Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
New interface
Journal articles

Beyond blind faith: overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation

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.
Mots-clés : non précisé
Document type :
Journal articles
Complete list of metadata

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00871434
Contributor : Frédérique Bordignon Connect in order to contact the contributor
Submitted on : Wednesday, October 9, 2013 - 3:30:28 PM
Last modification on : Tuesday, April 19, 2022 - 11:00:38 AM

Links full text

Identifiers

Collections

Citation

Michèle Lamont, Grégoire Mallard, Joshua Guetzkow. Beyond blind faith: overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation. Research Evaluation, 2006, 15 (1), pp.43-55. ⟨10.3152/147154406781776002⟩. ⟨hal-00871434⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

82