量化册封的排斥性过程,或如何成为社会科学的经典

IF 1 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
Nicole Holzhauser
{"title":"量化册封的排斥性过程,或如何成为社会科学的经典","authors":"Nicole Holzhauser","doi":"10.1080/03906701.2021.1926673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article theoretically and empirically analyses the allocation of recognition and status in a scientific community and of the rank ‘classic’ to better comprehend the selective and reputational mechanisms at work since the beginning of the discipline. The aim is to examine the process of canonisation and the exclusionary logic, which systematically eliminates certain knowledge of specific scholars over time. The role of cultural capital , such as excellent scientific work and its recognition, is taken into consideration in contrast to social capital, such as influential social positions within the field, and to personal attributes such as gender, regarding their relevance for status. A unique database of 957 scholars representing the field of early German sociology was created, and a quantitative analysis was conducted. The results indicate the field was structured very unequally with high rewards for scholars with social capital. However, other than what one might expect, social power does not appear to be relevant for joining the classics canon in the twentieth century. Regardless of the type of capital, while there is great continuity for the most successful male scholars without social positions, women were largely excluded . Exclusionary mechanisms, eliminating the knowledge produced by minorities, may still be at work.","PeriodicalId":46079,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying the exclusionary process of canonisation, or How to become a classic of the social sciences\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Holzhauser\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03906701.2021.1926673\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article theoretically and empirically analyses the allocation of recognition and status in a scientific community and of the rank ‘classic’ to better comprehend the selective and reputational mechanisms at work since the beginning of the discipline. The aim is to examine the process of canonisation and the exclusionary logic, which systematically eliminates certain knowledge of specific scholars over time. The role of cultural capital , such as excellent scientific work and its recognition, is taken into consideration in contrast to social capital, such as influential social positions within the field, and to personal attributes such as gender, regarding their relevance for status. A unique database of 957 scholars representing the field of early German sociology was created, and a quantitative analysis was conducted. The results indicate the field was structured very unequally with high rewards for scholars with social capital. However, other than what one might expect, social power does not appear to be relevant for joining the classics canon in the twentieth century. Regardless of the type of capital, while there is great continuity for the most successful male scholars without social positions, women were largely excluded . Exclusionary mechanisms, eliminating the knowledge produced by minorities, may still be at work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2021.1926673\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale de Sociologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2021.1926673","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

摘要本文从理论和实证两方面分析了科学共同体中认可和地位的分配以及“经典”的等级,以更好地理解自该学科成立以来起作用的选择和声誉机制。目的是检查册封过程和排他逻辑,这系统地消除了特定学者的某些知识随着时间的推移。考虑到文化资本的作用,如优秀的科学工作及其认可,将其与社会资本(如在该领域有影响力的社会地位)和个人属性(如性别)进行对比,考虑其与地位的相关性。建立了代表德国早期社会学领域的957位学者的独特数据库,并进行了定量分析。结果表明,该领域的结构非常不平等,拥有社会资本的学者获得了很高的回报。然而,与人们所期望的不同,社会权力似乎与加入二十世纪的经典著作无关。无论资本类型如何,最成功的没有社会地位的男性学者有很大的连续性,而女性在很大程度上被排除在外。排除机制,排除少数人产生的知识,可能仍然在起作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantifying the exclusionary process of canonisation, or How to become a classic of the social sciences
ABSTRACT This article theoretically and empirically analyses the allocation of recognition and status in a scientific community and of the rank ‘classic’ to better comprehend the selective and reputational mechanisms at work since the beginning of the discipline. The aim is to examine the process of canonisation and the exclusionary logic, which systematically eliminates certain knowledge of specific scholars over time. The role of cultural capital , such as excellent scientific work and its recognition, is taken into consideration in contrast to social capital, such as influential social positions within the field, and to personal attributes such as gender, regarding their relevance for status. A unique database of 957 scholars representing the field of early German sociology was created, and a quantitative analysis was conducted. The results indicate the field was structured very unequally with high rewards for scholars with social capital. However, other than what one might expect, social power does not appear to be relevant for joining the classics canon in the twentieth century. Regardless of the type of capital, while there is great continuity for the most successful male scholars without social positions, women were largely excluded . Exclusionary mechanisms, eliminating the knowledge produced by minorities, may still be at work.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: International Review of Sociology is the oldest journal in the field of sociology, founded in 1893 by Ren Worms. Now the property of Rome University, its direction has been entrusted to the Faculty of Statistics. This choice is a deliberate one and falls into line with the traditional orientation of the journal as well as of the Institut International de Sociologie. The latter was the world"s first international academic organisation of sociology which started as an association of contributors to International Review of Sociology. Entrusting the journal to the Faculty of Statistics reinforces the view that sociology is not conceived apart from economics, history, demography, anthropology and social psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信