Thesis (MPhil)--Stellenbosch University, 2001.ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Peer review as an institutional mechanism for certifying knowledge and
allocating resources dates back as far as 1665. Today it can with confidence
be stated that it is one of the most prominent evaluative tools used in science
to determine the quality of research across all scientific fields.
Given the transformation within the processes of knowledge production, peer
review as an institutionalised method of the evaluation of scientific research
has not been unaffected. Peer reviewers have to act within a system of
relevant science and find themselves responsible to the scientific community
as well as to public decision-makers, who in turn are responsible to the public.
This dual responsibility of reviewers led to the development of criteria to be
used in the evaluation process to enable them to measure scientific excellence
as well as the societal relevance of science.
In this thesis peer review in science is examined within the context of these
transformations. In looking at the conceptual and methodological issues
raised by peer review, definitions of peer review, its history and contexts of
application are examined followed by a critique on peer review. Peer review
in practice is also explored and the evaluation processes of four respective
funding agencies are analysed with regards to three aspects intrinsic to the
peer review process: the method by which reviewers are selected, the review
criteria by which proposals are rated, and the number of review stages within
each review process. The thesis concludes with recommendations for
possible improvements to the peer review process and recommended
alternatives to peer review as an evaluative tool.AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Portuurgroep-evaluering as 'n geïnsitutsionaliseerde meganisme in die sertifisering
van kennis en die toewys van hulpbronne dateer terug so ver as 1665. Huidiglik kan
dit as een van die mees prominente metingsinstrumente van die kwaliteit van
navorsing in alle wetenskaplike velde beskou word.
Die transformasies wat plaasgevind het binne die prosesse waar kennis gegenereer
word, het ook nie portuurgroep-evaluaring as 'n geïnstitusionaliseerde metode van
evaluering ongeraak gelaat nie. Portuurgroep-evalueerders bevind hulself binne 'n
sisteem van relevante wetenskap. Binne hierdie sisteem het hulle 'n
verantwoordelikheid teenoor die wetenskaplike gemeenskap sowel as die publiekebesluitnemers
wat op hul beurt weer verantwoordelik is teenoor die publiek. Hierdie
dubbele verantwoordelikheid het tot gevolg die saamstel van kriteria waarvolgens
evalueerders wetenskaplike uitmuntendheid sowel as relevansie tot die breër
samelewing kan meet.
Hierdie tesis ondersoek portuurgroep-evaluering teen die agtergrond van hierdie
transformasies. Die konseptueie en metodologiese aspekte van portuurgroepevaluering
word ondersoek deur eerstens te kyk na definisies van portuurgroepevaluering,
die geskiedenis daarvan en kontekste waarbinne dit gebruik word.
Tweedens word gekyk na kritiek gelewer op portuurgroep-evaluering. Portuurgroep
evaluering binne die praktyk word ook ondersoek waar vier onderskeie
befondsingsagentskappe se evaluerings prosesse geanaliseer word. Hierdie analise
word gedoen in terme van drie essensiële aspekte binne portuurgroep- evaluering.
Hierdie drie aspekte is as volg: 1) die wyse waarop evalueerders geselekteer word,
2) die evalueringskriteria waarvolgens navorsingsvoorstelle gemeet word en 3) die
hoeveelheid evalueringsfases binne die protuurgroep-evaluerings proses. Laastens
word aanbevelings ter verbetering van die portuurgroep-evaluerings proses as ook
voorstelle tot moontlike alternatiewe tot portuurgroep-evaluering as 'n evaluerings
instrument gebied
