Random grant allocation from the researchers’ perspective: Introducing the distinction into legitimate and illegitimate problems in Bourdieu’s field theory

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Autoren

  • Eva Barlösius
  • Axel Philipps

Organisationseinheiten

Forschungs-netzwerk anzeigen

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seiten (von - bis)154-178
Seitenumfang25
FachzeitschriftSocial science information
Jahrgang61
Ausgabenummer1
Frühes Online-Datum23 Feb. 2022
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 1 März 2022

Abstract

Discussions about funding research grants by lottery have centered on weighing the pros and cons of peer review, but this focus does not fully account for how an idea comes across in the field of science to those researchers directly dependent on research funding. Not only do researchers have personal perspectives, but they are also shaped by their experiences and the positions they occupy in the field of science. Applying Bourdieu’s field theory, the authors explore the question of which field-specific problems and conflicts scientists identify and for which they could imagine using a grant lottery in the allocation of research funding. Under what conditions does such a solution, which is external to the field of science, seem justified to them? The results show that different areas of application are conceivable for a lottery mechanism in the field of science but that its use seems justifiable only for legitimate field-specific quandaries.

ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete

Zitieren

Random grant allocation from the researchers’ perspective: Introducing the distinction into legitimate and illegitimate problems in Bourdieu’s field theory. / Barlösius, Eva; Philipps, Axel.
in: Social science information, Jahrgang 61, Nr. 1, 01.03.2022, S. 154-178.

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Download
@article{1a6ed14fc3e040b1b68a62ba79b21991,
title = "Random grant allocation from the researchers{\textquoteright} perspective: Introducing the distinction into legitimate and illegitimate problems in Bourdieu{\textquoteright}s field theory",
abstract = "Discussions about funding research grants by lottery have centered on weighing the pros and cons of peer review, but this focus does not fully account for how an idea comes across in the field of science to those researchers directly dependent on research funding. Not only do researchers have personal perspectives, but they are also shaped by their experiences and the positions they occupy in the field of science. Applying Bourdieu{\textquoteright}s field theory, the authors explore the question of which field-specific problems and conflicts scientists identify and for which they could imagine using a grant lottery in the allocation of research funding. Under what conditions does such a solution, which is external to the field of science, seem justified to them? The results show that different areas of application are conceivable for a lottery mechanism in the field of science but that its use seems justifiable only for legitimate field-specific quandaries.",
keywords = "Bourdieu, field of science, lottery, peer review, research grants",
author = "Eva Barl{\"o}sius and Axel Philipps",
note = "Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant 01PW18004). ",
year = "2022",
month = mar,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/05390184221076627",
language = "English",
volume = "61",
pages = "154--178",
journal = "Social science information",
issn = "0539-0184",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "1",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Random grant allocation from the researchers’ perspective

T2 - Introducing the distinction into legitimate and illegitimate problems in Bourdieu’s field theory

AU - Barlösius, Eva

AU - Philipps, Axel

N1 - Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant 01PW18004).

PY - 2022/3/1

Y1 - 2022/3/1

N2 - Discussions about funding research grants by lottery have centered on weighing the pros and cons of peer review, but this focus does not fully account for how an idea comes across in the field of science to those researchers directly dependent on research funding. Not only do researchers have personal perspectives, but they are also shaped by their experiences and the positions they occupy in the field of science. Applying Bourdieu’s field theory, the authors explore the question of which field-specific problems and conflicts scientists identify and for which they could imagine using a grant lottery in the allocation of research funding. Under what conditions does such a solution, which is external to the field of science, seem justified to them? The results show that different areas of application are conceivable for a lottery mechanism in the field of science but that its use seems justifiable only for legitimate field-specific quandaries.

AB - Discussions about funding research grants by lottery have centered on weighing the pros and cons of peer review, but this focus does not fully account for how an idea comes across in the field of science to those researchers directly dependent on research funding. Not only do researchers have personal perspectives, but they are also shaped by their experiences and the positions they occupy in the field of science. Applying Bourdieu’s field theory, the authors explore the question of which field-specific problems and conflicts scientists identify and for which they could imagine using a grant lottery in the allocation of research funding. Under what conditions does such a solution, which is external to the field of science, seem justified to them? The results show that different areas of application are conceivable for a lottery mechanism in the field of science but that its use seems justifiable only for legitimate field-specific quandaries.

KW - Bourdieu

KW - field of science

KW - lottery

KW - peer review

KW - research grants

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125426020&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/05390184221076627

DO - 10.1177/05390184221076627

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85125426020

VL - 61

SP - 154

EP - 178

JO - Social science information

JF - Social science information

SN - 0539-0184

IS - 1

ER -