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

这项研究将分析学者在评估社会科学和人文科学领域的研究建议时所使用的类别和标准。将收集用于评估研究和培训项目的数据，这些项目寻求来自美国学会理事会、社会科学研究理事会、伍德罗·威尔逊国家联谊基金会-妇女研究计划、普林斯顿研究员协会和社会科学匿名基金会的资助。在这些方案中，两个是社会科学的跨学科竞争，两个是人文科学的跨学科竞争，一个是专门关注妇女研究领域的研究资助。分析的主要焦点是探索(1)如何评估社会科学、科学和人文学科中的提案的差异，(2)调查“解释性”和“经验性”学科评估过程中的差异，以及(3)比较精英竞赛普林斯顿研究员协会使用的标准与其他项目使用的标准。研究问：使用了哪些类别的评估？正式和非正式类别的评价，如卓越、重要性、独创性、可行性、社会有用性、政治相关性、优雅、成熟和客观性，得到了多大的重视？使用什么标准来评估这些方面的建议？将通过观察筹资小组、与小组成员面谈以及对提交的提案进行书面评估的分析来收集数据。将使用内容分析对实地笔记、访谈和书面评估进行定性和定量分析。与同行审查程序的大多数研究不同，这项研究的主要目的不是确定评价过程是否公平，而是理解如何评估质量的实质。它将直接促进社会科学和人文科学领域的卓越发展。预期所产生的经验性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。该项目还将对研究赠款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主题。

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.