analyzing one state at one
time period, the extent that we can
generalize to other states passing
similar amendments is unclear and we
were unable to determine
causality. Other studies
(e.g., Levernier and Barilla, 2006)
have shown that regional differences
are important in understanding a
state's voting behavior. North
Carolina's location in the south and
its late adoption of such amendment
(compared to three-fifths of other
states) as well as the time, in
2012, in which attitudes are
changing swiftly, all make North
Carolina unique from other
states. In the November 2012
general elections, three states,
Maine, Maryland and Washington,
actually voted to legalize same sex
marriage. We did not attempt
to explain individual voting
preferences, but have demonstrated
important environmental factors that
influenced county voters. References Barth, Jay
L., Marvin Overby and Scott H.
Huffmon. 2009. "Community Context,
Personal Contact, and Support for
an Anti-Gay Rights Referendum" Political
Research Quarterly 62(2):355-365.
Brewer, Paul R. and Clyde Wilcox. 2005. "Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions." The Public Opinion Quarterly 69(4):599-616. Callaway, Will, Eitan Lees and Maureen O'Donnell. 2013. "Using Statistical Learn to Predict North Carolina County Voting Patterns" Poster Presentation for 16th Annual Celebration of Student Research and Creative Endeavors at Appalachian State University, Boone North Carolina. (http://www1.appstate.edu/ ~arnholta/ASUresearch/2013/ WEMPoster0401713Final.pdf) Cohen, Jon. 2012. "Poll Trend on Same Sex Marriage." Behind the Numbers: Washington Post Politics Blog, May 9. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/ poll-trend-on-same-sex-marriage/ 2012/05/09/gIQAi6zhDU_blog.html) CNN. 2004. "Ballot Measures: Oregon Measure 36 County Results" CNN.com Election Results (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/ 2004//pages/results/states/OR/I/02/county.000.html Egan, Patrick J. and Kenneth Sherrill. 2006 "Same-sex Marriage Initiatives and Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Voters in the 2006 Elections." New York: National Lesbian and Gay Task Force. (http://thetaskforce.org/ downloads/reports/reports/ MarriageAndLGBVoters2006.pdf) Finlay, Barbara, and Carol S. Walther. 2003. ‘"The Relation of Religious Affiliation, Service Attendance, and Other Factors to Homophobic Attitudes among University Students.’" Review of Religious Research 44:370–93. Gordon, Michael. 2012 "Amendment One: N.C. Voters Approve Measure to Block Same-sex Marriage" May 9 (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/ 2012/05/08/3227863/amendment-one-nc-voters-approve.html) Fisher, Randy D., Donna Derison, Chester F. I. Polley, Jennifer Cadman, and Dana Johnston. 1994. ‘"Religiousness, Religious Orientation, and Attitudes towards Gays and Lesbians." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24:614–30. Fleischmann, Arnold and Laura Moyer. 2009. "Competing Social Movements and Local Political Culture: Voting on Ballot Propositions to Ban Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S. States." Social Science Quarterly 90(1):134-149. Hartfield, Elizabeth. 2012. "Mixed Numbers for Same-Sex Marriage Support across Country" ABC News Blog: The Note May 10 (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/ mixed-numbers-for-same-sex-marriage-support-across-country) Holt, Mytheos. 2012. "Why is the Media Blaming Black Voters for North Carolina's Anti-Gay Amendment?" The Blaze May 10 (retrieved from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/why-is-the-media-blaming-black-voters-for-north-carolinas-anti-gay-amendment) Humes, Robert J. 2011. "Comparing Institutional and Policy Explanations for the Adoption of State Constitutional Amendments: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage." American Politics Research 39:1097-1126. Lyttle, Steve. 2012 "Marriage Amendment Approved by N.C. Voters" Charlotte Observer May 8 (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/08/3227430/marriage-amendment-draws-big-interest.html) Olson, Laura R., Wendy Cadge, and James T. Harrison. 2006. "Religion and Public Opinion about Same-Sex Marriage." Social Science Quarterly 87 (2) 340-360. Smith, Daniel A., DeSantis, Matthew and Jason Kassel. 2006. "Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures and the 2004 Presidential Election" State & Local Government Review 38(2):78-91. Robertson, Gary D. 2012. "Campaign to Reject NC Gay Marriage Vote Begins" WRAL.com January 18. (http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/10612507) Stepan-Norris, Judith and Southworth, Caleb. 2007. "Churches as Organizational Resources: A Case Study in the Geography of Religion and Political Voting in Postwar Detroit." Social Science History 31(3):343-380. Sutton, Joe, David Ariosto, Paul Steinhauser and Eric Marrapodi. 2012 "North Carolina Passes Same-Sex Marriage Ban, CNN Projects" May 11. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/politics/ north-carolina-marriage/index.html) The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 2012 "Religion and Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage." February 7 (http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/07/ growing-public-support-for-same-sex-marriage) Vance, Kevin. 2008. “Why Arizona Flipped On Gay Marriage”. Weekly Standard. December 8 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/ Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/860xlgbq.asp) Waggoner, Martha. 2012 "Amendment One, North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban, Passes Vote" Huffington Post. May 8. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/ amendment-one-north-carolina_n_1501308.html) Washington Post Poll. 2012. "Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?" May 21 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ polling/illegal-lesbian-couples-married/2012/05/ 21/gIQAE7CBjT_page.html) Williams, Joseph. 2012. "Gay Marriage: Black Voters Remain Divided" Politico May 10. (http://www.politico.com/ news/stories/0512/76133.html)
A Member of the EBSCO Publishing Group Abstracted in Sociological Abstracts Online Indexing and Article Search from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) Return to Home Page
|