期刊
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 573-606出版社
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0162243908329381
关键词
peer review; fairness; pluralism; ethics; epistemology; interdisciplinary
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.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据