3 ms·
My preconceptions here are the reverse - that mundane studies seeking to replicate existing studies to confirm their findings are boring, and as such are not pu
by Jozrael 10y ago
My preconceptions here are the reverse - that mundane studies seeking to replicate existing studies to confirm their findings are boring, and as such are not pursued or funded, despite their importance. I understand that 'novel' is being used in a slightly different context here, though.
- untilHellbanned 10y agoIn biological sciences it's a well known secret that most of what you write your grants on is for work that you've already done. This is not about being "boring" vs interesting. It's pragmatism to survive and get funding.
- jonlucc 10y agoIs it not that way in other sciences? It's funny that I just assumed all sciences did the same thing. In fact, my wife works in a museum, and I was stunned to find out that they write grants for work that isn't even started yet.
- arcanus 10y ago> Is it not that way in other sciences? I can speak to the fact that this is absolutely the case in the physical sciences.
- throwawaysocks 10y agoCS is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. You write grants for things you haven't done yet but also you typically have some initial work (maybe a minor publication, maybe not) to prove the direction is promising enough to fund.
- xufi 10y agoThats interesting. Thats how a friend of mine who's finishing up her major in biology explained it when she told me about how her professors lab got grants.
- danielmorozoff 10y agoI think an interesting dichotomy exists here and you touch on it. Studies that seek to replicate/ confirm work are rarely funded. Similarly studies that are too radical from more standard paradigms are also neglected. It seems that incremental novelty that can logically be inferred tends to be the most attractive to funding agencies/ review committees. In some ways it seems a bit like a bell curve with the probability of being funded (y axis) vs the radical nature of the proposed research (x axis). This is an oversimplified view but something that struck me.
- skosuri 10y agoI also think there is a huge bias for publishing "novel" findings... that's how you get into bigger journals.