[Humanist] 28.175 "silos" of knowledge
Humanist Discussion Group
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Fri Jul 4 00:35:36 CEST 2014
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 28, No. 175.
Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 12:28:30 +0100
From: Martin Wynne <martin.wynne at it.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 28.167 "silos" of knowledge
In-Reply-To: <20140701203515.8346C3A60 at digitalhumanities.org>
On 01/07/14 21:35, Humanist Discussion Group wrote:
> I was very amused by Joanna Williams claim in the review:
> Disciplines provide the structure for managing the process of peer
> review that dictates which academics get hired, published, awarded
> grants or promoted.
> I am assuming she missed the Wall Street Journal op-ed earlier this
> year that suggested a lottery would be just as effective as the NIH
> peer review process for research grants:
> While the op-ed was an opinion piece, the authors were relying upon
> empirical studies of the grant process.
The apparent malfunction of the academy's processes in one country (in a
domain very different to the humanities) hardly invalidates the basic
point which you quote. In fact, this would only be valid evidence if the
existing review process in the NIH was strongly based within traditional
disciplines and entirely isolated from, and unaffected by, current
trends towards interdisciplinarity, which I doubt.
The key point made in this respect by Jacobs is that authority for
hiring and rewards in inter-disciplinary centres tend to shift from the
realm of academics and into the hands of administrators. That might
sound worse than a lottery to some.
IT Services, University of Oxford
Oxford e-Research Centre
The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities
Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics
Director of User Involvement, CLARIN ERIC
martin.wynne at it.ox.ac.uk
More information about the Humanist