How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment

(nextflipdebug5) #1

Ibarra (1992) and Reskin and McBrier (2000). For an analysis of claims based
on arguments about cultural descent—particularly sacred properties of tradi-
tion—see Mukerji (2007). For a measure of homophily in the panels dis-
cussed in this book, see Guetzkow et al. (2003).



  1. On the conservative bias, see Eisenhart (2002).

  2. In proposing this concept, Merton drew on the Gospel according to
    Matthew: “For unto everyone that hath shall be given and he shall have abun-
    dance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he
    hath”; see Merton (1968).

  3. While Bourdieu (1988) suggests that thehabitusof academics promote
    criteria of evaluation that favor their own work due to the competitive logic
    of fields, I suggest that this tendency results from their necessary cultural and
    institutional embeddedness. Because he leaves very little room for identity,
    Bourdieu ignores the types of pushes and pulls that I discuss here.

  4. See for example Ben-David (1991); Fuchs and Turner (1986); Collins
    (1994); Braxton and Hargens (1996); and Hargens (1988).

  5. Galison and Stump (1996); Knorr-Cetina (1999).

  6. On this topic, see Guetzkow, Lamont, and Mallard (2004) and Chap-
    ter 5.

  7. Many authors have noted this. See, for instance, Brint (2002); Slaughter
    and Rhoades (2004); Kirp (2003). For a theoretically sophisticated account of
    the relationship between science and society, see also Jasanoff (2004).

  8. Hall and Lamont (2009) is an attempt to intervene in this tug-of-war
    around the question of what may define “successful societies.”

  9. Hargens (1988).

  10. Hayagreeva, Monin, and Durand (2005).

  11. Some advocate the use of citation counts as a means for measuring
    quality while avoiding biases. A large literature criticizes bibliometric tech-
    niques. For a discussion, see Feller et al. (2007).

  12. Lustick (1997).

  13. Feagin (1999).

  14. On conditions that sustain coproduction, see Jasanoff (2004), particu-
    larly pp. 1–12.

  15. McCartney (1970).

  16. Shenhav (1986).

  17. Cole and Cole (1973).

  18. In this, I add to the work of Daryl Chubin, Edward Hackett, and many
    others. See in particular Chubin and Hackett (2003).


262 / Notes to Pages 8–12

Free download pdf