Monthly Archives: January 2015

higher education and the professions

“We see the relationship between this expansion of schooling and the proliferation of strategic action fields as reciprocal. On the one hand, the proliferation and increasing complexity of strategic action fields produces a demand for individuals who have high-level organizational skills. But these newly educated individuals also have the social and technical skills to fashion new strategic action fields and work to expand existing ones.” (Fligstein & McAdam, A Theory of Fields, p. 79)

the range of uses of concepts

“The challenge as progressive scholars is not to sort the conservative concepts from the progressive ones, the tainted from the pure. Indeed, many scholars note how progressive intellectuals often reproduce structures of inequality and domination (…). We are asked, however, to consider the range of uses of concepts that can be harnessed to many ends.” (Bonnie McElhinny. Silicon Valley Sociolinguistics? in Language in Late Capitalism, p. 253)

inner view

“For most of us, most of the time, the latent threat of the outer perspective is held in check by the lived experience of the “inner perspective.” Our daily lives are typically grounded in the unshakable conviction that no one’s life is more important than our own and that the world is an inherently meaningful place. But one does not will this inner view into existence of his or her own accord. It is instead a collaborative product, born of the everyday reciprocal meaning making, identity conferring efforts we engage in with those around us.” (Fligstein & McAdam, A Theory of Fields, p. 41)

network analysis

“In short, the analyst always has to provide the theoretical underpinning for what is important about the relationships (i.e., networks) being studied for any given outcome. If a field is really an arena in which individuals, groups, or organizations face off to capture some gain as our view suggests, then the underlying logic of fields is not encoded in the structure of the network but in the cultural conceptions of power, privilege, resources, rules, and so on that shape action within the strategic action field.” (Fligstein & McAdam, A Theory of Fields, p. 30)