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

这项研究将分析学者用来评估社会科学和人文科学研究提案的类别和标准。数据将收集用于评估研究和培训项目的过程，这些项目寻求来自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-妇女研究项目、普林斯顿研究员协会和社会科学匿名基金会的资助。在这些项目中，有两个是社会科学领域的跨学科竞赛，两个是人文学科领域的跨学科竞赛，还有一个专门为妇女研究领域的研究提供资金。分析的主要重点是探索(1)社会、科学和人文学科提案评估方式的差异，(2)调查“解释性”和“实证性”学科评估过程的差异，以及(3)比较精英竞争（普林斯顿研究员协会）使用的标准与其他项目使用的标准。该研究提出了一个问题：使用了哪些评估类别？诸如卓越性、重要性、独创性、可行性、社会实用性、政治相关性、优雅性、复杂性和客观性等正式和非正式类别的评价有多少权重？用什么标准来评估这些方面的建议？数据将通过观察供资小组、与小组成员面谈和分析所提交建议的书面评价来收集。现场记录、访谈和书面评估将使用内容分析进行定性和定量分析。与大多数同行评审过程的研究不同，本研究的主要目的不是确定评估过程是否公平，而是了解如何评估质量的实质。它将直接促进社会科学和人文学科的卓越发展。预计所产生的经验知识将有助于专家解决规范性问题，例如在考虑的领域中什么应该算作卓越。该项目还将对研究补助金和研究金的分配作出贡献，这是高等教育社会学和知识社会学中一个被忽视的课题。

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.