IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v52y2025i1p81-91..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Julian Hamann
  • Daniel Stein

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian Hamann & Daniel Stein, 2025. "What is ‘high-risk research’? Comparing the social sciences and humanities and the natural sciences," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 81-91.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:52:y:2025:i:1:p:81-91.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scae062
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:52:y:2025:i:1:p:81-91.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.