How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment

(nextflipdebug5) #1

  1. Engel (1999).

  2. For a preliminary analysis of the differences between disciplinary and
    multidisciplinary panels, see Lamont and Huutoniemi (2007).


5 Recognizing Various Kinds of Excellence



  1. Readings (1996, chapter 2).

  2. The concept of intellectual habitus is borrowed from Bourdieu, who
    studied theoretical culture as habitus, that is, as a set of structured disposi-
    tions. On the notion of intellectual habitus, see Brubaker (1993).

  3. Jencks and Reisman (1977, 18–19).

  4. Goffman (1981, 171) uses the concept of script to make sense of the
    conventional ordering of social interaction and the definition and mainte-
    nance of social worlds.

  5. On the weighting of criteria, see, for instance, Langfeldt (2001), which
    notes that in the social sciences and the humanities, the greatest weight is put
    on the project description.

  6. Following Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt, I define bullshit as
    “a lack of connection to a concern with truth—an indifference to how things
    really are.” See Frankfurt (2005, 30).

  7. Sixteen panelists cited the letters as important to their decision making;
    the remainder did not express an opinion.

  8. On bandwagons in science, see Fujimura (1988).

  9. I do not alter the identity of the academics whom panelists say they ad-
    mire or trust because this information is not prejudicial to the named schol-
    ars, and because the real names help readers understand why these academics
    are respected.

  10. To the extent that male students benefit from longer and more detailed
    letters of recommendation, they are likely to be advantaged by these same
    evaluators. Frances Trix and Carolyn Psenka identified these gender schemas
    in their analysis of 300 letters of recommendation for faculty at a large Ameri-
    can medical school in the mid-1990s—see Trix and Psenka (2003).

  11. Whereas Goffman (1990) and Garfinkel (1967) present signaling and
    the establishment of trust as a collective achievement, more recent literature
    on signaling draws on a rational choice perspective to consider how to reduce
    vulnerability. See, for instance, Gambetta and Hamill (2005).

  12. Merton (1968).


280 / Notes to Pages 157–165

Free download pdf