Journal of Practical Sociology

Call for Papers from thejournal *Sociologies pratiques* foran issue titled:

“A Fresh Look at the Critique of Quantitative Assessment Tools: A Detour Through Ethnographic Observation”

Coordinators: Séverine Chauvel (LIRTES, UPEC) and Jean-Marie Pillon (IRISSO, Paris-Dauphine)

Assessment tools, considered objective, now seem to hold sway in the organization of work—for example, the use of quantitative assessment in private-sector “neo-management” and public policy (health care, law enforcement, education, research, etc.). The rise of quantitative evaluation tools is currently the subject of numerous analyses (Desrosières, 2000; Bruno and Didier, 2013; Bidet and Jany-Catrice, 2017). The critical component of this research can sometimes appear broad and external in the sense that it omits an analysis of how individuals appropriate these tools. It is in this regard that we believe a detour into the observation of practices is useful, given that assessment tools are increasingly intertwined with everyday activities (software, tools, procedures, etc.): how does quantitative assessment “work” in practice? In other words, within what practical limits is it implemented? What relationship do workers have with measurement tools? Beyond the norm deeply entrenched in discourse and in people’s minds (“the spirit of calculation”), what does an analysis of resistance to quantification—or, conversely, of its acceptance, or even its co-optation by those who benefit from it—reveal to us? To what extent do actors accept the constraints imposed by numbers, while at the same time developing a wealth of ingenuity to grapple with those numbers in the very course of their practical activities—which ultimately amounts to diverting or even subverting them?

This issue aims to contribute to recent discussions on changes in the world of work, focusing specifically on the critiques of actors as captured through ethnographic observation. This issue invites contributors to move beyond critiques of the underlying principles of these tools and instead make way for an empirical sociology of critique. The goal, therefore, is to bring together studies of evaluation observed from the ground up. Let us clarify from the outset what we mean by “observation”: it refers to the direct observation of workplace interactions, particularly in the context of a reflective examination of professional practices.

We believe that the value of such an approach is all the greater when studying work and professions where various decision-support tools are proliferating. From this perspective, the fields that have received the most attention are perhaps those where the social stakes are highest, such as the police (Matelly and Mouhanna 2007; Moreau de Bellaing, 2015), journalists (Lemieux, 2000), hospital staff (Juven, 2013), higher education faculty (Mignot-Gérard & Sarfati, 2015), and professionals working with the unemployed (Pillon, 2018). While tools for quantifying work are not new (measuring productivity, qualifications, etc.), they are increasingly present in the very course of action, through software, tools, procedures, and so on. They no longer fall within a clear-cut division of roles between a sponsor, evaluators, and those being evaluated (Bardet and Jany-Catrice, 2010). All levels are subject to evaluations of their activities, which must be utilized within the context of their work. We can therefore qualify the idea that evaluation tools automate judgment and decision-making. The case of teachers is emblematic: they participate in the development of the tools that assess their students, but this information is also used by a wide range of stakeholders for reasons entirely unrelated to pedagogy (student selection, segmentation of student populations, school rankings, etc.). However, in the case of teachers—as with all professionals—one might ask to what extent the uses of these quantified assessments alter their judgment. We must therefore examine how workers’ critiques help to neutralize these tools, divert them from their intended purpose, or, conversely, make them function effectively by overcoming their obvious flaws. This issue thus builds on the “Recording and Measuring” special section in issue 22 of *Sociologies pratiques* (Mouhanna 2011), with the difference that here we focus on workers who participate in various ways in the evaluations to which they are subjected. In the most typical cases, it is the workers themselves who collect the data in the course of their work, but they may also participate in negotiations regarding the methods and purposes of evaluations, and they may personally evaluate others by assigning a grade. This issue therefore proposes to shift the focus from the consequences for the social worlds subjected to these tools—which have already been extensively explored—to the activities of those who produce them. Contributions may fall under one of the following three themes.

Theme 1: How Is Judgment Changing Under the Pressure of Quantitative Metrics?
This first theme aims to understand the influence of these quantitative assessments on professional judgments (ways of evaluating, assessing the value of, and categorizing target audiences, tasks, and their alignment). The wave of reforms drawing on the New Public Management framework has contributed to this proliferation of metrics by emphasizing outcomes over resources (Bezès, 2009). Although more discreet, do evaluation practices not nonetheless have major consequences? One might consider—among others—teachers (Chauvel, 2014), social housing allocation services (Bourgeois, 2018), or even rail transportation (Finez, 2014). The private sector, too, may find itself under pressure to meet numerical targets, with various non-financial indicators aimed at predicting results (Puyou, 2009)—to the point where qualitative employee evaluations are sometimes replaced by ratings or rankings. How are professional practices intertwined with real-time measures of performance, such as online media audience figures or ratings for ride-hailing drivers? How do workers make decisions or carry out their tasks knowing that they are being evaluated? Does evaluation entail extra work, or does it change the nature of the work itself?

Theme 2: Tensions and Conflicts in the Workplace Surrounding Assessment Tools
This theme focuses specifically on the tensions and conflicts between stakeholders. Beyond technical issues, judgments about assessment tools reflect conceptions of what is fair and unfair. The controversies that have emerged in nursing homes in recent years regarding the timing of tasks and the treatment of residents are just one example among many. Therefore, how can we account for ethical controversies surrounding assessment tools? How do discussions arise regarding the use of assessment results? Do quantitative assessment results reflect the power dynamics that characterize these communities?

Theme 3: The Organizational Context of Evaluation
The third theme examines how evaluation complements, aligns with, or challenges the assessment developed by the actors involved. The focus is on the organizations, situational constraints, and material frameworks within which individuals interact. Does the vertical and horizontal division of labor affect what workers can afford to do with the numbers and what they can afford to make them mean? Without drawing a caricatured contrast between work on one side and critique on the other—as if the actors were working in spite of the numbers surrounding them—we can ask how they cope with the constraints of their jobs. What is the range of possible situations across the different levels of evaluation? At what points does this confrontation play out?
This issue aims to broaden the range of perspectives on the work of evaluation. It is designed to include studies conducted across various professions and sectors, as well as reflective insights from practitioners, in order to offer the broadest possible overview of this evaluative work. Furthermore, this special issue is rooted in a broad theoretical synthesis, recognizing that a plurality of schools of thought are in fact capable of engaging in dialogue regarding the resources mobilized by actors to make judgments; the frameworks within which they do so; and the objectives they assign to their practices.

About the Journal

*Sociologies pratiques* is a sociology journal founded in 1999 by Renaud Sainsaulieu and the Association of Professionals in Business Sociology (APSE). It is currently published by Presses de Sciences Po. The journal is included in the list of scientific journals recognized by the High Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (HCERES). It is indexed in the Francis and Cairn databases. *Sociologies pratiques* is published twice a year. Its thematic issues (approximately 200 pages) provide a platform for researchers and practitioners to shed light on emerging social realities and to understand the shifts taking place in our world. The journal’s editorial mission reflects an applied approach to sociology. In this sense, it seeks a balance between the academic and professional worlds, between understanding and action, while maintaining a clearly sociological perspective to understand social change. The commitment to bringing together the testimonies of field practitioners—who are at the heart of these transformations—and the reflections of researchers—who present the results of their most recent studies—makes *Sociologies pratiques* a unique editorial and intellectual forum for any reader interested in sociology in practice.

Article Submission Procedure

The journal *Sociologies pratiques* is aimed at academic researchers and university scholars as well as professionals, practitioners, and consultants who draw on sociology in their work. We welcome two types of articles. First, reflective and sociological analyses based on recent empirical research (analyses of testimonials, case studies, critical debates, etc.). Second, analyses of professional practices (accounts of practices and reflections on the conditions of action, the justifications for action, and the consequences of action). In both cases, articles must be analytical and address one or more of the questions raised in the call for papers. Articles that intersect different themes developed in the call are welcome. Proposals (5,000 characters, including spaces) must be submitted by January 15, 2019, via email to socioprat40@gmail.com. They must include a presentation of the sociological research question, the fieldwork, the methodology, and the proposed results. After review, the journal will notify authors of its decision by February 15, 2019. Authors must then submit a complete first draft of their article (25,000 characters, including spaces; bibliography not included) by April 1, 2019. The journal will be published in October 2019. All article proposals, like all articles, are subject to review by the journal’s Editorial Board, composed of the two coordinators, members of the Editorial Committee, and an external reviewer. Acceptance of the article proposal does not guarantee acceptance of the full article.
Please submit an article proposal of no more than 5,000 characters (including spaces) by January 15, 2019, via email to the following address:socioprat40@gmail.com
The journal will notify authors of its decision on January 15, 2019
Acceptance of the article proposal does not guarantee acceptance of the final article, which will be submitted to the journal’s peer review committee.
Articles (between 15,000 and 27,000 characters, including spaces) must be submitted to the journal by April 1, 2019, and will be subject to review by the editorial board.
The issue is scheduled for publication in April 2020
For more information about the journal:www.sociologies-pratiques.com