Abstract
The new editorial board of the BMS met for the first time in late March. The members of the board are: Mathieu Brugidou, research director with EDF, Paris-Saclay; Damien Cartron, research engineer at CNRS, EpiDaPo, Los Angeles; Margot Delon, postdoctoral researcher at the OSC, Sciences Po Paris; Claire Dupuy, lecturer at Pacte, Sciences Po Grenoble; Olivier Fillieule, professor at the University of Lausanne, member of the Crapul research centre; Florent Gougou, lecturer at Pacte, Sciences Po Grenoble; Camille Hamidi, lecturer at the University Lyon 2, research laboratory Triangle; and Karl van Meter, research engineer at the ENS and founder of the BMS. This first meeting was both pleasant and constructive. In the coming weeks, Philip Balsiger, assistant professor at the University of Neuchâtel and Jérémy Dodeigne, assistant professor at the University of Namur, will also join the board.
The board does not play the same role as a French editorial committee would, making decisions in plenary sessions. Indeed, the decision to have the board made up of people from different horizons and parts of the world makes meetings costly and difficult to organise. In this instance, it is our CNRS research laboratory at Sciences Po Bordeaux that is responsible for hosting board members and covering the various expenses that our new responsibilities as editors of the BMS does not fail to generate. We would like to take this opportunity to thank our colleagues for their support.
In terms of the functioning of the BMS, the editors will be responsible for decisions regarding publication, based on both external anonymous reviews and advice from the editorial board members. Board members have access to all the articles submitted to the BMS and their recommendations are always welcome. The editors will consult with them prior to reviewing to establish whether the article corresponds to the journal’s field and should be sent for review, and if so, they will be asked to recommend reviewers. The editors are responsible for obtaining reviews in a context in which the main difficulty for journals is obtaining the participation of colleagues outside our sphere of acquaintance, and then ensuring they do not forget their commitments nor the deadline. In the event of any hesitant or contradictory reviews, the editors will decide, in consultation with the board where necessary. The board plays a particularly important role for guest edited issues, which will be discussed further in another issue.
The contents of this issue includes three sections inaugurated in the previous double issue. Having presented Philippe Cibois and his sociology in issue 137–138, the section entitled ‘What is at stake in my work’ turns to political science, honouring Nonna Mayer, a specialist in the study of political attitudes and behaviour. Mayer can be considered one of the key vectors between French political sociology and developments on the international sphere. Here, she discusses her scientific trajectory, heavily influenced by a variety of methodological and disciplinary techniques, and particularly by the alternation between qualitative and quantitative approaches that she sees as a leitmotif running through her career.
There are three articles in the ‘Implementation’ section. Based on an experimental longitudinal approach, Rolf Becker and David Glauser measure the advantages and limitations of monetary incentives for the cost and quality of a panel study. The article opens up an interesting debate on the scientific advantages of remunerating participants for social science research. In her article, Marie Neihouser explores methods of studying new digital field sites, in this instance the world of political bloggers. Her argument runs counter to the dominant perspective, emphasising the contributions of traditional methods of constituting and studying data on this kind of object. The third article, by Antoine Mazières and Camille Roth, explores a statistical method for classifying family names (as linguistic and geographical markers) able to reveal the over- or under-representation of particular geographical groups within different populations. The approach they suggest, based on online resources, seems particularly heuristic for the study of discrimination.
Finally, the ‘Tools and instruments’ section will be particularly useful for those among us who are looking for THE audio/video transcription software best suited to their project. In this substantial contribution, Thibaut Rioufreyt provides an overview of 24 programmes analysed according to nine criteria that are both simple and fundamental for researchers in social and human sciences.