Categories and Criteria of Evaluation of Research Proposals in the Social Sciences and the Humanities

SES-0096889 Michele Lamont普林斯顿大学该研究将分析学者用于评估社会科学和人文科学研究提案的类别和标准。 将收集用于评估从美国学术团体理事会、社会科学研究理事会、伍德罗·威尔逊国家奖学金基金会-妇女研究方案、普林斯顿研究员协会和社会科学匿名基金会寻求资助的研究和培训项目的过程的数据。在这些方案中，有两个是社会科学的跨学科竞赛，两个是人文学科的跨学科竞赛，一个特别涉及资助妇女研究领域的研究。 分析的主要重点是探索（1）社会科学和人文学科的提案在总体上如何评估的差异，（2）调查“解释性”和“经验性”学科评估过程的差异，（3）比较精英竞争中使用的标准，普林斯顿研究员协会，与其他项目使用的标准。研究问：使用了哪些类别的评价？ 对正式和非正式的评价类别，如卓越性、重要性、独创性、可行性、社会有用性、政治相关性、优雅性、复杂性和客观性，给予了多大的权重？ 按照沿着这些方面，采用什么标准来评估提案？将通过观察供资小组、与小组成员面谈以及分析对所提交提案的书面评价来收集数据。 将使用内容分析法对实地考察、访谈和书面评价进行定性和定量分析。与大多数同行审查进程的研究不同，本研究的主要目的不是确定评价进程是否公平，而是了解如何评估质量的实质。 它将直接有助于促进社会科学和人文科学的卓越。 预计所产生的经验知识将有助于专家解决规范性问题，例如在所审议的领域中，什么才算优秀。 该项目还将有助于研究赠款和研究金的分配，这是高等教育社会学和知识社会学中一个被忽视的专题。

SES-0096889Michele LamontPrinceton University The study will analyze the categories and criteria used by scholars to evaluate research proposals in the social sciences and humanities. Data will be gathered on the process used to evaluate research and training projects seeking funding from the American Council of Learned Societies, the Social Science Research Council, the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation - Women's Studies program, the Princeton Society of Fellows, and an anonymous foundation in the social sciences. Of these programs, two are interdisciplinary competitions in the social sciences, two are interdisciplinary competitions in the humanities, and one is concerned specifically with funding research in the field of Women's Studies. The primary focus of the analysis is to explore (1) differences in how proposal in the social and sciences and humanities in general are evaluated, (2) investigate differences in the evaluation process of "interpretive and "empirical" disciplines, and (3) compare the criteria used in the elite competition, the Princeton Society of Fellows, with those used by other programs.The study asks: What categories of evaluation are used? How much weight is given to formal and informal categories of evaluation such as excellence, significance, originality, feasibility, social usefulness, political relevance, elegance, sophistication and objectivity? What criteria are used to assess proposals along these dimensions? Data will be collected through observing funding panels, interviews with panel members and an analysis of written evaluation of proposals submitted. Fieldnotes, interviews and written evaluations will be analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using content analysis. Unlike most studies of the peer review process, this study is not aimed primarily at determining whether the evaluation process is fair, but rather at understanding the substance of how quality is assessed. It will contribute directly to promoting excellence in the social sciences and humanities. It is expected that empirical knowledge generated will aid experts in addressing normative questions, such as what should count for excellence in the fields under consideration. The project will also make a contribution to the study of distribution of grants and fellowships, a neglected topic in the sociology of higher education and sociology of knowledge.