The oracles of science: On grant peer review and competitive funding
| Autor: | Lambros Roumbanis |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
competitive funding
Point (typography) scientific thinking 05 social sciences General Social Sciences Library and Information Sciences 050905 science studies Epistemology research evaluation ex ante assessment 0502 economics and business Educational Sciences Sociology 0509 other social sciences Utbildningsvetenskap 050203 business & management |
| Zdroj: | Social Science Information. 60:356-362 |
| ISSN: | 1461-7412 0539-0184 |
| DOI: | 10.1177/05390184211019241 |
| Popis: | From a purely epistemological point of view, evaluating and predicting the future success of new research projects is often considered very difficult. Is it possible to forecast important findings and breakthrough in science, and if not, then what is the point trying to do it anyway? Still, that is what funding agencies all over the world expect their reviewers to do, but a number of previous studies has shown that this form of evaluation of innovation, promise and future impact are a fundamentally uncertain and arbitrary practice. This is the context that I will discuss in the present essay, and I will claim that there is a deeply irrational element embedded in today’s heavy reliance on experts to screen, rank and select among the increasing numbers of good research projects, because they can, in principal, never discern the true potential behind the written proposals. Hence, I think it is motivated to see grant peer review as an ‘oracle of science’. My overall focus will be on the limits of competitive funding and also that the writing and reviewing of proposals is a waste of researchers’ precious time. And I will propose that we really need to develop new ways of thinking about how we organize research and distribute opportunities within academia. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|