TY - JOUR
T1 - The Influence of Disciplinary Origins on Peer Review Normativities in a New Discipline
AU - Beddoes, Kacey
AU - Xia, Yu
AU - Cutler, Stephanie
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - STS scholarship has produced important insights about relationships between the roles of peer review and the social construction of knowledge. Yet, barriers related to access have been a continual challenge for such work. This article overcomes some past access challenges and explores peer review normativities operating in the new discipline of Engineering Education. In doing so, it contributes new insights about disciplinary development, interdisciplinarity, and peer review as a site of knowledge construction. In particular, it draws attention to an aspect of peer review not previously discussed–how peer review normativities are shaped by disciplinary origins. A content analysis of peer review documentation revealed that a hyperfocus on methods, which can be traced back to disciplinary origins, continues to be a guiding normativity. However, interviews with editors revealed that they do not acknowledge that normativity. Implications of those findings and their misalignment are discussed, as are contrasts with the history of other disciplines.
AB - STS scholarship has produced important insights about relationships between the roles of peer review and the social construction of knowledge. Yet, barriers related to access have been a continual challenge for such work. This article overcomes some past access challenges and explores peer review normativities operating in the new discipline of Engineering Education. In doing so, it contributes new insights about disciplinary development, interdisciplinarity, and peer review as a site of knowledge construction. In particular, it draws attention to an aspect of peer review not previously discussed–how peer review normativities are shaped by disciplinary origins. A content analysis of peer review documentation revealed that a hyperfocus on methods, which can be traced back to disciplinary origins, continues to be a guiding normativity. However, interviews with editors revealed that they do not acknowledge that normativity. Implications of those findings and their misalignment are discussed, as are contrasts with the history of other disciplines.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85138246517&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85138246517&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/02691728.2022.2111669
DO - 10.1080/02691728.2022.2111669
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85138246517
SN - 0269-1728
VL - 37
SP - 390
EP - 404
JO - Social Epistemology
JF - Social Epistemology
IS - 3
ER -