Reviews of assessment panel discussions show that informal information concerning applicants is a regular occurrence during meetings. Information that is not part of an application – for example, personal characteristics and private or professional situation – may be used to excuse exceptions or deviations from formal assessment criteria. This creates confusion between scientific quality and personal attributes. This type of information, which tends to benefit men, is used to explain or defend any lack of qualifications or to highlight positive attributes that fall outside the scope of the formal assessment criteria.

Scarcity of publications, for example, may be explained by the fact that:

He’s holding back deliberately in order to give younger researchers a chance. He’s doing it on purpose (VR 2012 p. 26)

A lack of an international network may be explained by the fact that:

He is a bit of a lone wolf. (VR 2015. s 18).

Informal information may also be used to argue someone’s suitability based on personal attributes the applicant is deemed to possess, rather than the assessment criteria stated in the announcement or call:

He’s a great guy who deserves a high ranking (VR 2017. s 22)”

Women may also benefit from informal information.

I’d like to encourage this woman. She’s pretty much on her own out there in (name of province X) (VR 2012 p. 27).

While such informal information may seem quite innocent, it may for example include more insidious practices such as name dropping, inferring that the applicant has desirable contacts with other important researchers. Informal information may also signal a relationship to a member of the assessment panel; for example, if a member states that they had lunch together or met at a conference. When one candidate is singled out in this way, it may be perceived that an assessor is providing a reference for the applicant, even though going by the book the situation might reasonably be considered a conflict of interests.

References

VR (2012) Ahlqvist, Veronica, Andersson, Johanna, Berg, Söderqvist, Lisbeth & Tumpane, John (2012).Observations on Gender Equality in a Selection the Swedish Research Council's Evaluation Panels, Swedish Research Council 2012 Available at: https://publikationer.vr.se/butik/_sf_s=j%C3%A4mst%C3%A4lldhetsobservationer

VR (2015) Ahlqvist, Veronica, Andersson, Johanna, Berg, Söderqvist, Lisbeth & Tumpane, John (2015) En jämställd process – en kvalitativ undersökning av bedömningen av forskningsbidragsansökningar 2014. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet Tillgänglig på: https://www.vr.se/analys-och-uppdrag/vi-analyserar-och-utvarderar/alla-publikationer/publikationer/2015-04-03-en-jamstalld-process.html

VR (2017) Söderqvist, Lisbeth, Baard, Patrik, Hellström, Anders, Kolm, Camilla (2017). En jämställd process – Jämställdhetsobservationer i Vetenskapsrådets bedömningsgrupper 2016. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. Tillgänglig på: https://www.vr.se/download/18.2412c5311624176023d25a75/1555332044503/En-jaemstaelld-process-VRs-bedomningsgrupper_VR_2017.pdf