We report a small empirical study on the way the transcription used to represent speech affects its meaning. We show that ‘disfluencies’ in speech indicate far more uncertainty in the speaker when transmitted in text than when transmitted in recorded sound. This has important implications for how transcribed interviews should be edited when they are being used to convey meaning rather than the organization of phonemes. We propose the implications of different ways of representing speech in text could be a new subject for investigation. Presented here is one possible empirical approach to such studies.

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.

The nature and role of social groups is a central tension in sociology. On the one hand, the idea of a group enables sociologists to locate and describe individuals in terms of characteristics that are shared with others. On the other, emphasizing the fluidity of categories such as gender or ethnicity undermines their legitimacy as ways of classifying people and, by extension, the legitimacy of categorization as a goal of sociological research. In this paper, we use a new research method known as the Imitation Game to defend the social group as a sociological concept. We show that, despite the diversity of practices that may be consistent with self-identified membership of a group, there are also shared normative expectations -typically narrower in nature than the diversity displayed by individual group members -that shape the ways in which category membership can be discussed with, and performed to, others. Two claims follow from this. First, the Imitation Game provides a way of simultaneously revealing both the diversity and 'groupishness' of social groups. Second, that the social group, in the quasi-Durkheimian sense of something that transcends the individual, remains an important concept for sociology.

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.

No abstract