Heavy genealogy: mapping the currents, contraflows and conflicts of the emergent field of metal studies, 1978-2010

What is metal studies? How can we define and characterize it? How has it emerged as a body of academic enquiry? What are its dominant disciplinary strands, theoretical concepts and preferred methodologies? Which studies have claimed most attention, defined the goals of scholarship, typical research strategies and values? How has the claim for the legitimacy or symbolic value of metal scholarship been achieved (if it has): over time and through gradual acceptance or through conflict and contestation? How can this process of formation, or strategy of legitimation, be mapped, examined and interrogated and which methods of historical, institutional and cultural analysis are best suited to this task? Working with the most complete bibliography to date of published research on heavy metal, music and culture (the MSBD), this article employs Foucault’s archaeological “method” to examine the institutional, cultural and political contexts and conflicts that inform the genealogy of this scholarship. Such analysis reveals a formative, largely negative account of heavy metal to be found in the “sociology of rock”; a large volume of psychology work, examining heavy metal music preference as an indicator of youth risk, deviance and delinquency; sociological work on youth and deviancy critical of the values of this research and its links to social policy and politics; culminating in the work of Weinstein and Walser, who advocate a perspective sympathetic to the values of heavy metal fans themselves. Following Bourdieu, I interpret such symbolic strategies as claims for expertise within the academic field that are high or low in symbolic capital to the extent they can attain disciplinary autonomy. I then go on to examine the most recent strands of research, within cultural studies and ethnomusicology, concerned with the global metal music diaspora, and consider to what extent such work is constitutive of a coherent subfield of metal studies that can be distinguished from earlier work and what the implications of this might be

The role of psychologists in international migration research: complementing other expertise and an interdisciplinary way forward

This research note addresses the current and potential future role of psychologists in the study of international migration. It reviews ways in which psychologists have contributed to the study of migration, as well as ways in which psychological scholarship could be integrated with work from other social science fields. Broadly, the note discusses four major contributions that psychology brings to the study of international migration—studying migrants’ internal psychological experiences, incorporating a developmental perspective, conducting experimental studies, and integrating across levels of analysis. Given the position of psychology as a ‘hub science’ connecting more traditional social sciences with health and medical sciences, we argue for a more prominent role for psychologists within the study of international migration. Such a role is intended to complement the roles of other social scientists and to create a more interdisciplinary way forward for the field of migration studies. The research note concludes with an agenda for further scholarship on migration.Development Psychopathology in context: clinical setting