International exchanges have always been an enrichment for the academic world. But this process is of great benefit only if it respects the diversity of epistemologies and cultural traditions. However, over the last years, a sharp attempt of normalization imposed an alignment of the whole scientific outcomes on the same criteria of quality.

How can the European sociology continue to value its research, and sometimes the originality of its political and epistemological positions? Journals which aim to disseminate their findings in real time towards different partners are particularly concerned. A working group was created in Cadiz during the last ECER. The objective of the symposium is to review the progress made and to precise the problematic.

These issues are already discussed in the social debate. The objective of the working group is to feed the debate but also to frame it. The discussions have to be situated in a debate about the conception of common good. There are several references in contemporary societies to define the common good. It is the same for the academic world: how to make this new organization of knowledge production and dissemination respectful of this diversity without erasing differences between epistemologies and systems of evidence, etc. This effort towards exteriority has evidently to be supported by sociology on journals. Constraints vary whether these journals are embedded in a commercial context or whether they are supported by  a university, an association…

The definition of this general framework will make it possible to move towards more concrete issues. Each journal produces a review to plan its issues, to choose among submitted papers, etc. What are today the issues at stake in the area? What perspectives can be considered for the future? Each journal holds also a certain definition of scientific quality which impact on the review of submitted papers. The discussion will make possible the design of a framework to reflect on different stances.

The agreement about some orientations will then make possible to reflect about the possibilities of concrete exchanges: exchanges between editorial boards from the analysis of global trends; exchanges of papers or book reviews; preparation of common issues. Several topics are debated: the situation of the common school in a post-comprehensive time, the new definitions of the academic profession in the academic capitalism, the /renewed interest for the training of the elite, etc. This list is evidently not complete.