The thesis presents a reformative criticism of science funding by peer review. The criticism is based on epistemological scepticism, regarding the ability of scientific peers, or any other agent, to have access to sufficient information regarding the potential of proposed projects at the time of funding. The scepticism is based on the complexity of factors contributing to the merit of scientific projects, and the rate at which the parameters of this complex system change their values. By constructing models of different science funding mechanisms, a construction supported by historical evidence, computational simulations show that in a significant subset of cases it would be better to select research projects by a lottery mechanism than by selection based on peer review. This last result is used to create a template for an alternative funding mechanism that combines the merits of peer review with the benefits of random allocation, while noting that this alternative is not so far removed from current practice as may first appear.

This qualitative inquiry explored the ways in which US-born, Black faculty member participants in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) interact with the National Science Foundation (NSF). Eight Black HBCU STEM faculty members with a range of involvement in NSF-related activities were individually interviewed. Topics of discussion with participants included their prior experiences with NSF, their understanding of the merit review process, and their understanding of their personal and institutional relationships with NSF and the STEM community. Two broad findings emerged from the conversations. The first was that issues of communities and social identity were important to the participants’ work as research scientists. Participants prioritized advancing people and communities over advancing the knowledge of ambiguous, disembodied scientific disciplines, and some participants were motivated by interests in social justice. However, participants maintained strong identities as scientists and the discussions provided no evidence that other social factors influenced their application of the scientific method. The second major finding dealt with the role participants perceived their institutions playing in their involvement with NSF. All participants described challenges associated with pursuing research in HBCU environments and, in some cases, the institutional challenges served as the motivation for participants’ projects, with varying consequences. Finally, this study developed and refined a theoretical framework for explaining the underrepresentation of HBCUs in NSF funding streams. In developing this framework, a brief history of the origination of HBCUs, NSF, and the NSF merit review process is presented.

Die vorliegende Arbeit geht der Frage nach, wie Gutachterinnen und Gutachter im Rahmen von Gruppenbegutachtungen zu einer gemeinsamen Bewertungsentscheidung finden. Untersucht wird diese Frage am Beispiel von Gruppenbegutachtungen zur Förderung von Sonderforschungsbereichen (SFB). Die Ergebnisse der Arbeit zeigen, dass sowohl die organisatorischen Rahmenbedingungen der Begutachtungssitzungen als auch die Organisation des gesamten Peer-Review-Prozesses, in welchem die Gruppenbegutachtung in der Regel nur einen Verfahrensschritt darstellt, maßgeblichen Einfluss auf den Prozess der Entscheidungsfindung innerhalb des Panels nehmen, wie auch auf die letztendliche konsensuale Entscheidung der Gutachtergruppe und die (unerwünschten) Gruppenphänomene, die während der Panelbegutachtung auftreten können. Die Ergebnisse zeigen darüberhinaus, dass Gutachtende den Prozess der Begutachtung sowohl als Subjekt ihrer eigenen Entscheidungsfindung (Rolle: Gutachter) als auch als Objekt des Entscheidungsfindungsprozesses anderer (Rolle: Antragsteller) wahrnehmen. Deshalb ist es für sie zentral, als Subjekt an einem Prozess teilzunehmen, der so fair ist, dass sie ihn auch als Objekt der Entscheidung anderer als fair erleben können. Dieser persönlichen Forderung nach Fairness kommt die Gruppenbegutachtung, den Ergebnissen zu Folge, stärker entgegen als die Einzelbegutachtung. Methodisch wurde ein exploratives Vorgehen gewählt und drei SFB-Beratungsgespräche sowie vier SFB-Einrichtungsbegutachtungen mit Hilfe der Methode der nicht-teilnehmenden Beobachtung analysiert. Zusätzlich wurden 80 Leitfadeninterviews mit Beteiligten der Begutachtungssitzungen und ausgewählten Antragstellenden sowie Dokumentenanalysen von Begutachtungsunterlagen durchgeführt. / The study addresses the question of how peer review committees come to a consensual decision. Therefore the decision making process of review committees to promote collaborative research centres (CRC, in German: Sonderforschungsbereiche, SFB) was analyzed. The results show that the organizational framework of the evaluation sessions as well as the organization of the entire peer review process (whereby the group evaluation is only one step in the whole process) have a great influence on: (1) on the decision making process within the panel, (2) on the final consensual decision of the panel group and (3) on the (unwanted) group phenomena that may occur during panel reviews. In addition the results illustrate that reviewers perceived the process of evaluations as both the subject of their own decisions (role: reviewer) as well as the object of the decision-making process of others (role: applicant). Therefore, for them it is central as a subject to participate in a process that is so fair that they can also experience the process as being wholly fair as an object of the decision of others. This personal call for fairness is stronger in relation to group evaluations than for individual peer review evaluations. Methodologically, an exploratory approach was chosen and three CRC preliminary review session (SFB Beratungsgespräch) and four CRC on-site reviews (SFB Einrichtungsbegutachtungen) were analyzed using the method of non-participant observation. In addition, 80 semi-structured interviews were conducted with evaluation session participants and selected applicants and a content analysis of review documents were done.