IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v23y2014i4p273-284..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different views on scholarly talent: What are the talents we are looking for in science?

Author

Listed:
  • Pleun van Arensbergen
  • Inge van der Weijden
  • Peter van den Besselaar

Abstract

In this article, we study the evaluation of talented early career researchers, as done in grant allocation processes. To better understand funding decisions, we studied the grant allocation process in more detail, and compared the notion of talent in grant allocation with more general notions of talent existing in the academic work environment. The comparison is based on interviews with 29 scholars who have experience with identifying talent both in their daily academic work and in the process of grant allocation. Overall, there is large agreement on the notion of talent. However, the characteristics ascribed to top talent vary depending on the evaluation context. In grant allocation, a narrower talent definition prevails compared with more general evaluation. Furthermore, difficulties arise in the process of panel decision-making, when selection criteria need to be concrete and explicit to enable comparison. Having to choose between many applicants of similar quality makes the selection process liable to subjectivity, arbitrariness, and randomness. Despite these uncertainties, grants are ascribed a very high symbolic value. Small quality differences are enlarged into considerable differences in recognition, consequently affecting career opportunities, as they provide academics with both financial and symbolic resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Pleun van Arensbergen & Inge van der Weijden & Peter van den Besselaar, 2014. "Different views on scholarly talent: What are the talents we are looking for in science?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 273-284.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:23:y:2014:i:4:p:273-284.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvu015
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sandström, Ulf & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2018. "Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 365-384.
    2. Hyungjo Hur & Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Joshua Hawley, 2015. "Effects of Government Spending on Research Workforce Development: Evidence from Biomedical Postdoctoral Researchers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Sven E. Hug & Mirjam Aeschbach, 2020. "Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Herschberg, Channah & Benschop, Yvonne & van den Brink, Marieke, 2018. "Precarious postdocs: A comparative study on recruitment and selection of early-career researchers," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 303-310.
    5. Emre Özel, 2024. "What is Gender Bias in Grant Peer review?," Working Papers halshs-03862027, HAL.
    6. van den Besselaar, Peter & Heyman, Ulf & Sandström, Ulf, 2017. "Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler’s Australian case revisited," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 905-918.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:23:y:2014:i:4:p:273-284.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.