We like to think we function in a meritocracy – that the best ideas rise to the top, and that petty politics, much less racial/gender discrimination never come into play when making academic judgments. Lamont seeks to understand how academics make judgments and she questions our supposed objectivity. Her book is no diatribe against how decisions get made, but she also is certainly not supporting the ideas that level-headed academics make judgments of a proposal or individual strictly on the merits of the idea.
She was able to sit in on deliberations of major social science and humanities panels which make decisions about whom to award a grant or fellowship. Some will say that her sample is biased because she did not look at ‘scientific’ groups such as the NSF or the NIH. I can not say if it is biased, but I would certainly like to see a similar study of those in the natural sciences. Others will criticize her method, which is qualitative. She interviewed about 50 individuals involved in the review process. The interviews and observations provided a great deal of data, and the presentation is excellent.
Few will be able to criticize her scholarship. The author is extremely well read and versed in a great deal of social science literature, particularly in her own field of sociology. She is remarkably versatile in moving us backwards and forwards in the sociological literature to help us think through how we define objectivity and how we employ it (or do not).
Anyone who has participated in academic committees will have to acknowledge at least a modicum of begrudging respect for what Lamont found. There is the individual who has his or her pet project and will go to great lengths to ensure that that proposal gets accepted. There is another person who goes berserk if a project is rejected (or accepted) and the committee goes along in order to bring calm back to the group. There is also the disturbing quality that individuals tend to like projects that support their own views of the world, and reject projects that do not. Many acknowledge this bias and try to fight against it, others are not aware of it. (And then there are the economists who know their view is right, so why shouldn’t they support it and reject everything else?).
Lamont’s book comes at the right time. Peer review – whether it be the National Research Council’s reputational rankings, or promotion and tenure guidelines – are topics of perennial concern, but of particular importance now, as we juggle finite dollars against competing demands. Lamont does not give us any answers about what to do, and I appreciated it. “Scholars strive to produce research that will influence the direction of their field” she writes at the outset of the book. Yes, we do. Lamont writes in a quiet, conversational tone that had me thinking about how I might better reach my own academic judgments, and what I might do to improve those panels and committees on which I sit. This is a great book that should be read by all who participate in peer review.
Bill Tierney
No comments:
Post a Comment