TY - JOUR

T1 - Unconventional ideas conventionally arranged

T2 - A study of grant proposals for exceptional research

AU - Philipps, Axel

AU - Weißenborn, Leonie

N1 - Funding information: We wish to thank Eva Barlösius, Rafael Mrowczynski, Trevor Wardle, the editor Sergio Sismondo and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. We are also immensely grateful to Ulrike Bischler, Pavel Dutow and Friederike Hepp from the Volkswagen Foundation for their support. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

PY - 2019/12

Y1 - 2019/12

N2 - Exceptional research involves exceptional, rather than established, approaches, theories, methods and technologies. Nevertheless, to gain funding for such research, scientists are forced to outline unconventional ideas in ways that still relate to recognized concepts and findings, as well as adhering to the conventional requirements of relevant fields of research. Surprisingly, we know very little about the approaches scientists take to overcome these obstacles. In this article, we investigate how applicants use rhetorical moves and argumentative patterns to rationalize their unorthodox ideas and how they rhetorically combine their hypotheses or ideas with those of previous research that used specific methods and recognized technologies. The study concentrates on neuroscience grant proposals in Germany for a funding programme intended to support exceptional research. In addition, we look for the argumentative patterns favoured by members of and reviewers for the organization’s funding programme in order to understand if the successful applications share rhetorical characteristics. An analysis of 52 applications disclosed four different argumentative patterns: (1) solving practical problems, (2) exploring specific phenomena, (3) expanding confirmed knowledge and (4) offering an alternative theory. Only one persuasive strategy explicitly challenges established theories by proposing alternatives. Despite this, the funding programme continued to ask for radical and extraordinary ideas and many scientists continued to present potentially ground-breaking ideas that did not invalidate earlier work.

AB - Exceptional research involves exceptional, rather than established, approaches, theories, methods and technologies. Nevertheless, to gain funding for such research, scientists are forced to outline unconventional ideas in ways that still relate to recognized concepts and findings, as well as adhering to the conventional requirements of relevant fields of research. Surprisingly, we know very little about the approaches scientists take to overcome these obstacles. In this article, we investigate how applicants use rhetorical moves and argumentative patterns to rationalize their unorthodox ideas and how they rhetorically combine their hypotheses or ideas with those of previous research that used specific methods and recognized technologies. The study concentrates on neuroscience grant proposals in Germany for a funding programme intended to support exceptional research. In addition, we look for the argumentative patterns favoured by members of and reviewers for the organization’s funding programme in order to understand if the successful applications share rhetorical characteristics. An analysis of 52 applications disclosed four different argumentative patterns: (1) solving practical problems, (2) exploring specific phenomena, (3) expanding confirmed knowledge and (4) offering an alternative theory. Only one persuasive strategy explicitly challenges established theories by proposing alternatives. Despite this, the funding programme continued to ask for radical and extraordinary ideas and many scientists continued to present potentially ground-breaking ideas that did not invalidate earlier work.

KW - argumentative patterns

KW - exceptional research

KW - grant proposals

KW - neuroscience

KW - rhetorical moves

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067881256&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0306312719857156

DO - 10.1177/0306312719857156

M3 - Article

C2 - 31200631

AN - SCOPUS:85067881256

VL - 49

SP - 884

EP - 897

JO - Social studies of science

JF - Social studies of science

SN - 0306-3127

IS - 6

ER -