THE ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE PUBLIC SOCIOLOGIST’S PROFILE IN SPAIN

Abstract: In the following presentation, we wish to expose the profile of the public sociologist in
Spain. In order to do this, we initially explain what public sociology consists of in contrast to
traditional, critical and professional sociology, so as to explain how public sociology has been
implemented in Spain from its beginning in the eighties until the present day. Secondly, we want
to analyze how sociology is involved in the question of "problematization” (questioning) the social
and how it is applied in practice, explaining why the question of the social has been developed by
other disciplines (such as social education and social pedagogy) and the implications of these
relationships with sociology. Thirdly, we want to focus on how sociology as a discipline and
practice has dealt with public issues in three different ways – as a "social problem", social
movement or civil society – with the aim of demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of our
Spanish public sociology in order to better implement sociology in our "social problems".

Keywords: Public Sociology, Spain, Sociological Aim

1. THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY

By definition, the social sciences are presented within the novelty of a problematic situation. It is
therefore assumed that the social sciences are a more sophisticated form of self-knowledge about
a given society (Bordieu, 1976), and such a development is concerned with transformations
occurring in the social world. Based on Sztompka’s suggestion (2005), the new century poses
questions that could be answered by the social sciences. First we are faced with problems that are
difficult to analyze according to the traditional division of economics, politics and social
community (Urry, 2003). Alongside this, it should also be noted that there are problems related to
whether agency can be qualified or not within the movement or the social activism of the masses,
and thus whether actors can still be treated as homo economicus, homo politicus or homo socius.

This question is tied to the sensitivity of the social sciences with regard to the expectations and
pressures of societal members. The social sciences are more important than ever before; with
increasing levels of education, people become more attentive and sensitive to social issues, and
more competent in asking questions about the social sciences. Sociology, economics and political
science cannot stay within the confines of universities, but have to be analyzed by wider
audiences, so as to demonstrate its relevance, and thus become public science. This need is
especially relevant in times of rapid, extensive, profound and unexpected social changes that
produce endemic disorganization and disorientation (Sztompka, 2004).

The final emancipation from the evils of the social sciences (schematically adjusted for the natural
sciences) happens when purely cognitive, nomothetic and predictive aspirations expire, and one
returns to the idea of a society with relevant and practical significance. For a late reformist, that
would have as much importance for the common people as for the university. This would mean
that trans-epistemic policy assessments and critical views, which do not follow the issues of the
natural sciences, but rather toward the art and craft of achieving practical goals in daily life. Ziman
(2000) referred to this as the "science postacademica”. Second, there is the state of the art
manifesto "Phronetic Social Science" (Flyvbjerg, 2001), which refers to the concept of Aristotelian
phronesis. This manifesto, with its focus on prudent human practice, allows for considerations
such as: where we come from; whether our destination is good or bad; and how we can improve
our journey's end. The core of phronesis is "analysis and thoughtful discussion on values and
interests, which is the prerequisite of a political, economic and cultural development illustrated in
any society" (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Similar ideas can be found in the program of public sociologies,
underpinned by Burawoy as in the convention of the ASA (2004).

Issues relating to the merit of innovation, novelty and originality in the transdisciplinarity are
supplemented by the merit of relevance. Responses to the expectations of ordinary people: not
only about some mirrors but also appropriate maps. The most recently developed social sciences
returned to their roots with respect to social and political philosophy, as well as to the work of
sociology classics: "Social science returns to its position as a classical intellectual activity practice
directed toward the resolution of the problems and risks and opportunities that face us as humans
and social beings, and to the contribution to social praxis and policy" (Flyvbjerg, 2001).

Due to problematization of the social’s usefulness, we must not only talk about the results, but
also about the relevant actors, particularly those on the margins, rather than those at the center.
It is not just a question of the obvious bias of each explanation, but the effect of potentially
distorting explanations too unequivocal or too dominating. It is a risk, in my opinion, particularly
evident in the narration of the sociological social change, also of those that, in addition, if you are
decidedly in the watershed, as Boudon defined sociology, to the extent that they forget the dual
character of social phenomena (with respect to the context and from the perspective
of individuals).

We should be aware as sociologists that the narratives that we develop, the links that we have
identified and the explanations that we offer, as it comes into the public discourse within the
current definitions of reality and it has consequences on the real. Sociologists have an ethical
responsibility to present the results of their research, as well as how they should be used in the
public discourse. As sociologists, we are responsible for an open, visible and objective separation
between sociological theory and its practical use.

Saraceno (2005) notes to highlight the issue of relevance of sociology on least at three levels: (a)
the capacity of the sociological researcher to produce and communicate knowledge usable by
social agents; (b) the relationship between the clientele (both real and potential), the formulation
of cognitive demands, and the production and utilization of knowledge; and (c) the multiplicity of
potentially conflicting interests of the cognitive demands, not only of the potential users and
their relative autonomy, but also of their respective points of view. The debate on the issue and
the relevance of sociology brings us to a central theme: the debate on the professionalization of
social welfare and the problematization of the social.

2. THE SOCIAL PROBLEMATIZATION OF THE INTERSTICIES BETWEEN SOCIOLOGICAL,

PEDAGOGICAL AND SOCIAL EDUCATION
Speaking of public sociology without reference to the professionalization of social education or
sociology seems implausible, and even more so when this issue is in relation to "the social". This
requires a few lines about pedagogy and social education. In the last two decades, social pedagogy
has maintained close relations with different sociological schools and trends, of which especially
fertile trade has been had in the methodological and conceptual fields of sociological study. Firstly,
social pedagogy has been strongly supported in critical sociological thought in its attempt to think
and problematize “the social”. For the sake of being able to give an account of their own
educational, critical and transformative pedagogic proposals, it has drunk from analysis so relevant
to the social space as those who have been making thinkers and sociologists as Castel (1984 and
1997); Donzelot (1998 and 2007); Karsz (2004); or Wacquant (2010), among many others.
Secondly, the sociology of the profession has been acting as a strong anchor point to the scientific
production of social pedagogy in the last two decades, at least in the context of the Spanish state
(Sáez, 2003; Sáez y García Molina, 2006; Sáez, 2007). The intercrossing and exercise of its inter-
and transdisciplinary borders has allowed us to develop a more solid and rigorous study, in which
we ask: What is a profession? What types of professions exist? And what traits are characteristic
of social and educational professions such as social education? All these questions around this
unique territory (the social) and of what constitutes certain professions (the social professions) has
allowed new knowledge and glances that have significantly amplified the scope of social pedagogy
as a field of knowledge; one which aims to strengthen, develop and legitimize professions such as
social education under pedagogical patterns and assumptions.

In our view, the discipline has not gone to the sociology of the professions, there has been
research about the social matter regarding ideal or moral factual issues but not focusing in just
giving a reason for being objective. Research practiced until then had been expressed through the
language of cloth, repeating terms that worked as ideological slogans and/or morals, rather than
analyzing the same social. It has been this exchange of the sociology of professions’ theoretical
and methodological proposals, as well as the contributions of critical sociology, that has enabled
social pedagogy to begin to think about and produce to draw on the articulation of modalities of
historical and empirical analysis, whereas before it was ruled by pure theoretical speculation or
simple, conceptual analogisms. Studies of professions -and their evolution as social constructs and
articulators of our societies- have enabled us to better understand the influence and legitimacy
that social professions have had on our social contexts. It has also enabled us to problematize their
shadows, and has made us understand that all social research must be an exercise in opening up
to the undetermined.
The sociology of the profession shows that in order for a profession to be developed and
extended, it must undergo a series of necessary processes of professionalization that transforms
its occupations. This is so it can promote more visibility (Bertilsson, 1990) and provide some "labor
jurisdiction" (Abbott, 1988) within a country’s political, economic, social, cultural and educational
systems. These processes can be studied by identifying the similar resources and assets that each
of the actors (usually the universities, the state, the markets, and professional associations and
bodies) contribute to (Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrist, 1990; Sáez y Garcia Molina, 2006).

We know that social educators and sociologists are asked to intervene in situations of diversion,
dysfunction or marginality that can affect the system itself. Professionals (research, teaching or
praxis rehabilitative) are partnered with a political, economic and social system that produces and
integrates social exclusion as an exhaust valve and counterweight in a naturalized social and
economic order (García Molina, 2013). The result is that the social education profession holds onto
thoughts and devices that can be routed through practice. This is the place that deals with social
education as a profession. Such is the framework that, a priori, justifies its existence, its survival
and the employment of its professionals.

So what's the paradox that dwells in the heart of the professional practice of social educators? To
serve the governments while also demonstrating the weaknesses and failures of the system so as
to make them visible and denounce them? Social professions do not act directly or necessarily for
the sole benefit of the state, or of the political and economic system that it defends. “They can be
used to neutralize and hide all kinds of general problems, but they also work to keep alive some of
the scabrous affairs that capitalism would prefer not to have to give account" (Willis, 1998: 207).
Professionals in the social field are necessarily “double agents” (García Molina, 2013). This dual
task requires commitment to social tasks without ignoring educational ones, which not only
involves practicing integration, but also assumes the role that wealth plays in problematization
processes. This question suggests that while social education has often been a point of order,
sociology has always been a science of the issues concerning social contribution and its
critical/creative at the same social order. That is why we are going to spend the next paragraph on
what we might call the praxis of the empowerment in sociology: participatory action research.
3. PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY IN SPAIN: PARTICIPATION ACTION RESEARCH
In Spain, sociological studies do not exist with this name. There are various approaches to the
term, or rather it’s content, and these always refer to the problematization of the social, as is the
case with the sociology of professions (as was pointed out previously). However, when referring to
the type of social change or social transformation that seeks public sociology in the public or
communities, this function can be called participatory action research. Participatory action
research has been linked with Latin American popular education, the theories of Paolo Freire and
adult education, and is where multiple databases have converged with common European
epistemology, for example, in the search for a sociology practice, socio-praxis sociology or
dialectics.

The vision that pursues IAP with regard to participation is not simply related to objectivity. In the
social sciences (for instance, sociology), objectivity is replaced by the theory and practice of what
has been called “the social praxis”. The social praxis also contains the explicit positions of
others who require a space and time to reflect.

One of the most important steps in the IAP process is the acquisition of knowledge on the
community and problems with how to deal with it. In our role as technicians, this involves a
diagnosis of who and what we are going to work with. On top of this is a composition of place on
that; it's also a joint reflection, a joint reflection of self-diagostic (Quiñonero, 2012).

The self-test enables us to discover problems, strengths and weaknesses, (perceived) attitudes to
others, and the scope of the problem and its causes; and this has a very important value, is well-
recognized, and is a common front. Achieving this common front (or the most common one
possible) involves an initial creative leap in these processes (which may have occurred earlier). The
transformations of what we handle (concepts, points of view, attitudes, etc.) act as self-criticism of
the process, but also of those who take part, their ways of acting, their views, as well as
opportunities to undertake jointly. What has been called mere translating means that you are
willing to open new doors to join more people (Quiñonero, 2012).

The training and reflection on the sets of action implies a new creativeness in the processes. This
involves the translations transforming to open doors by which it can integrate other components
in our set. Also, the practice regarding the sociograms helps us to understand the social process of
power. We can clarify the structure of our ideal, but also take into account the relationships. A
good knowledge of the reality we face, the causes of the powers and the influences of the causes,
consequences and influences of our problematic interactions and how these interactions change
the scenario in which develops the process, the thoughtful decision-making in common, the
implementation of these actions.

IAP is not only connected with public sociology through methods, but also in social practices at the
time of the communication with the public. It returns are those moments in which the information
obtained in workshops, interviews and reports returns to the participants or those in need of the
study in order to make a second reflection on what was said at the time. What is important is that
the valuation joint is made. It is said that these returns are creative, since a reflection allows us to
establish new findings, qualify the obtained data, reflect on the process itself, and thus know it’s
critical moments, actors and responsibilities (Quiñonero, 2012).

To summarize, the proper development of social actors requires adding relations issues and
concepts with IAP through the so-called partner-praxis (Sánchez-Rubio, 2012). Alongside this,
Sánchez-Rubio (2012) notes the importance of “why” and “for whom” we do what we do in the
partner-praxis. On the other hand, it should be noted that these are not elements or links which
are very regulated countries, but those which arise from the mistakes where there are links with
potential (Villasante, 2000). Another of the disadvantages is the construction of power, and
dissemination of knowledgment, which could be sectarianism which implies to admit that the
idea has an emotional or ideological impact on people other than their friends. IAP confronts this
idea and tries to solve de “social problem” in question for the audience, but it can face challenges
such as different groups around the question and the context, both of them can change. One
possibility is to work more on learning from the paradoxes individual and collectively. This is one
of the paradoxes of the democratic practice of IAP. On the issue of democratic practice, it is also
important to note the role of the third sector as an agent of social change in the hearings and
communities located between the state and the market.

4. THE THIRD SECTOR IN SPAIN: A NEW SPACE FOR THE PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY
Whatever the origin of the third sector, the expression was used for the first time in the early
seventies. It was born as a residual concept to distinguish it from the public sector (the first sector)
and the lucrative sector (the second sector) (Pinar, 2009). Following Oakeshott, who pointed out
that the term "civil society" refers to an attempt to theorize (perhaps we should say
“conceptualize” at best) a particular historical experience: the tradition of at least two or three
centuries of a nation’s core set of socio-economic and political institutions (linked to cultural
disposition). Other nations (especially those of continental Europe) have been incorporated into
this tradition in a discontinuous fashion in more recent times. The institutional core has been the
combination of limited government responsibility (which operates under the rule of law), a market
economy (which implies a regime of private property), a range of voluntary associations (political,
economic, social and cultural) and a sphere of public debate: “The so-called society becomes
increasingly strengthened in Europe, in addition that occurs a fragmentation of power" (Pérez Díaz
1995:16).
As a result of the globalization phenomenon and the redefinition of the role of the state in
Western democratic societies has made the appearance and development of the third sector. In
Western countries, the state gives more prominence to civil society from the consolidation of
democratic institutions and the "minimal state" of the neoliberal wave in some countries. In each
case, the third sector includes entities of an institutional nature; for instance, corporate entities
that allow different purposes to those of its members, which are formed by the democratic and
bureaucratic principles, and which have an asset base (mainly the foundations) and objectives that
essentially match those of its members; in an organization (Pinar, 2009). In a communication by
the European Commission on promoting the role of associations and foundations in Europe, they
indicate that these "are playing an important role in almost all fields of social activity, contributing
to the creation of employment, active citizenship, and democracy, providing a wide range of
services, play an important role in the sport, representing the interests of the citizens in the face
of the public administrations, assuming a very important role in safeguarding human rights and
exercising an essential activity in development policies (paragraphs I. 1 and I.1.1). It is estimated
that the social economy in Spain is between 5% and 6% of the country's wealth, and that the third
sector represents 7% of the total jobs.

The most important issues concerning public sociology are whether the relations of sociability are
causal or sequential (if informal participation leads to formal participation), complementary or
alternative (the second covers the failures of the first), or antagonistic (if the first vitality
proliferates, the second cannot develop). Volunteering and the volunteer work (in the formal
sense) are rooted in a specific historical framework, without which neither can emerge nor be
understood. The more favored networks are those that thrive in certain environments, i.e. those
that are capable of generating interpersonal relationships of trust, common visions for the
collective good, and purposes and goals shared by feelings of solidarity and altruism. This vision of
altruism and trust impacts on the empowerment of communities and their key outcomes: public
sociology and participatory research. Public sociology must discover which social contexts are
most suitable for the production of the social objective it is looking for.

One change that is being generated in many democratic countries is increasing citizen
participation through volunteering in non-governmental organizations and social movements.
Volunteerism in Spain comes from two great traditions: Christianity and socialism. These two
traditions are almost always concerned with giving something back, but are now retreating in a
society that is increasingly secularized and focused on the free market. As explained by Madrid
(1999), the historical conception of the socially responsible citizen has followed two paths: the
compulsory and the voluntary. Currently, all public administrations have opted for the voluntary
option, albeit with two dangers to be avoided: to not impose too many regulations on
volunteering, and to try not to steal citizen participation from public administrations.

It is assumed that volunteering and volunteerism are related to certain models or degrees in the
development of the social structure. In order to determine where there has been a modernization
of the forms of social interaction, along with consequential rises in the castes and advancements
in the urbanization process, a certain individuation needs to be implemented; a fact that involves
the construction of a personal biography, the greater availability of time and educational capital.
In fact, associationism and volunteerism may have more of an impact on relational capital than on
political capital (Ariño, 2007).

A lot of debate regarding voluntary bodies is concerned with whether they can produce public
goods. Communities of practice generate divisible or indivisible goods: the entities responsible for
the provision of services produce goods that are divisible for those who benefit from its affiliates
or its customers. On the other hand, defense organizations of causes offer a more complex
program because they can vary from the strict promotion of a social category’s interests up to the
defense of vulnerable groups and social transformation; these entities generate collective or
common goods (commons). However, despite voluntary bodies producing goods for its members
and, on numerous occasions, for third parties, this does not mean that they generate public goods
and effects that necessarily result in general benefits. In fact, collective (group) and general
(universal) interest may or may not overlap, and may sometimes even be opposed (Ariño, 2007).
Alongside this, different groups conceive of common goods differently.

The differential analysis shows that people who belong to associations have the highest scores.
This is especially relevant with regards to three factors: an interest in politics, sociability, and
radicalization of democratic policies. Individuals who are engaged in associations’ activities or who
carry out voluntary tasks present greater interpersonal trust, whereas those that who donate
money show greater cosmopolitan conformism. There have been various classifications of the
third sector and its distinguishing characteristics, such as having a greater interest in policies
related to: human rights; environmentalism; immigrants; youths; pacifism; and engagement in
political parties and professional organizations. There are also policies related to agricultural
organizations, the Church and retirees, who have high scores in the dimensions of social
identification and control of the stigmatized (Ariño, 2007). This suggests that there is an
association and continuity between political trust and progressive politics.

Spanish citizens attach great importance to participation in associations, and see it as

representative of a good citizen. It is a measure of various aspects of participation between their
interpersonal trust, which has a normative component, and another understanding. The first
aspect of associations and organizations’ image is related to the perception of their significance
60.1% of the Spanish people surveyed that the boom of associations can be considered an
expression of development of society. Alongside this, 76.1% believe that a lot of people work with
these organizations because it makes them feel good about themselves. These two statements are
only apparently contradictory because, in reality, they show that the process of individuation is
ambivalent; it can generate both selfish and altruistic behavior and therefore demands a
contextualized interpretation.

A second aspect of the image of associations and organizations is related to the degree of
necessity that they are attached to today's society. 61.1% of Spaniards believe that these
organizations have become necessary in view of the increasing complexity of today's society, and
its emerging needs and problems. In comparison, 26.9% believe that it reflected the idea that
these organizations exclusively exist because they are occupying a space that states you have
neglected or abandoned (Ariño, 2007).

5. CONCLUSION: PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY BETWEEN THE INTERSTICIES OF THE SOCIAL

Public sociology in Spain is dedicated to communities and the public as such, since the profession
as a whole is dedicated to issues relating to the problematization of the social, and is one in which
intellectuals are dedicated to producing practical knowledge for their agents. The more
professionalized sociology in Spain has always been the most critical; a form of sociology mostly
dedicated to the social construction rather than institutional analyses of government. However,
what has been most similar to the work done by public sociology is what has been called
participatory action research, which is devoted to the learning of objects of research and a
reflection on the positions of power in order that communities are learning in the process. The IAP
not only advances but also challenges, since the ability of creation and learning throughout the
process should be consistent. But while we might say that IAP is a participatory methodology (one
that even involves a new episteme), public sociology is the type of sociology where IAP is
considered as the main methodology.

On the other hand, the issue of the third sector is essential in an analysis of public sociology
because it is also dedicated to active citizenship and the creation of social awareness; however,
this is not a uniform policy throughout the third sector, and therefore its relationship with the
empowerment of hearings and the public does not correspond exactly to the operation and
objectives of the third sector in its entirety. The third sector does not always have a good nature
with regard to public empowerment of civil society; its peculiar status of being both close to the
markets and within the state – or between the interstices of society – is not always compatible
with the aim of public sociology. The third sector is an object of sociological analysis and the study
for the critical public is a question that is open for discussion for the next developments in the
sociology discipline.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott, A. (1988) The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ariño, A (dir.) (2007) Asociacionismo y Voluntariado en España. Valencia, Tirant Lo Blanch.

Aron, R. (1961) Dis-huit lecons sur la société industriele. Paris, Galimard.

Bordieu, P. (1976) El oficio de sociólogo. Madrid, Siglo XXI.

Burrage, M. C. & Torstendahl, R. (eds.) (1990) Professions in Theory and History: Rethinking the
Study of the Professions. London, Sage.

Camic, C. & Joash, H. (2004) The dialogical turn. In: Camic, C. & Joash, H. (eds.) The Dialogical Turn:
New Roles for Sociology in the Age Postdisciplinary. Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield, pp.
1–19.

Castel, R. (1984) La gestión de los riesgos. Barcelona, Anagrama.

––––– (1997) La metamorfosis de la cuestión social. Buenos Aires, Paidós.

Dogan, M. (2000) Sociology among the social sciences. In: Borgatta, E. & Montgomery, R. (eds.)
Enclycopedia of Sociology, vol. 5. Macmillan, USA, pp. 2913–2926.

Donzelot, J. (1998) La policía de las familias. Valencia, Pre-Textos.

––––– (2007) La invención de lo social. Ensayo sobre el declive de las pasiones políticas. Buenos
Aires, Nueva visión.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

García Molina, J. (coord.) (2013) Exclusiones. Discursos, políticas, profesiones. Barcelona, UOC.

Karsz, S. (ed.) (2004) La exclusion: bordeando sus fronteras. Definiciones y matices. Barcelona,
Gedisa.

Madrid, A. (1999) Participación, voluntariado, desobediencia. Revista de Estudios de Juventud, 45,

pp. 77-85.

Martí, J (2000) Investigación-acción-participativa: Estructura y fases. En Villasante, T.,

Montañez, M. & Martí, J. La investigación social participativa: Construyendo ciudadanía I.
Madrid: El Viejo Topo, pp. 73-117.

Pérez Díaz, V. (1995) La primacía de la sociedad civil. Madrid, Alianza.

Pinar, J. L. (2009) Tercer sector, sector público, fundaciones. Revista Española del Tercer Sector, 1
 (Octubre – Diciembre). On line http://www.fundacionluisvives.org/rets/1/articulos/1713/

Quiñonero, J. (2012) La investigació participative como forma de resolución colaborativa de

problemas e incremento de la autonomía de los grupos locales. En: Jaregui, C., Martin, P. &
Tenze, A. (eds.) Investigaciones y reflexiones de economía y procesos participativos. Madrid,
TOPS, pp. 31-44.

Sáez, J. (2003) La profesionalización de los educadores socials. En busca de la competencia

cualificadora. Madrid, Dykinson.

Sáez, J. & García Molina, J. (2006) Pedagogía Social. Pensar la educación social como profesión.
Madrid, Alianza.

Sáez, J. (dir.) (2007) Pedagogía Social. Historia, profesión y competencias. Madrid, Pearson &
Prentice Hall.

Sánchez-Rubio, B. (2012) Some reflections on the evolution in the vision and knowledge of the
diagnosis and the participatory intervention through the course of expert and later master. In:
Jauregui, C., Martin, P. & Tenze A. (coords.) Research and Reflections of Economy and
Participatory Processes. Madrid, TOPS.

Saraceno, C. (2005) What should be relevant sociology? For whom? What purpose. In: Monreal, J.
Díaz & García C. J. (eds.) Old Societies, New Sociology. Madrid, CIS.

Sztompka, P. (2004) The trauma of social change. In: Alexander, J. et al. (eds.) Cultural Trauma and
Collective Identity. Berkeley, CA, California University Press, pp. 155–195.

––––– (2005) The sociology between other sciences: Crossing borders and breaking down walls. In:
Monreal, J., Díaz, C. & García, J. (eds.) Old Societies, New Sociology. Madrid, CIS.

Urry, J. (2003) Global Complexity. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Villasante, T. (2000) Symptoms/ethical paradigms and styles/creative. In: Villasante, T., Montañés,
M. & Martí, J. (cords.) The Participatory Social Research: Building Citizenship. Madrid, TOPS

Wacquant, L. (2009) Punish the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Durham, NC,
Duke University.

Willis, P. (1988) Aprendiendo a trabajar. Madrid, Akal.

Ziman, J. (2000) Real Science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.