MARC Record from marc_columbia

LEADER: 03774cam a2200457 a 4500
001 7315443
005 20221130231517.0
008 080723s2009 mau b 001 0 eng
010 $a 2008031423
015 $aGBA906407$2bnb
016 7 $a014883780$2Uk
020 $a9780674032668 (cloth : alk. paper)
020 $a0674032667 (cloth : alk. paper)
035 $a(OCoLC)ocn237048345
035 $a(NNC)7315443
035 $a7315443
040 $aDLC$cDLC$dBTCTA$dUKM$dYDXCP$dC#P$dBWX$dSGB$dCDX$dMOF$dIHI$dNLGGC$dOrLoB-B
050 00 $aLB2333$b.L36 2009
082 00 $a378.1/2$222
084 $a02.13$2bcl
100 1 $aLamont, Michèle,$d1957-$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n92017131
245 10 $aHow professors think :$binside the curious world of academic judgment /$cMichèle Lamont.
260 $aCambridge, Mass. :$bHarvard University Press,$c2009.
300 $a330 pages ;$c22 cm
336 $atext$btxt$2rdacontent
337 $aunmediated$bn$2rdamedia
504 $aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 289-315) and index.
505 00 $g1.$tOpening the Black Box of Peer Review -- $g2.$tHow Panels Work -- $g3.$tOn Disciplinary Cultures -- $g4.$tPragmatic Fairness: Customary Rules of Deliberation -- $g5.$tRecognizing Various Kinds of Excellence -- $g6.$tConsidering Interdisciplinarity and Diversity -- $g7.$tImplications in the United States and Abroad -- $gAppendix.$tMethods and Data Analysis.
520 1 $a"Excellence. Originality. Intelligence. Everyone in academia stresses quality. But what exactly is it, and how do professors identify it? In the academic evaluation system known as peer review, highly respected professors pass judgment, usually confidentially, on the work of others. But only those present in the deliberative chambers know exactly what is said. Michele Lamont observed deliberations for fellowships and research grants, and interviewed panel members at length. In How Professors Think, she reveals what she discovered about this secretive, powerful, and peculiar world." "Anthropologists, political scientists, literary scholars, economists, historians, and philosophers don't share the same standards. Economists prefer mathematical models, historians favor different kinds of evidence, and philosophers don't care much if only other philosophers understand them. But when they come together for peer assessment, academics are expected to explain their criteria, respect each other's expertise, and guard against admiring only work that resembles their own. They must decide: Is the research original and important? Brave, or glib? Timely, or merely trendy? Pro-diversity or interdisciplinary enough?" "Judging quality isn't robotically rational; it's emotional, cognitive, and social, too. Yet most academics' self-respect is rooted in their ability to analyze complexity and recognize quality in order to come to the fairest decisions about that elusive god, "excellence." In How Professors Think, Lamont aims to illuminate the confidential process of evaluation and to push the gatekeepers to a deeper understanding and fulfillment of their responsibilities."--BOOK JACKET.
650 0 $aCollege teachers$xRating of.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2009120687
650 0 $aPeer review.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85099224
650 0 $aTeacher effectiveness.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh95003615
650 0 $aPortfolios in education.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh92000504
650 17 $aWetenschap.$2gtt
650 17 $aWetenschapsbeoefening.$2gtt
650 17 $aKwaliteit.$2gtt
650 17 $aPeer review.$2gtt
650 17 $aMeningsvorming.$2gtt
650 17 $aEvaluatie.$2gtt
650 17 $aVakgebieden.$2gtt
852 00 $bleh$hLB2333$i.L36 2009