Scientific conferences, socialization, and the Covid-19 pandemic:a conceptual and empirical enquiry

Since the 1970s social analysts have seen communication between scientists not solely as information exchange (the algorithmical model), but as a process of socialization into overlapping and mutually embedded scientific domains (the enculturational model). Under the algorithmical model, the impact of the Covid-19 shutdown on travel would be easily remedied by replacing face-to-face communication with online platforms. Conferences and similar gatherings are costly, elitist, and environmentally damaging, but under the enculturational model abandoning them could be disastrous for science, which depends on the development of cross-national trust and mutual agreements through face-to-face interaction and, in turn, disastrous for science’s role in democracy. We explore the problem theoretically and empirically, arguing against recent proposals from some scientists for the wholesale and permanent replacement of conferences with remote communication

How outsiders see us: Multidisciplinary understandings of legal academia and legal academics

This paper presents findings from a project ‘Multidisciplinary Understandings of Legal Academia’ funded by the British Academy which investigates how academics from other fields and disciplines regard legal academia. As a scoping study undertaken at Cardiff University, we sought to empirically explore what non-legal academics know or believe about aspects of legal research, how other disciplinary actors perceive us and our discipline, and the extent to which different kinds of collaborative interaction with legal academics makes any difference to these assessments

Fear and loathing in legal academia: Legal academics’ perceptions of their field and their curious imaginaries of how ‘outsiders’ perceive it

This paper concerns the question of how legal academics think 'others' think about legal academia. Centralising our empirical work undertaken at a UK research intensive University which explored the attitudes, beliefs and knowledges of non-legal academics about the field of legal academia, we focus on the findings flowing from benchmarking surveys with legal academics which invited self-evaluations of the field of legal academia as well as imagining how non-legal academics might evaluate the field of legal academia. Of particular interest here, we note the presence of a curious divergence between self-perceptions of legal academia and their ‘imaginaries’ as to how others will perceive the field. Supported by a review of the legal scholarly literature, our study reveals a persistently bleak ‘folklore’ surrounding the question of how “others” will regard our field – though critically, one which on the basis of our empirical work, finds little root in reality. Providing the first study of its kind, and offering a range of novel analytical techniques, we highlight the significant purchase of empirical meta-disciplinary work of this kind for better understanding our field, and its relationship with wider spheres. While undertaken as a scoping study, we identify important potential pathways for raising the profile of legal academia and legal research in the wider academy and social sphere; quite critically, as we argue by reference to our findings, part of that work may simply involve legal academics projecting their more positive self-perceptions of their field and the value of their work to the outside world

How outsiders see us: Multidisciplinary understandings of legal academia and legal academics

This paper presents findings from a project ‘Multidisciplinary Understandings of Legal Academia’ funded by the British Academy which investigates how academics from other fields and disciplines regard legal academia. As a scoping study undertaken at Cardiff University, we sought to empirically explore what non-legal academics know or believe about aspects of legal research, how other disciplinary actors perceive us and our discipline, and the extent to which different kinds of collaborative interaction with legal academics makes any difference to these assessments

Uhm, er: How meaning varies between speech and its typed transcript

We use an extract from an interview concerning gravitational wave physics to show that the meaning of hesitancies within speech are different when spoken and when read from the corresponding transcript. When used in speech, hesitancies can indicate a pause for thought, when read in a transcript they indicate uncertainty. In a series of experiments the perceived uncertainty of the transcript was shown to be higher than the perceived uncertainty of the spoken version with almost no overlap for any respondent. We propose that finding and the method could be the beginning of a new subject we call 'Language Code Analysis' which would systematically examine how meanings change when the 'same' words are communicated via different media and symbol systems

Scientific conferences, socialization, and the Covid-19 pandemic: A conceptual and empirical enquiry

Since the 1970s social analysts have seen communication between scientists not solely as information exchange (the algorithmical model), but as a process of socialization into overlapping and mutually embedded scientific domains (the enculturational model). Under the algorithmical model, the impact of the Covid-19 shutdown on travel would be easily remedied by replacing face-to-face communication with online platforms. Conferences and similar gatherings are costly, elitist, and environmentally damaging, but under the enculturational model abandoning them could be disastrous for science, which depends on the development of cross-national trust and mutual agreements through face-to-face interaction and, in turn, disastrous for science’s role in democracy. We explore the problem theoretically and empirically, arguing against recent proposals from some scientists for the wholesale and permanent replacement of conferences with remote communication

Fear and Loathing in Legal Academia: Legal Academics’ Perceptions of Their Field and Their Curious Imaginaries of How ‘Outsiders’ Perceive It

This article concerns the question of how legal academics imagine ‘outsiders’ perceive legal academia. Centralising our empirical work undertaken at a UK research intensive University which explored the attitudes, beliefs and knowledges of non-legal academics about the field of legal academia, we focus on the findings flowing from benchmarking surveys with legal academics which invited self-evaluations of the field of legal academia as well as imagining how non-legal academics (’outsiders’) might evaluate the field of legal academia. Of particular interest, we note the presence of a curious divergence between self-perceptions of legal academia and their ‘imaginaries’ as to how ’outsiders’ will perceive the field. Supported by a review of the legal scholarly literature, our study reveals a persistently bleak ‘folklore’ surrounding the question of how ‘outsiders’ will regard legal academia – though critically, one which on the basis of our empirical work, finds little root in reality. Providing the first study of its kind, and offering a range of novel analytical techniques, we highlight the significant purchase of empirical meta-disciplinary work of this nature for better understanding legal academia and its relationship with other fields. While undertaken as a scoping study, we identify potential opportunities for raising the profile of legal academia in wider spheres, as well as enhancing opportunities for cross-disciplinary collaboration. As we argue by reference to our findings, part of that work may simply involve legal academics projecting their more positive self-perceptions of their field and the value of their work to the outside world

sj-docx-1-sss-10.1177_03063127221138521 – Supplemental material for Scientific conferences, socialization, and the Covid-19 pandemic: A conceptual and empirical enquiry

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sss-10.1177_03063127221138521 for Scientific conferences, socialization, and the Covid-19 pandemic: A conceptual and empirical enquiry by Harry Collins, Willow Leonard-Clarke and Will Mason-Wilkes in Social Studies of Science</p