- On this movement, see Stewart (2003).
- Shapiro, Smith, and Masoud (2004).
- On consensus as an indicator of evaluation and status, see Cole (1992).
- King, Keohane, and Verba (1994).
- See, for instance, http://www.asu.edu/clas/polisci/cqrm/Qualitative
MethodsAPSA.html. - For an illustration, see http://www.asu.edu/clas/polisci/cqrm (accessed
July 8, 2008). - Breslau and Yonay (1999). Nevertheless, the definition of the disciplin-
ary consensus of economics varies across countries. See in particular
Fourcade-Gourinchas (2001) and Fourcade (2009). - Personal communication, February 19, 2007.
- On this process, see Fourcade (2006). The author’s analysis stresses
the universalism of economic knowledge, the rhetoric of quantification, and
mathematical formalism as bases for disciplinary homogenization and con-
sensus building. On divisions within economics, see Breslau in Steinmetz
(2005); on formalism, see Lawson in Steinmetz (2005). - National Opinion Research Center (2006).
- Scott (2001).
- Cole (1992).
- Fish (1980).
- Pragmatic Fairness
- Of these panelists, 97 percent explicitly or implicitly affirmed the integ-
rity of the review process. Only two respondents voiced major reservations.
But 54 percent qualified this positive judgment with minor reservations, per-
taining most frequently to procedural fairness, the intrinsic fallibility of the
process (“we may overlook something”), and epistemological bias. These “mi-
nor objectors” also described problems tied to (in decreasing order) ideologi-
cal fairness, elitism, hesitancy, and lack of quality. Concern for procedural
fairness seemed to occur when unfair results were explained by procedural
failures or domineering personalities. - The Bourdieusian approach to academic discourse shows how seem-
ingly disinterested positions are in fact interested (for example, Bourdieu
- and denounces these hidden interests (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992).
My approach, in contrast, draws on Goffman’s analysis of frames to prob-
Notes to Pages 96–109 / 275