Prestige at Play: University Hierarchies and the Reproduction of Funding Inequalities.

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between university prestige, disciplinary cultures, and the (re)production of funding inequalities in the humanities and social sciences. We combine qualitative and quantitative methods by analyzing: (1) data on 56,680 successful and unsuccessful grant applications submitted to the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; (2) 43 interviews with past members of review committees, including in economics, history, sociology, and political science. Our findings show that university affiliations significantly influence funding allocation: even after controlling for other factors, scholars at more prestigious and larger institutions are more likely to secure grants for greater amounts. For the Insight grants, applicants affiliated with U3 universities receive, on average, nearly 20,000$ more than their colleagues from institutions outside the U15. This effect is strongest in disciplines where scientific quality is clearly defined and tightly linked to institutional status. In contrast, in disciplines where the definition of merit is more ambiguous and debated, evaluators rely less on university affiliation, and prestige plays a diminished role. These divergences highlight the need to distinguish between the formal, general norms adopted by funding agencies and the unwritten, situated norms that review committees rely on to evaluate and rank applications within their respective fields.