After reading this article you will learn about: Meaning of Conformity 2. The Value of Conformity 3.
What is Originality in the Humanities and the sod Sciences? 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: Whereas the literature has not considered disciplinary variation in the definition of originality, we identzfied 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 k moral character, especially of hidher authenticity and integrity.
These contributions constitute a new approach to the study ofpeer review and originality that focuses on the meaning of criteria of evaluation and their distribution across clusters of disciplines.
A version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association and the International Sociological Association meetings.
Joshua Guetzkow acknowledges the support of the Princeton Society of Woodrow Wilson Fellows for a graduate research fellowship from the. Michele Lamont acknowledges a generous grant from the National Science Foundation, that made this research possible, as well as a fellowship from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and from the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, with the support of the Andrew W.
Mellon Foundation grant no. GrCgoire Mallard acknowledges a graduate research fellowship from the Lurcy Foundation. We thank the following organizations for authorizing access to their funding panels: Accordingly, we know a great deal about how much reviewers in a given discipline disagree, but we are no closer to understanding what it is that they disagree about.
More generally, soci- ologists have yet to explore disciplinary varia- tion in the criteria that peer reviewers use to distinguish between worthy and less worthy academic work.
This is an important topic given the unparalleled centrality of peer review in the academic stratification system Cole and Cole and the impact of conceptions of worthy knowledge on academic restructuring Gumport Drawing on interviews conducted with panelists serving on five multidisciplinary fel- lowship competitions, this paper focuses on one of the criteria used most often to evaluate scholarship in the humanities and social sci- ences, namely, originality.
Existing research in the sociology of science on originality, which generally concerns the natural sciences, defines it as the production of new findings and new theories. We expand this literature by exploring the definitions of origi- nality used by panelists in the humanities, his- tory, and social sciences.
We show that the peer reviewers whom we interviewed from these fields defined originality much more broadly: Whereas the literature has not considered the relative salience of the various dimensions of originality between disciplines, we identified important variations: For their part, social sci- entists most often mentioned originality in method, but they also had more of an appreci- ation for diverse types of originality, stressing the use of an original approach, an original the- ory, or the study of an original topic.
Whereas the literature tends to equate originality with substantive innovation and to consider the per- sonal attributes of the researcher as irrelevant to evaluation, we show that panelists often equat- ed originality with the moral character of the researcher especially hisher authenticity and integrityand that this judgment plays a role in their evaluation.
These contributions are theo- retically significant. They constitute a new approach to the study of peer review and orig- inality that focuses on the meaning of criteria of evaluation and their distribution across clus- ters of disciplines.This may have at least three reasons: (l) The methods used so far were basi cally inadequate or at least too crude; (2) The biological tra dition of seeking the least onerous of several explanations caused us to overlook available evidence because moral behavior may always be explained more simply than by morality-unless the subject protests.
/ Tax Policy 0~~~~~~~ in Developing Coluntries edited by Javad KhazadShi A Anwar Shah A World Bad posium I /) Tax Policy in Developing Countries A World Bank Symposium Tax Pol. The study is motivated by the observation that childbearing and child rearing are the main reasons for the intermittency of womens ’work.
Sterilisation may be correlated with a change in the labour market behaviour of women because it ends rutadeltambor.com are three main findings.
Conformity: Three reasons that influence conformity are the ones I am about to list below: We are likely to mould our attitudes and behaviours to the ones we to follow their orders, other factors that would increase the effect.
There are many factors that may increase the likelihood of people conforming. Social pressure to try something new, altering opinion or a change in belief is one example. Media has a strong effect on people opinions and beliefs, whether it's consciously or subconsciously. This feed contains the latest items from the 'Journal of Economic Psychology' source.
well-being is driven by the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, relatedness and competence.
Additionally, we examined whether people are more likely to conform to the local norms of one’s immediate environment than to more.