Beyond blind faith: Overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation

Research Evaluation

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 43-55

  Lamont, Michèle ^a   Mallard, Grégoire ^b   Guetzkow, Joshua ^b  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Universite Paris Est   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749594725     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154406781776002     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Abbott, Andrew 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Abbott, Andrew 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Abbott, Andrew 2004. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: W W Norton.
4. Bourdieu, Pierre 1984 [1979]. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Translated by R. Nice, 1984. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Braxton, John M and Lowell L Hargens 1996. Variation among academic disciplines: analytical frameworks and research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 11, pp. 1-46.
6. Burt, Ronald S 2005. Brokerage and Closure: Introduction to Social Capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Cole, Jonathan and Stephen Cole 1981. Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase Two of a Study. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. Cole, Stephen 1992. Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Cole, Stephen, Leonard Rubin and Jonathan Cole 1978. Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase One of a Study. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10. Cook, Karen S 2005. Network, norms, and trust: the social psychology of social capital. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 4-14.
11. Debray, Regis 1979. Le Pouvoir Intellectual En France. Paris: Ramsay.
12. Durkheim, E 1965. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press.
13. GAO 1994. Peer Review Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection: Report to the Chairman, Committee on Governmental Activities, US Senate. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
14. Gieryn, Thomas 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional interests of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795.
15. Gieryn, Thomas 1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. S Jasanoff, G M Jasanoff, James Petersen and Trevor Pinch, pp. 393-443. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
16. Guetzkow, Joshua, Michèle Lamont and Grégoire Mallard 2003. Originality and the construction of academic worth: substantive quality and scholastic virtue in peer review. In Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Atlanta, GA.
17. Guetzkow, Joshua, Michèle Lamont and Grégoire Mallard 2004. What is originality in the social sciences and the humanities? American Sociological Review, 69, 190-212.
18. Jasanoff, Sheila 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
19. Klein, Julie T 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
20. Kuhn, Thomas 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21. Lamont, Michèle, forthcoming. Cream Rising: Finding Excellence in the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Lamont, Michèle and Grégoire Mallard 2005. Peer Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities Compared: The United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Ottawa: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
23. Lamont, Michèle and Viràg Molnár 2002. The study of boundaries across the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167-195.
24. Laudel, Grit 2004. Conclave in the Tower of Babel: how peers review interdisciplinary research. In The Australian Sociology Association. La Trobe University, Beechworth, Australia.
25. Mallard, Grégoire, Michèle Lamont and Joshua Guetzkow. Under review. Epistomological differences and fairness in peer review: evidence from the social sciences and the humanities. Department of Sociology, Harvard University.
26. Marcus, George E and Michael M Fischer 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin and James M Cook 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
28. Merton, Robert K 1973 [1942]. The normative structure of science. In The Sociology of Science, ed. N W Storer, pp. 267-278. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29. Peterson, Richard A and Roger Kern 1996. Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review, 61, 900-907.
30. Porter, Alan and Frederick Rossini 1985. Peer review of interdisciplinary proposals. Science, Technology and Human Values, 10, 33-38.
31. Ragin, Charles C, Joane Nagel and Patricia White 2004. Report of the Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
32. Shapin, Steven and Simon Schaeffer 1985. Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
33. Smith, Dorothy E 1990. The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
34. Travis, G D L and Harry M Collins 1991. New light on old boys: cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16, 322-341.
35. Weber, Max 1978 [1956]. Economy and Society, vol. 1, eds. G Roth and C Wittich. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
36. Wissoker, Ken 2000. Negotiating a passage between disciplinary borders. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, B4.
37. Zuckerman, H and R K Merton 1971. Sociology of refereeing. Physics Today, 24, 28-&.