Braun Tibor, Schubert András (szerk.): Szakértői bírálat (peer review) a tudományos kutatásban : Válogatott tanulmányok a téma szakirodalmából (A MTAK Informatikai És Tudományelemzési Sorozata 7., 1993)
IAN I. MITROFF and DARYL E. CHUBIN: Peer Review at the NSF: A Dialectical Policy Analysis
132 MITROFF & CHUBIN: PEER REVIEW AT THE NSF appears to be presupposed. That is, in the design, conduct and analysis of her survey, Hensler was essentially atheoretical. In contrast, the Cole study embraces the Merit Model. Cole exhibits a marked preference for (if not an a priori belief in) the Merit Model. We have no quarrel with this, as Cole makes the preference explicit, claiming later, as we have seen, that the data tend to support the Accumulative Advantage Model. However, this preference is troublesome if one suspects that something so complex as peer review requires simultaneous and explicit examination from a number of diverse and competing theoretical perspectives. Even stronger, the same set of data ought to be examined from the perspective of each model. Because each, in all likelihood, is partially correct, future studies must establish, for example, under what circumstances each model obtains. What we are advocating is a testing of the alternatives — new data collection and analysis — to expand the empirical base that impinges upon and must eventually mediate the debate. There are other aspects, however, to the peer review process and to the debate which we have not considered. Foremost among these is the role of the public in shaping the institutions which purportedly operate on its behalf. What does the public want from NSF management? Does this differ from what the scientific community wants? Do NSF practices produce the best science, and are they conducive to the optimal long-term development of knowledge? 7 4 Is it not the responsibility of the scientific community and federal agencies such as NSF to invite interested lay parties to enter the dialogue among experts, 7 5 especially when some of the most important persons for whom the studies are being conducted are not scientists? If the crux of the peer review debate is the analysis of negotiations between science and its environing communities and not solely negotiations within the scientific community, 7 6 then science must promote research that illuminates both negotiating processes. Like our predecessors, we have emphasized the latter in this paper. The former, however, is an equally, if not more, vexing research problem that will not conveniently fade away. The study of scientific autonomy and self-governance is really the study of the science-government partnership. What we have recommended is that this study begin by linking the social psychology of the protagonists to their respective roles in the conduct of scientific inquiry. Only then will the debate over peer review
