Rational, Irrational and Other Reasons for Commissioning Research

Abstract

A programme of group discussions among buyers of research revealed a variety of reasons for commissioning work. Although much research is conducted for rational reasons, the evidence suggests that power struggles within companies are of major importance in deciding exactly what projects shall be undertaken and several categories of “political” research emerged. The relationship between the research buyer and his researcher can be adversely affected if one or other (usually the researcher) suffers from “boffin syndrome”. A classification of research projects is offered. For research buyers, jobs can be boring or interesting; in type, there are methodical jobs, “panic” jobs and “couch” jobs—which begin and end in therapeutic advice from the buyer to the research user.

Rethinking policy ‘impact’: four models of research-policy relations

“…In other words, political ideology and/or more strategic party politics inform the ways in which political actors respond to research evidence (e.g., Bambra, 2013). In the second, the commissioning of research might itself be understood as a political act (or, at least, an act that creates political benefits-see Bailey and Scott-Jones 1984). In either case, efforts to reward researchers for 'achieving' research impact would seem misplaced.…”

“…The extent to which politics can shape research is perhaps most overt in research that is directly commissioned by sources with particular political/policy interests; reviews have repeatedly demonstrated that research funded by commercial sources, such as the pharmaceutical (e.g., Lundh et al, 2012) and tobacco industries (e.g., Bero, 2005), is more likely to present findings that are useful to those interests (see also Bailey and Scott-Jones, 1984). In other contexts, it has been suggested that researchers may struggle to maintain their independence where research is commissioned directly, or indirectly, by government sources (e.g., Barnes, 1996;Smith, 2010).…”