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.

Proseminar- und Seminarmodule für Studierende bilden das wissenschaftliche Arbeiten oftmals nicht umfassend ab. Zudem besteht die Herausforderung, dass Studierende heterogene Wissensstände aufweisen, häufig geringes Interesse an ihren Seminarthemen zeigen und gelernte Inhalte nach Abschluss eines Seminars meist nicht mehr präsent sind. Daher war es das Ziel des hochschulübergreifenden Projektes KoSemKo, Studierenden mit dem Schwerpunkt Marketing die Möglichkeit zu geben, interessante Ergebnisse, die sie im Rahmen ihrer Seminararbeiten selbst entwickeln, in einer professionellen Konferenz- Atmosphäre zu präsentieren. Studierende sammeln dadurch nicht nur Erfahrung im wissenschaftlichen Schreiben, sondern schlüpfen gleichzeitig bei der Durchführung eines Peer-Reviews in die Rolle der Gutachter_innen und auf der Konferenz in die Rollen der Vortragenden und Teilnehmer_innen. Durch das Einnehmen dieser verschiedenen Perspektiven setzen sich die Studierenden kritisch und tiefer greifend mit ihren Themen auseinander. Dadurch wird zudem die Motivation gesteigert und gleichzeitig die inhaltliche sowie wissenschaftlich/methodische Komponente der Proseminar- und Seminararbeiten verbessert. Ein im Rahmen des Projektes entwickeltes Online-Lernmodul zum wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten unterstützt den Lernprozess der Studierenden und dient im Nachgang der Verstetigung des Gelernten. Das Projekt wurde von der Fachgruppe Marketing der Westsächsischen Hochschule Zwickau sowie der Professur Marketing und Internationaler Handel der Technischen Universität Bergakademie Freiberg realisiert.

This dissertation uses a mixed methods design to explore the process of EFL students' writing and peer review, setting up a paradigm of peer compared to self review, with teacher support. The findings that surfaced were identified in themes, with the most overarching theme being that the value of peer review came not from the actual feedback that the peers gave each other, but rather from the collaborative process of peer review. Students who were actively engaged in peer review often did not take the exact advice given, but the process of exchanging feedback followed by face-to-face discussion prompted them to think of new ideas of their own that they incorporated into their revisions. The following findings are related to this major one. (1) Both the writing proficiency of the student writers and the understanding they have of the feedback given have a symbiotic relationship and greatly affect how they apply feedback. In this study, students at higher writing proficiencies tended to include some abstract feedback, but regardless of the students' writing levels, their partners' were able to make revisions at their own level of proficiency. (2) Both peer and self reviewing students made revisions based more on their own inspirations and ownership of ideas rather than on the exact advice exchanged between partners. Often, students developed and incorporated ideas that appeared to be generated from the peer feedback and discussion, pointing to the significance of peer collaboration and discussion in the writing process. (3) Although previous studies have suggested that non-native speakers' tendency to give feedback on grammatical issues as a drawback, the in-depth examination here reveals a more positive perspective. Even when comments, such as regarding grammar, were rated as "incorrect," students were often able to make positive changes, such as rewording or reorganizing. The results brings insights to the impact of abstract feedback for varying proficiency levels, ownership of ideas, internalization of concepts, and interdependence in the collaborative peer review process within a Vygotskian framework of concept development and the ZPD. Implications for research, writing program administrators, and writing instructors are identified.

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.

This presentation covers the origin, history and scope of Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research; the editorial process and timeframes; research and scholarship for librarians; the peer review process; the components of a good research article; practical tips on what editors look for in a manuscript submission with examples from Partnership journal. The presentation is intended for anyone writing a research article but should be particularly helpful to first-time authors.

This paper covers the origin, history and scope of Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, the editorial process and timeframes, research and scholarship for librarians, the peer review process, the components of a good research article, and practical tips on what editors look for in a manuscript submission with examples from Partnership journal. It is intended for anyone writing a research article but should be particularly helpful to first-time authors. The paper was first given as a presentation at Ontario Library Association Super Conference on January 31, 2013. / Ontario Library Association

Informed by a sociocognitive view of writing, this study investigated six Chinese EFL students’ focus of decision-making and extent of criteria use in evaluating student texts, their decision-making in response to peer feedback and factors affecting their decision-making and criteria use in computer-mediated criterion-referenced peer review in one Chinese university setting. A multiple-case design was adopted and data were collected from a variety of sources, including think-aloud protocols, stimulated recall, semi-structured interviews, document analysis and classroom observations. An examination of the think-aloud and stimulated recall data revealed that five out of the six students displayed language-oriented decision-making while evaluating peers’ texts. The students also tended to emphasize consistently specific elements of student writing within language, content and organization regardless of task type. They used part of the assessment criteria to the extent that particular elements evaluated by them coincided with specific components of the criteria. In response to peer feedback, the students decided to incorporate it selectively into revision, with one student being an exception. Data analysis indicated that the students’ focus of decision-making and criteria use while evaluating peers’ texts were affected by the following factors: students’ own writing beliefs, conceptions and knowledge; teacher’s writing beliefs, conceptions and associated classroom practices; writing task types and features of student texts. The students’ decision-making in response to peer feedback was found to be subject to the influence of four categories of factors: student writer factors, especially their writing beliefs and knowledge; student reviewer factors; teacher factor and writing task factor. The findings provide an in-depth look into both the cognitive and social dimensions of peer review. On the basis of the findings, the study proposes a tentative exploratory model of Chinese EFL university students’ decision-making in criterion-referenced peer review. It captures the interplay between cognitive and social dimensions of peer review and throws light on the interaction between cognition and context in the case of learning to write through peer review. Particularly regarding the social dimension of peer review, the variety of factors influencing the students’ decision-making and criteria use in this activity indicate that their evaluation of peers’ texts and response to peer feedback were not linear processes, but were mediated by multiple factors. Among the various factors identified, the strong influence of the writing beliefs and conceptions held by the students, their peers and the teacher suggest the crucial role played by learner and teacher beliefs in affecting L2 students’ learning to write through peer review. This study also highlights the interactional effect of views about writing and learning to write exhibited by the students, their peers, the teacher and the “methodology” of criterion-referenced peer review on the students’ decision-making and extent of criteria use. Finally, the study makes pedagogical recommendations concerning how to enable students to make informed decisions in criterion-referenced peer review to bring its theoretical potential into full play. Recommendations for further research are also proposed. / published_or_final_version / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hong Kong, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 64-70).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hong Kong, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 64-70). Also available in print.

Esta tese visa analisar a constituição, o funcionamento e os limites da Avaliação por Pares (AP) no âmbito do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). A pesquisa operou por dois caminhos distintos: um diacrônico e outro sincrônico. No primeiro, elaborou-se uma reconstrução histórica da AP praticada no CNPq entre 1951 e 2015 contextualizada pelas mudanças institucionais a que passou o órgão durante o citado período. O segundo caminho centrou-se na análise de dois estudos de caso que redundaram na elaboração de perfis dos Bolsistas de Produtividade em Pesquisa de Filosofia e Educação com bolsas vigentes no ano de 2016. Do um ponto de vista teórico, os resultados alcançados foram interpretados segundo as noções de Campo Científico de Pierre Bourdieu e Reconhecimento de Axel Honneth. Quanto à história da AP no CNPq constatou-se uma ligação entre o crescimento na quantidade de bolsas implementadas pelo órgão e uma maior formalização legal e institucional da AP, especialmente a partir da década de 1970. O próprio crescimento da comunidade científica brasileira possibilitou uma transição de procedimentos pessoais e informais de AP para um rígido, formal e impessoal circuito de imposições legais quanto a AP praticada no órgão. Quanto aos dois estudos de caso constatou-se que apesar de todas as restrições formais que atualmente regulam a AP no Conselho, especificidades históricas, geográficas, econômicas e relativas a gênero acabam por influir nos resultados dos processos de AP. Com base na pesquisa realizada, verificou-se a necessidade em se instituir uma maior transparência nos processos de AP no órgão de modo a se coadunar um aperfeiçoamento da própria prática da AP assim como um controle social da destinação dos recursos públicos mais democrático e acessível a sociedade civil. / This theses analyzes the institution, the mechanisms and the limits of peer review (PR) in Brazil’s National Council for Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq). Research was conducted at both diachronic and synchronic levels. At the diachronic level, I accomplished a historical reconstruction of PR practices in CNPq from 1975 to 2015, linking this reconstruction to the institutional changes undergone by the Council during this period. At the synchronic level, I focused on two case studies, which allowed me to outline the profile of researchers in Philosophy and Education with productivity grants (in 2016). Research findings were interpreted with the help of Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of Scientific Field and Axel Honneth’s idea of Recognition. As for the history of PR in CNPq, research results established a correlation between the increase in grants funded and the legal and institutional formalization of PR, particularly since the 1970s. The growth of the Brazilian scientific community entailed a shift from informal and personal PR procedures to the rigid, formal and impersonal mediating rules now in place. As for the two case studies, I found that despite all formal restrictions now governing the Council’s PR practices, historical, geographical, economical and gender based specificities still have an influence on the outcome of PR processes. Research results indicate the need for a greater transparency regarding the Council’s PR processes in order to improve practices and expand social control over allocation of public resources.