从多民族学的角度探讨了同行评议给我们带来的启示

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
James Holly Jr., Annie Butler
{"title":"从多民族学的角度探讨了同行评议给我们带来的启示","authors":"James Holly Jr.,&nbsp;Annie Butler","doi":"10.1002/jee.70013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The peer review process plays a vital role in the advancement of engineering educational research because it is largely through this process that the field determines which knowledge claims are considered valid. Unfortunately, peer review processes may reinforce inequities when peer reviewers, as readers, are not reflective about the ways that their own experiences, as situated within power-laden and racialized sociohistorical contexts, shape how they evaluate manuscripts.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The purpose of this study was to describe the ways in which the authors experienced the same phenomenon—evaluating manuscripts—differently due to our racialized positionalities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>We reflected on the peer review process while participating in the <i>Journal of Engineering Education</i>'s Mentored Review Program. The reviewers met over the course of 1 year to write responses to each other regarding our experiences and the tensions that arose during the process of peer reviewing manuscripts with race and oppression in mind.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Three central ideas emerged from analysis of our reflective dialogue; namely, situating our “selves” within our review practice, reckoning with the roots of the strain between our personal and professional lives, and taking affirmative actions to enact racial equity in knowledge production.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This duoethnography calls for individual change among reviewers, as they seek to be more informed and introspective, as well as structural changes in standards that shape peer review culture.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"114 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.70013","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A duoethnographic exploration of what peer reviewing teaches us about peer review\",\"authors\":\"James Holly Jr.,&nbsp;Annie Butler\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jee.70013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The peer review process plays a vital role in the advancement of engineering educational research because it is largely through this process that the field determines which knowledge claims are considered valid. Unfortunately, peer review processes may reinforce inequities when peer reviewers, as readers, are not reflective about the ways that their own experiences, as situated within power-laden and racialized sociohistorical contexts, shape how they evaluate manuscripts.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>The purpose of this study was to describe the ways in which the authors experienced the same phenomenon—evaluating manuscripts—differently due to our racialized positionalities.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>We reflected on the peer review process while participating in the <i>Journal of Engineering Education</i>'s Mentored Review Program. The reviewers met over the course of 1 year to write responses to each other regarding our experiences and the tensions that arose during the process of peer reviewing manuscripts with race and oppression in mind.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Three central ideas emerged from analysis of our reflective dialogue; namely, situating our “selves” within our review practice, reckoning with the roots of the strain between our personal and professional lives, and taking affirmative actions to enact racial equity in knowledge production.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This duoethnography calls for individual change among reviewers, as they seek to be more informed and introspective, as well as structural changes in standards that shape peer review culture.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Engineering Education\",\"volume\":\"114 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.70013\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Engineering Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.70013\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.70013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

同行评议过程在工程教育研究的进步中起着至关重要的作用,因为该领域主要是通过这一过程来确定哪些知识主张被认为是有效的。不幸的是,同行评议过程可能会加剧不公平,因为作为读者的同行评议人没有反思他们自己的经历,因为他们处于充满权力和种族化的社会历史背景中,影响了他们如何评估手稿。目的本研究的目的是描述作者经历相同现象的方式-评估手稿-由于我们的种族化立场不同。方法:在参与《工程教育杂志》指导评审项目时,我们反思了同行评审过程。审稿人在1年的时间里会面,就我们的经历和同行审稿过程中出现的紧张局势相互回复,考虑到种族和压迫。结果:通过对反思性对话的分析,产生了三个中心思想;也就是说,将我们的“自我”置于我们的复习实践中,考虑我们个人生活和职业生活之间紧张的根源,并采取积极行动,在知识生产中制定种族平等。这种多民族志要求审稿人进行个人变革,因为他们寻求更见多识广和更内省,同时要求审稿人对塑造同行评审文化的标准进行结构性变革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A duoethnographic exploration of what peer reviewing teaches us about peer review

Background

The peer review process plays a vital role in the advancement of engineering educational research because it is largely through this process that the field determines which knowledge claims are considered valid. Unfortunately, peer review processes may reinforce inequities when peer reviewers, as readers, are not reflective about the ways that their own experiences, as situated within power-laden and racialized sociohistorical contexts, shape how they evaluate manuscripts.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to describe the ways in which the authors experienced the same phenomenon—evaluating manuscripts—differently due to our racialized positionalities.

Method

We reflected on the peer review process while participating in the Journal of Engineering Education's Mentored Review Program. The reviewers met over the course of 1 year to write responses to each other regarding our experiences and the tensions that arose during the process of peer reviewing manuscripts with race and oppression in mind.

Results

Three central ideas emerged from analysis of our reflective dialogue; namely, situating our “selves” within our review practice, reckoning with the roots of the strain between our personal and professional lives, and taking affirmative actions to enact racial equity in knowledge production.

Conclusions

This duoethnography calls for individual change among reviewers, as they seek to be more informed and introspective, as well as structural changes in standards that shape peer review culture.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) serves to cultivate, disseminate, and archive scholarly research in engineering education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信