Creating acceptance for European Research Council evaluations

.

Chapter 4 in Science Evaluation and Status Creation, 2020, pp 51-87 from Edward Elgar Publishing

Abstract: Throughout Chapter 4, I use a mix of documents, interviews, and observations to investigate how the peer review evaluations of early-career scientist applications for funding from the flagship Starting Grant (StG) scheme were organized and experienced during the ERC’s inaugural budgetary period. First, I discuss the main aspects of StGs, the reproach they initially faced, and the ways in which the ERC responded to this criticism. Then, I show that the ERC’s responses largely focused on portraying StG evaluations as impartial judgments of scientific quality, which featured respected panelists and rendered meritocratic allocations. Although I pay close attention to this portrayal, my investigation also considers how StG evaluations were perceived by a sample of evaluators, applicants, administrators, and department heads active in the Swedish research context.

Keywords: Business and Management; Economics and Finance; Education; Politics and Public Policy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781839106088.00013.xml (application/pdf)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 503 Service Temporarily Unavailable

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:elg:eechap:19714_4

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.e-elgar.com
sales@e-elgar.co.uk

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Chapters from Edward Elgar Publishing
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Darrel McCalla (darrel@e-elgar.co.uk).