Showing papers by "Michèle Lamont published in 2004"
TL;DR: This article analyzed the main criteria used to evaluate scholarship in the humanities and the social sciences: originality, which is defined as using a new approach, theory, method, or data; studying a new topic; doing research in an understudied area; or producing new findings.
Abstract: Drawing on interviews with peer-review panelists from five multidisciplinary fellowship competitions, this paper analyzes one of the main criteria used to evaluate scholarship in the humanities and the social sciences: originality. Whereas the literature in the sociology of science focuses on the natural sciences and defines originality as the production of new findings and new theories, we show that in the context of fellowship competitions, peer reviewers in the social sciences and humanities define originality much more broadly: as using a new approach, theory, method, or data; studying a new topic; doing research in an understudied area; or producing new findings. Whereas the literature has not considered disciplinary variation in the definition of originality, we identified significant differences. Humanists and historians clearly privilege originality in approach, and humanists also emphasize originality in the data used. Social scientists most often mention originality in method, but they also appr...
243 citations
Journal Article•
21 citations
4 citations
DOI•
31 Jul 2004
TL;DR: The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class, and Immigrant (Lamont 2000) draws on 150 interviews conducted with people who are very much unlike myself as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: My book The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race,
Class, and Immigrant (Lamont 2000) draws on 150 interviews conducted
with people who are very much unlike myself. All (or a large fraction) of my
respondents were (1) male (I am female); (2) working-class people (I am a
professional); (3) people of color (I am white); (4) from developing nations (I
am a North American); (5) Muslims (I am Christian); (6) members of former
colonial empires (I am French Canadian); (7) older (I was in my thirties
when I conducted the interviews). The book analyzed how black and white
working-class men living in the New York suburbs, and white and North
African men living in the Paris suburbs, define ‘us’ and ‘them.’ To get at
this question, I asked them to describe in concrete and abstract terms whom
they feel similar to and different from, inferior and superior to, close to and
distant from, at work, in their neighborhood, and in their communities. I
found that perceived moral comparisons largely drove their responses, and
that they mobilized moral criteria of evaluation to draw boundaries against
various categories of people (for instance, against immigrants and members
of other classes and racial groups).
3 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: This paper analyzed the criteria used to evaluate research in the humanities and the social sciences and found that panelists often viewed the originality of a proposal as an indication of the researcher's moral character, especially of his/her authenticity and integrity.
Abstract: Drawing on interviews with peer-review panelists from five multidisciplinary fellowship competitions, this paper analyzes one of the main criteria used to evaluate scholarship in the humanities and the social sciences: originality. Whereas the literature in the sociology of science focuses on the natural sciences and defines originality as the production of new findings and new theories, we show that in the context of fellowship competitions, peer reviewers in the social sciences and humanities define originality much more broadly: as using a new approach, theory, method, or data; studying a new topic; doing research in an understudied area; or producing new findings. Whereas the literature has not considered disciplinary variation in the definition of originality, we identified significant differences. Humanists and historians clearly privilege originality in approach, and humanists also emphasize originality in the data used. Social scientists most often mention originality in method, but they also appreciate a more diverse range of types of originality. Whereas the literature tends to equate originality with substantive innovation and to consider the personal attributes of the researcher as irrelevant to the evaluation process, we show that panelists often view the originality of a proposal as an indication of the researcher's moral character, especially of his/her authenticity and integrity. These contributions constitute a new approach to the study of peer review and originality that focuses on the meaning of criteria of evaluation and their distribution across clusters of disciplines.
1 citations