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

Abstract

After 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.

A Critical Appraisal of Amish Studies’ De Facto Paradigm, “Negotiating with Modernity”

“…Second, scholars must pay better attention to broader historical contexts and forces in which the Amish as a people developed and persisted. Third, scholars must properly situate their contributions within the broader goal of knowledge development, for example, theory proposals, critical tests, descriptive studies, and field reflections (Anderson :29–30).…”

“…Amish studies scholars have on average cited Kraybill in every fifth bibliographic entry. Riddle of Amish Culture (Kraybill ) alone is cited by 44 percent of every Amish studies publication since its release (Anderson ). Even works that do not directly cite K raybill adopt language characteristic of NWM (e.g., Hawley ).…”

Of Shoulders and Shadows: Selected Amish Scholarship before 1963

“…Hence, I chaffed at the insider/outsider reference by Huntington as a desultory remark of little value for judging Schreiber's attempt to help others understand Amish society and culture. But this dichotomy is hardly a single instance; it has been a longstanding value judgment in Amish studies since the beginning and continuing to today (Anderson 2017a). I know one colleague, now well-published about the Amish in various peer-reviewed venues, who was simply told at the beginning of this individual's research that the individual should not get involved because that individual's background was not Anabaptist.…”