Selling science: optimizing the research funding evaluation and decision process

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2021-0028
• Published date: 27 October 2021
• Date: 27 October 2021
• Pages: 1-14
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity,equality,inclusion
• Author: Claartje J. Vinkenburg,Carolin Ossenkop,Helene Schiffbaenker

Selling science: optimizing the

research funding evaluation and

decision process

Claartje J. Vinkenburg

Independent Expert, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Carolin Ossenkop

Connectify, Wijchen, The Netherlands and

Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen,

Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and

Helene Schiffbaenker

Joanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, Graz, Austria

Abstract

Purpose –In this contribution to EDI’s professional insights, the authors develop practical and evidence-

based recommendations that are developed for bias mitigation, discretion elimination and process optimization

in panel evaluations and decisions in research funding. An analysis is made of how the expectation of “selling

science”adds layers of complexity to the evaluation and decision process. The insights are relevant for

optimization of similar processes, including publication, recruitment and selection, tenure and promotion.

Design/methodology/approach –The recommendations are informed by experiences and evidence from

commissioned projects with European research funding organizations. The authors distinguish between three

aspects of the evaluation process: written applications, enacted performance and group dynamics. Vignettes

are provided to set the stage for the analysis of how bias and (lack of) fit to an ideal image makes it easier for

some than for others to be funded.

Findings –In research funding decisions, (over)selling science is expected but creates shifting standards for

evaluation, resulting in a narrow band of acceptable behavior for applicants. In the authors’recommendations,

research funding organizations, evaluators and panel chairs will find practical ideas and levers for process

optimization, standardization and customization, in terms of awareness, accountability, biased language,

criteria, structure and time.

Originality/value –Showing how “selling science”in research funding adds to the cumulative disadvantage

of bias, the authors offer design specifications for interventions to mitigate the negative effects of bias on

evaluations and decisions, improve selection habits, eliminate discretion and create a more inclusive process.

Keywords Research funding, Panel evaluation, Decision making, Bias mitigation, Discretion elimination,

Process optimization, Inclusion, Selling science

Paper type Viewpoint

Selling science in research funding

In this contribution to EDI’sProfessional Insights, we develop recommendations for

improving evaluation and decision processes involving groups such as panels and

committees in research funding. Our insights are relevant for process optimization in

similar evaluative decision processes, including publication, recruitment and selection, tenure

and promotion in higher education and research settings. Our recommendations are informed

by evidence and experiences from commissioned projects in the context of European

Selling science

1

© Claartje J. Vinkenburg, Carolin Ossenkop and Helene Schiffbaenker. Published byEmerald Publishing

Limited. This articleis published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone

may reproduce, distribute, translateand create derivative works of this article(for both commercial and

non-commercialpurposes),subject to full attributionto the original publication and authors.The full terms

of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 28 January 2021

Revised 14 July 2021

Accepted 23 July 2021

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 41 No. 9, 2022

pp. 1-14

Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-01-2021-0028