Advertisement

Culture in Interaction: Academic Identities in Laboratory Work

  • Martin Benninghoff
  • Philippe Sormani

The present contribution is based on an ongoing ethnography of laboratory work in a physics and a genetics laboratory, respectively. The proposed ethnographic account addresses “academic identities” as a sociological issue by turning it into the following empirical question: how, if at all, are academic identities relevant issues for laboratory work? The curious neglect of that question in both higher education and ethnographic studies provides the reason for doing so.

Keywords

Laboratory Work Doctoral Student Scientific Practice Participant Observation Membership Category 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Enders, J. (2002). Academic staff in Europe: Changing employment and working conditions. In Tight, M. (ed.) Academic work and life: What it is to be an academic, and how this is changing. New York: JAI, Elsevier Science, pp. 341–366.Google Scholar
  2. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In McKinney, J.C. and Tiryakian, E.A. (eds) Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  4. Gieryn, Th.F. (1994). Boundaries of science. In Jasanoff, S., Markle, G.E., Petersen, J.C., and Pinch T. (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. London: Sage, pp. 393–443.Google Scholar
  5. Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (2001). Institutional selves. Troubled identities in a postmodern world. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  7. Henkel, M. (2004). Current science policies and their implications for the formation and maintenance of academic identity. Higher Education Policy, 17, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hester, S. and Eglin, P. (eds) (1997). Culture in action. Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington, DC: IIEMCA & University Press of America.Google Scholar
  9. Knorr, K. (1981). Anthropologie und Ethnomethodologie: Eine theoretische und methodische Herausfordering. In Schmied-Kowarzik, W. and Stagl, J. (eds) Grundfragen der Ethnologie. Beiträge zur gegenwärtigen Theorie-Diskussion. Berlin: Reimer, pp. 107–123.Google Scholar
  10. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1994). Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In Jasanoff, S., Markle, G.E., Petersen, J.C., and Pinch, T. (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. London: Sage, pp. 140–66.Google Scholar
  11. Kogan, M., Bauer, M., Bleiklie, I., and Henkel, M. (2000). Transforming higher education: A comparative study. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  12. Latour, B. (1995). Le métier de chercheur. Regard d’un anthropologue. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
  13. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mondada, L. (2002). Interactions et pratiques professionnelles: Un regard issu des studies of work. Studies in Communication of Sciences, 2(2), 47–82.Google Scholar
  15. Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints’. In Schenkein, J.N. (ed.) Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 79–112.Google Scholar
  16. Sacks, H. (1963). Sociological description. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 8, 1–16. Reprinted In Lynch, M. and Sharrock, W. (eds) (2003). Harold Garfinkel. London: Sage, pp. 203–216.Google Scholar
  17. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. In Jefferson, G. (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schegloff, E.A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sherman, W. (2007). Educating normal scientists: Practical work. Paper presented at Scientific Practice as Ordinary Action, an International Workshop on Scientists at Work. Fribourg University, Switzerland, March 22–23, 2007.Google Scholar
  21. Watson, R. (1994). Catégories, séquentialités et ordre social: Un nouveau regard sur l’oeuvre de Sacks. In Fradin, B., Quéré, L., and Widmer, J. (eds) L’enquête sur les categories: De Durkheim à Sacks. Paris: EHESS, pp. 151–184.Google Scholar
  22. Wieder, D.L. (1974). Language and social reality. The case of telling the convict code. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Benninghoff
    • 1
  • Philippe Sormani
    • 1
  1. 1.Observatory Science, Policy, and SocietyUniversity of LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations