Download Full Text

Citable link to this page

. . . . . .

Title:	Beyond blind faith: overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation
Author:	Lamont, Michele; Guetzkow, Joshua; Mallard, Gregoire Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.
Citation:	Lamont, Michèle, Grégoire Mallard, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2006. Beyond blind faith: overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation. Research Evaluation 15(1): 43-55.
Full Text & Related Files:	Interdisciplinarity Proofs.pdf (130.7Kb; PDF)
Abstract:	This paper examines how panelists serving on interdisciplinary funding panels produce evaluations they perceive as fair, drawing on 81 interviews with panelists serving on multidisciplinary fellowship competitions. We identify how peer reviewers define “good” interdisciplinary proposals and the rules they follow: respect for disciplinary sovereignty, deference to expertise and methodological pluralism. These rules ensure the preponderance of the voices of experts over non-experts. Panelists also adopt strategies to make other reviewers who lack expertise trust that their judgments are disinterested and unbiased, while reviewers who lack expertise are not afraid to make decisions based on idiosyncratic tastes rather than substantive quality.
Published Version:	http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154406781776002
Terms of Use:	This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page:	http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:2643648

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

• FAS Scholarly Articles [5128]
  Peer reviewed scholarly articles from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University

Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)