Summary

As reforms in science assessment gain momentum, an increasing number of funding agencies and academic institutions are adopting Narrative CVs. These alternative formats reduce the emphasis on quantifiable metrics and instead incorporate narrative sections that allow applicants to describe their accomplishments in a more reflective, discursive manner. The introduction of Narrative CVs is driven by the aim to foster greater diversity within the scientific community and broaden the scope of recognised scientific contributions. Despite these aspirations, there is limited empirical evidence on how Narrative CVs affect research evaluation in practice. This project investigates their influence by examining how they are used in peer review processes for competitive research funding. It aims to answer the following questions:

Project team

• Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, CWTS-Leiden and Senior Research Fellow, RoRI
• James Wilsdon, Executive Director of RoRI
• Judit Varga, Research Fellow, RoRI
• Michaela Strinzel, Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)

Partner organisations

• DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment)
• Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR)
• Health Research BC 
• NWO – Dutch Research Council
• Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)
• UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
• Volkswagen Foundation 
• Wellcome Trust

The project in detail

We explore how Narrative CVs are used across three different funding programs, each located in distinct national contexts and targeting applicants at distinct career phases: the Rubicon grant of the Dutch NWO aimed at applicants within 1 year from their PhDs, who wish to conduct a 1-2 year-long research project abroad; the Ambizione grant of the SNSF for scholars within 1-4 years of their PhD, who wish to set up their first individual project; and finally the Momentum grant of VW, aimed at tenured professors who aim to develop a new research line.

Within each funding program, we also study two distinct disciplinary panels: one from the social sciences and humanities (SSH) and one from science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), yielding a total of 6 panels. Finally, for each panel, we study the use of Narrative CVs in two subsequent application rounds, yielding a total of 12 instances of panel observations.

Methods

We conduct participant observation during panel meetings, making detailed fieldnotes about how panellists discussed applicants’ achievements. In addition, we conduct (online) semi-structured interviews with a selection of panellists after each observation to better understand personal views and experiences with Narrative CVs. We thematically analyse interview transcripts and fieldnotes, focusing on instances when evaluators use Narrative CVs.

Preliminary findings

We have identified key features of the evaluative environment in which Narrative CVs are used, providing leverage points for funders to facilitate the desirable use of Narrative CVs. We highlight environmental features along the following dimensions:

• Key actors (such as the composition of review panels and choice of panel chairs)
• Key practices (such as the practical interpretation of evaluative criteria by reviewers, or also the way in which funders and chairs handle resistance to the introduction of Narrative CVS)
• The mode in which reviewers engage with the inevitable contingency of research assessment (namely, in terms of formal procedures, or rather in terms of values and situated  decisions).

Project timeline

The NARRATIVES project runs for two years, to July 2025.

Outputs

• Varga, J. & Kaltenbrunner, W. (2024). Taming complexity: narrative CVs in grant funding evaluations. RoRI working paper 14. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.27291537. Available on Figshare.
• Varga, J. & Kaltenbrunner, W. (Nov 5, 2024). Narrative CVs: How do they change evaluation practices in peer review for grant funding? Blogpost.
• Varga, J. & Kaltenbrunner, W. (Sep 19, 2024). Taming complexity: narrative CVs in grant funding evaluations. Presentation at STI Berlin 2024, Sep 18-20.

---

---