Minerva

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 85–107 | Cite as

The Way We Ask for Money… The Emergence and Institutionalization of Grant Writing Practices in Academia

Article

Abstract

Although existing scholarship offers critical insights into the working mechanisms of project-based research funding, little is known about the actual practice of writing grant proposals. Our study seeks to add a longitudinal dimension to the ongoing debate on the implications of competitive research funding by focusing on the incremental adjustment of the funder/fundee relationship around a common discursive practice that consists in describing and evaluating research projects: How has the perception of what constitutes a legitimate funding claim changed over time and why? By investigating the normative framework enacted in the justification strategies of applicants, we shed light on the historical coevolution of the increasing competition for project funding, the epistemic culture of applicants, and grant writing rhetoric. To do this, we mobilize a comprehensive data set consisting of archival data from Europe’s oldest and largest funding agency, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, as well as a corpus of 80 successful grant proposals written between 1975 and 2005. We find that the 1990s mark an important normative consolidation of what we consider to be a legitimate funding claim: Ensuring the success of the project and the project’s results becomes a major concern in applicant rhetoric. This time period coincides with a substantive rise in the level of competition for project funding. Yet, even though justification strategies might seem to address the same issues in grant proposals across the disciplines under investigation, the normative framework to which applicants refer differs according to the applicant’s epistemic culture.

Keywords

Research funding Grant writing Epistemic practices Peer review 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Christine Musselin, Stefan Hornbostel, Woody Powell, Julian Hamann and Wolfgang Schluchter for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. I am also immensely grateful to Jochen Gläser who provided insight and expertise that greatly improved the overall argument of this paper. Finally, I thank Kai Behrendt, Martin Hölz and Miriam Schwarz for their excellent assistance in the research process. This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

References

  1. Angermüller, Johannes. 2013. How to Become a Philosopher: Academic Discourse as a Multi-Levelled Positioning Practice. Sociología Histórica 3: 263–289.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, Barry. 2000. Understanding Agency: Social Theory and Responsible Action. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bazerman, Charles. 1985. Physicists Reading Physics: Schema-Laden Purposes and Purpose-Laden Schema. Written Communication 2(1): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellers, Jürgen, and Rüdiger Kipke. 2006. Einführung in die Politikwissenschaft. Munich: Oldenbourg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloch, Carter, Ebbe K. Graversen, and Heidi S. Pedersen. 2014. Competitive Research Grants and Their Impact on Career Performance. Minerva 52(1): 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blume-Kohout, Margaret E., and Dadhi Adhikari. 2016. Training the Scientific Workforce: Does Funding Mechanism Matter? Research Policy 45(6): 1291–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boltanski, Luc, and Ève Chiapello. 2005. The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  8. Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thévenot. 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Braun, Dietmar. 1993. Who Governs Intermediary Agencies? Principal-Agent Relations in Research Policy-Making. Journal of Public Policy 13(2): 135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, Linda. 2003. Modifying Publication Practices in Response to Funding Formulas. Research Evaluation 12: 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cozzens, Susan E. 1985. Comparing the Sciences: Citation Context Analysis of Papers from Neuropharmacology and the Sociology of Science. Social Studies of Science 15(1): 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DFG. 1976. Jahresbericht 1976. Aufgaben und Ergebnisse. Bonn.Google Scholar
  13. DFG. 1981. Jahresbericht 1981. Bonn.Google Scholar
  14. DFG. 1990. Jahresbericht 1990. Bonn.Google Scholar
  15. DFG. 2014. Jahresbericht 2014. Bonn.Google Scholar
  16. Dryzek, John S., and Stephen T. Leonard. 1988. History and Discipline in Political Science. The American Political Science Review 82(4): 1245–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franssen, Thomas, Wout Scholten, Laurens K. Hessels, and Sarah de Rijcke. 2018. The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding. Minerva 56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9338-9.
  18. Grimpe, Christoph. 2012. Extramural Research Grants and Scientists’ Funding Strategies: Beggars Cannot be Choosers? Research Policy 41(8): 1448–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gross, Alan G. 1996. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Guston, David H. 2000. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halliday, Michael A.K., and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Hallonsten, Olof. 2014. How Scientists May ‘Benefit from the Mess’: A Resource Dependence Perspective on Individual Organizing in Contemporary Science. Social Science Information 53(3): 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamann, Julian. 2016. ‘Let us Salute one of our Kind’. How Academic Obituaries Consecrate Research Biographies. Poetics 56: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hargens, Lowell L. 2000. Using the Literature: Reference Networks, Reference Contexts, and the Social Structure of Scholarship. American Sociological Review 65(6): 846–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harré, Rom, and Luk van Langenhove. 1991. Varieties of Positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 21(4): 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harsh, Matthew, Ravtosh Bal, Jameson Wetmore, G. Pascal Zachary, and Kerry Holden. 2018. The Rise of Computing Research in East Africa: The Relationship Between Funding, Capacity and Research Community in a Nascent Field. Minerva 56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9341-1.
  27. Hartmann, Jürgen. 2003. Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft: Grundzüge der Fachentwicklung in den USA und in Europa. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heinze, Thomas. 2008. How to Sponsor Ground-Breaking Research: A Comparison of Funding Schemes. Science and Public Policy 35(5): 302–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Himanen, Laura, Otto Auranen, Hanna-Mari Puuska, and Mika Nieminen. 2009. Influence of Research Funding and Science Policy on University Research Performance: A Comparison of Five Countries. Science and Public Policy 36(6): 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hornbostel, Stefan. 2001. Third Party Funding of German Universities: An Indicator of Research Activity? Scientometrics 50(3): 523–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howells, Jeremy. 2006. Intermediation and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation. Research Policy 35: 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knight, David. 2002. Then…and Now. In From Classical to Modern Chemistry: The Instrumental Revolution, ed. Peter Morris, 87–94. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
  33. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Koppenol, Willem H., Patricia L. Bounds, and Chi V. Dang. 2011. Otto Warburg’s Contributions to Current Concepts of Cancer Metabolism. Nature Reviews Cancer 11(5): 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krücken, Georg, Albrecht Blümel, and Katharina Kloke. 2013. The Managerial Turn in Higher Education? On the Interplay of Organizational and Occupational Change in German Academia. Minerva 51(4): 417–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK). 1977. Beschluss der Regierungschefs von Bund und Ländern zur Öffnung der Hochschulen vom November 1977.Google Scholar
  37. Laborier, Pascale, and Danny Trom. 2002. La science politique allemande dans tous ses états. Controverses autour de la naissance d’une discipline entre enjeux théoriques, luttes de savoir et transferts culturels. Politix 15(59): 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lamont, Michèle. 2012. Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lamont, Michèle, Jason Kaufman, and Michael Moody. 2000. The Best of the Brightest: Definitions of the Ideal Self among Prize-Winning Students. Sociological Forum 15(2): 187–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laudel, Grit. 2006. The Art of Getting Funded: How Scientists Adapt to Their Funding Conditions. Science and Public Policy 33(7): 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laudel, Grit, and Jochen Gläser. 2014. Beyond Breakthrough Research: Epistemic Properties of Research and Their Consequences for Research Funding. Research Policy 43(7): 1204–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Little, Daniel. 1991. Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mallard, Gregoire, Michèle Lamont, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2009. Fairness as Appropriateness: Negotiating Epistemological Differences in Peer Review. Science, Technology, & Human Values 34(5): 573–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Morris, Norma, and Arie Rip. 2006. Scientists’ Coping Strategies in an Evolving Research System: The Case of Life Scientists in the UK. Science and Public Policy 33(4): 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Musselin, Christine. 2013. How Peer Review Empowers the Academic Profession and University Managers: Changes in Relationships between the State, Universities and the Professoriate. Research Policy 42(5): 1165–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Myers, Greg. 1985. Texts as Knowledge Claims: The Social Construction of Two Biology Articles. Social Studies of Science 15: 593–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Polanyi, Michael. 1967. The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  50. Sandberg, Jörgen. 2005. How Do We Justify Knowledge Produced within Interpretive Approaches? Organizational Research Methods 8(1): 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schimank, Uwe. 1995. Hochschulforschung im Schatten der Lehre. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  52. Schummer, Joachim. 1997a. Scientometric Studies on Chemistry I: The Exponential Growth of Chemical Substances, 1800–1995. Scientometrics 39(1): 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schummer, Joachim. 1997b. Scientometric Studies on Chemistry II: Aims and Methods of Producing New Chemical Substances. Scientometrics 39(1): 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Serrano Velarde, Kathia, Martin Hölz and Miriam Schwarz. 2017. Zuschreibungsprozesse in der wissenschaftlichen Antragsstellung. Eine historisch vergleichende Untersuchung der Antragsrichtlinien zur Drittmittelförderung. Paper presented at the VW Workshop „Wissenschafts- und Hochschulforschung. Ansatzpunkte für eine interdisziplinäre Forschungsagenda“, May 16th 2017, in Hannover, Germany.Google Scholar
  55. Slater, Leo B. 2002. Instruments and Rules: R. B. Woodward and the Tools of Twentieth-Century Organic Chemistry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, Katherine. 2010. Research, Policy and Funding: Academic Treadmills and the Squeeze on Intellectual Spaces. The British Journal of Sociology 61(1): 176–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stampfer, Michael, Rupert Pichler, and Reinhold Hofer. 2010. The Making of Research Funding in Austria: Transition Politics and Institutional Development, 1945–2005. Science and Public Policy 37(10): 765–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. van der Meulen, Barend. 1998. Science Policies as Principal-Agent Games: Institutionalization and Path Dependency in the Relation between Government and Science. Research Policy 27(4): 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Whitley, Richard. 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  61. Whitley, Richard. 2007. Changing Governance of the Public Sciences. In The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, eds. Richard Whitley, and Jochen Gläser, 3–27. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whitley, Richard, Jochen Gläser, and Grit Laudel. 2018. The Impact of Changing Funding and Authority Relationships on Scientific Innovations. Minerva 56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9343-7.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max-Weber-Institute of SociologyHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations