Abstract
PurposeIn 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/approachThe 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.FindingsIn 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/valueShowing 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.
Highlights
In this contribution to EDI’s professional insights, the authors develop practical and evidencebased recommendations that are developed for bias mitigation, discretion elimination and process optimization in panel evaluations and decisions in research funding
The expectation of “selling science” as a critical component of research funding decisions became apparent in interviews we held on and observations we made of evaluation processes in the past decade
We introduce each aspect of the evaluation process by sharing an evidence-based vignette informed by our observations and experiences in supporting research funding organizations as external experts
Summary
Selling science in research funding In this contribution to EDI’s Professional Insights, we develop recommendations for improving evaluation and decision processes involving groups such as panels and committees in research funding. EDI research funding decisions, through interviewing panelists and observing panels These projects were initiated with the purpose of uncovering and mitigating bias (i.e. cognitive distortion) in the evaluation process. The expectation of “selling science” as a critical component of research funding decisions became apparent in interviews we held on and observations we made of evaluation processes in the past decade. To illustrate the effects of bias on the evaluation process, we distinguish three different aspects of the process in research funding decisions, namely evaluating written information in applications, evaluating enacted performance in interviews and presentations, and group dynamics within the panel. The evaluation process in research funding: the perils of selling science Bias makes its way into the evaluation process as it affects panelists’ implicit associations, explicit expectations and behaviors. Not overselling in a written application can be an advantage for women especially, highlighting the narrow band of acceptable behavior
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
