Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 102-111 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Research Evaluation |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 3 Dec 2020 |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2021 |
Abstract
Using peer review to assess the validity of research proposals has always had its fair share of critics, including a more-than-fair-share of scholars. The debate about this method of assessing these proposals now seems trivial when compared with assessing the validity for granting funding by lottery. Some of the same scholars have suggested that the way grant lottery was being assessed has made random allocation seem even-handed, less biased and more supportive of innovative research. But we know little of what researchers actually think about grant lottery and even less about the thoughts of those scientists who rely on funding. This paper examines scientists’ perspectives on selecting grants by ‘lots’ and how they justify their support or opposition. How do they approach something scientifically that is, in itself, not scientific? These approaches were investigated with problem-centered interviews conducted with natural scientists in Germany. The qualitative interviews for this paper reveal that scientists in dominated and dominating field positions are, more or less, open to the idea of giving a selection process by lots a try. Nonetheless, they are against pure randomization because from their point of view it is incompatible with scientific principles. They rather favor a combination of grant lottery and peer review processes, assuming that only under these conditions could randomly allocated funding be an integral and legitimate part of science.
Keywords
- grant lottery, peer review, qualitative research, research funding, scientific ethos, scientific field
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Sciences(all)
- Education
- Social Sciences(all)
- Library and Information Sciences
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Research Evaluation, Vol. 30, No. 1, 01.2021, p. 102-111.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Science rules! A qualitative study of scientists' approaches to grant lottery
AU - Philipps, Axel
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - Using peer review to assess the validity of research proposals has always had its fair share of critics, including a more-than-fair-share of scholars. The debate about this method of assessing these proposals now seems trivial when compared with assessing the validity for granting funding by lottery. Some of the same scholars have suggested that the way grant lottery was being assessed has made random allocation seem even-handed, less biased and more supportive of innovative research. But we know little of what researchers actually think about grant lottery and even less about the thoughts of those scientists who rely on funding. This paper examines scientists’ perspectives on selecting grants by ‘lots’ and how they justify their support or opposition. How do they approach something scientifically that is, in itself, not scientific? These approaches were investigated with problem-centered interviews conducted with natural scientists in Germany. The qualitative interviews for this paper reveal that scientists in dominated and dominating field positions are, more or less, open to the idea of giving a selection process by lots a try. Nonetheless, they are against pure randomization because from their point of view it is incompatible with scientific principles. They rather favor a combination of grant lottery and peer review processes, assuming that only under these conditions could randomly allocated funding be an integral and legitimate part of science.
AB - Using peer review to assess the validity of research proposals has always had its fair share of critics, including a more-than-fair-share of scholars. The debate about this method of assessing these proposals now seems trivial when compared with assessing the validity for granting funding by lottery. Some of the same scholars have suggested that the way grant lottery was being assessed has made random allocation seem even-handed, less biased and more supportive of innovative research. But we know little of what researchers actually think about grant lottery and even less about the thoughts of those scientists who rely on funding. This paper examines scientists’ perspectives on selecting grants by ‘lots’ and how they justify their support or opposition. How do they approach something scientifically that is, in itself, not scientific? These approaches were investigated with problem-centered interviews conducted with natural scientists in Germany. The qualitative interviews for this paper reveal that scientists in dominated and dominating field positions are, more or less, open to the idea of giving a selection process by lots a try. Nonetheless, they are against pure randomization because from their point of view it is incompatible with scientific principles. They rather favor a combination of grant lottery and peer review processes, assuming that only under these conditions could randomly allocated funding be an integral and legitimate part of science.
KW - grant lottery
KW - peer review
KW - qualitative research
KW - research funding
KW - scientific ethos
KW - scientific field
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85130854999&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/reseval/rvaa027
DO - 10.1093/reseval/rvaa027
M3 - Article
VL - 30
SP - 102
EP - 111
JO - Research Evaluation
JF - Research Evaluation
SN - 0958-2029
IS - 1
ER -