How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment

(nextflipdebug5) #1

  1. In order to protect the participants’ anonymity, I do not specify the
    years. Likewise, I have altered certain identifying details in some respondents’
    answers to interview questions in order to ensure the anonymity of all panel-
    ists and applicants.

  2. This approach contrasts that provided in Weinberg (1963), which nor-
    matively defines criteria (such as social and technical utility) that should be
    used to assess the value of a scientific endeavor.

  3. I did not aim to establish whether respondents’ accounts of their ac-
    tions corresponded to their observed behavior. Instead, I analyzed their repre-
    sentations of their behavior, together with statements about the quality of
    scholarship, as part of their broader construction of excellence. I also consider
    what they told me in the context of the interview a performative action or a
    speech act.

  4. For details see Lamont (1992, appendix 3); and Lamont (2000, intro-
    duction).

  5. This contrast between attitudes and beliefs and meaning is developed
    in White (2007).

  6. Brenneis (1999).

  7. The psychological benefits that are conferred by the awards are empha-
    sized by recipients of the women’s studies dissertation grants who were inter-
    viewed in Kessler-Harris, Swerdlow, and Rovi (1995).

  8. On the role of third parties in the production of status, see Sauder
    (2006).

  9. My unpublished dissertation (written in French) concerned rapid
    shifts in disciplinary prestige across the social sciences and the humanities.
    I also have studied the intellectual and institutional conditions behind the
    success of theories and have compared the role and social position of cul-
    tural specialists, intellectuals, and sociologists in France and the United States
    (Lamont 1987; Lamont and Witten 1989; Lamont and Wuthnow 1990). Re-
    cent coauthored articles have concerned the criteria of excellence at work
    in fellowship competitions in American higher education: I have analyzed
    how prize-winning students define personal and academic excellence—see
    Lamont, Kaufman, and Moody (2000)—and changes in criteria of excel-
    lence used in letters of recommendation written between 1950–1955 and
    1968–1972; see Tsay et al. (2003). These works contribute to my long-term in-
    terest in the study of boundary formation—e.g., Lamont and Molnár (2002);
    Pachucki, Pendergrass, and Lamont (2007); Wimmer and Lamont (2006).

  10. Merton (1972).


Notes to Pages 13–16 / 263
Free download pdf