IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v15y2006i1p43-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond blind faith: overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Michèle Lamont
  • Grégoire Mallard
  • Joshua Guetzkow

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. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Michèle Lamont & Grégoire Mallard & Joshua Guetzkow, 2006. "Beyond blind faith: overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 43-55, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:43-55
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154406781776002
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pimentel, Erica & Cho, Charles & Bothello, Joel, 2022. "The blind spots of interdisciplinarity in addressing grand challenges," MPRA Paper 114562, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Liao, Hongjing & Hitchcock, John, 2018. "Reported credibility techniques in higher education evaluation studies that use qualitative methods: A research synthesis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 157-165.
    3. Charlotte Rungius & Tim Flink, 2020. "Romancing science for global solutions: on narratives and interpretative schemas of science diplomacy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Francesco Giovanni Avallone & Alberto Quagli & Paola Ramassa, 2022. "Interdisciplinary research by accounting scholars: An exploratory study," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2022(2), pages 5-34.
    5. Biancani, Susan & Dahlander, Linus & McFarland, Daniel A. & Smith, Sanne, 2018. "Superstars in the making? The broad effects of interdisciplinary centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 543-557.
    6. Oviedo-García, M. Ángeles, 2016. "Tourism research quality: Reviewing and assessing interdisciplinarity," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 586-592.
    7. Pimentel, Erica & Cho, Charles H. & Bothello, Joel, 2023. "The blind spots of interdisciplinarity in addressing grand challenges," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    8. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Nicola Melluso & Francesco Alessandro Massucci, 2022. "Exploring the antecedents of interdisciplinarity at the European Research Council: a topic modeling approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6961-6991, December.
    9. Zeug, Walther & Bezama, Alberto & Thrän, Daniela, 2020. "Towards a holistic and integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of the bioeconomy: Background on concepts, visions and measurements," UFZ Discussion Papers 7/2020, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    10. Moss, Todd W. & Renko, Maija & Block, Emily & Meyskens, Moriah, 2018. "Funding the story of hybrid ventures: Crowdfunder lending preferences and linguistic hybridity," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 643-659.
    11. Lo, Jade Y. & Li, Haiyang, 2018. "In the eyes of the beholder: The effect of participant diversity on perceived merits of collaborative innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1229-1242.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:43-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.