How Professors Think

In How Professors Think, Michele Lamont examines different perspectives and ideologies within disciplines that contribute to the formation of higher learning practices. She studies the how’s and why’s of particular judgments that are made by professors within six different disciplines. The disciplines examined by Lamont include: anthropologists, political scientists, literary scholars, economists, historians, and philosophers. Through the example of peer review, Lamont proves that one’s discipline, and the culture within their field greatly affects how one examines and determines excellence.

Lamont takes the concepts of academia and applies them to real life situations, such as peer review. She proves that the saying, “I know excellence when I see it” (107) is virtually impossible considering excellence is a relative concept and one person or discipline can not possibly determine such an objective standard. In addition, the overwhelming theme, put into the simplest concept, is relativism. A professor’s quality is determined by a particular group of people whose cultural background and perceptions establish how they are judged. When conducting scholarly evaluation, a professor judges students based on their cultural conditioning and background of knowledge. Lamont investigates how committees conduct peer reviews of different proposals from people that are seeking funding within the United States. Her findings show that “almost without exception, the panelists I talked with consider their deliberations fair and their panel able to identify the top proposals (Lamont, 108).” Many people do not realize the importance and commonality of the peer review system. The book is comprised of seven chapters, each with intricate details of ...

... middle of paper ...

...nt opinion. It is nearly impossible to evaluate any one scholar based on static criteria because of shifts in cultural discipline. It is the consistency of their style and ability to engage others in thought that separates the best from the mediocre. Her findings indicate that panel members are greatly influenced by their background and specialized interest. The process begins as individuals are gradually indoctrinated into their professional culture, which is later evident during their time on panels. Although Lamont provides several critiques to the process of peer review, she ultimately remains in favor of the concept. In reality, peer review is a process that those in higher education will inevitably encounter at some point in time. Lamont’s analysis provides a new perspective on not only the concept of peer review, but also on the transparency of evaluation.