Suchergebnisse

In this article, we propose a definition of the elusive "French model" of societal success and explore its usefulness for understanding the forces shaping France's future. This model, we suggest, remains "statist-republicanist": its democracy revolves around the idea of republicanism, while its economy continues to rely heavily on market regulation and public intervention. We assess France's model of societal success, which requires exploring the country's long-term assets and liabilities for human development. We argue, first of all, that France relies on a combination of a high fertility rate, an excellent health care system, a low level of income inequalities, and "de-carbonized growth"; second, that it continues to have a major liability, namely, a shadow French model of cultural membership that sustains segregation and discrimination; and third, that it experiences an important decoupling between its profound socio-economic transformations, on the one hand, and its political discourse and representations of the polity, on the other.

Résumé Parmi les réformes de l'université et de la recherche qui provoquent une mobilisation sans précédent, la question de l'évaluation des enseignants-chercheurs résume assez bien les enjeux du passage de la collégialité à l'externalisation de la gestion des carrières et, partant, de l'activité pédagogique et scientifique. Partant de l'expérience des États-Unis, Bruno Cousin et Michèle Lamont mettent en perspective les présupposés de la réforme.

▪ Abstract  In recent years, the concept of boundaries has been at the center of influential research agendas in anthropology, history, political science, social psychology, and sociology. This article surveys some of these developments while describing the value added provided by the concept, particularly concerning the study of relational processes. It discusses literatures on (a) social and collective identity; (b) class, ethnic/racial, and gender/sex inequality; (c) professions, knowledge, and science; and (d) communities, national identities, and spatial boundaries. It points to similar processes at work across a range of institutions and social locations. It also suggests paths for further developments, focusing on the relationship between social and symbolic boundaries, cultural mechanisms for the production of boundaries, difference and hybridity, and cultural membership and group classifications.

This article examines how anti‐poverty policy has considered the role of culture and how it ought to do so. While some have explained poverty as a function of the presumed cultural deficiency or distinctiveness of the poor, we suggest that these explanations have not been convincing and that policy requires a broader and more sophisticated understanding of the relationship between culture and behaviour. In fact, we suggest that cultural differences may be positively employed in comprehensive anti‐poverty strategies.

This exploratory study makes a contribution to the literature on antiracism by unpacking the cultural categories through whicheveryday antiracismis experienced and practiced by extraordinarily successful African Americans. Using a phenomenological approach, we focus on processes of classification to analyze the criteria that members of the African American elite mobilize to compare racial groups and establish their equality. We first summarize results from earlier work on the antiracist strategies of White and African American workers. Second, drawing upon in-depth interviews with members of the Black elite, we show that demonstrating intelligence and competence, and gaining knowledge, are particularly valued strategies of equalization, while religion has a subordinate role within their antiracist repertoire. Thus, gaining cultural membership is often equated with educational and occupational attainment. Antiracist strategies that value college education and achievement by the standards of American individualism may exclude many poor and working-class African Americans from cultural membership. In this way, strategies of equalization based on educational and professional competence may prove dysfunctional for racial solidarity.

Knowledge production in the disciplines -- Library research infrastructure for humanistic and social scientific scholarship in the twentieth century / Andrew Abbott -- In Clio's American atelier / Anthony T. Grafton -- Filing the total human: anthropological archives from 1928 to 1963 / Rebecca Lemov -- Academic conferences and the making of philosophical knowledge / Neil Gross and Crystal Fleming -- Practical foundations of theorizing in sociology: the case of Pierre Bourdieu / Johan Heilbron -- Knowledge evaluation sites -- Comparing customary rules of fairness: evaluative practices in various types of peer review panels / Michèle Lamont and Katri Huutoniemi -- Meetings by the minute(s): how documents create decisions for institutional review boards / Laura Stark -- An experiment in interdisciplinarity: proposals and promises / Marilyn Strathern -- Social knowledge beyond the academy -- Subjects of persuasion: survey research as a solicitous science; or, the public relations of the polls / Sarah E. Igo -- The practices of objectivity in regulatory science / Sheila Jasanoff -- How claims to know the future are used to understand the present: techniques of prospection in the field of national security / Grégoire Mallard and Andrew Lakoff -- What do market designers do when they design markets? economists as consultants to the redesign of wholesale electricity markets in the United States / Daniel Breslau -- Financial analysis: epistemic profile of an evaluative science / Karin Knorr Cetina

Epistemological differences fuel continuous and frequently divisive debates in the social sciences and the humanities. Sociologists have yet to consider how such differences affect peer evaluation. The empirical literature has studied distributive fairness, but neglected how epistemological differences affect perception of fairness in decision making. The normative literature suggests that evaluators should overcome their epistemological differences by ''translating'' their preferred standards into general criteria of evaluation. However, little is known about how procedural fairness actually operates. Drawing on eighty-one interviews with panelists serving on five multidisciplinary fellowship competitions in the social sciences and the humanities, we show that (1) Evaluators generally draw on four epistemological styles to make arguments in favor of and against proposals. These are the constructivist, comprehensive, positivist, and utilitarian styles; and (2) Peer reviewers define a fair decision-making process as one in which panelists engage in ''cognitive contextualization,'' that is, use epistemological styles most appropriate to the field or discipline of the proposal under review.