Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 884-897 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Social studies of science |
| Volume | 49 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Early online date | 14 Jun 2019 |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2019 |
Abstract
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.
Keywords
- argumentative patterns, exceptional research, grant proposals, neuroscience, rhetorical moves
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- History
- Social Sciences(all)
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- History and Philosophy of Science
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Social studies of science, Vol. 49, No. 6, 12.2019, p. 884-897.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
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 -