Dawson P. R. Vosburg is a sociologist of inequality and religion.

I’m a sociologist of inequality and religion because I want to make sense of why so many Americans are comfortable with an economy of poverty amid plenty.

My research investigates, through content analysis and in-depth interviews, how American Christians make sense of US economic inequality. I show how the structures of that inequality shape what religious beliefs, practices, and institutions get amplified—and which struggle to survive. You can read about this research in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

I also believe good scholarship is for everyone. My aim is to be a part of making research accessible and centering education on growing understanding over getting credentials. You can find my teaching and learning work published in Teaching Sociology.

“I Thank God We’re Rich”

Justifying Economic Inequality in an Evangelical Congregation

Abstract Christianity has been the inspiration for a variety of responses to economic inequality in the United States and beyond. However, evangelicalism has been associated in the literature with consistent justification of unequal economic circumstances. To investigate how evangelical leaders confront the conflict between inequality and egalitarian passages of the Bible, I conducted a sermon analysis study of New River, a Midwestern suburban megachurch, leveraging their sermon archive of 395 recorded messages spanning 10 years. New River's pastors justified economic inequality in several ways: proclaiming that God did not condemn ownership of vast wealth; minimizing domestic inequality in comparison to global inequality; selectively spiritualizing economic passages of the Bible; and saying that God owns everything and thus the status quo distribution is justified. My findings provide a detailed portrait of the process of evangelical clergy inequality justification and discussion of the social forces that incentivize justifying inequality.

Read in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion →

Free to Learn

Ungrading in Sociology Courses

Coauthored with Alex Kempler and Sam Mitchell

Abstract Since its widespread adoption in the education system, letter grading has received sustained criticism from scholars related to its reliability and validity as a measure of student learning, as well as its impact on students’ intrinsic motivation, psychological well-being, and learning outcomes. Despite this, few alternate assessment techniques have been studied empirically, especially in sociology classes. In this article, we contribute to a growing literature on ungrading, or alternate assessment, an approach to student assessment that decenters the use of letter grading in the classroom. We employ alternate assessment practices and gather data on three sociology courses over two semesters at a large, midwestern flagship university, exploring the impact of ungrading on student experiences, learning outcomes, and psychological wellbeing. We find that the implementation of ungrading resulted in a measured decrease in student stress and anxiety as well as an increase in self-reported learning as compared to traditionally letter-graded classes.

Read in Teaching Sociology →