Practical Sociology Journal

Call for contributions from thejournal Sociologies pratiques foran issue entitled:

"Renewing criticism of quantitative assessment tools: a detour via ethnographic observation"

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

Assessment tools, considered objective, now seem to be authoritative in the organization of work, such as the use of numerical assessment in private neo-management and public policy (health, police, education, research, etc.). 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 broad and external in the sense that it does not analyze how individuals appropriate these tools. It is in this regard that we believe it is useful to take a detour to observe practices, insofar as evaluation tools are increasingly intertwined with everyday activities (software, tools, procedures, etc.): how does numerical evaluation "work" in practice? In other words, what are the practical limitations of its implementation? What relationship do workers have with measurement tools? Beyond the norm that is well established in discourse and in people's minds ("the spirit of calculation"), what does the analysis of resistance to quantification or, on the contrary, its acceptance, or even its appropriation by those who benefit from it, reveal? To what extent do actors accept the constraints imposed by numbers, while developing ingenious ways to battle with numbers in the course of their practical activities, which ultimately amounts to diverting or even subverting them?

This issue aims to contribute to recent reflections on changes in the world of work, focusing in particular on criticism from stakeholders as captured using ethnographic observation methods. This issue invites contributors to move beyond criticism of the principle behind these tools and make way for an empirical sociology of criticism. The aim is therefore to bring together studies of evaluation observed from below. Let us clarify from the outset what we mean by "observation": this refers to 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 various decision-making support systems are proliferating. From this point of view, the areas that have received the most attention are perhaps those sectors 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 staff (Mignot-Gérard & Sarfati, 2015), and professionals working with unemployed people (Pillon, 2018). While tools for quantifying work are not new (measuring productivity, qualifications, etc.), they are increasingly present in the course of action itself, via software, tools, procedures, etc. They no longer fall within a clear division of roles between a sponsor, evaluators, and subjects of evaluation (Bardet and Jany-Catrice, 2010). All strata are subject to evaluations of their activities, which must be mobilized in the context of work. We can therefore qualify the idea of automation of judgment and decisions by evaluation tools. The case of teachers is emblematic: they participate in the development of tools that evaluate their students, but this information is also used by a large number of actors for reasons other than pedagogy (student selection, audience segmentation, school rankings, etc.). However, in the case of teachers, as in that of all professionals, we may wonder to what extent the use of these numerical evaluations influences their judgment. We must therefore consider how workers' criticisms contribute to numbing the tools, diverting them, or, on the contrary, making them work despite their obvious flaws. This issue is thus a continuation of the "Filing and Measuring" dossier in issue 22 of Sociologies pratiques (Mouhanna 2011), with the difference that here we are focusing on workers who participate in various ways in the evaluation to which they are subjected. In the most classic cases, it is the workers who collect the figures in the course of their work, but they may also participate in negotiations on the methods and purposes of evaluations, or they may personally evaluate by giving a score. This issue therefore proposes to shift the focus from the consequences on the social worlds that are subject to the tools, which have already been extensively explored, to the activity of those who produce them. Contributions may fall into one of the following three categories.

Axis 1: How are judgments changing under the pressure of numbers?
This first axis seeks to understand the influence of these numerical evaluations on professional judgments (ways of assessing, valuing, and categorizing audiences, tasks, and their adjustment). The wave of reforms borrowing from the New Public Management repertoire has contributed to this proliferation of figures by emphasizing results rather than means (Bezès, 2009). Although more discreet, do evaluation practices nonetheless have major consequences? Examples include teachers (Chauvel, 2014), social housing allocation services (Bourgeois, 2018), and rail transport (Finez, 2014). The private sector can also find itself under pressure from figures, with various non-financial indicators aimed at predicting results (Puyou, 2009), sometimes to the point of replacing qualitative assessments of employees with scores or rankings. How are professional practices intertwined with real-time performance measurements, such as online press audience figures or ratings for private hire drivers? How do workers make decisions or carry out their 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 surrounding assessment tools
This axis focuses more specifically on tensions and conflicts between actors. 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. So how can we account for ethical controversies surrounding assessment tools? How do discussions about the use of assessment results arise? Does numerical assessment work reflect the power relations that exist within groups?

Axis 3: The organizational context of evaluation
The third axis focuses on how evaluation duplicates, complements, or challenges the assessment made by actors. It involves paying attention to the organizations, situational constraints, and material mechanisms in which individuals interact. Does the vertical and horizontal division of labor have an impact on what workers can afford to do with the figures and what they can afford to say about them? Without caricaturing the work on one side and criticism on the other, as if the actors were working despite the figures surrounding them, we can ask ourselves how they cope with the constraints of their job. What are the possible scenarios between the different levels of evaluation? When does this confrontation take place?
The aim of this dossier is to provide a range of perspectives 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 broadest possible overview of this work of evaluation. This dossier is also part of a broader theoretical syncretism, considering that a plurality of schools of thought are in fact capable of engaging in dialogue on the question of the supports mobilized by actors to make judgments, the frameworks within which they do so, and the objectives they attribute to their practices.

Presentation of the journal

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 now 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 (approximately 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 journal's editorial project reflects 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 perspective to understand social change. The desire to combine the testimonies of actors in the field—who are at the heart of these 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 any reader interested in sociology in practice.

Article submission procedure

The journal Sociologies pratiques is aimed at academic and university researchers as well as professionals, practitioners, and consultants who use sociology in their work. Two types of articles are welcome. On the one hand, reflexive and sociological analyses based on recent empirical research (analysis of testimonials, case studies, critical debates, etc.). Second, analyses of professional practices (testimonials 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 with different themes developed in the call for papers are welcome. Article proposals (5,000 characters including spaces) should be sent electronically to socioprat40@gmail.com by January 15, 2019. They should include a presentation of the sociological questions, 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 draft of their article (25,000 characters 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 review by the journal's Reading Committee, composed of the two coordinators, members of the Editorial Board, and an external reviewer. Acceptance of the article proposal does not guarantee acceptance of the article.
Please send article proposals of no more than 5,000 characters (including spaces) by January 15, 2019, electronically 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 editorial board.
Articles (between 15,000 and 27,000 characters, including spaces) must be returned to the journal by April 1, 2019, and will be discussed with the editorial board.
The issue is scheduled for release in April 2020.
For more information about the journal,visitwww.sociologies-pratiques.com