Commissioned research

A contract researcher has submitted a draft of a final report to a commissioner and is awaiting feedback regarding factual errors or similar issues. However, the commissioner’s comments go far beyond that. Under the guise of quality control, the comments present themselves as academically grounded criticism of conclusions and formulations that are claimed to lack sufficient support in the data material. The commissioner demands a downplaying of certain critical points directed at the commissioner’s own policy and behaviour. The researcher, however, stands firm and argues that the changes required by the commissioner undermine the integrity of the research.

Attempts at compromise appear impossible. The commissioner argues that more moderate wording would not significantly alter the substance, only the form. It is not necessarily the one who shouts the loudest who gets heard. The researcher, on the other hand, insists that the message becomes blurred if the proposed changes are accepted; sharp criticism based on the data is necessary in order for the commissioner, as the addressee, to change policy and practice.

The leadership at the researcher’s institution is concerned that an escalating conflict with an important commissioner could have major negative financial consequences. For this reason, the researcher is “overruled” by her manager, who is willing to accept most of the commissioner’s demands.

Questions for discussion:

• How far can a commissioner be allowed to intervene in the researcher’s conclusions and formulations when these are based on a solid academic foundation?
• Is it possible to draw a principled distinction between academically grounded quality assurance and undue “sanitisation”? If so, how can this be done?
• What kinds of compromises would be ethically defensible in this conflict?
• Is it ethically defensible for the institution’s leadership to accommodate the commissioner’s demands in order to safeguard the institution’s economy?

Read more

• Commissioned research