Julian Hamann’s research while affiliated with Leibniz Universität Hannover and other places

Social inequality is a core concern of sociological research. But how central is the topic to Studies of Valuation and Evaluation (SVE)? The authors argue that the answer to this question depends on how the boundaries of SVE are drawn. If it is understood narrowly as an institutionalized field of research defined by a specific research community and publication outlets, social inequality has remained largely neglected in SVE. But if it is understood more broadly as a perspective defined by a dedicated interest in (e)valuation, there are, in fact, several strands of sociological research that are concerned with both social inequality and processes and practices of (e)valuation – even though they are not considered part of the institutionalized field of SVE. Focusing on research that has evolved around four key concepts drawn from the sociological canon – classification, consecration, stigmatization, and homophily – the main part of the chapter offers a discussion of these existing lines of scholarship and shows how they contribute to our understanding of the relationship of (e)valuation and social inequality. The chapter concludes by proposing a roadmap for a more systematic and integrated study of this relationship.

Preprints here: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/9pu8d This paper presents a comparative analysis of career gatekeeping processes in two cultural fields. Drawing on data on appointment procedures in German academia and booking processes in North American stand-up comedy, we compare how gatekeepers in two widely different contexts evaluate and select candidates for established positions in their respective field and validate their decisions. Focusing on three types of gatekeeping practices that have been documented in prior research—typecasting, comparison, and legitimization—our analysis reveals major differences in how gatekeepers perform these practices across our two cases: (1) typecasting based on ascriptive categories versus professional criteria, (2) comparisons that are ad-hoc and holistic versus systematic and guided by performance criteria, and (3) legitimation by means of ritualization versus transparency. We argue that these differences are related to the social and organizational context in which gatekeepers make selection decisions, including differences in the structure of academic and creative careers and the organization of the respective labor markets in which these careers unfold. These findings contribute to scholarship on gatekeeping in cultural fields by providing comparative insights into the work of career gatekeepers and the social organization of career gatekeeping processes.

This commentary is concerned with a specific form of power and discipline that is exerted through governance by numbers. Because of its many parallels to classical Foucauldian panopticism, governance based on numbers can be coined ‘numerocratic panopticism.’ Yet, going beyond similarities between classical and numerocratic panopticism, the commentary suggests three features specific to numerocratic panopticism that actually reverse characteristic traits of classical panopticism: In contrast to classical panopticism, numerocratic panopticism is multi-centered, non-spatial and open-purpose. Research on governance by numbers can benefit from a heuristic of panopticism if it considers both similarities and differences between classical and numerocratic panopticism.

This paper presents a comparative analysis of career gatekeeping processes in two cultural fields. Drawing on data on appointment procedures in German academia and booking processes in North American stand-up comedy, we compare how gatekeepers in two widely different contexts evaluate and select candidates for established positions in their respective field and validate their decisions. Focusing on three types of gatekeeping practices that have been documented in prior research—typecasting, comparison, and legitimization—our analysis reveals major differences in how gatekeepers perform these practices across our two cases: (1) typecasting based on ascriptive categories vs. professional criteria, (2) comparisons that are ad-hoc and holistic vs. systematic and guided by performance criteria, and (3) legitimation by means of ritualization vs. transparency. We argue that these differences are related to the social and organizational context in which gatekeepers make selection decisions, including differences in the structure of academic and creative careers and the organization of the respective labor markets in which these careers unfold. These findings contribute to scholarship on gatekeeping in cultural fields by providing comparative insights into the work of career gatekeepers and the social organization of career gatekeeping processes.

The world of academia is permeated with evaluations. Academic processes of evaluation play a central role in both the production and reception of scholarly work as well as for the status of academic entities like scholars, departments, or universities. This contribution provides an overview over the literature on academic evaluation, with particular focus on the variety of evaluative practices and arenas, different analytical perspectives on academic evaluation, disciplinary differences in evaluation, and recent developments in the organization of academic evaluation.

Hamann J and Maeße J (2019) Einleitung. Diskurs, Feld, Subjektivierung. Empirische und theoretische Fragen. Zeitschrift für Diskursforschung 2019(1): 4-10.

This article investigates the distribution of citation visibility of Applied Linguistics professors in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. By comparing citation counts from Google Scholar, we reveal hyperinequalities between more and less visible professors. We register strong inequalities between English-, German- and French-language scholars as well within languages, especially within the English-language community. These inequalities bear witness to the celebrity logics in academia, i.e. the hyperunequal distribution of visibility between a few ›stars‹ and less visible other academics. We account for such inequalities in terms of ›discursive capitalism‹, which designates the institutional transfer of value from the many citing to the few cited members in disciplinary communities. Angermuller J and Hamann J (2019) The celebrity logics of the academic field. The unequal distribution of citation visibility of Applied Linguistics professors in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. Zeitschrift für Diskursforschung 1(2019): 77-93.

Der Beitrag untersucht die Verteilung von Sichtbarkeit durch Zitationen unter ProfessorInnen der Angewandten Sprachwissenschaft in Frankreich, Deutschland und Großbritannien. Durch den Vergleich von Google Scholar-Zitationen zeigen wir Hyperungleichheiten zwischen weniger sichtbaren und sehr sichtbaren ProfessorInnen auf. Wir erkennen Ungleichheiten zwischen englisch-, deutsch- und französischsprachigen ProfessorInnen sowie innerhalb von Sprachgemeinschaften, insbesondere im englischsprachigen Sprachraum. Diese Ungleichheiten sind Produkt einer ›Star‹-Logik in der Wissenschaft, d.h. eines institutionellen Transfers von Sichtbarkeit von den Vielen zu den Wenigen. Wir erklären diesen Prozess als ›diskursiven Kapitalismus‹: den institutionalisierten Transfer von Wertigkeit von den vielen Zitierenden zu den wenigen zitierten Mitgliedern disziplinärer Gemeinschaften.