The selection of talent as a group process. A literature review on the social dynamics of decision making in grant panels

Research Evaluation

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 298-311

  Van Arensbergen, Pleun ^a   Van Der Weijden, Inge ^b   Van Den Besselaar, Peter ^c  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84985955429     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: 14715449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvu017     Document Type: Review

References (84)

1. ACUMEN. (2014) 'Final Report', (29 April 2014) .
2. Baron, R. S. (2005) 'So right it's wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision-making', Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37: 219-53.
3. Bastardi, A. and Shafir, E. (1998) 'On the pursuit and misuse of useless information', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 19-32.
4. - (2000) 'Nonconsequential reasoning and its consequences', Current Direcions in Psychological Science, 9/6: 216-19.
5. Bazeley, P. (1998) 'Peer review and panel decisions in the assessment of Australian Research Council project grant applicant: What counts in a highly competitive context?', Higher Education, 35: 435-52.
6. Beal, D. J. et al. (2003) 'Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations', Journal of Applied Psychology, 88/6: 989-1004.
7. Bonner, B. L., Baumann, M. R. and Dalal, R. S. (2002) 'The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and performance', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88: 719-36.
8. Bornmann, L. (2011) 'Scientific peer review', Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45/1: 197-245.
9. Bornmann, L. and Daniel, H.-D. (2005) 'Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions', Scientometrics, 63/2: 297-320.
10. - (2006) 'Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review', Scientometrics, 68/3: 427-40.
11. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L. and Van den Besselaar, P. (2010) 'A Meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications', Journal of Informetrics, 4: 211-20.
12. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R. and Daniel, H.-D. (2007) 'Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis', Journal of Informetrics, 1: 226-38.
13. Bornmann, L., Wallon, G. and Ledin, A. (2008) 'Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European Molecular Biology Organization programmes', PLoS One, 3/10: e3480.
14. Brouns, M. (2000) 'The gendered nature of assessment procedures in scientific research funding: The Dutch case', Higher Education in Europe, 25/2: 193-9.
15. Canibano, C., Otamendi, J. and Andujar, I. (2009) 'An assessment of selection processes among candidates for public research grants: The case of the Ramon y Cajal Programme in Spain', Research Evaluation, 18/2: 153-61.
16. Ceci, S. J. and Williams, W. M. (2011) 'Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 108/8: 3157-62.
17. Cole, S., Cole, J. R. and Simon, G. A. (1981) 'Chance and consensus in peer review', Science, 214: 881-6.
18. Davis, J. H. et al. (1988) 'Effects of straw polls on group decision making: Sequential voting pattern, timing, and local majorities', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55/6: 918-26.
19. De Dreu, C. K. W. et al. (2007) 'The psychology of negotiation: Principles and basis processes'. In: Kruglanski, A. W. and Higgins, E. T (eds) Handbook of Basic Principles in Social Psychology, 2nd edn, pp. 608-29. New York, NY: Guilford.
20. - (2006) 'Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90/6: 927-43.
21. De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B.A. and Van Knippenberg, D. (2008) 'Motivated information processing in group judgement and decision making', Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12: 22-49.
22. De Jonge Akademie. (2010) Rendement van Talent. Aanbevelingen Voor Motiverend en Stimulerend Loopbaanbeleid. Amsterdam: De Jonge Akademie.
23. Esser, J. K. (1998) 'Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73/2-3: 116-41.
24. Foschi, M. (2004) 'Blocking the use of gender-based double standards for competence'. In: Brouns, M. and Addis, E (eds) Gender and Excellence in the Making, (EUR 21222 Report). Brussels: European Commission.
25. Gigone, D. and Hastie, R. (1993) 'The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65/5: 959-74.
26. Hartmann, I. and Neidhardt, F. (1990) 'Peer review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft', Scientometrics, 19/5-6: 419-25.
27. Hodgson, C. (1997) 'How reliable is peer review? An examination of operating grant proposals simultaneously submitted to two similar peer review systems', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50: 1189-95.
28. Hogg, M. A. and Terry, D. J. (2000) 'Social identity and selfcategorization processes in organizational contexts', The Academy of Management Review, 25/1: 121-40.
29. Hollingshead, A. B. (1996) 'The rank-order effect in group decision making', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68/3: 181-93.
30. Hornborstel, S. et al. (2009) 'Funding of young scientists and scientific excellence', Scientometrics, 79/1: 171-90.
31. Janis, I. L. (1982) Groupthink. Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, 2nd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
32. Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W. and Bond, N. (2001) 'Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience', Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23/4: 343-64.
33. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973) 'On the psychology of prediction', Psychological Review, 80: 237-51.
34. Kramer, R. M., Pommerenke, P. and Newton, E. (1993) 'The social context of negotiation: Effects of social identity and interpersonal accountability on negotiator decision making', Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37/4: 633-54.
35. Kroon, M. B. R., Hart, P. and Van Kreveld, D. (1991) 'Managing group decision making processes: Individual versus collective accountability and groupthink', International Journal of Conflict Management, 2/2: 91-115.
36. Lamont, M. (2009) How Professors Think. Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
37. Langfeldt, L. (2001) 'The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome', Social Studies of Science, 31/6: 820-41.
38. - (2002) Decision-making in Expert Panels Evaluating Research. Constraints, Processes and Bias. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education.
39. Laudel, G. (2006) 'The 'quality myth': Promoting and hindering conditions for acquiring research funds', Higher Education, 52: 375-403.
40. Lariviere, V. et al. (2013) 'Global gender disparities in science', Nature, 504: 211-13.
41. Levi, D. (2007) Group Dynamics for Teams, 2nd edn. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
42. Marques, J. M. et al. (2001) 'Social categorization, social identification, rejection of deviant group members'. In: Hogg, M. A. and Tindale, R. S (eds) Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, Vol. 3, pp. 400-24. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
43. Marsh, H. W. et al. (2009) 'Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches', Review of Educational Research, 79/3: 1290-326.
44. Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W. and Bond, N. W. (2008) 'Improving the peer-review process for grant applications. Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability', American Psychologist, 63/3: 160-8.
45. Melin, G. and Danell, R. (2006) 'The top eight percent: Development of approved and rejected applicants for a prestigious grant in Sweden', Science and Public Policy, 33/10: 702-12.
46. Merton, R. K. (1973[1942]) 'The normative structure of science'. In: Merton, R. K. (Ed.) The Sociology of Science, pp. 267-78. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
47. Mojzisch, A., Grouneva, L. and Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010) 'Biased evaluation of information during discussion: Disentangling the effects of preference consistency, social validation, and ownership of information', European Journal of Social Psychology, 40: 946-56.
48. Mojzisch, A. et al. (2008) 'Social validation in group decisionmaking: Differential effects on the decisional impact of preference-consistent and preference-inconsistent information', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44: 1477-90.
49. Mutz, R., Bornmann, L. and Daniel, H.-D. (2012) 'Does gender matter in grant peer review? An empirical investigation using the example of the Austrian Science Fund', Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220/2: 121-9.
50. Neufeld, J., Huber, N. and Wegner, A. (2013) 'Peer reviewbased selection decisions in individual research funding, applicants publication strategies and performance: The case of the ERC Starting Grants', Research Evaluation, 22/3: 1-11.
51. NWO. (2012) NWO Jaarverslag 2012. Den Haag: NWO.
52. Olbrecht, M. and Bornmann, L. (2010) 'Panel peer review of grant applications: What do we know from research in social psychology on judgment and decision-making in groups?', Research Evaluation, 19/4: 293-304.
53. Peterson, R. S. et al. (1998) 'Group dynamics in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of organizational failure and success', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73/2-3: 272-305.
54. Porter, A. L. and Rossini, F. A. (1985) 'Peer review of interdisciplinary research proposals', Science, Technology & Human Values, 10/3: 33-8.
55. Ranga, M., Gupta, N. and Etzkowitz, H. (2012) Gender Effects in Research Funding: A Review of the Scientific Discussion on the Gender-specific Aspects of the Evaluation of Funding Proposals and the Awarding of Funding. Bonn: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
56. Rinia, E. J. et al. (2001) 'Influence of interdisciplinarity on peerreview and bibliometric evaluations in physics research', Research Policy, 30: 357-61.
57. Sandstrom, U. and Hallsten, M. (2008) 'Persistent nepotism in peer-review', Scientometrics, 74/2: 175-89.
58. Scholten, L. et al. (2007) 'Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43: 539-52.
59. Schulz-Hardt, S. et al. (2006) 'Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91/6: 1080-93.
60. Spector, P. E. (1996) Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Research and Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
61. Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D. and Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995) 'Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31: 244-65.
62. Stephan, P. (2012) How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
63. Stets, J. E. and Burke, P. J. (2000) 'Identity theory and social identity theory', Social Psychology Quarterly, 63/3: 224-37.
64. Stewart, D. D. and Stasser, G. (1998) 'The sampling of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: The role of an informed minority', European Journal of Social Psychology, 28: 95-113.
65. Ten Velden, F. S., Beersma, B. and De Dreu, C. K. W. (2011) 'When competition breeds equality: Effects of appetitive versus aversive competition in negotiation', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47/6: 1127-33.
66. Terry, D. J. and Hogg, M. A. (1996) 'Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationships: A role for ingroup norms', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22: 776-93.
67. Tindale, R. S. et al. (2001) 'Shared cognitions in small groups'. In: Hogg, M. A. and Tindale, R. S (eds) Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, pp. 1-30. Oxford: Blackwell Publisers.
68. Travis, G. D. L. and Collins, H. M. (1991) 'New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system', Science, Technology and Human Values, 16/3: 322-41.
69. Van Arensbergen, P., Hessels, L. K. and van der Meulen, B. (2013) Talent Centraal. Ontwikkeling en Selectie van Wetenschappers in Nederland. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut.
70. Van Arensbergen, P., Van der Weijden, I. and Van den Besselaar, P. (2014) 'Different views on scholarly talent: What are the talents we are looking for in science?', Research Evaluation, 23/4: 273-84.
71. Van den Besselaar, P. (2012) 'Grant committee membership: Service or self-service?', Journal of Informetrics, 6: 580-5.
72. th STI, pp. 385-92. Berlin.
73. Van den Besselaar, P. and Leydesdorff, L. (2007) Past Performance as Predictor of Successful Grant Applications. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut.
74. - (2009) 'Past performance, peer review, and project selection: A case study in the social and behavioral sciences', Research Evaluation, 18/4: 273-88.
75. Van den Brink, M. (2009) 'Behind the scenes of science. Gender practices in the recruitment and selection of professors in the Netherlands'. PhD thesis, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
76. Van der Weijden, I. and Calero Medina, C. (2014) Gender effects on evaluation indicators, Leiden: CWTS ACUMEN Deliverable.
77. Van Kleef, G. A. et al. (2007) 'Group member prototypicality and intergroup negotiation: How one's standing in the group affects negotiation behaviour', British Journal of Social Psychology, 46: 129-52.
78. Van Leeuwen, T. N. and Moed, H. F. (2012) 'Funding decisions, peer review, and scientific excellence in physical sciences, chemistry and geosciences', Research Evaluation, 21: 189-98.
79. Viner, N., Powell, P. and Green, R. (2004) 'Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: A preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage', Research Policy, 33: 443-54.
80. Wenneras, C. and Wold, A. (1997) 'Nepotism and sexism in peer-review', Nature, 387: 341-3.
81. Winquist, J. R. and Larson, J. R., Jr. (1998) 'Information pooling: When it impacts group decision making', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74/2: 371-7.
82. Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B. and Botero, I. C. (2004) 'From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm', Communication Monographs, 71: 286-310.
83. Yukl, G. (1989) 'Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research', Journal of Management, 15/2: 251-89.
84. Zinovyeva, N. and Bagues, M. (2010) 'Does gender matter for academic promotion? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment', Working papers, 2010-15, FEDEA.