Does a shift from hard to soft funding have an impact on research outcomes? Existing literature suggests that moving from hard money, such as lump-sum government-funded research, to commissioned research entails a greater risk of the researchers being influenced by the principal (the funding body). Based on literature and an empirical study, we identify two types of researcher roles: the influential consultant and the technical realist. The first type studies more advanced, important, and diffuse topics on behalf of principals high up in the hierarchy. They have a much greater experience of the issues discussed in this paper than the technical consultants. During the course of this study, we also discovered that the balance of power is not necessarily as one-sided as theory suggests: researchers can wield significant influence over the principals as well.

PAGES
153 – 172
DOI
All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Issues
Also in this issue:
-
Agnes Horvath, Magic and the Will to Science: A Political Anthropology of Liminal Technicality
-
Gibson Burrell, Ronald Hartz, David Harvie, Geoff Lightfoot, Simon Lilley and Friends, Shaping for Mediocrity: The Cancellation of Critical Thinking at our Universities
-
Bas de Boer, How Scientific Instruments Speak: Postphenomenology and Technological Mediations in Neuroscientific Practice
-
Bjørn Lomborg, False Alarm
-
How does innovation arise in the bicycle sector? The users’ role and their betrayal in the case of the ‘gravel bike’
Does the type of funding influence research results – and do researchers influence funders?
Paper