Publication Date
2018
Journal or Book Title
education policy analysis archives
Abstract
This paper explores the role that distrust of expert judgment plays in conservative critiques of higher education. We propose that academics should abandon the insistence on truth as the standard for the evaluation of research quality. Doing so would separate conservative critiques of higher education from broader concerns over expert judgment via the substitution of judgement criteria more readily accessible to laypeople. Based on evidence about how expert judgment actually functions, we propose utility as a standard accessible to all. We show this by describing a historiographic model of expert judgment within the research university. We close with a call for scholars to acknowledge the conflation of facts and values in their work—that is, its post-truth nature.
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3357
Volume
26
Special Issue
Rethinking Education Policy and Methodology in a Post-truth Era
Issue
149
License
UMass Amherst Open Access Policy
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Friedensen, Rachel E. and Kimball, Ezekiel, "The Professoriate and the Post-Truth Era: A Historiographic Analysis of Expert Judgment and the Destabilization of Objective Truth" (2018). education policy analysis archives. 26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3357