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

Barlösius, Eva; Philipps, Axel

doi:10.1177/05390184221076627

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By this account, we have little to lose and much to gain by a larger scale implementation of partial randomisation. However, the concern is that abstract models under-estimate system complexity, particularly with respect to stakeholder aspects (see Barlösius & Philipps, 2022 ; Liu et al , 2020 ), namely the perception of, and reaction to, of funding allocation by lottery among those who apply for funding and those who are awarded funding. Additionally, larger scale implementation assumes that the motivations for partial randomisation are agreed, something which is not clear ( Woods & Wilsdon, 2021a ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where next for partial randomisation of research funding? The feasibility of RCTs and alternatives

Stafford¹,

Rombach²,

Hind³

et al. 2023

Wellcome Open Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We outline essential considerations for any study of partial randomisation of research funding, and consider scenarios in which randomised controlled trials (RCTs) would be feasible and appropriate. We highlight the interdependence of target outcomes, sample availability and statistical power for determining the cost and feasibility of a trial. For many choices of target outcome, RCTs may be less practical and more expensive than they at first appear (in large part due to issues pertaining to sample size and statistical power). As such, we briefly discuss alternatives to RCTs. It is worth noting that many of the considerations relevant to experiments on partial randomisation may also apply to other potential experiments on funding processes (as described in The Experimental Research Funder’s Handbook. RoRI, June 2022).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where next for partial randomisation of research funding? The feasibility of RCTs and alternatives

Stafford¹,

Rombach²,

Hind³

et al. 2023

Wellcome Open Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

New Arguments for a pure lottery in Research Funding: A Sketch for a Future Science Policy Without Time-Consuming Grant Competitions

Roumbanis

2023

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A critical debate has blossomed within the field of research policy, science and technology studies, and philosophy of science regarding the possible benefits and limitations of allocating extramural grants using a lottery system. The most common view among those supporting the lottery idea is that some form of modified lottery is acceptable, if properly combined with peer review. This means that partial randomization can be applied only after experts have screened the pursuit-worthiness of all submitted proposals and sorted out those of lowest quality. In the present paper, I will argue against the use of partial lotteries or partial randomization and instead promote use of a pure lottery in combination with a radical increase in block funding. The main reason for holding this position is that a partial lottery cannot solve the problems inherent in the current funding system, which is based on grant competitions and peer review. A partial lottery cannot decrease the enormous time-waste, reduce the uneven distribution of time between researchers, neutralize expert biases or mitigate academic power asymmetries. Instead, we need a stronger focus on improving general time management in academia by implementing a more holistic model for organizing research opportunities in the future.

show abstract

Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany

Barlösius,

Paruschke,

Philipps

2023

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review has developed over time to become the established procedure for assessing and assuring the scientific quality of research. Nevertheless, the procedure has also been variously criticized as conservative, biased, and unfair, among other things. Do scientists regard all these flaws as equally problematic? Do they have the same opinions on which problems are so serious that other selection procedures ought to be considered? The answers to these questions hints at what should be modified in peer review processes as a priority objective. The authors of this paper use survey data to examine how members of the scientific community weight different shortcomings of peer review processes. Which of those processes’ problems do they consider less relevant? Which problems, on the other hand, do they judge to be beyond remedy? Our investigation shows that certain defects of peer review processes are indeed deemed irreparable: (1) legitimate quandaries in the process of fine-tuning the choice between equally eligible research proposals and in the selection of daring ideas; and (2) illegitimate problems due to networks. Science-policy measures to improve peer review processes should therefore clarify the distinction between field-specific remediable and irremediable flaws than is currently the case.

show abstract

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

Cited by 6 publications

References 48 publications

Where next for partial randomisation of research funding? The feasibility of RCTs and alternatives

Where next for partial randomisation of research funding? The feasibility of RCTs and alternatives

New Arguments for a pure lottery in Research Funding: A Sketch for a Future Science Policy Without Time-Consuming Grant Competitions

Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About