Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 163–170 | Cite as

The Room Is Long and Narrow

  • Margery D. Osborne
  • David J. Brady
Article

Abstract

In this paper we analyse some of our experiences with peer review and argue that the process should be rethought. Rather than a gate-keeping device, the ideological function should be acknowledged as well as acknowledging that the true (idealistic) purpose of publishing is to air and develop new ideas – in effect to evolve the community. Given this, peer review as a process would be better thought of as helping authors to develop their ideas and to share them. Such a process involves attempting to understand what an author is trying to do and helping her achieve her goal. It is critically constructive and creative rather than destructive/deconstructive. In recognising this we articulate the “true” purpose of the peer review process and of participating in it – or at least the democratic purpose for which it was conceived. This involves enabling divergent opinions to be heard and this in turn enables the evolution of the field from within, for the danger is if evolution does not come from within it is imposed from without.

oppression peer review power scholarly community values 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  2. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  3. Gilligan, C., Lyons, N. P., & Hanmer, T. J. (Eds.). (1990). Making connections: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma Willard School. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gramsci, A. (1971/1999). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Habermas, J. (1991). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (Transl. by G. Bennington and B. Massumi). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring, a feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Oxford English Dictionary. (2001). Oxford Univ. Press on line version.Google Scholar
  9. Pusey, M. (1987). Jurgen Habermas. New York: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutman (Ed.), Multiculturalism (pp. 25-74). New York: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margery D. Osborne
    • 1
  • David J. Brady
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Duke UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations