t this kind of cognitive homophily is endemic to research in general. 23. 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 ment for the Humanities and other funding agencies, this comment is one of the very few examples across all of my interviews that could be interpreted as explicitly reflecting an “identity politics” bias. 24. On subjectivity and connoisseurship, see Daston and Galison (2007). 25. This is not unlike the logicians described by Claude Rosental in his so- ciology of taste in logic. See Rosental (2008). 26. Smith (1990b); Marcus and Fischer (1986). See Mallard, Lamont, and Guetzkow (2009) on the association between disciplines and epistemological styles, including the constructivist style. 27. See the influential work of Dorothy Smith, especially Smith (1990a). 28. See Mallard, Lamont, and Guetzkow (2009). 29. On what diversity brings to collective decision making, see Page (2007). 30. In Durkheimian terms, the panelists are engaged in rituals that are es- sential for the production of the sacred. 31. Contra Bourdieu, scarcity introduces important variations in the de- gree to which disinterested behavior is interested. 32. Focusing on the breaking of rules as a means to reveal the taken-for- granted nature of the social order is one of ethnomethodology’s main contri- butions to the sociological tradition. See Garfinkel (1967). 33. For a detailed description of these panels, see Mallard, Lamont, and Guetzkow (2009). 34. See Mallard, Lamont, and Guetzkow (2007) for an illustration of com- peting claims of expertise. 35. Lakatos (1974). 36. On anti-racist strategies developed by elite African Americans, which may also apply to black academics, see Lamont and Fleming (2005). 37. On priming, see Bargh (2006). 38. See Gruenfeld, Martorana, and Fan (2000) on the psychology of power. 39. For a summary of expectation state theory, see Webster (2003); also Berger, Wagner, and Zelditch (1985). 40. Ibid. 41. Common referents and jokes are part of the development of an idio- culture, as described in Gary Alan Fine’s (1979) article on the development of group culture in Little League baseball. 42. See Tilly (2006). 43. Collins (2004). Notes to Pages 131–156 / 279 44. Engel (1999). 45. 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 13. Merton (1973, 293). 14. Latour (1987). 15. Guetzkow, Lamont, and Mallard (2004). 16. Mallard, Lamont, and Guetzkow (2007). 17. Levinson (2002). 18. A British panelist was pleased that social significance did not figure prominently among the criteria that she was asked to consider. In her words, she was “kind of relieved that it wasn’t like so many of the British [competi- tions], with a [focus] on what kind of value for money, social usefulness, so- cial significance, significance to the development of the country, etc. I thought they’d escaped all of those really, really well.” In the United Kingdom, since the beginning of the 1980s, scholars have been required to consider the social utility of research. A large cross-disciplinary survey of research performance across disciplines guides the allocation of resources for all university research, in an effort to increase the influence and social relevance of research projects (Lamont and Mallard 2005). Cambridge anthropologist Marilyn Strathern has remarked that the diffusion of an audit culture in the academic world is difficult to criticize insofar as it promotes values of openness, transparency, and democracy, but she also notes that the government’s evaluative work re- sults in greater standardization and normalization of research practices: au- dits and performance assessment posit commensuration, i.e., the need to compare different units by using a single standard. Thus, an audit culture has a direct effect on the range and diversity of research being conducted. See Strathern (2000). On a similar point, see Espeland and Sauder (2007). 19. Lamont (1989); Lamont and Wuthnow (1990); Cusset (2003). 20. Bourdieu (1988). 21. For standards of empirical rigor as they apply to qualitative research, see National Science Foundation (2004). See also the 2008 National Science Foundation report on shared standards across the social sciences, docu- mented in Lamont and White (2008). 22. Camic and Gross (1998). 23. Gerhard Sonnert’s 1995 quantitative study of the criteria by which American biologists evaluate the quality of their peers’ overall scientific con- tribution shows as the most powerful predictor annual publication produc- tivity rate (which explains 40 percent of the variance). This factor, the exis- tence of solo-authored publications, and graduate school prestige explain 59 percent of the variance in quality rating. Notes to Pages 171–187 / 281 24. Geertz (1973). 25. Lamont and Lareau (1988). 26. This pattern is hardly surprising. Stephen Jay Gould pointed out that “humanists rightly stress the virtues and felicities of stylistic writing,” while “scientists tend to assert that although brevity and clarity should certainly be fostered, verbal style plays no role in the study of material reality.” See Gould (2003). Similarly, in Homo Academicus, Pierre Bourdieu compared the relative cultural capital of various disciplines and described the humanities as “ca- nonical” disciplines, and ones where familiarity with elite culture is particu- larly important. See Bourdieu (1988, 176, 255–256, 339). 27. At the same time, this philosopher acknowledges that in his discipline, elegance “goes with manner, appearance, superficiality. It’s a way both of ad- miring and of putting someone down.” 28. Bourdieu (1988). 29. On this point, see Bourdieu (1984). 30. Recent work has documented more refined domains of classism, such as interpersonal classism via separation, devaluation, discounting, and exclu- sion, as well as institutionalized classism and stereotype citation. Regina Day Langhout, Francine Rosselli, and Jonathan Feinstein found that 43 to 80 per- cent of the working-class college students they surveyed had experienced at least one form of classism. See Langhout, Rosselli, and Feinstein (2007). 31. As a group, the respondents do not seem so much to view working- class student applicants as less accomplished as they seem unaware that sig- nals of brilliance often resemble signals of upper-middle-class upbringing, or of having grown up in an academic household. On working-class students, see Granfield (1991); also Stuber (2006). These class dynamics have not been studied for graduate student populations. Autobiographical essays of work- ing-class academics, however, provide numerous examples of instances where an uneasy cultural fit leads to lower academic evaluation. See Dews and Law (1995); also http://www.workingclassacademics.org. 32. Davis (1971). 33. This is in line with Daston and Galison (2007). 34. Latour (1987; 1988). 35. On the closing of controversies, see Epstein (1996). Also Martin and Richards (1995). 36. Guetzkow, Lamont, and Mallard (2004). 282 / Notes to Pages 191–195 6. Considering Interdisciplinarity and Diversity 1. The SSRC competition aims to promote “work that is relevant to a par- ticular discipline while resonating across other fields”; the Society of Fellows is committed to “innovative interdisciplinary approaches”; and the Women’s Studies fellowship competition encourages “original and significant research about women across disciplinary, regional, and cultural boundaries.” The ACLS’s website simply states that “interdisciplinary proposals [for the fellow- ship competition] are welcome”; the anonymous social science foundation makes no mention of interdisciplinarity. 2. Walzer (1983). 3. Boltanski and Thévenot (2006); also Lamont and Thévenot (2000). 4. Dubet (2006). 5. The first reported mention of the term “interdisciplinarity” occurred in 1929. See Balsiger (2004). 6. This definition is proposed in Fuller (1988), which builds on Bechtel (1986). 7. See Brainard (2002). For data on the multiplication of publications on interdisciplinarity, see Jacobs (forthcoming-a). 8. On the absence of widely agreed-on criteria to ensure quality control in interdisciplinary research (as opposed to disciplinary research), see Klein (2003; 2005); Mansilla and Gardner (2004); and Weingart (2000). 9. Porter and Rossini (1985, 33). 10. See in particular the special issue of Research Evaluation (Spring 2006) edited by Grit Laudel and Gloria Origgi. See also the workshop “Quality As- sessment in Interdisciplinary Research and Education” (2006), organized by Veronica Boix Mansilla, Irwin Feller, and Howard Gardner, at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., February 8, 2006. 11. Boix Mansilla (2006). 12. Dialogic work carries on a continual dialogue with other works of liter- ature and other authors; see Bakhtin (1981). 13. Klein (1996). In contrast, an alternative approach argues that three distinctive logics guide interdisciplinary research: accountability, innovation, and ontology. See Barry, Born, and Weszkalnys (2008); also Rhoten (2003). 14. This point is also made by Langfeldt (2006). Notes to Pages 203–208 / 283 15. Veronica Mansilla and Howard Gardner point out other difficulties in assessing interdisciplinary work: variety of criteria, lack of conceptual clarity, and the challenge of developing germane criteria from the subject matter it- self as the inquiry proceeds (evaluators often tend to rely on disciplinary proxy criteria instead). Their study—Mansilla and Gardner (2004)—is based on sixty interviews with researchers working at interdisciplinary institutes. 16. Mallard, Lamont, and Guetzkow (2009). 17. Lamont, Boix Mansilla, and Huutoniemi (2007). 18. In the case of African-American faculty, for instance, Walter Allen and his colleagues show “serious, persistent obstacles to their recruitment, reten- tion, and success”; see Allen et al. (2000, 112). See also Jacobs (forthcoming-b) and Perna (2001). 19. On the improving situation in academia, see, for instance, Smith and Moreno (2006). Differences in salary and promotion by gender are less pro- nounced in the humanities than in other disciplines due to the increased pro- portion of female humanities faculty. Both men and women in the humani- ties, however, earn on average less than academics in the hard sciences; see Ginther and Hayes (2003). On problems affecting the presence of women in the academic pipeline, see especially National Academy of Sciences (2006). 20. See http://www.acls.org/fel-comp.htm (accessed November 1, 2006). 21. See the WWNFF website at http://www.woodrow.org/diversity.php. 22. In this approach, the panelists’ views are congruent with the Univer- sity of Michigan Law School admissions policy that led to Grutter v. Bollinger (litigation that itself built on the 1978 case of the Rege nts of the University of California v. Bakke ). This policy aspired to “achieve that diversity which has the potential to enrich everyone’s education and thus make a law school class stronger than the sum of its parts” (118). This policy does not restrict the types of diversity contributions that are eligible for “substantial weight” in the admissions process, but instead recognizes “many possible bases for di- versity admissions” (118, 120). The policy does, however, reaffirm the law school’s longstanding commitment to “one particular type of diversity,” that is, “racial and ethnic diversity with special reference to the inclusion of students from groups which have been historically discriminated against, like African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans, who without this com- mitment might not be represented in our student body in meaningful num- bers” (120). Thus, the policy does not define diversity “solely in terms of racial and ethnic status” (121). See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003); http:// 284 / Notes to Pages 209–213 www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions. This argument has been made repeat- edly, including by former Harvard President Neil Rudenstine; see Rudenstine (2001). 23. In research for their 2001 paper “Diversity Rhetoric and Mana- gerialization of Law,” Lauren B. Edelman, Sally Riggs Fuller, and Iona Mara- Drita used a content analysis of nineteen professional managerial journals to study the meanings of diversity in the managerial models adopted by a wide range of organizations. They show that the meaning of diversity has expanded to embrace categories beyond those which are protected legally. Corporate di- versity rhetoric has shifted away from the notion of righting historical wrongs (a conception embedded in such legislation as the Civil Rights Act) to a new emphasis on efficiency and productivity. Regarding the timing of this change and the consequences of Reagan’s cutbacks, see Kelly and Dobbin (1998; 2001). 24. Guinier and Sturm (2001). 25. Glazer (1976). For a critique of the argument that affirmation action is discrimination, see Dobbin (2009). Glazer’s argument posits that the hiring and promotion system in corporations is based on proven excellence, ability, and school performance. In fact, hiring and promotion was completely infor- mal prior to the 1970s for most managerial positions, and almost all firms rel- egated women and minorities to the worst jobs. 26. On the generally progressive outlook of academics in the social sci- ences and humanities, see Gross and Simmons (2006). 27. See, for instance, Castilla (2006). 28. Wenneras and Wold (1997). 29. Ridgeway (1997). 30. Perna (2001); Joan Williams (2004). 31. Lamont (2004a; 2000, 321). 32. Reskin (2000, 321); Fiske (1998, 364). 33. Bourdieu and Passeron (1990). 34. Fels (2004). 35. Joan Williams (2004). 36. Clemens et al. (1995). 37. Mallard, Lamont, and Guetzkow (2009). 38. Sonnert (1995; 2002). This type of indirect bias would apply to the pure sciences at large, given that definitions of what constitutes “good sci- ence” seem to vary significantly between male and female scientists. Notes to Pages 214–224 / 285 39. Trix and Psenka (2003). 40. For more on the Matthew effect, see Merton (1968; 1988). 41. Walzer (1983). 42. For a sociology-based elaboration of this argument about the gendered character of social life, see Ferree, Khan, and Morimoto (2007). 43. Ladd and Lipset (1975); Gross and Simmons (2006). 44. Gumport (2002); Messer-Davidow (2002). One example of the influ- ence on sociology of the development of women’s studies is that today the section on sex and gender, with more than one thousand members, is one of the three largest sections within the American Sociological Association (along with those pertaining to medical sociology and cultural sociology). See http:// www.asanet.org. 45. Smith (1990a). 46. Hall (1990). On women’s studies, see Bird (2001). On African-Ameri- can studies and its fragile status, see the essays assembled in Gordon and Gordon (2006). 47. On the territorialism of various disciplines, see Abbott (1988); on the work of different groups to achieve equal standing in American culture and academia, see Skrentny (2002). 48. Brint (2002); Kirp (2003). 49. Lamont and Mallard (2005). 50. See also the notion of “diversity imperative” proposed in Roksa and Stevens (2007). 7. Implications in the United States and Abroad 1. This is much in line with the concept of truth in James (1911). 2. MacKenzie and Millo (2003); also Dobbin (1994). 3. See, e.g., Shapin (1994) and Daston and Galison (2007). 4. On the Bologna process, see Ravinet (2007). 5. A description of the Bologna Process is on the European Union’s website Europa; see http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bo- logna_en.html. 6. See, for instance, the European Union’s website Europa at http:// ec.europa.eu/education/index_en.html. 7. See Lamont and Mallard (2005). 8. Bourdieu (1988). 286 / Notes to Pages 224–244 9. 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). 10. Musselin (2005). 11. 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 book On Justification concerns the intersubjective pro- duction of agreement. 12. 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.” 13. Cole and Cole (1981). 14. 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. 15. Habermas (1984). 16. Stout (2004); Chambers (1996); Mansbridge (1983). 17. Hastie (2001). 18. Bourdieu (1984). 19. 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). 20. 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). 21. Chambliss (1988); Stevens (2007); Espeland and Sauder (2007); Baumann (2007); Frickel and Gross (2005). 22. 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 23. See Lamont and Zuckerman (in preparation). 24. See, for instance, Gaztambide-Fernandez (2009). Appendix 1. Klein (1996). 2. Bender (1998). 3. Weiss (1994). On my approach to conducting interviews, see Lamont (2004b). 4. Guetzkow, Lamont, and Mallard (2004). 5. Miles and Huberman (1994). 6. On Atlas.ti, see Kelle, Prein, and Beird (1995). 7. Lamont and Huutoniemi (2007). 288 / Notes to Pages 249–257 References Abbott, Andrew D. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Abend, Gabriel. 2006. “Styles of Sociological Thought: Sociologies, Epistemologies, and the Mexican and U.S. Quests for Truth.” Sociological Theory 24 (1): 1–41. Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1995. Fin-de-siècle Social Theory: Relativism, Reduction, and the Problem of Reason. London: Verso. Allen, Walter R., Edgar G. Epps, Elizabeth A. Guillory, Susan A. Suh, and Marguerite Bonous-Hammarth. 2000. “The Black Academic: Faculty Status among African Americans in U.S. Higher Education.” Journal of Negro Education 69 (1–2): 112–127. American Council of Learned Societies. N.d. “A.C.L.S. Fellowship Program Peer Review Process.” Report prepared for the American Council of Learned Societies, New York. Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash. 2007. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Ad- vance Access. November 13. Armstrong, J. Scott. 1999. “Forecasting for Environmental Decision-Making.” 289 Pp. 192–225 in Tools to Aid Environmental Decision Making, ed. Virginia H. Dale and Mary R. English. New York: Springer-Verlag. Asad, Talal, ed. 1973. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca Press. Bail, Christopher. 2008. “Diverse Diversities: Symbolic Boundaries against Immigrants in Twenty-one European Countries.” American Sociological Review 73 (1): 37–59. Bakanic, Von, Clark McPhail, and Rita J. Simon. 1987. “The Manuscript Re- view and Decision-Making Process.” American Sociological Review 52 (5):631–642. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. Balsiger, Philip W. 2004. “Supradisciplinary Research Practices: History, Ob- jectives and Rationale.” Futures 36: 407–421. Bargh, John A. 2006. “What Have We Been Priming All These Years? On the Development, Mechanisms, and Ecology of Nonconscious Social Behav- ior.” European Journal of Social Psychology 36 (2): 147–168. Barry, Andrew, Georgia Born, and Gisa Weszkalnys. 2008. “Logics of Interdisciplinarity.” Economy and Society 37 (1): 20–49. Baumann, Shyon. 2007. “A General Theory of Artistic Legitimation: How Art Worlds Are Like Social Movements.” Poetics: Journal of Empirical Re- search on Literature, Media, and the Arts 35:47–65. Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Wr itten Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intel- lectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Philadelphia: Society for Research into Higher Education. Bechtel, William, ed. 1986. Integrating Scie ntific Disciplines. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Becker, Howard. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bell, Robert. 1992. Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise, and Political Influence in Scient ific Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ben-David, Joseph. 1991. Scientific Growth: Essays on the Social Org anization and Ethos of Science. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bénatouïl, Thomas. 1999. “A Tale of Two Sociologies: The Critical and the Pragmatic Stance in Contemporary French Sociology.” European Journal of Social Theory 2 (3): 379–396. 290 / References Bender, Thomas. 1998. “Politics, Intellect, and the American University, 1945–1995.” Pp. 17–54 in American Academic Culture in Transformation: Fifty Years, Four Disciplines , ed. Thomas Bender and Carl E. Schorske. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bender, Thomas, and Carl E. Schorske, eds. 1998. American Academic Culture in Transformation: Fifty Years, Four Disciplines . Princeton: Princeton University Press. Berger, Joseph, David G. Wagner, and Morris Zelditch Jr. 1985. “Expectation States Theory: Review and Assessment.” Pp. 1–72 in Status, Rewards, and Influence, ed. Joseph Berger and Morris Zelditch Jr. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Berger, Joseph, Murray Webster Jr., Cecilia Ridgeway, and Susan J. Rosenholtz. 1993. “Status Cues, Expectations, and Behavior.” Pp. 1–22 in Social Psychology of Groups: A Reader, ed. Edward J. Lawler and Barry Markovsky. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press. Bezes, Philippe, and Pierre Lascoumes. 2006. “Percevoir et juger la ‘corrup- tion politique’ Enjeux et usages des enquêtes sur représentations des atteintes à la probité publique.” Manuscript from Centre de Sociologie des Organisations: Fondation nationale de Sciences Politique, Paris. Bird, Elizabeth. 2001. “Disciplining the Interdisciplinary: Radicalism and the Academic Curriculum.” British Journal of Sociology and Education 22 (4): 463–478. Boix Mansilla, Veronica. 2006. “Assessing Expert Interdisciplinary Work at the Frontier: An Empirical Exploration.” Research Evaluation 15 (1): 17–31. Boix Mansilla, Veronica, Irwin Feller, and Howard Gardner. 2006. “Proceed- ings from Workshop on ‘Quality Assessment in Interdisciplinary Re- search and Education.’” Submitted February 8 to the American Associa- tion for the Advancement of Science. Boix Mansilla, Veronica, and Howard Gardner. 2004. “Assessing Interdisci- plinary Work at the Frontier: An Empirical Exploration of Scientific Quality.” Cambridge: Interdisciplinary Studies Project, Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education. http://www.interdisciplines.org/ interdisciplinarity/papers/6 (accessed February 26, 2004). Boltanski, Luc. 2007a. “La domination revisitée: De la sociologie française critique des années 1970 à la sociologie contemporain.” Unpublished manuscript. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales. ———. 2007b. “L’inquiètude sur ce qui est: Pratique, confirmation, et cri- References / 291 tique comme modalités du traitement social de l’incertitude.” Anthropologie et pragmatique. Papier preparé pour la journeée d’études du Laboratoire d’anthropologie sociale. Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thévenot. 1991. De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur. Paris: Gallimard. ———. 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth. Trans. Catherine Porter. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bornmann, Lutz, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2005. “Selection of Research Fel- lowship Recipients by Committee Peer Review: Reliability, Fairness, and Predictive Validity of Board of Trustees’ Decisions.” Scientometrics 63 (2): 297–320. Borofsky, Robert. 1994. Assessing Cultural Anthropology. New York: McGraw- Hill. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. Richard Nice. New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1984. Distinction: A Sociology of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———. 1988. Homo Academicus. Trans. Peter Collier. Cambridge, Eng.: Pol- ity Press. ———. 1996. The State Nobility. Trans. Lauretta C. Clough. Stanford: Stan- ford University Press. ———. 1997. “Marginalia—Some Additional Notes on the Gift.” Pp. 231– 241 in The Logic of the Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity, ed. A. D. Schrift. New York: Routledge. Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Chamboredon, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1968. Le Métier de Sociologue. Paris: EHESS Editions. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Monique de St. Martin. 1975. “Les catégories de l’entendement professoral.” Actes de la recherche en science s ociales 1 (3): 63–93. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1990. Reproduction in Educa- tion, Society, and Culture. Trans. Richard Nice. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc Wacquant. 1992. Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brainard, Jeffrey. 2002. “U.S. Agencies Look to Interdisciplinary Science.” Chronicle of Higher Education 48 (40): A20–22. Braxton, John M., and Lowell L. Hargens. 1996. “Variation among Academic Disciplines: Analytical Frameworks and Research.” Pp. 1–46 in Higher 292 / References Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, ed. John C. Smart. New York: Agathon. Brenneis, Donald. 1994. “Discourse and Discipline at the National Research Council: A Bureaucratic Bildungsroman. ” Cultural Anthropology 9 (1): 23–36. ———. 1999. “New Lexicon, Old Language: Negotiating the ‘Global’ at the National Science Foundation.” Pp. 123–146 in Critical Anthropology Now, ed. George Marcus. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Breslau, Daniel, and Yuval Yonay. 1999. “Beyond Metaphors: Mathematical Models in Economics as Empirical Research.” Science in Context 12 (2): 317–332. Breviglieri, Marc, Claudette Lafaye, and Daniel Trom, eds. 2005. Sens de la critique, sens de la justice. Paris: La Découverte. Brint, Steven. 2002. The Future of the City of Intellect: The Changing American University. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Brint, Steven, and Jerome Karabel. 1989. “American Education, Meritocratic Ideology, and the Legitimation of Inequality: The Community College and the Problem of American Exceptionalism.” Higher Education 18 (6): 725–735. Brubaker, Rogers. 1993. “Social Theory as Habitus.” Pp. 212–234 in Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, ed. Craig J. Calhoun, Edward LiPuma, and Moishe Postone. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bryson, Bethany Paige. 2005. Making Multiculturalism: Boundaries and Meaning in U.S . English Depart ments. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Burbank, Jane. 2004. Russian Peasants Go to Court: Legal Culture in the Coun- tryside, 1905–1917. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Burke, Peter. 2004. What Is Cultural History? Malden, Mass.: Polity Press. Burt, Ronald S. 2005. Brokerage and Closure: In troduction to Social Capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Callon, Michel. 1994. “Is Science a Public Good?” Science, Technology, and Human Values 4 (19): 395–424. ———. 1998. The Laws of the Markets. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yan Barthe. 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain: Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Seuil. Camic, Charles, and Neil Gross. 1998. “Contemporary Developments in So- ciological Theory: Current Projects and Conditions of Possibility.” An - nual Review of Sociology 24:453–476. References / 293 Camic, Charles, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont. In preparation. Knowledge Making, Use, and Evaluation in the Social Sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Campanario, Juan Miguel. 1998a. “Peer Review of Journals as It Stands To- day: Part 1.” Science Communication 19 (3): 181–211. ———. 1998b. “Peer Review of Journals as It Stands Today: Part 2.” Science Communication 19 (4): 277–306. Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, eds. 2002. Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Carruthers, Bruce G., and Barry Cohen. 2008. “The Mechanization of Trust: Credit Rating in Nineteenth-Century America.” Chicago: Department of Sociology, Northwestern University. Castilla, Emilio. 2006. Gender, Race, and Meritocracy in Organizational Ca- reers. Cambridge: Department of Organizational Behavior, Massachu- setts Institute of Technology. Chambers, Simone. 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Chambliss, Daniel F. 1988. Champions: The Making of Olympic Swimmers. New York: William Morrow. Chubin, Daryl E., and Edward J. Hackett. 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S . Science Policy. Albany: State University of New York Press. ———. 2003. “Peer Review of the Twenty-first Century: Applications to Ed- ucation Research.” Report prepared for the National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Cicourel, Aaron. 1974. Cognitive Sociology. New York: Free Press. Clarke, Adele. 1990. “A Social Worlds Research Adventure: The Case of Re- productive Science.” Pp. 15–42 in Theories of Science in Society, ed. S. Cozzens and Thomas Gieryn. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Clarke, Adele, and Elihu Gerson. 1990. “Symbolic Interactionism in Social Studies of Science.” Pp. 179–214 in Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies, ed. Howard Becker and Michael McCall. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clemens, Elisabeth S., Walter W. Powell, Kris McIlwaine, and Dina Okamoto. 1995. “Careers in Print: Books, Journals, and Scholarly Reputations.” American Journal of Sociology 101 (2): 433–494. Clifford, James, and George Marcus, eds. 1986. Writing Culture: The Politics and Poetics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohen, Joshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” Pp. 17–34 294 / References in The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, ed. Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Cohen, Michael D., James J. March, and Johan P. Olsen. 1972. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1): 1–25. Cole, Jonathan, and Stephen Cole. 1973. Social Stratification in Science. Chi - cago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1981. Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase Two of a Study. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Cole, Stephen. 1978. “Scientific Reward Systems: A Comparative Analysis.” Pp. 167–190 in Research in the Sociology of Knowledge, Science and Art, ed. Robert A. Jones. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI. ———. 1992. Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Cambridge: Har- vard University Press. Cole, Stephen, Jonathan Cole, and Gary Simon. 1981. “Chance and Consen- sus in Peer Review.” Science 214:881–886. Cole, Stephen, Leonard Rubin, and Jonathan Cole. 1978. Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase One of a Study. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Collins, Harry M., and Robert Evans. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296. ———. 2007. Rethinking Expe rtise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Collins, Randall. 1994. “Why the Social Sciences Won’t Become High-Con- sensus, Rapid-Discovery Science.” Sociological Forum 9 (2): 155–177. ———. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ———. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Cook, Karen S. 2005. “Network, Norms, and Trust: The Social Psychology of Social Capital.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 4–14. Crane, Diane. 1976. “Reward Systems in Art, Science and Religion.” American Behavioral Scie ntist 19 (6): 719–735. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discov- ery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial. Cusset, François. 2003. French Theory: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, and Cie et les mutations de la vie intellectuelle aux Etats-Unis. Paris: Découverte. References / 295 D’Arms, John. 1998. “Press Conference Announcing Major Foundation Grants.” New York: American Council of Learned Societies. February 5. Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison. 2007. Objectivity. Cambridge: Zone Books. Davis, Murray. 1971. “That’s Interesting! Toward a Phenomenology of Soci- ology and a Sociology of Phenomenology.” Philosophy of the Social Sci- ences 1:309–344. Debray, Regis. 1979. Le pouvoir intellectual en France. Paris: Ramsay. DeVault, Marjorie L. 1999. Liberating Methods: Feminism and Social Research. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Dewey, John. 1985. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications. (Orig. pub. 1933.) Dews, C. L. Barney, and Carolyn Leste Law. 1995. This Fine Place So Far from Home: Voices of Academics from the Wor king Class. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. DiMaggio, Paul. 1997. “Culture and Cognition.” Annual Review of Sociology 23:263–287. Dobbin, Frank. 1994. Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the Railway Age. New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2009. Inventing Equal Opportunity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Dubet, François. 2005. “Propositions pour une syntaxe des sentiments de justice dans l’experience du travail.” Revue française de sociologie 46 (3): 495–528. ———. 2006. Injustices: L’experie nces des inegalites au travail. Paris: Seuil. Duell, Jason. 2000. “Assessing the Literary: Intellectual Boundaries in French and American Literary Studies.” Pp. 94–126 in Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States, ed. Michèle Lamont and Laurent Thevenot. New York: Cam- bridge University Press. Durkheim, Emile. 1965. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press. Edelman, Lauren B., Sally Riggs Fuller, and Iona Mara-Drita. 2001. “Diversity Rhetoric and the Managerialization of Law.” American Journal of Sociol- ogy 106 (6): 1589–1641. Eisenhart, Margaret. 2002. “The Paradox of Peer Review: Admitting Too Much or Allowing Too Little?” Research in Science Education 32 (2): 241–255. 296 / References Eliasoph, Nina, and Paul Lichterman. 2003. “Culture in Interaction.” Ameri - can Journal of Sociology 108 (4): 735–794. Engel, Susan. 1999. Context Is Everything: The Nature of Memory. New York: W. H. Freeman. Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ericsson, Karl A. 1996. “The Acquisition of Expert Performance: An Intro- duction to Some of the Issues.” Pp. 1–50 in The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games, ed. Karl A. Ericsson. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Erskine, William, and Roberta Spalter-Roth. 2006. “Profile of 2005 ASA Membership: Who Joined, Who Moved to the Top, and Who Is in What Subfield?” Report prepared for the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C. Espeland, Wendy N., and Michael Sauder. 2007. “Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds.” American Journal of Soci- ology 113 (1): 1–14. Espeland, Wendy N., and Mitchell L. Stevens. 1998. “Commensuration as a Social Process.” Annual Review of Sociology 24:313–343. Feagin, Joseph. 1999. “Soul-Searching in Sociology: Is the Discipline in Cri- sis?” Chronicle of Higher Education 46 (8): B4. Feller, Irwin, Paul C. Stern, the National Research Council, and the Commit- tee on Assessing Behavioral and Social Science Research on Aging. 2007. “A Strategy for Assessing Science: Behavioral and Social Research on Aging.” Report prepared for the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Fels, Anna. 2004. Necessary Dreams: Ambition in Wome n’s Changing Lives. New York: Pantheon Books. Ferree, Myra M., Shamus Khan, and Shauna Morimoto. 2007. “Assessing the Feminist Revolution: The Presence and Absence of Gender in Theory and Practice.” Pp. 438–479 in Soc iology in America: A History, ed. Craig Calhoun. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fine, Gary A. 1979. “Small Groups and Culture Creation.” American Sociolog- ical Review 44:733–745. Fish, Stanley. 1980. “How to Recognize a Poem When You See One.” Pp. 322– 337 in Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Commu- nities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fiske, Susan T. 1998. “Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination.” Pp. 357– References / 297 411 in Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey. New York: McGraw-Hill. ———. 2002. “What We Know about Bias and Intergroup Conflict, the Problem of the Century.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 11:123–128. Fleck, Lidwik. 1979. Genesis and De velopment of a Scientific Fact. Trans. Fred Bradley and Thaddeus Trenn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Orig. pub. 1935.) Fourcade-Gourinchas, Marion. 2001. “Politics, Institutional Structures, and the Rise of Economics: A Comparative Study.” Theory and Society 30:397–447. Fourcade, Marion. 2006. “The Construction of a Global Profession: The Transnationalization of Economics.” American Journal of Sociology 112 (1): 145–194. ———. 2009. Economists and Societies: Discipline and Profession in the United States, Great Britain and France. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fournier, Marcel, Yves Gingras, and Creutzer Mathurin. 1988. “L’evaluation par les pairs et la definition legitime de la recherche.” Actes de la Recher- che en Sciences Sociales 74:47–54. Frank, David John, Evan Schofer, and John Charles Torres. 1994. “Rethinking History: Change in the University Curriculum, 1910–90.” Sociology of Education 67 (4): 231–242. Frankfurt, Harry G. 2005. On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Frickel, Scott, and Neil Gross. 2005. “A General Theory of Scientific/Intellec- tual Movements.” American Sociological Review 70 (2): 204–232. Fuchs, Stephen, and Jonathan H. Turner. 1986. “What Makes a Science ‘Ma- ture’: Patterns of Organizational Control in Scientific Production.” So- ciological Theory 4 (2): 143–150. Fujimura, Joan H. 1988. “The Molecular Bandwagon in Cancer Research: Where Social Worlds Meet.” Social Problems 35 (3): 261–283. Fuller, Steve. 1988. Social Epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Galison, Peter L. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Galison, Peter L., and David J. Stump, eds. 1996. The Disunity of Sciences. Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 298 / References Gambetta, Diego, and Heather Hamill. 2005. Streetwise: How Taxi Drivers Es- tablish Their Customers’ Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage. Gardner, Howard. 1999. Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the Twenty-first Century. New York: Basic Books. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Gaztambide-Fernandez, Ruben. 2009. Lives of Distinction: Ideology, Space, and Ritual in Processes of Identification at an Elite B oarding School. Cam - bridge: Harvard University Press. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. ———. 1985. “Waddling In.” Times Literary Supplement, June 5. General Accounting Office. 1994. “Peer Review Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection: Report to the Chairman, Committee on Governmental Activities, U.S. Senate.” Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. Gerson, Elihu. 1983. “Scientific Work and Social Worlds.” Know ledge 4:357– 377. Gieryn, Thomas. 1983. “Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48:781–795. ———. 1994. “Boundaries of Science.” Pp. 393–443 in Handbook of Sc ience, Technology, and Society, ed. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald Markle, James Petersen, and Trevor Pinch. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. ———. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2007. Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. New York: Viking. Gilbert, Nigel, and Michael Mulkay. 1984. Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociolog- ical Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Ginther, Donna K., and Kathy J. Hayes. 2003. “Gender Differences in Salary and Promotion for Faculty in the Humanities, 1977–95.” Journal of Hu- man Resources 38 (1): 34–73. Givens, David B., and Timothy Jablonski. 1996. “AAA Survey of Anthropol- ogy PhDs.” Report prepared for the American Anthropological Associa- tion, Arlington, Va. References / 299 Gladwell, Malcolm. 2005. Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking. New York: Little, Brown. Glazer, Nathan. 1976. Affirmative D iscrimination. New York: Basic Books. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. ———. 1974. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper. ———. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ———. 1990. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. (Orig. pub. 1959.) Goleman, Daniel, Richard E. Boyatzis, and Annie McKee. 2002. Primal Lead- ership: Realizing the Powe r of Emotional Intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Gordon, Lewis R., and Jane Anna Gordon, eds. 2006. A Companion to Afri- can-American Studies. Oxford, Eng.: Blackwell. Gould, Stephen Jay. 2003. The Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister’s Pox: Mending the Gap between Science and the Humanities. New York: Har- mony Books. Graff, Gerald. 1992. Beyond the Culture Wars: How Teaching the Conflicts Can Revitalize American Education. New York: Norton. Granfield, Robert. 1991. “Making It by Faking It: Working-Class Students in an Elite Academic Environment.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 20 (3): 331–351. Granovetter, Marc. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Prob- lem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Soc iology 91 (3): 481–510. Green, Donald P., and Ian Shapiro. 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice The- ory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven: Yale Uni- versity Press. Gross, Neil. 2008. Richard Rorty: The M aking of a Philosopher. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press. Gross, Neil, and Solon Simmons. 2006. “Americans’ Views of Political Bias in the Academy and Academic Freedom.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of University Professors, Washing- ton, D.C., June 8–11. Gruenfeld, Deborah, Paul V. Martorana, and Elliot T. Fan. 2000. “What Do Groups Learn from Their Worldliest Members? Direct and Indirect Influence in Dynamic Teams.” Organizational Behavior and Human De- cision Processes 82 (1): 45–59. Guetzkow, Joshua, Michèle Lamont, Marcel Fournier, and Grégoire Mallard. 2003. “Originality and the Construction of Academic Worth: Substan- 300 / References tive Qualities and Scholarly Virtue in Peer Review.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, Ga., August 16–19. Guetzkow, Joshua, Michèle Lamont, and Grégoire Mallard. 2004. “What Is Originality in the Social Sciences and the Humanities?” American Socio- logical Review 69 (2): 190–212. Guillory, John. 1993. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Forma - tion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Guinier, Lani, and Susan Sturm. 2001. Who’s Qualified? Boston: Beacon Press. Gumport, Patricia J. 2000a. “Academic Restructuring: Organizational Change and Institutional Imperatives.” Higher Education: An Internat ional Jour- nal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 39:67–91. ———. 2000b. “Learning Academic Labor.” Comparative Social Research 19:1–23. ———. 2002. Academic Pathfinder s: Knowledge Creation and Feminist Schol- arship. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Habermas, Jürgen. 1982. “A Reply to My Critics.” In Habermas: Critical De- bates, ed. John B. Thompson and David Held. Cambridge: MIT Press. ———. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Trans. Thomas McCar- thy. Boston: Beacon Press. Hall, Peter A., and Michèle Lamont, eds. 2009. Successful Societies: How Insti- tutions and Culture Affect Health. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hall, Peter A., and David Soskice, eds. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Insti- tutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Hall, Stuart. 1990. “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities.” October 53:11–23. Hargens, Lowell L. 1988. “Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates.” American Sociological Review 53 (1): 139–151. Hartmann, Ilse, and Friedhelm Neidhardt. 1990. “Peer Review at the Forschungsgemeinschaft. ” Scientometr ics 19 (5–6): 419–425. Hastie, Reid. 2001. “Problems for Judgment and Decision Making.” Annual Review of Psychology 52:653–683. Hayagreeva, Rao, Phillippe Monin, and Rodolphe Durand. 2005. “Border References / 301 Crossing: Bricolage and the Erosion of Categorical Boundaries in French Gastronomy.” American Soc iological Review 70 (9): 868–991. Heinich, Nathalie. 1996. The Glory of Van Gogh. Princeton: Princeton Uni- versity Press. ———. 1997. “Les frontières de l’art à l’épreuve de l’expertise: politique de la décision dans une commission municipale.” Politix 38:111–135. Helper, Susan, John Paul MacDuffie, and Charles Sabel. 2000. “Pragmatic Collaborations: Advancing Knowledge While Controlling Opportun- ism.” Industrial and Corporate Change 9 (3): 443–488. Hennion, Antoine. 2004. “Pragmatics of Taste.” Pp. 131–144 in Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Culture, ed. Mark Jacobs and Nancy Hankahan. Oxford, Eng.: Blackwell. Hochschild, Arlie. 1979. “Emotion Work, Feeling Rules and Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (3): 551–575. Hoffer, T. B., V. Welch Jr., K. Webber, K. Williams, B. Lisek, M. Hess, D. Loew, and I. Guzman-Barron. 2006. “Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2005.” Report prepared for the National Opinion Research Center, Chicago. Hojat, Mohammadreza, Joseph S. Gonnella, and Addeane S. Caelleigh. 2003. “Impartial Judgment by the Gatekeepers of Science: Fallibility and Ac- countability in the Peer Review Process.” Advances in Health Sciences Ed- ucation 8 (1): 75–96. Ibarra, Herminia. 1992. “Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differ- ences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm.” Admin- istrative Science Quarterly 37:422–447. Iggers, Georg G. 1997. Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press. Jackall, Robert. 1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University Press. Jacobs, Jerry A. 2004. “The Faculty Time Divide (Presidential Address).” So- ciological Forum 19 (1): 3–27. ———. Forthcoming-a. “Interdisciplinarity: A Review of Research on Com- munication among Social-Science Disciplines.” Annual Review of Soci- ology. ———. Forthcoming-b. Women in Higher Education. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Jacobs, Jerry A., and Sarah Winslow. 2004. “Overworked Faculty: Job Stresses 302 / References and Family Demands.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 596 (1): 104–129. James, William. 1911. “The Essence of Humanism.” Pp. 121–135 in The Meaning of Truth. New York: Longman, Green. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———, ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and So- cial Order. New York: Routledge. Jencks, Christopher, and David Riesman. 1977. The Academic Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jenkins, Richard. 1996. Social Identity. London: Routledge. Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Karabel, Jerome. 2005. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Ex- clusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Keane, Webb. 2003. “Self-Interpretation, Agency, and the Objects of Anthro- pology: Reflections on a Genealogy.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 45(2): 222–248. Kelle, Udo, Gerald Prein, and Catherine Beird. 1995. Computer-Aided Quali- tative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods, and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Ca- lif.: Sage. Kelly, Erin, and Frank Dobbin. 1998. “How Affirmative Action Became Di- versity Management: Employers’ Response to Anti-Discrimination Law, 1961–1996.” American Behavioral Scientist 41:960–984. ———. 2001. “How Affirmative Action Became Diversity Management: Em- ployer Response to Anti-Discrimination Law, 1961–1996.” Pp. 87–117 in Color Lines: Affirmative Action, Immigration and Civil Rights Options for America., ed. John Skrentny. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kessler-Harris, Alice, Amy Swerdlow, and Sue Rovi. 1995. “Evaluation of Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.” Report prepared for the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Princeton. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social In- quiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kirp, David L. 2003. Shakespeare, Einste in, and the Bottom Line: The Mar- keting of Higher E ducation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Klein, Julie T. 1996. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. References / 303 ———. 2003. “Thinking about Interdisciplinarity: A Primer for Practice.” Colorado School of Mines Quarterly 103 (1): 101–114. ———. 2005. “Interdisciplinary Teamwork: The Dynamics of Collaboration and Integration.” Pp. 23–50 in Interdisciplinary Collaboration: An Emerging Cognitive Science, ed. S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, and M. A. Gernsbacher. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowl- edge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kollock, Peter, Philip Blumstein, and Pepper Schwartz. 1985. “Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Duties.” American Sociolog- ical Review 50:34–46. Ladd, Everett Carll, and Seymour M. Lipset. 1975. The Divided Academy: Pro- fessors and Politics. New York: Norton. Laitin, David. 2004. “The Political Science Discipline.” Pp. 11–40 in The Evo- lution of Political Knowledge: Theory and Inquiry in American Politics, ed. Edward D. Mansfield and Richard Sisson. Columbus: Ohio State Univer- sity Press. Lakatos, Imre. 1974. “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.” in The Interaction between Science and Philosophy, ed. Yehuda Elkana. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities. Lamont, Michèle. 1987. “How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher: The Case of Jacques Derrida.” American Journal of Sociology 93 (3): 584– 622. ———. 1989. “The Power-Culture Link in a Comparative Perspective.” Com- parative Social Research 11:131–150. ———. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 2000. The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class, and Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———. 2001. “Three Questions for a Big Book: Collins’ The Sociology of Phi- losophies. ” Sociological Theory 19 (1):86–91. ———. 2004a. “Recruiting, Promoting, and Retaining Women Academics: Lessons from the Literature.” Report prepared for the Committee on the Status of Women, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge. ———. 2004b. “Theoretical Growth and Conceptual Foreplay.” Perspectives: Newsletter of the ASA Theory Section 27 (3): 1. ———. 2008. “Critères d’évaluation et structures culturelles: réflections sur 304 / References un parcours de recherches.” in Se ns de la c ritique, sens de la justice, ed. Catherine Guaspare, Marc Breviglieri, Claudette Lafaye, and Daniel Trom. Paris: La Découverte. ———. 2009. “The Challenges of Pierre Bourdieu.” In After Bourdieu, ed. Elisabeth Silva and Alan Warde. London: Routledge. Lamont, Michèle, Veronica Boix Mansilla, and Katri Huutoniemi. 2007. “Fostering Successful Interdisciplinarity through Shared Cognitive Plat- forms.” Prepared for the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, To- ronto. Lamont, Michèle, and Crystal Fleming. 2005. “Everyday Anti-Racism: Com- petence and Religion in the Cultural Repertoire of the African-Ameri- can Elite and Working Class.” Du Bois Rev iew 2 (1): 29–43. Lamont, Michèle, Marcel Fournier, Josh Guetzkow, Grégoire Mallard, and Roxane Bernier. 2006. “Evaluating Creative Minds: The Assessment of Originality in Peer Review.” Pp. 166–181 in Knowledge, Communication and Creativity, ed. Arnaud Sales and Marcel Fournier. London: Sage. Lamont, Michèle, and Katri Huutoniemi. 2007. “Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evidence of Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels.” Paper presented at the conference Making, Evalu- ating, and Using Social Scientific Knowledge, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, December 7–8. Lamont, Michèle, Jason Kaufman, and Michael Moody. 2000. “The Best of the Brightest: Definitions of the Ideal Self among Prize-Winning Stu- dents.” Sociological Forum 15 (2): 187–224. Lamont, Michèle, and Annette Lareau. 1988. “Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps, and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments.” Sociological Theory 6 (2): 153–168. Lamont, Michèle, and Grégoire Mallard. 2005. “Peer Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities Compared: The United States, the United Kingdom, and France.” Report prepared for the Social Sciences and Hu- manities Research Council of Canada, Ottawa. Lamont, Michèle, and Viràg Molnár. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries across the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 28:167–195. Lamont, Michèle, and Laurent Thévenot, eds. 2000. Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States. London: Cambridge University Press. Lamont, Michèle, and Patricia White. 2008. “Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research: Cultural Anthropology, References / 305 Law and Social Science, Political Science, and Sociology Programs.” Re- port prepared for the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. Lamont, Michèle, and Marsha Witten. 1989. “Surveying the Continental Drift: The Diffusion of French Social and Literary Theory in the United States.” French Politics and Soc iety 6 (3): 17–23. Lamont, Michèle, and Robert Wuthnow. 1990. “Betwixt-and-Between: Re- cent Cultural Sociology in Europe and the United States.” Pp. 287–315 in Frontiers of Social Theory: The New Sy nthesis, ed. George Ritzer. New York: Columbia University Press. Lamont, Michèle, and Ezra Zuckerman. In preparation. “Towards a Sociol- ogy of Valuation: Convergence, Divergence, and Synthesis.” Annual Re- view of Sociology. Langfeldt, Liv. 2001. “The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome.” Social Studies of Science 31 (6): 820–841. ———. 2006. “The Policy Challenges of Peer Review: Managing Bias, Conflict of Interest, and Interdisciplinary Assessment.” Research Evalua- tion 15 (1): 31–42. Langhout, Regina Day, Francine Rosselli, and Jonathan Feinstein. 2007. “As- sessing Classism in Academic Settings.” Review of Higher Education 30 (2): 145–184. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———. 1988. The Pasteur ization of France. Trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construc- tion of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Laudel, Grit. 2006. “The ‘Quality Myth’: Promoting and Hindering Condi- tions for Acquiring Research Funds.” Higher Education 52:375–403. Laudel, Grit, and Gloria Origgi. 2006. “Special Issue on the Assessment of In- terdisciplinary Research.” Research Evaluation 15 (1). Leahey, Erin. 2008. “Methodological Memes and Mores: Toward a Sociology of Social Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 34:33–53. Lederman, Rena. 2006. “Introduction: Anxious Borders between Work and Life in a Time of Bureaucratic Ethics Regulation.” American Ethnologist 33 (4): 477–481. Leiter, Brian, ed. 2004. The Future for Philosophy. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press. 306 / References Lenoir, Timothy. 1993. “Discipline of Nature and the Nature of Disciplines.” Pp. 77–78 in Knowledges: Histor ical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity, ed. Ellen Messer-Davidow, David Shumway, and David Sylvan. Char- lottesville: University of Virginia Press. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1983. Structural Anthropology. Trans. Monique Layton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levinson, Jerold. 2002. “Hume’s Standards of Taste: The Real Problem.” Jour- nal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60 (3): 227–238. Lewis, Lionel. 1998. Scaling the Ivory Towe r: Merit and Its Limits in Academic Careers. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction. Liebert, Roland. 1976. Disintegration and Polit ical Action: The Chang ing Functions of City Governments in America. New York: Academic Press. ———. 1982. “Productivity, Favor, and Grants among Scholars.” American Journal of Soc iology 83 (3): 664–673. Lipset, Seymour M. 1979. The First New Nation. New York: Norton. (Orig. pub. 1963.) Longino, Helen E. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton Univer- sity Press. Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan. Lustick, Ian. 199