Conclave in the Tower of Babel: how peers review interdisciplinary research proposals

2006/04/01 by Grit Laudel · 2 citations
Decision Sciences · #Evaluation and Performance Assessment #Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

paper · doi:10.3152/147154406781776048

openalex publication_date 2006/04/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30

Abstract

Peer review is a practice of research assessment where a researcher's work is evaluated by colleagues working in the same field on similar topics. Since interdisciplinary research is a new synthesis of expertise, the problem arises that peers in that sense do not exist. The aim of the paper is to show how under these conditions a specific institutional form of peer review counteracts the additional stress stemming from the interdisciplinarity of grant proposals and the multidisciplinary composition of the panel. The basis is an empirical study of networks of research groups belonging to different specialties. The key features of the procedure are the empowerment of applicants and the enforced inter-disciplinary learning of reviewers. The applicability of this procedure appears to be limited to areas where interdisciplinary research is common and where interdisciplinarity is only ‘moderate'.

Cited by

• Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration
• Making genre: the aesthetic affordances of governmental funding and its effects on emerging interdisciplinary artists in the Netherlands

Related

• Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals
• The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome
• The limitations to our understanding of peer review
• The Future of Peer Review: A system-wide perspective
• Peer-review procedures as practice, decision, and governance—the road to theories of peer review