How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment

(nextflipdebug5) #1

  1. On customary rules, see Burbank (2004). On how academics learn to
    do their job, see Walker et al. (2008). On the accomplishment of research
    training, see Gumport (2000b).

  2. In contrast, see Musselin (1996) on the recruitment of colleagues in
    French academia. See also Fournier, Gingras, and Mathurin (1988) for an
    analysis of tenure promotion.

  3. Rational-legal legitimacy is grounded in the “legitimacy of enacted
    rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue
    commands” (Weber 1978, 215).

  4. In other words, I asked respondents to perform “boundary work” in
    the context of the interview. This technique is useful for revealing not only the
    taken-for-granted categories with which interviewees operate, but also how
    they understand similarities and differences among respondents, as well as
    differences in the subjective criteria of evaluation they use. For other applica-
    tions of this technique, see Lamont (1992; 2000).

  5. On “presentation of self,” see Goffman (1990).

  6. Wilson (1942) and Lewis (1998).

  7. On the role of morality and emotion in the functioning of peer re-
    view, and how they have been ignored in the literature in favor of cognitive
    factors, see Guetzkow, Lamont, and Mallard (2004) and Mallard, Lamont, and
    Guetzkow (2007).

  8. On “ideal speech situation,” see Habermas (1982). See also Habermas
    (1984). Some political theorists have suggested that certain principles should
    guide democratic deliberation and determine the criteria by which it should
    be judged. Those who advance general conditions for democratic deliberation
    identify reciprocity (mutual respect), publicity (as opposed to secrecy), and
    accountability as important. They suggest that participants should be free,
    have an “equal voice,” be rational (as opposed to emotional), and that deliber-
    ation be consensual and focused on the common good. See Gutmann and
    Thompson (1996); also Cohen (1989).

  9. On this topic, see also Stark (2007).

  10. There is a large literature on cultural authority and on how scientists
    go about establishing their expertise. See, for instance, Shapin and Schaeffer
    (1985), which focuses on the alternative cultural universes of Hobbes and
    Boyles and the collective accomplishment of science. See also Abbott (1988)
    on how occupational groups lay claims to legitimate knowledge and juris-


Notes to Pages 111–117 / 277
Free download pdf