The discourse on high-risk/high gain research is prevalent. But we have little insight in what researchers consider "risky", and we don't know how these notions vary across disciplines. Daniel Stein and I have compared grant proposals from the SSH and the natural sciences.
Paper in the journal: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae062
Paper on SocArXiv: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/2tc7a
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JulianHamann1@sciences.social
The proposals have been submitted to the Reinhart Koselleck funding program of the @dfg_public
We find striking similarities in notions of risk between the two fields. They could be explained either by constraints of the genre grant proposal that invites applicants to claim specific risks or by applicants in the SSH adapting their notions of high-risk research to the prevalent discourse on high-risk/high-gain research, which is mostly concerned with STEM disciplines.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JulianHamann1@sciences.social
We also find notable differences between notions of risk in SSH and in natural sciences. Methodological risks in the NSC refer to methods or technical challenges, i.e., practical issues from a craftmanship perspective. In the SSH, methodological risks pertain to the amount and availability of data, i.e., risks that are more difficult to manage and control.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JulianHamann1@sciences.social
text/geminiThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).