https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2010/04/01/evaluation-across-the-disciplines/ Culture, Politics, Academia and Other Shiny Objects Fri, 02 Apr 2010 00:14:07 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.15 https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2010/04/01/evaluation-across-the-disciplines/comment-page-1/#comment-7202 Fri, 02 Apr 2010 00:14:07 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=1182#comment-7202 Yeah, I’ve read it. It’s really good, I think. (Actually, I think I was one of the ‘native informants’, so to speak–she observed an evaluation process I was part of.)

]]> https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2010/04/01/evaluation-across-the-disciplines/comment-page-1/#comment-7201 Fri, 02 Apr 2010 00:11:44 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=1182#comment-7201 Professors. How Professors Think.

]]> https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2010/04/01/evaluation-across-the-disciplines/comment-page-1/#comment-7200 Fri, 02 Apr 2010 00:11:20 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=1182#comment-7200 Tim, have you seen or read Michele Lamont’s How Professor’s Think yet? She came and gave a talk here at Berkeley the other day… She’s not really studying all of how professors think, but instead how they define excellence when doing multi-disciplinary peer review, how they come to believe the process works, and (what she talked about here) how they judge the competence and worth of their co-reviewers on funding panels. Some of what you’re advocating – especially around being willing to judge other disciplines while respecting disciplines’ own authority over their subject matter – corresponds quite closely to some of the rules she observed for being taken seriously as a panelist. Hm.

]]>