The Feeling Rules of Peer Review: Defining, Displaying, and Managing Emotions in Evaluation for Research Funding.

Autor/inn/en	Brunet, Lucas; Müller, Ruth
Titel	The Feeling Rules of Peer Review: Defining, Displaying, and Managing Emotions in Evaluation for Research Funding.
Quelle	In: Minerva : a review of science, learning and policy, 62 (2024) 2, S. 167-192Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; gedruckt; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0026-4695; 1573-1871
DOI	10.1007/s11024-023-09518-8
Schlagwörter	Evaluation; Forschung; Forschungsförderung; Ausland; Europa
Abstract	Punctuated by joy, disappointments, and conflicts, research evaluation constitutes an intense, emotional moment in scientific life. Yet reviewers and research institutions often expect evaluations to be conducted objectively and dispassionately. Inspired by the scholarship describing the role of emotions in scientific practices, we argue instead, that reviewers actively define, display and manage their emotions in response to the structural organization of research evaluation. Our article examines reviewing practices used in the European Research Council's (ERC) Starting and Consolidator grants and in the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Action's (MSCA) Individual Fellowships. These two European funding mechanisms offer different perspectives on the organization of grant evaluation. We conducted interviews with review panel members and analyzed various institutional documents. By drawing on the sociological concepts of feeling rules and emotional work, we demonstrate that reviewers define rules concerning how emotions should be experienced and expressed to ensure the proper functioning of evaluation, and that reviewers experience the need to actively regulate their emotions to comply with these rules. We present four feeling rules concerning the experience and expression of: (1) excitement for novelty during individual evaluation; (2) respect for others' opinions and the absence of anger in review panels; (3) attentiveness and interest, which are seen as missing in online evaluations. Reviewers also expect ERC candidates to (4) avoid pride and manifest modesty during interviews. These rules demonstrate that proposal peer review is governed by emotional norms, and show the influence of organizational settings and moral requirements on research evaluation. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).
Erfasst von	Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, Bonn
Update	2025/1