<p>Despite a long-standing interest in the sociology of science for how “particularistic” factors condition careers, work on the measurement of publication productivity in higher education has neglected the subject of race. We take initial steps to address this void. Using the field of sociology as a case, we analyze data from 528 academic vitas to examine how race may be configured in differences in publication productivity. Whereas prior work on publication productivity has adopted a natural science model that focuses on articles as the genre of output, we incorporate measures that account for both articles and books, which are institutionalized in fields throughout the humanities and social sciences. The focus on a field allows a view of intricate productivity dynamics in which race inheres: variation in publication productivity by race is nested in the methodological orientation—linked to publication genre—in which academics produce their work. We suggest two mechanisms, personnel decision-making and socialization, as possible ways to mitigate these differences. Using the concept of field consensus, we discuss how findings generated from this study may apply to other fields. The article represents an advance in how to account for between- and within-field variation in publication productivity in science and scholarship.</p>