diction. On the negotiation of authority between science and politics, see
Jasanoff (1990).
- The term “universalism” is used differently across literatures. The
functionalist literature in sociology compares cultural orientations cross-
nationally along a number of dimensions of the “universalistic/particular-
istic” pattern variable. A universalistic orientation consists in believing that
“all people shall be treated according to the same criteria (e.g., equality before
the law)” while a particularistic orientation is predicated on the belief that
“individuals shall be treated differently according to their personal qualities
or their particular membership in a class or group” (Lipset 1979, 209). This is
the definition adopted here. - On the notion of elective affinity, see Weber (1978).
- On the importance of context for cognition, see Engel (1999). On
embeddedness, see Granovetter (1985), in which the author argues, against
overly individualistic interpretations, that human beings are embedded in
networks. On the relationship between the production of value and em-
beddedness in the economy, see Uzzi (1999). - On this topic, see Burt (2005) and Cook (2005).
- Guetzkow, Lamont, and Mallard (2004) discusses the types of original-
ity that panelists attribute to their own work and how these tend to overlap
with the types of originality they attribute to other proposals—even as they
remain open to recognizing and valuing other forms of originality. Liking
what resembles oneself is a social phenomenon that sociologists label
“homophily.” The “homophilic principle” states that similarity breeds con-
nection. “Homophily limits people’s social worlds in a way that has powerful
implications for the information they receive, the attitudes they form, and the
interactions they experience”—according to McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and
Cook (2001, 415). See also Kanter (1977). Travis and Collins (1991, 336)
points to a “cognitive particularism” that resonates with the notion of cogni-
tive homophily: cognitive particularism is a form of favoritism based on
shared schools of thought. While the authors suggest that it is more likely to
happen in “interdisciplinary research, frontier science, areas of controversy,
and risky new departure” than in mainstream research, I argue that this kind
of cognitive homophily is endemic to research in general. - Despite the concern over biases related to “political correctness” that
have animated congressional debates about the future of the National Endow-
278 / Notes to Pages 120–131