Filling in the gaps : The interpretation of curricula vitae in peer review
In this article, we study the use of curricula vitae (CV) for competitive funding decisions in science. The typically sober administrative style of academic résumés evokes the impression of straightforwardly conveyed, objective evidence on which to base comparisons of past achievements and future potentials. We instead conceptualize the evaluation of biographical evidence as a generative interplay between an historically grown, administrative infrastructure (the CV), and a situated evaluative practice in which the representational function of that infrastructure is itself interpreted and established. The use of CVs in peer review can be seen as a doubly comparative practice, where referees compare not only applicants (among each other or to an imagined ideal of excellence), but also their own experience-based understanding of practice and the conceptual assumptions that underpin CV categories. Empirically, we add to existing literature on peer review by drawing attention to self-correcting mechanisms in the reproduction of the scientific workforce. Conceptually, we distinguish three modalities of how the doubly comparative use of CVs can shape the assessment of applicants: calibration, branching out, and repair. The outcome of this reflexive work should not be seen as predetermined by situational pressures. In fact, bibliographic categories such as authorship of publications or performance metrics may themselves come to be problematized and reshaped in the process.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2019 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:49 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Social studies of science - 49(2019), 6 vom: 29. Dez., Seite 863-883 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Kaltenbrunner, Wolfgang [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 10.03.2020 Date Revised 10.03.2020 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1177/0306312719864164 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM299548783 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM299548783 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225100557.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1177/0306312719864164 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0998.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM299548783 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)31342878 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kaltenbrunner, Wolfgang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Filling in the gaps |b The interpretation of curricula vitae in peer review |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 10.03.2020 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 10.03.2020 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a In this article, we study the use of curricula vitae (CV) for competitive funding decisions in science. The typically sober administrative style of academic résumés evokes the impression of straightforwardly conveyed, objective evidence on which to base comparisons of past achievements and future potentials. We instead conceptualize the evaluation of biographical evidence as a generative interplay between an historically grown, administrative infrastructure (the CV), and a situated evaluative practice in which the representational function of that infrastructure is itself interpreted and established. The use of CVs in peer review can be seen as a doubly comparative practice, where referees compare not only applicants (among each other or to an imagined ideal of excellence), but also their own experience-based understanding of practice and the conceptual assumptions that underpin CV categories. Empirically, we add to existing literature on peer review by drawing attention to self-correcting mechanisms in the reproduction of the scientific workforce. Conceptually, we distinguish three modalities of how the doubly comparative use of CVs can shape the assessment of applicants: calibration, branching out, and repair. The outcome of this reflexive work should not be seen as predetermined by situational pressures. In fact, bibliographic categories such as authorship of publications or performance metrics may themselves come to be problematized and reshaped in the process | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a CVs | |
| 650 | 4 | |a comparison | |
| 650 | 4 | |a evaluation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a peer review | |
| 700 | 1 | |a de Rijcke, Sarah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Social studies of science |d 1975 |g 49(2019), 6 vom: 29. Dez., Seite 863-883 |w (DE-627)NLM074830309 |x 1460-3659 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:49 |g year:2019 |g number:6 |g day:29 |g month:12 |g pages:863-883 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312719864164 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 49 |j 2019 |e 6 |b 29 |c 12 |h 863-883 | ||