# identifying risk-taking researchers - If your mantra is “people, not projects” then selection criteria should be for “high risk high reward researchers, not high risk high reward research projects”. It’s just too easy to write a risky sounding proposal but we need to measure/assess the risk appetite of the person proposing the work. - Look for people trying to transform the culture of the institutions and structures they operate in. Below are my hypothesis on indicators of risk in people, especially in academia: - Fewer publications in place of prototypes. This indicate risking their careers in the short-term by focusing on imagining AND building new systems/processes. This serves as a sensor that the person is [[biased towards making, not managing]] (averse to management oriented careers, which is what academia is becoming). - Are they are adopting scalable tools/technologies that both buy them their time back in the long run but also make themselves redundant (i.e. existential career risk/threat). For example, imagine adopting new pedagogic technologies (YT videos of *some* lectures + JupyterBooks for lecture notes + nbgrader for marking assessments) that reduce repetitive aspects of the job or eliminate cumbersome ones. This frees up time for more rewarding [[7 Autonomy is freedom from coercion]] work. - Willingness to work with the door open? For example, posting research code/datasets in the open and also blogging about it? This shows an appetite for risk of being scooped but really, if there is so much science being done then who is really looking at someone else's work these days? # Related notes [[14 Risk]]