What is ‘high-risk research’? Comparing the social sciences and humanities and the natural sciences

Abstract Although high-risk research is a key concern for research policy and science studies, there is little knowledge about what funding agencies or researchers mean by risks. This paper draws on 80 grant proposals from the social sciences and humanities (SSH) and the natural sciences (NSC) that have been submitted to the Reinhart Koselleck funding program of the German Research Foundation. The qualitative analysis shows both similarities and differences in how applicants in the two fields claim risks: in both fields, the most prominent notions refer to results and methodologies. While results at risk are interpreted similarly, methodological risks differ between the two fields. The analysis also reveals a greater variety of different risks in the SSH compared to the NSC. The paper suggests that research policy and science studies should avoid treating “riskiness” as a given and consider different notions of risk across a disciplinary spectrum that includes the SSH.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Science and Public Policy
Published
2024-11-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae062
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Risk Perception and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.26

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What is ‘high-risk research’? Comparing the social sciences and humanities and the natural sciences

Julian Hamann, Daniel Stein
2 citations
Science and Public Policy
Risk Perception and Management
2.26
article

What is ‘high-risk research’? Comparing the social sciences and humanities and the natural sciences

Julian Hamann, Daniel Stein
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract Although high-risk research is a key concern for research policy and science studies, there is little knowledge about what funding agencies or researchers mean by risks. This paper draws on 80 grant proposals from the social sciences and humanities (SSH) and the natural sciences (NSC) that have been submitted to the Reinhart Koselleck funding program of the German Research Foundation. The qualitative analysis shows both similarities and differences in how applicants in the two fields claim risks: in both fields, the most prominent notions refer to results and methodologies. While results at risk are interpreted similarly, methodological risks differ between the two fields. The analysis also reveals a greater variety of different risks in the SSH compared to the NSC. The paper suggests that research policy and science studies should avoid treating “riskiness” as a given and consider different notions of risk across a disciplinary spectrum that includes the SSH.

Science and Public PolicyVol. 52(1)
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Risk Perception and Management
2.26
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.