Sociologists Joanna Gregson and Jen Lois review the existing social scientific research on romance novels, readers, and authors from the last four decades (Chapter 15). They tap into the significant contributions made by social scientists and social science methodology to romance criticism while noting lacunae and calling attention to the need for research that is more attentive to the specificities of the genre. They observe that while content analyses of romance novels reveal conformity to traditional gender roles and sexual scripts, studies of romance readers show that these books serve important functions in women’s lives, that they are read critically, and that their take-away messages are both positive and progressive. The chapter also notes that research with authors reveals how and why they became romance authors, how they experience the stigma of writing in a disparaged genre, and how they forge community with other authors. (16)
---
This chapter examines romance fiction-related studies originating from sociology, psychology, and adjacent disciplines (such as education or communication) utilizing social science methods. Because the existing literature is sparse, our review spans contributions from the 1980s to the present, with research falling into three areas. First, social scientists have conducted content analyses of texts, studying messages about gender, sexuality, and romance within the books. A second strand of research draws upon surveys, interviews, and experiments to explore how romance novels influence readers. Finally, a third area of scholarship investigates romance authors themselves. We examine each type of study in turn, concluding with our reflections about the contributions and limitations of the cumulative body of social science work. (335)
---
findings from reader studies are especially noteworthy when considered in tandem with content analysis findings. While content analyses reveal conformity to traditional gender roles and sexual scripts, studies of readers show that these books serve important functions in women’s lives, that they are read critically, and that their take-away messages (of independent and strong heroines, for example), may not be consistent with the themes uncovered by social scientists. (342)
From the introduction to the volume:
---
---