ABSTRACT
Peer review is a key methodology of scientific practice. Peer review operates in the hinterland of research, hovering over the review process from the conception of an idea to the submission of a paper or grant application. Most commonly, reviewers raise issue with methodology – and this is because methodologies are linked to often unexamined metaphysics, which determine the purposes of research, the questions raised, and the analytical approach to the empirical. Based on actual reviews, the paper demonstrates how peer reviews reveal differences in methodologies between ‘critical sociologists’ and science and technology studies (STS) researchers. The peer review process tends to encourage conformity and exerts an extremely consequential cumulative effect on education policy research and on policy itself. It is important to be aware of these effects when performing or responding to peer reviews.
