Abstract
Knowledge about how reviewers serving on interdisciplinary panels produce evaluations that are perceived as fair is especially lacking. This paper draws on 81 interviews with panelists serving on five multidisciplinary fellowship competitions. We identify how peer reviewers define “good” interdisciplinary research proposals, and how they understand the procedures for selecting such proposals. To produce an evaluation they perceive as fair, panelists must respect the primacy of disciplinary sovereignty, deference to expertise and methodological pluralism. These rules ensure the preponderance of the voices of experts over non-experts in interdisciplinary panels. In addition, panelists adopt a range of tactics and strategies designed to make other reviewers who lack such expertise trust that their judgments are disinterested and unbiased.
Highlights
We identify how peer reviewers define “good” interdisciplinary research proposals, and how they understand the procedures for selecting such proposals
To produce an evaluation they perceive as fair, panelists must respect the primacy of disciplinary sovereignty, deference to expertise and methodological pluralism
If evaluating interdisciplinary work is inherently problematic, how is it accomplished?. We address this question by drawing on 81 interviews conducted with panelists serving on 12 funding panels that are part of five American multidisciplinary fellowship competitions in the humanities and the social sciences
Summary
Beyond blind faith: overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation. Research Evaluation, volume 15, number 1, April 2006, pages 000–000, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, England
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
