{"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}
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.
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.