- Olivier Godechot and Alexandra Louvet, “Le localisme dans le monde
académique: Une autre approche.” April 22, 2008. http://www.laviedesidees
.fr/Le-localisme-dans-le-monde,315.html (accessed July 8, 2008). - Musselin (2005).
- On intersubjectivity, see Bazerman (1988); also Lynch (1993). My anal-
ysis here is influenced by the work of my French collaborators Boltanski and
Thévenot, whose 2006 bookOn Justificationconcerns the intersubjective pro-
duction of agreement. - See Campanario (1998a; 1998b). A broad overview of the pitfalls of
partiality and fallibility is provided by Hojat, Gonnella, and Caelleigh (2003).
Laudel (2006) points to factors such as a country’s level of investment in re-
search funding that affect what can be labeled “of quality.” - Cole and Cole (1981).
- Travis and Collins (1991, 336) points to a “cognitive particularism” that
resonates with the notion of cognitive homophily: cognitive particularism is
a form of favoritism based on shared schools of thought. While they sug-
gest that it is most likely to happen in “interdisciplinary research, frontier sci-
ence, areas of controversy, and risky new departures” than in mainstream
research, I argue that this kind of cognitive homophily is endemic to research
in general. - Habermas (1984).
- Stout (2004); Chambers (1996); Mansbridge (1983).
- Hastie (2001).
- Bourdieu (1984).
- On achieving a compromise between conflicting norms, consult
the work of Boltanksi and Thévenot (2006). For a detailed discussion of the
similarities and differences between my approach and theirs, see Lamont
(2008). - While for Lévi-Strauss rules are unconscious, and while for Bourdieu
they are strategic codes used by actors, I describe rules that are pragmatically
created by actors as they participate in a given situation. See Lévi-Strauss
(1983); Bourdieu (1977). - Chambliss (1988); Stevens (2007); Espeland and Sauder (2007); Baumann
(2007); Frickel and Gross (2005). - This theory should build on the work of Boltanski and Thévenot, and
that of Bourdieu, but also borrow from recent developments in economic so-
ciology, organizational sociology, and cultural sociology in the United States.
Notes to Pages 245–249 / 287