IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v23y2014i4p298-311..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The selection of talent as a group process. A literature review on the social dynamics of decision making in grant panels

Author

Listed:
  • Pleun van Arensbergen
  • Inge van der Weijden
  • Peter van den Besselaar

Abstract

Talent selection within science is increasingly performed by panels, e.g. by reviewing grant or fellowship applications. Many studies from fields of sociology of science and science policy studies have been conducted to identify biases and predict outcomes of these processes, mainly focusing on characteristics of applicants, applications, and reviewers. However, as panel reviewing entails social interaction, group dynamics influence these processes. By adding insights from social psychology to current knowledge on panel reviews, we are better able to identify factors affecting talent selection and funding decisions in grant panels. By opening up this so-called black box, we aim to contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics of panel decision making. This knowledge is also relevant for various stakeholders involved in grant allocation, for applicants, reviewers, and policymakers, as it can be used to improve transparency, fairness, and legitimation of talent selection processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Pleun van Arensbergen & Inge van der Weijden & Peter van den Besselaar, 2014. "The selection of talent as a group process. A literature review on the social dynamics of decision making in grant panels," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 298-311.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:23:y:2014:i:4:p:298-311.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvu017
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Leila Jabrane, 2022. "Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    3. van den Besselaar, Peter & Sandström, Ulf, 2015. "Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 826-838.
    4. van den Besselaar, Peter & Mom, Charlie, 2022. "The effect of writing style on success in grant applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    5. Peter van den Besselaar & Ulf Sandström & Hélène Schiffbaenker, 2018. "Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 313-329, October.
    6. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    7. Herschberg, Channah & Benschop, Yvonne & van den Brink, Marieke, 2018. "Precarious postdocs: A comparative study on recruitment and selection of early-career researchers," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 303-310.
    8. Buehling, Kilian, 2021. "Changing research topic trends as an effect of publication rankings – The case of German economists and the Handelsblatt Ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    9. Rebecca Abma-Schouten & Joey Gijbels & Wendy Reijmerink & Ingeborg Meijer, 2023. "Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 619-632.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:23:y:2014:i:4:p:298-311.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.