Variation in Valuation: How Research Groups Accumulate Credibility in Four Epistemic Cultures

Hessels, Laurens K.; Franssen, Thomas; Scholten, Wout; Rijcke, Sarah de

doi:10.1007/s11024-018-09366-x

Cited by 45 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The current study is part of a larger research project on the rise of competitive funding (Hessels et al 2016 ). We carried out four in-depth case studies of research groups who obtained several project grants and prizes to analyze the role of competitive funding in the organization of research in high performing research groups.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding

Franssen

Scholten

Hessels

et al. 2018

Minerva

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decades, science funding shows a shift from recurrent block funding towards project funding mechanisms. However, our knowledge of how project funding arrangements influence the organizational and epistemic properties of research is limited. To study this relation, a bridge between science policy studies and science studies is necessary. Recent studies have analyzed the relation between the affordances and constraints of project grants and the epistemic properties of research. However, the potentially very different affordances and constraints of funding arrangements such as awards, prizes and fellowships, have not yet been taken into account. Drawing on eight case studies of funding arrangements in high performing Dutch research groups, this study compares the institutional affordances and constraints of prizes with those of project grants and their effects on organizational and epistemic properties of research. We argue that the prize case studies diverge from project-funded research in three ways: 1) a more flexible use, and adaptation of use, of funds during the research process compared to project grants; 2) investments in the larger organization which have effects beyond the research project itself; and 3), closely related, greater deviation from epistemic and organizational standards. The increasing dominance of project funding arrangements in Western science systems is therefore argued to be problematic in light of epistemic and organizational innovation. Funding arrangements that offer funding without scholars having to submit a project-proposal remain crucial to support researchers and research groups to deviate from epistemic and organizational standards.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding

Franssen

Scholten

Hessels

et al. 2018

Minerva

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, in the Swedish context, the two disciplines vary considerably in terms of common practices for publishing (e.g., publication language and publication genres) and collaboration (e.g., co-authorship and funding). These factors are known to influence how quality is conceptualized in intradisciplinary evaluations of academic careers (Hammarfelt 2017 ), including the ways researchers try to accumulate credibility (Hessels et al 2019 ). While it is important not to underestimate the relative heterogeneity that characterize most disciplines in the social sciences and humanities today, it is equally important not to downplay existing differences.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating Uncertainty: Early Career Academics and Practices of Appraisal Devices

Nästesjö

2020

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a lack of objective evaluative standards for academic work. While this has been recognized in studies of how gatekeepers pass judgment on the works of others, little is known about how scholars deal with the uncertainty about how their work will be evaluated by gatekeepers. Building upon 35 interviews with early career academics in political science and history, this paper explores how junior scholars use appraisal devices to navigate this kind of uncertainty. Appraisal devices offer trusted and knowledgeable appraisals through which scholars are informed whether their work and they themselves are good enough to succeed in academia. Investigating how early career academics rely upon appraisals from assessors (i.e., ‘academic mentors’), the study adds to existing literature on uncertainty and worth in academic life by drawing attention to how scholars’ anticipatory practices are informed by trusting the judgment of others. The empirical analysis demonstrates that early career academics are confronted with multiple and conflicting appraisals that they must interpret and differentiate between. However, the institutional conditions for dealing with uncertainty about what counts in future evaluations, as well as which individuals generally come to function as assessors, differ between political science and history. This has an impact on both valuation practices and socialization structures. Focusing on what I call practices of appraisal devices, the paper provides a conceptual understanding of how scholars cope with uncertainties about their future. Furthermore, it expands existing theory by demonstrating how scholars’ self-concept and desired identities are key to the reflexive ways appraisal devices are used in the course of action.

show abstract

“…In other words, a 'fragmented adhocracy' diverge from what funding authorities envisage when they design schemes for centres of excellence which can be said to emphasise the role of the research groups, collaboration, leadership and interdisciplinarity (Hellström 2011;Borlaug 2015a). Compared to other fieldsespecially in Big Science which often have large coordinated projects with functional task division, the humanities are characterised by individual researcher practices, flat structures and little co-authorship 1 (Hessels et al 2019). On this background, we expect the CoE scheme to generate different impacts on the intellectual and social organisation of research in the humanities compared to other fields.…”

Section: Scientific Fields and The Organisation Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

One model fits all? How centres of excellence affect research organisation and practices in the humanities

Borlaug

Langfeldt

2019

Studies in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Centres of Excellence (CoE) have become a common research policy instrument in several OECD countries the last two decades. The CoE schemes are in general modelled on the organisational and research practices in the natural and life sciences. Compared to 'Big science', the humanities have been characterised by more individual research, flat structures, and usually less integration and coordination of research activities. In this article we ask: How does the introduction of CoEs affect the organisation of research and research practices in the humanities? By comparing Norwegian CoEs in different fields of research and studying the specific challenges of the humanities, we find that CoEs increase collaboration between different fields and make disciplinary and organisational boundaries more permeable, but so far they do not substantially alter individual collaboration patterns in the humanities CoEs. They further seem to generate more tensions in their adjacent environments compared to CoEs in other fields.

show abstract

Variation in Valuation: How Research Groups Accumulate Credibility in Four Epistemic Cultures

Cited by 45 publications

References 22 publications

The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding

The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding

Navigating Uncertainty: Early Career Academics and Practices of Appraisal Devices

One model fits all? How centres of excellence affect research organisation and practices in the humanities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About