Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 1–26

Winning to Learn, Learning to Win: Evaluative Frames and Practices in Urban Debate

Article

Abstract

Sociologists of (e)valuation have devoted considerable attention to understanding differences in evaluative practices across a number of fields. Yet, little is understood about how individuals learn about and navigate multivalent valid group styles within a single setting. As a social phenomenon, many accept how central processes of evaluation are to everyday life. Accordingly, scholars have attempted to link research on evaluation to processes of inequality. Nevertheless, the sociology of evaluation only has tenuous, often implicit connections to literature on inequality and disadvantage. This article addresses these two gaps. Drawing on over two-hundred hours of ethnographic fieldwork in an urban high school debate league, twenty-seven semi-structured interviews with league judges, and archival data, we illustrate how high school policy debate judges employ evaluative frames and link them to the implementation of evaluative practices in a disadvantaged setting. We show that the cultural meanings that emerge within the evaluation process—in this case, urban uplift and competition—stem from the conflicted context in which evaluation is occurring. We also make a first step toward applying the conceptual tools within the sociology of evaluation to a disadvantaged setting, and more broadly, suggest that micro-processes of evaluation are important to the study of urban inequality.

Keywords

Evaluation Education Inequality Urban sociology Culture Policy debate 

Supplementary material

11133_2013_9269_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (68 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 67 kb)

References

  1. Anderson, Susannah, and Briana Mezuk. 2012. Participating in a policy debate program and academic achievement among at-risk adolescents in an urban public school district: 1997–2007. Journal of Adolescence 35: 1225–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton, Allen H. 1955. The concept of property-space in social research. In The language of social research, ed. Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg, 40–53. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, Howard S. 1982. Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beljean, Stefan. 2012. Sociological research on evaluation: A review and synthesis of existing literature. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Sociology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  5. Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamin, Lehn M. 2008. Evaluator’s role in accountability relationships: measurement technician, capacity builder or risk manager? Evaluation 14: 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blank, Grant. 2007. Critics, ratings, and society: The sociology of reviews. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thévenot. 1983. Finding one’s way in social space: a study based on games. Social Science Information 22: 631–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boltanski, Luc and Laurent Thévenot. 2006. On justification: Economies of worth (trans: Porter, C.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The field of cultural production. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Couch, Carl J. 1992. Toward a formal theory of social processes. Symbolic Interaction 15: 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creed, W.E. Douglas, Jeffrey A. Langstraat, and Maureen A. Scully. 2002. A picture of the frame: frame analysis as technique and as politics. Organizational Research Methods 5: 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Desrosières, Alain. 1998. The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Edin, Kathryn and Maria Kefalas. 2005. Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eliasoph, Nina, and Paul Lichterman. 2003. Culture in interaction. American Journal of Sociology 108: 735–794.Google Scholar
  16. Espeland, Wendy, and Michael Sauder. 2007. Rankings and reactivity: how public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology 113: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Espeland, Wendy, and Mitchell Stevens. 1998. Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fine, Gary Alan. 2001a. Difficult reputations: Collective memories of the evil, inept, and controversial. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fine, Gary Alan. 2001b. Gifted tongues: High school debate and adolescent culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fligstein, Neil, and Doug McAdam. 2012. A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fourcade, Marion. 2011. Cents and sensibility: economic valuation and the nature of “nature. American Journal of Sociology 116: 1721–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friedland, Roger, and Robert R. Alford. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, ed. Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, 232–263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ghaziani, Amin, and Marc J. Ventresca. 2005. Keywords and cultural change: frame analysis of business model public talk, 1975–2000. Sociological Forum 20: 523–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  25. Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Harding, David J. 2009. Violence, older peers, and the socialization of adolescent boys in disadvantaged neighborhoods. American Sociological Review 74: 445–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jack, Anthony Abraham. . Culture shock revisited: The social and cultural contingencies to class marginality. Sociological Forum 29(2) Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  28. Jr, Young, and A. Alford. 2004. 13 experiences in ethnographic interviewing about race. In Researching race and racism, ed. Martin Blumer and John Solomos, 187–202. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Koretz, Daniel M. 2008. Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lamont, Michèle. 2000. The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  31. Lamont, Michèle. 1992. Money, morals and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lamont, Michèle. 2012. Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lamont, Michèle, and Katri Huutoniemi. 2011. Comparing customary rules of fairness: Evaluative practices in various types of peer review panels. In Social knowledge in the making, ed. Charles Camic, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont, 202–232. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lamont, Michèle, and Mario Luis Small. 2008. How culture matters: Enriching our understandings of poverty. In The colors of poverty: Why racial and ethnic disparities persist, ed. Ann Chih Lin and David R. Harris, 76–102. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  36. Lamont, Michèle, Stefan Beljean, and Matthew Clair. 2014. What is missing? Culture and causal pathways to inequality. Socioeconomic Review Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  37. Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lazarsfeld, Paul F. 1937. Some remarks on the typological procedures in social research. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 6: 119–139.Google Scholar
  39. Lens, Vicki. 2009. Confronting government after welfare reform: moralists, reformers, and narratives of (ir)responsibility at administrative fair hearings. Law & Society Review 43: 563–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lom, Stacy. 2010. Evaluative cultures in two art worlds. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Atlanta, GA: Hilton Atlanta and Atlanta Marriott Marquis.Google Scholar
  41. Lowry, Kem. 1993. Evaluation of community justice programs. In The possibility of popular justice: A case study of community mediation, ed. Sally Engle Merry and Neil Milner, 89–123. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  42. MacKenzie, Donald. 2011. The credit crisis as a problem in the sociology of knowledge. American Journal of Sociology 116: 1778–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MacKenzie, Donald. 2011a. Evaluation cultures? On invoking “culture” in the analysis of behaviour in financial markets. Working Paper. http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/64564/EvalCults11.pdf. Accessed 21 November 2013.
  44. Mallard, Grégoire, Michèle Lamont, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2009. Fairness as appropriateness: negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science, Technology & Human Values 34: 573–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. May, Buford, A. Reuben, and Mary Pattillo-McCoy. 2000. Do you see what I see: examining a collaborative ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry 6: 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McLean, Paul D. 1998. A frame analysis of favor-seeking in the renaissance: agency, networks, and political culture. American Journal of Sociology 104: 51–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Menger, Carl. 1883/1996. Investigations into the method of the social sciences. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  48. Mezuk, Briana, Irina Bondarenko, Suzanne Smith, and Eric Tucker. 2011. Impact of participating in a policy debate program on academic achievement: evidence from the Chicago urban debate league. Educational Research and Reviews 6: 622–635.Google Scholar
  49. Pager, Devah. 2007. Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Polikoff, Morgan S. 2012. Instructional alignment under no child left behind. American Journal of Education 118: 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Porter, Theodore M. 1995. Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Power, Michael. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rivera, Lauren. 2011. Ivies, extracurriculars, and exclusion: elite employers’ use of educational credentials. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 29: 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roberts, Dorothy. 2002. Shattered bonds: The color of child welfare. New York: Basic Civitas Books.Google Scholar
  55. Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Small, Mario Luis. 2002. Culture, cohorts, and social organization theory: understanding local participation in a Latino housing project. American Journal of Sociology 108: 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Small, Mario Luis, David J. Harding, and Michèle Lamont. 2010. Reconsidering culture and poverty. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 629: 6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith, Sandra Susan. 2005. “Don’t put my name on it”: social capital activation and job-finding assistance among the black urban poor. American Journal of Sociology 111: 1–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith, Sandra Susan. 2007. Lone pursuit: Distrust and defensive individualism among the black poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  60. Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford Jr., Worden Steven K, and Benford Robert D. 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51: 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stevens, Mitchell. 2007. Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture in action: symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51: 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tach, Laura M. 2009. More than bricks and mortar: neighborhood frames, social processes, and the mixed-income redevelopment of a public housing project. City & Community 8: 269–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thorton, Patricia H., William Ocasio, and Michael Lounsbury. 2012. The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tilly, Charles. 2008. Explaining social processes. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  66. Waldinger, Roger. 1996. Still the promised city? African Americans and immigrants in postindustrial New York. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Waters, Mary C. 1999. Black identities: West Indian immigrant dreams and American realities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  68. Watkins-Hayes, Celeste. 2009. The new welfare bureaucrats: entanglements of race, class, and policy reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weber, Max. 1922/1978. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  70. Williams, Joseph J., and David R. Mandel. 2007. Do evaluation frames improve the quality of conditional probability judgment? In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. D.S. McNamara and J.G. Trafton, 1653–1658. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  71. Zelizer, Viviana. 2005. The purchase of intimacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations