The Long Shadow of Peer Review on the Preparation of Artist Educators

Abstract

The recruitment and retention of the highest-quality artist educators in colleges and universities is a key element in supporting strong K-12 arts education programs. Artist educators must be expert in at least two disciplines: their art forms and education. However, the peer review processes commonly employed to recommend higher education faculty members for tenure or promotion are sometimes not well suited to evaluate the work of faculty members whose work spans multiple disciplines. This discussion addresses the functions and implementations of peer review, epistemology, arts-based educational research, academic traditions and disciplinary cultures, and invisibility. Issues specific to the review of interdisciplinary work are also discussed. Recommendations address peer review policies, fostering critical mass in scholarly communities, and academic culture.

The meaning-making of educational proficiency in academic hiring: a blind spot in the black box

“…Peer review is affected by human weaknesses and biases (Dyson 2015). A number of factors may influence the selection of 'the best' such as: values and beliefs (O'Meara 2006(O'Meara , 2016; stereotypical judgement (van den Brink 2010); reputation of alma mater, habitus and networks (Bourdieu 1996) and epistemic bias (Walker 2013). Consequently, questions have been raised about peer review as an effective, efficient, reliable and valid method (Lee et al 2013).…”

“…Guidelines have been introduced to minimize reviewer bias, among them clarifying criteria (conditions that need to be met) and indicators (measures stating to what extent criteria are met). There is, however, evidence of negative effects of too specific and absolute indicators (Walker 2013). Multifaceted and complex phenomena like educational proficiency require contextually adaptable indicators to avoid rigid measures and oversimplifying outcomes (Elken and Wollscheid 2016).…”