Revue Sociologies pratiques

Call for contributions from the journalSociologiespratiquesforan issue entitled :

"Renewing the critique of numerical evaluation tools: the detour via ethnographic observation".

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

Assessment tools, reputed to be objective, now seem to be authoritative in the organization of work, such as the use of numerical assessment in private neo-management and public policies (health, police, education, research...). The rise of numerical assessment tools is now the subject of numerous analyses (Desrosières, 2000; Bruno and Didier, 2013; Bidet and Jany-Catrice, 2017). The critical component of this work can sometimes appear global and external, in the sense that it does not analyze the appropriation of these tools by individuals. This is where a detour through the observation of practices seems useful, insofar as assessment tools are increasingly presented as intertwined with everyday action (software, tools, procedures, etc.): how does numerical assessment "work" in action? In other words, what are the practical limits to its use? How do workers relate to measurement tools? Beyond the norm that is firmly anchored in discourse and in people's minds ("the calculating spirit"), what does an analysis of the activity reveal about resistance to quantification or, on the contrary, its acceptance, or even its recuperation by those who profit from it? To what extent do actors and actresses accept the constraint exerted by numbers, while at the same time developing a wealth of ingenuity to battle with numbers in the very course of their practical activities, which ultimately amounts to hijacking or even subverting them?

The aim of this issue is to contribute to recent reflections on the transformation of work, with a particular focus on the critique of actors captured through ethnographic observation. This issue proposes that contributors bypass criticism of the principle of these tools to make way for an empirical sociology of criticism. The aim is to bring together studies of evaluation observed from below. Let's be clear from the outset what we mean by "observation": it's the direct observation of work interactions, particularly in the context of a reflexive review of professional practices.

The value of such an approach seems all the greater to us in the study of work and professions, where the various decision-making aids proliferate. From this point of view, the areas that have received the most attention are perhaps those where the social stakes are the highest, such as for police officers (Matelly & Mouhanna 2007; Moreau de Bellaing, 2015), journalists (Lemieux, 2000), hospital staff (Juven, 2013), higher education (Mignot-Gérard & Sarfati, 2015) or professionals in charge of the unemployed (Pillon, 2018). While quantified work evaluation tools are not new (measuring productivity, qualification, etc.) these are increasingly present in the very course of action, via software, tools, procedures, etc. They are no longer based on a clear-cut division of roles between the client, the evaluators and the subjects of the evaluation (Bardet and Jany-Catrice, 2010). All strata are subject to evaluations of their activities, which must be mobilized within the framework of their work. We can therefore qualify the idea that assessment tools automate judgment and decision-making. The case of teachers is emblematic: they participate in the construction of the tools that evaluate their students, but this information is also mobilized by a large number of actors for reasons other than pedagogy (student selection, audience segmentation, school rankings, etc.). In the case of teachers, as in the case of all professionals, we may well wonder to what extent the use of these numerical evaluations modifies their judgement. The aim is therefore to examine the way in which workers' criticisms help to anaesthetize the tools, to divert them or, on the contrary, to make them work by overcoming their obvious shortcomings. This issue thus follows on from the "Ficher et mesurer" dossier in issue 22 of Sociologies pratiques (Mouhanna 2011), with the difference that here we focus on workers who participate in various ways in the evaluation of which they are the object. In the most classic cases, it's the workers who collect the figures in the course of their work, but they can also take part in negotiations about the modalities and purposes of evaluations, and they can also personally evaluate by giving a mark. This issue therefore proposes to shift our gaze from the already widely-explored consequences for the social worlds affected by tools, to the activities of those who produce them. Contributions may fall into one of the following three categories.

Axis 1: Transformations in judgment under the pressure of numbers?
In this first axis, the aim is to understand the influences of these numerical evaluations on professional judgments (ways of appreciating, valuing and categorizing audiences, tasks and their adjustment). The flood of reforms borrowing from the New Public Management repertoire has contributed to this flowering of figures, by emphasizing the criterion of results rather than means (Bezès, 2009). Although more discreet, do evaluation practices nonetheless have major consequences? Think of teachers (Chauvel, 2014), social housing allocation services (Bourgeois, 2018) or rail transport (Finez, 2014). The private sector, too, may find itself under pressure from numbers, with various non-financial indicators aimed at predicting results (Puyou, 2009), sometimes to the point of replacing qualitative employee assessments with grades or rankings? How are professional practices intertwined with real-time measures of their performance, such as online press audience figures or VTC driver ratings? How do workers make decisions or perform tasks knowing that they are being evaluated? Does evaluation mean extra work, or does it change the work itself?

Axis 2: Tensions and conflicts at work around assessment tools
This axis focuses on tensions and conflicts between players. Over and above the technical issues at stake, judgments about assessment tools are based on conceptions of what is fair and what is unfair. The controversies that have emerged in EPHADs in recent years over the timing of tasks and the treatment of residents are just one example. So how do we account for ethical controversies concerning assessment tools? How do discussions about the use of assessment results emerge? Does the work of numerical evaluation bear the imprint of the power relations that punctuate collectives?

Axis 3: The organizational context of evaluation
The third axis looks at the way in which evaluation duplicates, combines with or competes with the evaluation carried out by the actors. This involves paying attention to the organizations, situational constraints and material devices in which individuals interact. Does the vertical and horizontal division of labor affect what workers can afford to do with numbers, and what they can afford to make them say? Without caricaturally opposing work on the one hand and criticism on the other, or pretending that the actors and actresses work despite the numbers that surround them, we can ask how they deal with the constraints of their workstations. What is the range of possible situations between the different types of assessment? At what points does this confrontation take place?
The aim of this dossier is to multiply the points of view on the work of evaluation. It is intended to include work carried out in different professions and sectors, as well as reflective feedback from practitioners, in order to offer the widest possible panorama of this work of evaluation. Such a dossier is also part of the greatest theoretical syncretism, considering that a plurality of schools of thought are in fact capable of dialoguing on the question of the supports mobilized by actors to judge; the frameworks within which they do so; and the objectives they attribute to their practices.

Magazine presentation

Sociologies pratiques is a sociology journal founded in 1999 by Renaud Sainsaulieu and the Association des professionnels en sociologie de l'entreprise (APSE). It is currently published by Presses de Sciences Po. The journal is included in the list of scientific journals recognized by the Haut conseil de l'évaluation de la recherche et de l'enseignement supérieur (HCERES). It is listed on the Francis and Cairn databases. Sociologies pratiques is published twice a year. Its thematic issues (around 200 pages) give a voice to researchers and practitioners in order to bear witness to emerging social realities and understand the movements of our world. The magazine's editorial project reflects an applied sociology. In this sense, it seeks to strike a balance between the academic and professional worlds, between understanding and action, while taking a clearly sociological look at social change. The desire to combine the testimonies of those working in the field - who are at the heart of transformations - with the reflections of researchers - who present the results of their most recent investigations - makes Sociologies pratiques an original editorial and intellectual space for all readers interested in practical sociology.

Article submission procedure

Sociologies pratiques magazine is aimed at academic researchers, as well as professionals, practitioners and consultants who use sociology in their work. Two types of articles are expected. On the one hand, reflective and sociological analyses based on recent empirical research (analysis of testimonies, case studies, critical debates, etc.). On the other hand, analyses of professional practices (testimonies of practices and reflections on the conditions of action, the justifications for action and the consequences for action). In either case, articles must be analytical and address one or more of the issues raised in the call for papers. Articles that cross the different axes developed in the call are welcome. Article intentions (5000 signs including spaces) should be sent electronically by January 15, 2019 to socioprat40@gmail.com. They should contain a presentation of the sociological questioning, the field, the methodology and the proposed results. After review, the journal will return its opinion to the authors on February 15, 2019. Authors must then submit a first complete version of their article (25,000 signs including spaces, excluding bibliography) by April 1, 2019. The journal will be published in October 2019. All article proposals, like all articles, are subject to the opinion of the journal's Reading Committee, made up of the two coordinators, members of the Editorial Board and an external reviewer. Acceptance of the article intention does not presume acceptance of the article.
Send an article intention of 5,000 signs maximum (spaces included) by January 15, 2019 electronically to:socioprat40@gmail.com
The journal will return its advice to authors on January 15, 2019
Acceptance of the article intention does not presume acceptance of the final article, which will be submitted to the journal's reading committee.
Articles (between 15,000 signs and a maximum of 27,000 signs, including spaces) must be returned to the journal by April 1, 2019, and will be discussed with the reading committee.
The issue is scheduled for publication in April 2020
More information about the journal:www.sociologies-pratiques.com