外刊吃瓜

這里是JCS編輯部

本周JCS 外刊吃瓜

將為大家推送

社會(huì)學(xué)國際頂刊

Qualitative Sociology

（《質(zhì)性社會(huì)學(xué)》）

的最新目錄與摘要

期刊簡介

Qualitative Sociology is dedicated to the qualitative interpretation and analysis of social life. The journal does not restrict theoretical or analytical orientation and welcomes manuscripts based on research methods such as interviewing, participant observation, ethnography, historical analysis, archive research, and others which do not rely primarily on numerical data.

期刊影響因子

在2025年《期刊引證報(bào)告》（Journal Citation Reports，簡稱JCR）中，

Qualitative Sociology

本期內(nèi)容

Qualitative Sociology 為季刊，每年發(fā)布4期，最新一期（Volume 48, Issue 2, June 2025）共有10篇文章，詳情如下。

本期

目錄

原文摘要

ARTICLES

Aligning Valuations: Preservation Experts and the Values of Historic Heritage in Post-Disaster Mexico

Daniel Fridman, Benjamin Ibarra-Sevilla, Eldad J. Levy

Many experts are increasingly being tasked with bridging or reconciling different forms of value. How do experts handle valuations that conflict with their own? Drawing on in-depth interviews with Mexican historic heritage officials and secondary sources, we analyze the case of state historic preservation experts in Mexico who managed the restoration of over two thousand churches and chapels damaged by two earthquakes in 2017. Communities that used the temples valued the heritage primarily for its religious and everyday social significance, while insurance representatives saw it in economic terms, and preservation officials valued it for its historic significance, respect for original construction, and technical qualities. In this context, preservation experts sought to align these conflicting values, reducing the value dissonances and precariously making them compatible. In this aligning, they mobilized their authority differently with various actors. With local communities, they downplayed their expert authority, emphasizing dialogue and empathy, even as congregations sometimes jeopardized preservation efforts with unauthorized repairs. Preservation officials aligned their valuation of heritage with economic value more reluctantly. When dealing with insurance adjusters, preservation officials wielded their technical expertise to advocate for their vision of restoration funding. However, the practical challenges of damage evaluation and the complexity of heritage monuments facilitated aligning valuations with insurance. This article contributes to the intersections of the sociologies of valuation, expertise, and money.

Norms or Knowledge? Unpacking Views on Maternal Employment among the College Educated in South Korea

Eunsil Oh

Prior studies of postindustrial societies have shown that despite declines in some gendered expectations, the view that women should not work when their children are young persists. Yet there is insufficient research on how individuals arrive at and make sense of negative views of maternal employment in the context of increasing gender egalitarianism. South Korea is a compelling case of this seeming paradox. Drawing on 63 in-depth interviews, this study identifies the cognitive and psychological processes among both women and men that contribute to the gender norms surrounding maternal employment. Analysis reveals that the use of knowledge-based narratives reinforces negative views of maternal employment, including the belief that mothers should not work when a child under three is at home. In addition, there are two components of such a knowledge-based narrative that are tacitly assumed: a zero-risk mindset that prioritizes child welfare absolutely, and the temporal trap which emphasizes the life-long impact of maternal employment on a child’s life. In the end, this study identifies both the process in which individuals construct knowledge-based narratives and the elements within the narrative that reproduce existing intensive motherhood ideologies that culturally challenge maternal employment.

From Accountability to Algorithms: Interorganizational Learning and the Transformation of Quantification in Education

Jose Eos Trinidad

While studies often explore the intended and unintended consequences of technologies, few have theorized how and why they change. One crucial transformation in quantitative technologies is the shift from evaluative accountability to predictive algorithms, such as in schools that use dropout prediction systems. Using the case of ninth-grade early warning indicators, I argue that the transformation of quantification resulted from interorganizational learning, or the acquisition of new knowledge through the interaction of different organizations. In particular, I show how technology changes gradually from organization-level evaluation to individual-based prediction to systems-focused improvement. Pivotal to such changes were new forms of knowledge that emerged (1) as “instructing” organizations directed changes and “receiving” organizations resisted them; (2) as organizations in various fields reciprocally collaborated; and (3) as similar organizations practiced networked learning. Although studies have traditionally highlighted the “discipline” of technologies, I illustrate the power of organizational agents to resist, adapt, and change them—with implications for the study of quantification, work, institutional change, and education.

Who Should be Considered Indigenous? Intrastate Bureaucratic Jurisdictional Struggles Over Indigeneity in Peru

Alonso Burgos Cisneros

Numerous studies have focused on how states, bureaucracies, and social movements make race. Less explored, however, are the intrastate bureaucratic jurisdictional struggles to determine the official ethnoracial categorization of populations. Drawing on 19 interviews with government officials and Indigenous leaders as well as a content analysis of regulation and news, I examine the implementation of the Law of Prior Consultation in Peru. This law is unique because it establishes “objective” and “subjective” criteria that allow the state to determine who should be considered Indigenous in Peru. I show that official indigeneity arises from competition between government agencies. Officials from these agencies seek to demonstrate who has the stewardship to define who should be considered Indigenous by interpreting and reinterpreting the law’s criteria. My research also highlights the dynamics of resistance/accommodation between Indigenous organizations and official indigeneity.

Career Success and Gender Occupational Minorities: Reconstructing Gendered Notions of Career Success

Olga Czeranowska

Gender occupational minorities are individuals who deviate from gender-based occupational norms in their career choices: women in masculinized occupations and men in feminized occupations. Despite extensive research on some aspects of their experiences, few studies explore how men in feminized occupations and women in masculinized occupations define career success. The present qualitative analysis investigates two highly skilled groups of occupations who were chosen based on Bourdieu's (1998) practical principles of gender occupational segregation: IT/new technologies for women and childcare/education for men. I analyzed the interviewees’ definitions of career success and their experiences in achieving (or not achieving) career success within their occupational trajectories. Furthermore, my investigation delved into the factors influencing chances of achieving career success, particularly emphasizing the role of gender.

In Praise of “Thick Construction”

Josh Seim

Building on my book The Poverty of the Ethnography of Poverty ([2023] 2025), I make the case for “thick construction” as a rationalist approach to framing and conducting ethnography. Infused by Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological epistemology, thick construction is a “construction squared,” that is, a scientific (analytic) construction of an ordinary (folk) construction. Anchored by the concept of social space, thick construction aims to dodge the danger of “ethnographism,” the tendency to want to describe, interpret, and explain a phenomenon based solely on the elements discerned through fieldwork. It allows us to avoid committing one or another of the five organic fallacies of participant observation: interactionism, inductivism, populism, presentism, and the hermeneutic drift. I diagram how thick description, grounded theory, the extended-case method, abductive theorizing, and thick construction configure the duet of theory and observation. Eschewing the false opposition between concept and percept, thick construction aims to build heuristics for fabricating new objects. In this approach, contrary to conventional views, theory is not the haughty master but the humble servant of empirical research as approximation of the real.

Thick Construction as a Variant of Theory-Driven Ethnography

Josh Seim

Analytical theory should serve as both the point of departure and the target of reconstruction in any ethnographic project. Without reflexively engaging social science that bridges microprocesses to macroforces, ethnographers risk uncritically reproducing the folk theories of those they study. A central objective of sociology should be to either elaborate on or break from folk theory in explicit conversation with analytical theory. Grounded theory fails us in this regard, and to a lesser extent so too does abductive analysis. Theory-driven ethnography is the only answer. So-called thick construction offers a worthwhile model because it is a variant of this broader approach. However, its deep-rooted commitments to a theory of Bourdieusian social space should give us pause. Our baseline commitment should not be to Bourdieu specifically but instead to the broader sociological promise: the craft of linking personal troubles to public issues through and with analytical theory.

Epistemological Vigilance as Ethnographic Practice

Katherine Jensen

With “In Praise of ‘Thick Construction,’” Lo?c Wacquant offers a welcome manifesto for ethnography infused with Bourdieusian epistemology. Continuing in that spirit, I elaborate the need (and offer practical tips) for epistemological vigilance—that is, to reflexively interrogate one’s own thinking—in the face of prenotions that threaten the thick construction of ethnographic objects. To illustrate the allure of prenotions and analytical struggles against them, I offer brief notes on some practical avenues to foster epistemological reflexivity: recognition, purposive reading, curious skepticism, patience, and intellectual record-keeping.

Is the Ethnographic Fact Conquered or Co-Constructed?

Neil Gong

Wacquant’s critique of ethnographic reductionism is trenchant and insightful, but it presents two major problems for practicing fieldworkers. First, his philosophy of social science focused on “conquering” facts is ill suited to the empathic competencies needed for ethnography—that is, the methodology is problematic as method. Second, Wacquant’s a-social, rationalist vision is at odds with what the sociology of science tells us about knowledge production. Turning to the pragmatist tradition and reflecting on my own research experience, I show the benefits of viewing ethnographic facts as less conquered in combat than co-constructed in community. Collaborating with the community under study and the scientific community of inquiry can help researchers conduct better fieldwork, lean on others’ creativity, and ultimately reach Wacquant’s desired end goal of “thick construction.”

Catching the “Epistemological Virus”: A Rejoinder to the Critics of Thick Construction

Lo?c Wacquant

In my response to the three critics of “In Praise of ‘Thick Construction’,” I draw attention to the philosophical foundation of neo-Bourdieusian ethnography in the writings of Gaston Bachelard and Georges Canguilhem, as reworked in Pierre Bourdieu’s The Craft of Sociology ([1968] 1990). I characterize ethnography as embodied and embedded social inquiry which requires a triple historicization of the agents observed, the social world in which they evolve, and the categories and techniques used by the analyst. I insist that, while theory-driven, thick construction aims at the production of new objects and not returning to theory in a solipsistic movement. Historical readings, stepping in and out of the field site, drawing diagrams, and keeping a meta-diary are four techniques promoting the reflexive construction of the object. Being epistemologically vigilant does not hinder but fosters rich and trusting relationships with protagonists in the field. But reflexivity can only be achieved collectively by a scientific field in which mutual critics are objective allies in the joint imagination, production, and validation of sociological knowledge.

以上就是本期 JCS 外刊吃瓜的全部內(nèi)容啦！

期刊/趣文/熱點(diǎn)/漫談

學(xué)術(shù)路上，

JCS 陪你一起成長！

關(guān)于 JCS

《中國社會(huì)學(xué)學(xué)刊》（The Journal of Chinese Sociology）于2014年10月由中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院社會(huì)學(xué)研究所創(chuàng)辦。作為中國大陸第一本英文社會(huì)學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)期刊，JCS致力于為中國社會(huì)學(xué)者與國外同行的學(xué)術(shù)交流和合作打造國際一流的學(xué)術(shù)平臺(tái)。JCS由全球最大科技期刊出版集團(tuán)施普林格·自然(Springer Nature)出版發(fā)行，由國內(nèi)外頂尖社會(huì)學(xué)家組成強(qiáng)大編委會(huì)隊(duì)伍，采用雙向匿名評(píng)審方式和“開放獲取”(open access)出版模式。JCS已于2021年5月被ESCI收錄。2022年，JCS的CiteScore分值為2.0（Q2），在社科類別的262種期刊中排名第94位，位列同類期刊前36%。2025年JCS最新影響因子1.3，位列社會(huì)學(xué)領(lǐng)域期刊全球前53%（Q3）。

▉ 歡迎向《中國社會(huì)學(xué)學(xué)刊》投稿!!

Please consider submitting to

The Journal of Chinese Sociology!

▉ 官方網(wǎng)站：

https://journalofchinesesociology.springeropen.com