Fairness as Appropriateness: Negotiating Epistemological Differences in Peer Review

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Fairness as Appropriateness: Negotiating Epistemological Differences in Peer Review

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Lamont, Michele
dc.contributor.author Mallard, Grégoire
dc.contributor.author Guetzkow, Joshua
dc.date.accessioned 2009-03-10T19:53:15Z
dc.date.issued 2009
dc.identifier.citation Mallard, Grégoire, Michèle Lamont, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2009. Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science, Technology and Human Values (published online 2/10/09). doi:10.1177/0162243908329381. en
dc.identifier.issn 0162-2439 en
dc.identifier.uri http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:2645470
dc.description.abstract Epistemological differences fuel continuous and frequently divisive debates in the social sciences and the humanities. Sociologists have yet to consider how such differences affect peer evaluation. The empirical literature has studied distributive fairness, but neglected how epistemological differences affect perception of fairness in decision making. The normative literature suggests that evaluators should overcome their epistemological differences by "translating" their preferred standards into general criteria of evaluation. However, little is known about how procedural fairness actually operates. Drawing on eighty-one interviews with panelists serving on five multidisciplinary fellowship competitions in the social sciences and the humanities, we show that (1) Evaluators generally draw on four epistemological styles to make arguments in favor of and against proposals. These are the constructivist, comprehensive, positivist, and utilitarian styles; and (2) Peer reviewers define a fair decision-making process as one in which panelists engage in "cognitive contextualization," that is, use epistemological styles most appropriate to the field or discipline of the proposal under review. en
dc.description.sponsorship Sociology en
dc.language.iso en_US en
dc.publisher Sage Publications en
dc.relation.isversionof http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243908329381 en
dash.license LAA
dc.title Fairness as Appropriateness: Negotiating Epistemological Differences in Peer Review en
dc.relation.journal Science, Technology and Human Values en
dash.depositing.author Lamont, Michele

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
lamont fairness 2009.pdf 464.5Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • FAS Scholarly Articles [6466]
    Peer reviewed scholarly articles from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University

Show simple item record

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters