The Way We Ask for Money… The Emergence and Institutionalization of Grant Writing Practices in Academia
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.
KeywordsResearch funding Grant writing Epistemic practices Peer review
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.
- Angermüller, Johannes. 2013. How to Become a Philosopher: Academic Discourse as a Multi-Levelled Positioning Practice. Sociología Histórica 3: 263–289.Google Scholar
- Barnes, Barry. 2000. Understanding Agency: Social Theory and Responsible Action. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Boltanski, Luc, and Ève Chiapello. 2005. The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
- Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thévenot. 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- DFG. 1976. Jahresbericht 1976. Aufgaben und Ergebnisse. Bonn.Google Scholar
- DFG. 1981. Jahresbericht 1981. Bonn.Google Scholar
- DFG. 1990. Jahresbericht 1990. Bonn.Google Scholar
- DFG. 2014. Jahresbericht 2014. Bonn.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Gross, Alan G. 1996. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Halliday, Michael A.K., and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK). 1977. Beschluss der Regierungschefs von Bund und Ländern zur Öffnung der Hochschulen vom November 1977.Google Scholar
- Little, Daniel. 1991. Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Polanyi, Michael. 1967. The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
- Schimank, Uwe. 1995. Hochschulforschung im Schatten der Lehre. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
- 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
- Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Whitley, Richard. 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- 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.