Expertise and Consensus in Evaluation

<ns3:p>The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) are designed to foster mobility and support career development across disciplines. Serving as a reviewer in this programme often reveals a central tension: being appointed as an “expert” does not necessarily mean working within one’s own narrow field of specialization. Proposals rarely fit within a single discipline, and the evaluation process gains richness precisely from the diversity of perspectives that reviewers bring to it. Equally significant is the consensus phase, where individual assessments converge. Rather than being an endpoint, consensus operates as a tool that structures dialogue, encourages openness, and allows evaluators to recognize different perspectives. Agreement achieved in this way is not about uniformity, but about building trust and legitimacy in the process. It is through this interplay between expertise and dialogue that evaluation outcomes acquire both credibility and meaning.</ns3:p>