Risk-Taking and Research Funding
The Case of the Villum Experiment
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 10282960 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Carter Walter Bloch (0000-0003-4718-003X, Aarhus University, autor correspondente), Ea Høg Utoft (0000-0002-6440-5184, Radboud University Nijmegen), Ea Utoft, Andreas Kjær Stage (0000-0003-4385-368X, Steno Diabetes Centers), Steven Wooding (0000-0002-8036-1054, University of Cambridge) |
| Ano | 2025 |
| Data de publicação | 2025-07-04 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Minerva (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0026-4695 • E-ISSN: 1573-1871 |
| Editora | Springer Science+Business Media (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11024-025-09587-x |
| OpenAlex | W4412041443 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Referências citadas | 52 |
Risk and risk-taking in science and their relation to creativity and novelty in research outcomes have received increasing attention in recent years. However, there is a lack of clarity about what risk-taking in science is and how it is perceived. This paper inductively explores how scientists perceive risk and risk-taking in relation to funding proposals and subsequent research plans and what strategies they use to address uncertainty in practice. We construct a multidimensional framework of risk in science and base the analysis on interview and survey data from grant recipients from the Villum Experiment Programme. Grantees perceive risk in a number of different ways, such as in terms of chances of success (publications, career, and funding), uncertainty due to use of new methods or equipment, or a new research area. While grantees expressed interest in taking on greater risk than they normally would and perceived risk-taking to be positively assessed by reviewers in the program, many interviewees still took steps to manage the risk of negative outcomes of their projects which may especially affect early-career researchers. In particular, two related strategies were employed to hedge project risk. The first was to ensure that project participation was balanced with participation in another research project with more certain outcomes. The second was to divide projects into two parts, where the first part had a certain outcome and the second part was experimental with uncertain outcomes
Higher education · Political science · Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions · Health and Medical Research Impacts · Law · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Incentives and creativity
Risks and Rewards of an Interdisciplinary Research Path
The art of getting funded
Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science
Bias against novelty in science
Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier
National policies as drivers of organizational change in universities
Health care through the ‘lens of risk’
Risk and social theory – a new venture and some new avenues
Towards a better understanding of risk-taking
Doing Interviews
Methodological breaching experiments
The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty
Unsustainable Growth, Hyper-Competition, and Worth in Life Science Research
The Evolution of a National Research Funding System
Rethinking Science as a Vocation
On the Tacit Governance of Research by Uncertainty
Tradition and Innovation in Scientists' Research Strategies
Qualitative Quality
Gaming and Performance Metrics in Higher Education
| Velocidade de citação | historical |
|---|---|
| Altamente citado | Não |