Unconventional ideas conventionally arranged: A study of grant proposals for exceptional research.

Abstract

Exceptional research involves exceptional, rather than established, approaches, theories, methods and technologies. Nevertheless, to gain funding for such research, scientists are forced to outline unconventional ideas in ways that still relate to recognized concepts and findings, as well as adhering to the conventional requirements of relevant fields of research. Surprisingly, we know very little about the approaches scientists take to overcome these obstacles. In this article, we investigate how applicants use rhetorical moves and argumentative patterns to rationalize their unorthodox ideas and how they rhetorically combine their hypotheses or ideas with those of previous research that used specific methods and recognized technologies. The study concentrates on neuroscience grant proposals in Germany for a funding programme intended to support exceptional research. In addition, we look for the argumentative patterns favoured by members of and reviewers for the organization's funding programme in order to understand if the successful applications share rhetorical characteristics. An analysis of 52 applications disclosed four different argumentative patterns: (1) solving practical problems, (2) exploring specific phenomena, (3) expanding confirmed knowledge and (4) offering an alternative theory. Only one persuasive strategy explicitly challenges established theories by proposing alternatives. Despite this, the funding programme continued to ask for radical and extraordinary ideas and many scientists continued to present potentially ground-breaking ideas that did not invalidate earlier work.