Professors Think Research Articles

What Female Sport Management Professors Think: Adherence to Gender Roles and the Impact on Salary Negotiation

Female faculty earn 81.4% of what male faculty earn. Salary negotiation is a critical component of job offers and can have lasting implications for pay during a career. To better understand the salary negotiation process for female sport management professors, this study examined perceived barriers held by participants. A qualitative approach was taken, utilizing in-person and phone interviews to collect the participant’s experiences with salary negotiation. Results indicated that female sport management professors perceived the main barrier in salary negotiation to be the expected adherence to gender roles. Subthemes that emerged from the expected adherence to gender roles included believing stereotypes and lacking confidence. Understanding the influence of gender role adherence in salary negotiations can contribute to the education and skills necessary for students as well as professors in implementing pedagogical strategies related to salary negotiation. Implementing these strategies can contribute to a field that continues to strive to embrace diversity and promote an inclusive environment.

When Fish Were Fish

When Fish Were Fish Christopher Rea (bio) Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul J. D'Ambrosio. Genuine Pretending: On the Philosophy of the Zhuangzi. New York: Columbia University Press, 2017. x, 221 pp. Paperback $35.00, isbn 978-0-231-18399-4. Back in the day, men were men, women were women, and fish were fish. You hunt, I gather, they play. If your father was a butcher or a carpenter, you inherited the role and accepted it without question. The modern age supposedly ushered in new freedoms, chief among them the right to choose one's destiny. Yet the liberated person soon encountered a new tyranny: now you have to do the dishes willingly, so as to show that you are no mere slave to the role but rather a free and self-directed individual. To grumble about chores is to betray the modern imperative to find fulfillment and self-actualization in everything one does. One wonders what Zhuangzi's spouse (if any) would make of his signature work, especially if he was the sort who left dirty dishes in the sink. Going with the flow, or being wu-wei, is easily caricatured as the habitus of the procrastinator or the privilege of those who have someone to clean up after them. The parables of the Zhuangzi raise questions about, among other things, the value of knowing versus doing and of consciousness versus action. Taking the broad view, as the Zhuangzi repeatedly enjoins us to do, can surely help one chill out about career disappointments or a siege going badly. But making sure that you've washed those Kun roe out of the bowl after dinner will do a lot more than embracing cosmic tranquility to save your family from food poisoning. Zhuangzi (and his ghost-writers—but let's set aside the question of authorship) has always come across as a great guy with whom to share a glass of ale and freewheeling conversation under a shady tree on a summer day. He'd be a swell neighbor in one's retirement complex, an excellent companion for a regular seaside ramble. He's perhaps lower on the list of candidates for general contractor or military commander or babysitter. The Confucian pragmatist in us, concerned with getting the family or kingdom to function, might well wonder about Zhuangzi: Could he carve up in the kitchen as well [End Page 1] as Butcher Ding? Would he pay his employees or troops (or condo fees) on time? I still don't know, even having re-read the Zhuangzi and now read Genuine Pretending: On the Philosophy of the Zhuangzi. But I sure learned a lot more about the classical philosophical work from Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul J. D'Ambrosio's thought-provoking and insightful book, which joins other recent studies such as Liu Jianmei's Zhuangzi and Modern Chinese Literature (2016) and Haun Saussy's Translation as Citation: Zhuangzi Inside Out (2017). Genuine Pretending is a model coauthored work, a collaboration by a teacher and a former student, which achieves admirable consistency of voice, tone, and scholarship. I found the authors generous in their use of the work of other scholars: they give credit where due and are clear and respectful on points of disagreement. It is a book that draws even the lay reader into the contemporary field of philosophy, its discourse being rarely obscure and never condescending. (In this, it confounds the finding of Michèle Lamont's sociological study, How Professors Think [2010], that philosophy professors believe members of all other disciplines to be unqualified to evaluate philosophers' work.) This book will get you thinking about how to live your life, while getting you caught up on (and in) scholarly conversations about Daoism, especially as related to concepts such as sincerity, authenticity, and genuineness. I will leave it to other reviewers to evaluate Moeller and D'Ambrosio's contributions to scholarship on pre-Qin philosophy or the validity of their frequent comparisons to European continental philosophers such as Hegel and Wittgenstein. Suffice to say that they enumerate their points with clarity, and I predict that Genuine Pretending will be engaging and comprehensible even for students in introductory courses...

Revisiting "How Professors Think" across National and Occupational Contexts

Revisiting How Professors Think through the lens of the evaluative cultures of Spanish peer reviewers and those of American policy experts raises diverse unanticipated challenges. Below I first discuss the three contributions that consider How Professors Think via cross-national comparisons (Diez Medrano, Lasen, and Valiente) before turning to the discussion of cognitive autonomy at the center of Medvetz’s comments, which are inspired by his own particularly illuminating study of American think tanks (Medvetz 2012). Before proceeding, I wish to thank our four colleagues for making time to seriously think about some of the implications of How Professors Think that I had not previously considered. I am greatly appreciative of their thoughtful contributions, as I am of Alvaro Santana-Acuna and Xavier Coller for suggesting this symposium and for so skillfully orchestrating it. They have created a much valued opportunity for me to reflect on How Professors Think four years after the publication of the book in English, and after that, it has made its way into various international audiences via translations in Korean, Chinese, and soon Spanish. How Professors Think concluded on whether it is desirable and possible for peer review “a la americana” to diffuse beyond U.S. borders. In the last chapter I described some of the conditions that make this type of evaluative practice possible in the United States (focusing on factors such as the significant demographic weight of the U.S. research community, the spatial distance and decentralization of its institutions of higher education, and the lengthy graduate education process that brings students in close contact with mentors who impact their self-concept while diffusing implicit evaluation standards). This chapter also suggested why it would not be reasonable to expect that the same customary rules of evaluation I described to appear in countries where different conditions for scientific work prevail. This has been confirmed in

Opening the Black Box of Intellectual Autonomy

Michele Lamont’s How Professors Think is a compelling, nuanced, and richly observed empirical study of the inner workings of academic peer review panels—the forums convened by major funding agencies to assess research grant and fellowship proposals. Based on more than eighty recorded interviews with panelists from five organizations and extensive firsthand observations of three interdisciplinary panels, the book offers major insights into the “evaluative cultures” of academic disciplines in the United States and, more broadly, the construction of scholarly excellence. As academic gatekeepers, Lamont argues, the members of peer review panels collectively play a pivotal role in the distribution of material and symbolic rewards within the U.S. university system. At a different level, How Professors Think can be read as an entry into the ongoing project of developing a sociological theory of action, especially one that takes into account the complex relationship between its two main generative aspects: practical sense and theoretical reason. Although Lamont often refers to principles of scholarly evaluation as criteria (a term that suggests relatively codified decision-making standards), she also pays close attention to the ephemeral, “emotional,” and fuzzy elements of scholarly judgment. Indeed, it is striking how many of the “evanescent” decision-making factors Lamont and her respondents refer to make use of the term sense (among others, “shared sense,” “common sense,” and “sense of self”). This focus on the practical sense of peer reviewers allows Lamont to avoid representing scholarly excellence either as an immutable or transcendental “essence,” entirely objective or impervious to socio-historical forces. Yet neither does Lamont depict academic evaluation as a simple product of academic status struggles. Instead, How Professors Think develops a sophisticated theory of scholarly judgment as a mode of collective problem-solving that obeys a set of rules specific to the academic sphere. At various points, the book also offers useful insights into the contrasting styles and “epistemic cultures” of six academic disciplines.

Academic Cultures, Think Tanks, and the Evaluation of Excellence in Spain, the European Union, and the United States. A Symposium on Michèle Lamont’s "How Professors Think"

As we were finalizing the introduction to this symposium in late May, a controversy about the academic evaluation system in Spain made headlines internationally and became the topic of discussion in social media. A thirty-year old Spanish physicist had applied for the Ramon y Cajal scholarship—designed to repatriate national scientists—and his application was rejected. The rejection was not unusual since the Ramon y Cajal committee receives scores of first-rate applications annually. But allegedly, soon after being notified of the rejection, he received the prize for best young experimental physicist in Europe, awarded every other year by the European Physical Society.

Taking the Cultural Turn: Reading Cultural SociologyTalk of Love: How Culture Matters, by SwidlerAnn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment, by LamontMichele. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.

A review is presented of the books Talk of Love: Culture Matters, by Ann Swidler, and How Professiors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment, by Michele Lamont.

How Professors Think? Inside The Curious World of Academic Judgement, M. Lamont

How Professors Think? Inside The Curious World of Academic Judgement, M. Lamont

Your Best Professional Judgment: Review Panels at WorkHow Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. By Michèle Lamont. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.

Previous articleNext article No AccessYour Best Professional Judgment: Review Panels at Work How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. By Michèle Lamont. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.Deborah WinslowDeborah WinslowCultural Anthropology Program, Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (BCS/SBE), National Science Foundation, Suite 995, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, U.S.A. ([email protected]). Search for more articles by this author Cultural Anthropology Program, Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (BCS/SBE), National Science Foundation, Suite 995, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, U.S.A. ([email protected]).PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Current Anthropology Volume 52, Number 1February 2011 Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/657930 Views: 25Total views on this site HistoryReceived July 14, 2010 © 2011 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved. For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment

How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment

How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment - By M. Lamont

The British Journal of SociologyVolume 61, Issue 2 p. 393-394 How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment – By M. Lamont Aileen O Carroll, Aileen O Carroll National University of Ireland MaynoothSearch for more papers by this author Aileen O Carroll, Aileen O Carroll National University of Ireland MaynoothSearch for more papers by this author First published: 02 June 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01318_8.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume61, Issue2June 2010Pages 393-394 RelatedInformation

Michele Lamont, How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgement

Michele Lamont, How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgement

Michèle Lamont, How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment.

Michèle Lamont, How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment.

How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (review)

How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (review)

What Australian Economics Professors Think

In this article we present the results of a recent survey of economics professors in Australia. We found that there is a comfortable measure of consensus in many areas of economic science, including several contentious issues which currently worry policymakers and the general public alike. We show that there is good evidence to suggest that Australian academic economists share a world economic culture with their western European and (to an even greater extent) their American colleagues.We also asked the professors to share their thoughts on university economics education. There was good consensus that the professors wanted a rigorous classical economics education for their students, but they were not willing to sacrifice breadth: the ideal student, it appears, is one technically competent in economics with a head for the social and political dimensions of the profession. Overwhelmingly, the professors voted the economics department of the Australian National University as the best place for such an education, with those of Melbourne, the University of New South Wales, and Monash, close behind.Finally, the professors gave their opinions on the understanding of economics by government agencies, business and community groups.

The Subjunctive and You: What College Professors Think

stylistic preferences and expectations of probable principal audience for student prose. While collaborative writing techniques in classroom and opportunities for student publication will ensure that writing teacher is not sole audience for student compositions, composition teachers-not parents, not editors, not the wider reading public-along with other classroom teachers, will continue to be principal evaluators of students' written work.

The Subjunctive and You: What College Professors Think

The Subjunctive and You: What College Professors Think