IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v30y2021i4p563-571..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence of research mastery: How applicants argue the feasibility of their research projects
[Concepts of originality in the natural science, medical, and engineering disciplines: An analysis of research proposals, Science, Technology]

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Barlösius
  • Kristina Blem

Abstract

Although many studies have shown that reviewers particularly value the feasibility of a proposed project, very little attention has gone to how applicants try to establish the plausibility of their proposal’s realization. With a sample of 335 proposals, we examined the ways applicants reason the feasibility of their projects and the kinds of evidence they provide to support those assertions. We identified three kinds of evidence for mastering research: the scope of scientific skills, the presence of different assets, and the use of stylistic techniques. Applicants draw on them to align the project with scientific standards, embed it in the current state of research, and meet the scientific field’s expectations of how scientists should conduct a project. These kinds of evidence help substantiate a project’s feasibility and to distinguish the project from other proposals. Such evidence seems to correspond with a project’s positive review and approval (grant success). Evidence of research mastery was cited more often by the authors of the successful (approved) proposals than by the authors of the unsuccessful ones. The applicants of the successful proposals gave details of their planned experiments, emphasized their broad methodological and technical competence, and referred to their own preliminary scientific work.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Barlösius & Kristina Blem, 2021. "Evidence of research mastery: How applicants argue the feasibility of their research projects [Concepts of originality in the natural science, medical, and engineering disciplines: An analysis of r," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 563-571.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:30:y:2021:i:4:p:563-571.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvab035
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grit Laudel, 2006. "The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(7), pages 489-504, August.
    2. Laudel, Grit & Gläser, Jochen, 2014. "Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1204-1216.
    3. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    4. Thomas Heinze, 2008. "How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(5), pages 302-318, June.
    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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eva Barlösius & Laura Paruschke & Axel Philipps, 2024. "Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 623-634.
    2. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    3. Karolin Sjöö & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, 2023. "Gender mainstreaming research funding: a study of effects on STEM research proposals," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 304-317.
    4. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    5. 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.
    6. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    7. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    8. Dangzhi Zhao, 2010. "Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 293-306, August.
    9. Sandström, Ulf & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2018. "Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 365-384.
    10. Jacqueline N. Lane & Misha Teplitskiy & Gary Gray & Hardeep Ranu & Michael Menietti & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2022. "Conservatism Gets Funded? A Field Experiment on the Role of Negative Information in Novel Project Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4478-4495, June.
    11. Conor O'Kane & James Cunningham & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Underpinning Strategic Behaviours and Posture of Principal Investigators in Transition/Uncertain Environments," Working paper serie RMT - Grenoble Ecole de Management hal-00794944, HAL.
    12. Heinze, Thomas & Shapira, Philip & Rogers, Juan D. & Senker, Jacqueline M., 2009. "Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 610-623, May.
    13. Conor O'Kane & James Cunningham & Vincent Mangematin, 2012. "Underpinning Strategic Behaviours and Posture of Principal Investigators in Transition/Uncertain Environments," Working Papers hal-00794944, HAL.
    14. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    15. Hren, Darko & Pina, David G. & Norman, Christopher R. & Marušić, Ana, 2022. "What makes or breaks competitive research proposals? A mixed-methods analysis of research grant evaluation reports," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    16. Albert Banal-Estañol & Qianshuo Liu & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    17. Julian Kolev & Yuly Fuentes-Medel & Fiona Murray, 2019. "Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 25759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt-Padickakudy & Anna Strauss-Kollin, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, April.
    19. Jeffrey L. Furman & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Automation, Research Technology, and Researchers’ Trajectories: Evidence from Computer Science and Electrical Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 330-354, March.
    20. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.

    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:30:y:2021:i:4:p:563-571.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.