S(¢ Cl L \ OC A= LEI C - IN hE Eniten by CHARLES CAMIC, NEIL GROSS, And MICHELE LAMONTCharles Camic is the Joh Evans Professor of Sacialogy at Northwestern University and the author ar editor of several volumes, including, most recently, Exential Writings of Tharsicin Vohlen, Neill Gross is astociate profes- sor of snciology: ia je author of the University of British Colm ichasd Kory: The Making of en American Phifosopher. naichéle Lamont is the Robert I. Goldman Professor of European Stadies, professar af sociolagy, anid piofessor of African and Affican-Ametican studies at Harvard Liniversity. Her most recent book is How Professors Tht: luside che Curdous Wort of academic Peilgoneate ‘The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd, London 2001 by the University of Chicago All rights reserved. Published 201 Prise in the United! States of America 20 19 18 17-16 15 14 13 12 1 12345 ISBN-13: 978-0-226-09208-9 (eloth) ISBN=13; 978-0-22.6-09209-6 (paper) ISBN- 10: 0-226-09208-9 (cloth) ISBN-10: 0-226-09209-7 (paper) Library of Congress Cataloging ‘Social Knowledge in the making / edited by Charles Camie, Neil Gress, Maichéle Lamont. pe em, Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN-13: 978-0.226.09208-9 (cloth: alk. paper) {SI8N-10: 0-226-09208-9 (cloth : all. paper) ISBN-13: 978-0-226.09209-6 (pbk. : alk, paper) ISBN-10: 0.226.09209-7 (pbk. alk. paper) 1. Social scienees Research, 2. Knowledge Sociology of. 1 Camic, Chates 11, Gross UL, Lamont, Michéle, 1957— 162.8635 2011 3on.ot—dez2 aonio0793 © this paper meet the requirements af ANSY/NISO 739.48.1992 (remanence of Faper)CONTENTS Proferce fix CHARLES CAAtIG, NEIL GROSS, AND MICHELE LAMONT ivrropuctian / The Study of Social Knowledge Making / 1 PART 11 KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION IN THE DISCIPLINES. ANDREW ABBOTT ‘one / Library Research Infrastructure for Humanistic and Social Scientific Scholarship in the Twentieth Century f 43 ANTHONY T. GRAFTON two In Clio’s American Atelier / 89 REBECCA LEMOY ‘uncer f Piling the Total Human: Anthropological Arch from 1928 to 1963 / 119 NBIL GROSS AND CRYSTAL FLEMING Four / Academie Conferences and the Making of Philosophical Knowledge / 151 TORAN HEILBRON Five f Practical Foundations of Theorizing in Sociology: ‘The Case of Pierre Bourdieu / 181PART 11: KNOWLEDGE EVALUATION SITES MICHELE LAMOINT AND KATRE HUUTONIEME six | Comparing Customary Rules of Faimess: Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels f 209 LAURA STARK seven / Meetings by the Minutefs): How Documents Create Decisions for Institutional Review Boards / 233 MARILYN STRATHERN etcecr / An Experiment in Interdisciplinarity: Proposals and Promises / 257 RT IIL: SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE BEYOND THE ACADEMY SARAH E168 NINE J Subjects of Persuasion: Survey Research as a Solicitows Science; 04 The Public Relations of the Polls / 285 SHEILA JASANOFF ven / The Practices of Objectivity in Regulatory Science / 307 GREGOIRE MALLARD AND ANDREW LAKOFE xteven / How Claims to Know the Future Are Used to Understand the Present: Techniques of Prospection in the Field of National Security / 339 DANIEL BRESLAU weve / What De Market Designers Da When They Design Markets? Economists as Consultants to the Redesign of Wholesale Electricity Markets in the United States / 379 kaw teinTeEN / Financial Analysis: Epistemic Profile of an Evaluative Science / 405 KNORR CETINA Gonaribactors | 443 Index f 447PREFACE This book concerns the thick underbrush of practices that are involved in the production, evaluation, and application of social knowledge, and in working on the project we have grown increasingly cognizant of the many knowledge practices that we ourselves engaged in along the way, Our com- puters at this point store thousands of emails sent back and forth among, the three of us—and to and from dozens of others who have been associ- ated with this volume in different capacities —as we formulated, rethought, and frequently recast our plans in view of an ever-changing web of intel- lectual and logistical challenges and opportu ‘The project originated in 2004 from a series af chance conversations that made us realize that we shared a sense of frustration. As sociologists, we had a common area of research interest: knowledge production and evaluation in the social sciences. and the humanities. As we talked among ourselves, however, we were struck that one of the main sources of intellec- tual sustenance for each of us was the vibrant bedy of scholarship that dealt with mowledge production, assessment, and use in the natural sciences. Each of us, of course, had works that we greatly admired that addressed the development of knowledge in the social sciences and the humanities. Still, we felt that there was a marked disparity and that scholars in the field of science studies and related areas of contemporary research offered reveal- ing insights into the production and evaluation of natural knowledge that had fewer counterparts in studies of social knowledge. For some time, we were unclear as to the reasons for this disparity and even less clear about what, if anything, might be dene about it Eventually, we became convinced that at least part of the problem lay in the fact that the much-heralded “turn to practice” had, up to this time, pen- elrated the study of social knowledge in comparatively more limited ways. es.x Preface ‘We came to this realization not on our own but because of our growing awareness that, here and there in the social sciences and the humanities, scholars familiar with research in science studies but interested primarily in the development of social knowledge were definitely beginning to train. their attention on knowledge practices outside the natural sciences, Even so, efforts of this kind seemed, at this point, relatively isolated from each other, spread across different disciplines and specialty areas and sometimes still overshadowed by work in the tradition of the sociology of knowledge. ‘We thought that situating and organizing the more recent lines of research in relationship to one another could be beneficial and open up an agenda of hew questions that, because they were as yet unanswered, might encour- age more research in this vein—research that not only would eventually correct some of the existing imbalance between the study of natural know!- edge and the study of social knowledge but (more impertantly) would raise the general level of understanding of the processes by which different forms of social knowledge are produced, evaluated, and put to use. Our hope is that this velume takes a modest step in this direction. In the course of this project, we have received substantial organizational support and collegial counsel, for which we are grateful. A grant from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Studies enabled us to conduct an explor- atory seminar on “the social study of the social sciences and the humani- ties” in the spring of 2005 and to convene a superb group of scholars who helped us delineate and circumscribe our project. A few of them eventually became contributors to this volume. Others in that group included Mitch- ell Ash, Tom Bender, Homi Bhabha, Don Brenneis, Craig Calhoun, Marion Fourcade, Peter Galison, Howard Gardner, Joshua Guetzkow, John Gi oxy, Stanley Katz, Veronica Boix Mansilla, Ellen Messer-Davidow, Chandra Mukerji, Ted Porter, Steven Shapin, and Stephen Turner, This initial meeting Jed to a symposium in December 2007 hosted at the Russell Sage Founda- tion, where drafts of the chapters in this volume were first presented. These drafts benefited from the comments and suggestions of a sharp and diverse group of participants that included, in addition to our authors, Don Bren- neis, Jamie Gohen-Cole, Marion Fourcade, Rakesh Khurana, Erin Leahey, and Diane Vaughan, For valuable advice on the manuscript that resulted from this symposium, we appreciate as well the reports of two anonymous reviewers from the University of Chicago Press. Throughout this process, this project has also been generously supported by various units at our home instiwtions: Harvard University, Northwest- ern University, and the University of British Columbia. We thank those re- sponsible for arranging this support and express our appreciation as well to