fact that, conveniently enough, this arbitrary convention still left the first author slot to be occupied by the more (institutionally) senior member of the group. In spite of that, this paper would never had come to fruition if it was not for Dustin Stoltz's vision, perseverance, and hard work (especially when it comes to assembling the citation data) and as such he deserves special thanks. Dustin was the first one to "see" a paper where the first author just saw a set of smart points usable to impress students in a seminar context. Dustin herded all of the cats, and made the seemingly quixotic attempt to write a seven-authored theory piece seem like a breeze. Of course, it was the intellectual input of all authors that ultimately made the paper more than the sum of its separate parts although we will spare you tired emergence analogies.

A perennial concern in frame analysis is explaining how frames structure perception and persuade audiences. In this article, we suggest that the distinction between personal culture and public culture offers a productive way forward. We propose an approach centered on an analytic contrast between schemas, which we define as a form of personal culture, and frames, which we define as a form of public culture. We develop an “evocation model” of the structure and function of frames. In the model, frames are conceived as material assemblages that activate a network of schemas, thereby evoking a response when people are exposed to them. We discuss how the proposed model extends, and clarifies, extant approaches, and consider new directions for future research.

No abstract

The discovery of mirror neurons opens new doors for ethnography. By attending to these advancements in cognitive science, ethnographers are provided firmer ground for investigating perceptual and emotional dynamics that are outside the realm of conscious deliberative processes. In this article, we explore these extra-deliberative processes in order to posit a new way to collect, analyze, and present findings. By examining how extra-deliberative dynamics shape action in systematic ways, we endeavor to bring together two aspects of sociological practice that have been assumed to be incompatible: (1) analytic efforts to build general theory and (2) a focus on emotions and other extra-deliberative dynamics. We conclude by suggesting that insights garnered through the analysis of extra-deliberative processes are optimally communicated using emotionally evocative writing.

No abstract