Examining the value added by committee discussion in the review of applications for research awards

Michael Obrecht, Karl Tibelius and Guy D'Aloisio

Research Evaluation, 2007, vol. 16, issue 2, 79-91

Abstract: We examined a process for evaluating research fellowship proposals in which each was assigned to two members of a review committee for in-depth assessment. Before the committee meeting the reviewers scored the proposal against weighted criteria using benchmarked scales and a detailed rating guide. At the meeting they presented their reviews and then received questions and comments from colleagues. Subsequently each committee member assigned a score reflecting their overall appreciation of the proposal. We observed committees at work, analysed pre-meeting and post-discussion scores and considered feedback from reviewers. Our results suggest that committee discussion and rating of proposals offered no improvement to fairness and effectiveness over and above that attainable from the pre-meeting evaluations. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Date: 2007
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820207X223785 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:rseval:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:79-91

Access Statistics for this article

Research Evaluation is currently edited by Julia Melkers, Emanuela Reale and Thed van Leeuwen

More articles in Research Evaluation from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().