Abstract

Judging excellence across disciplinary boundaries seems impossible. How can one think in a way that enables one to judge another persons work. Lamont gives us some clues and opens some intriguing avenues for research but does not get into the conceptual heart of the matter. I argue that the only way to make any sense of how the feat of cross-disciplinary judging can be done is to think in terms of "interactional expertise." Though this concept shows how it is possible it still does not resolve the problem of judgement when the interactional expertise has been acquired in an academic environment which differs from that of the person being judged.