How fields vary

Abstract

Field theorists have long insisted that research needs to pay attention to the particular properties of each field studied. But while much field-theoretical research is comparative, either explicitly or implicitly, scholars have only begun to develop the language for describing the dimensions along which fields can be similar to and different from each other. In this context, this paper articulates an agenda for the analysis of variable properties of fields. It discusses variation in the degree but also in the kind of field autonomy. It discusses different dimensions of variation in field structure: fields can be more or less contested, and more or less hierarchical. The structure of symbolic oppositions in a field may take different forms. Lastly, it analyses the dimensions of variation highlighted by research on fields on the sub- and transnational scale. Post-national analysis allows us to ask how fields relate to fields of the same kind on different scales, and how fields relate to fields on the same scale in other national contexts. It allows us to ask about the role resources from other scales play in structuring symbolic oppositions within fields. A more fine-tuned vocabulary for field variation can help us better describe particular fields and it is a precondition for generating hypotheses about the conditions under which we can expect to observe fields with specified characteristics.

Field Emergence in Civil Society: A Theoretical Framework and Its Application to Community-Led Housing Organisations in England

“…Further insights are generated by work on the institutionalisation of civil society fields (Nicholls 2010a, b;Nicholls and Teasdale 2017). In line with Barman (2016) and Krause (2018), we believe that different field traditions (Bourdieusian, New Institutionalist and Strategic Action Fields) can complement each other in the analysis of particular fields.…”

Governing the School by Transnational Networks. The OECD PISA Policy Advisor Network in the Global Field of Power.

“…We interpret cultural embeddedness as referring to the figuration of fields, their links among each other and their relations to the field of power. Besides their relative interconnectedness, their cultural embeddedness impacts the autonomy of fields (Krause 2018). Thus, the mixture of cultural embeddedness and interrelatedness of relatively autonomous fields shape the opportunities for collaboration or competition within and between fields.…”

Neither Mercenaries nor Masterminds: Campaign Staff and Consultants in American National Elections

“…There is also a rich thread of recent work using these approaches to think about political topics (e.g. Medvetz 2007Medvetz , 2006Krause 2014;Mudge and Vauchez 2012;Lebaron 2008). These approaches highlight two aspects of cultural production that are essential for understanding American political campaigns.…”

“…I argue that we need to understand campaign professionals in the way sociology has come to understand many kinds of work, as a field where internally-valued norms and goals hold at least as much power over participants as externally measurable outcomes such as wins or earnings (e.g. Krause 2018;Fligstein and McAdam 2012;Bourdieu 1993); this is a much better match to their own understanding of their work than alternate approaches, and also a better explanation for the observed disjuncture between campaigns' choices and research on campaign effects. This article thus both contributes to political scientists' and sociologists' understanding of the creation of a key aspect of American politics, and provides evidence that the insights of the sociology of cultural production apply well outside of what is normally thought of as "culture.…”