Transformative research is not easily predicted: transformative scientists weigh in on everyone's favorite buzzword


Session ID#: 36430

Session Description:
Target audience: Those writing, reviewing, or funding grant proposals 

Goal: Discuss data showing the attitudes of ecologists toward the requirements for transformative research (TR) statements in grant proposals. Authors of TR will present their stories. We will invite discussion, including asking if it is possible to predict TR at the proposal stage? Do authors of TR usually presuppose the importance of their research? Does the mandate for a TR proposal statement devalue "incremental" science? Should allocation of funding rely on TR statements? 

Overview: TR statements in scientific grant proposals have become mainstream. However, TR is defined as radically changing our understanding of a concept, causing a paradigm shift, or opening new frontiers. We argue that it is rarely possible to predict the transformative nature of research. Interviews and surveys of 78 transformative ecologists suggest that most TR began with incremental goals, while transformative potential was recognized later. Most respondents thought TR is unpredictable and should not be prioritized over "incremental” research that typically leads to breakthroughs. Importantly, TR directives might encourage scientists to overstate the importance of their research. We recommend that granting agencies (i) allocate only a subset of funds to TR and (ii) solicit more realistic proposal statements.

Primary Contact:  Sarah A Gravem, Oregon State University, Corvallis, CA, United States
Presenters:  Sarah A Gravem, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States and Jenna Sullivan, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States
 

See more of: Town Hall