Center for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Netherlands.
Soc Stud Sci. 2019 Dec;49(6):863-883. doi: 10.1177/0306312719864164. Epub 2019 Jul 25.
In this article, we study the use of (CV) for competitive funding decisions in science. The typically sober administrative style of academic résumés evokes the impression of straightforwardly conveyed, objective evidence on which to base comparisons of past achievements and future potentials. We instead conceptualize the evaluation of biographical evidence as a generative interplay between an historically grown, administrative infrastructure (the CV), and a situated evaluative practice in which the representational function of that infrastructure is itself interpreted and established. The use of CVs in peer review can be seen as a doubly comparative practice, where referees compare not only applicants (among each other or to an imagined ideal of excellence), but also their own experience-based understanding of practice and the conceptual assumptions that underpin CV categories. Empirically, we add to existing literature on peer review by drawing attention to self-correcting mechanisms in the reproduction of the scientific workforce. Conceptually, we distinguish three modalities of how the doubly comparative use of CVs can shape the assessment of applicants: calibration, branching out, and repair. The outcome of this reflexive work should not be seen as predetermined by situational pressures. In fact, bibliographic categories such as authorship of publications or performance metrics may themselves come to be problematized and reshaped in the process.
在本文中，我们研究了（CV）在科学竞争资金决策中的应用。学术简历通常采用冷静的行政风格，给人留下一种印象，即其传递的是客观证据，可据此比较过去的成就和未来的潜力。我们将传记证据的评估概念化为历史上形成的行政基础设施（简历）与特定评价实践之间的生成互动，在此过程中，基础设施的代表性功能本身也得到了阐释和确立。同行评审中使用简历可以被视为一种双重比较实践，其中评审员不仅要比较申请人（彼此之间或与卓越的理想形象相比），还要比较他们自己基于经验的实践理解以及支撑简历类别的概念假设。从经验上看，我们通过提请注意科学劳动力再生产中的自我修正机制，为同行评审的现有文献做出了补充。从概念上讲，我们区分了 CV 双重比较使用如何影响申请人评估的三种方式：校准、扩展和修复。这种反思性工作的结果不应被视为受到情境压力的预先确定。事实上，文献类别（如出版物的作者身份或绩效指标）本身可能会在这个过程中被问题化和重塑。
