We can then realize how it is of fundamental importance that when planning, carrying out and concluding an investigation, the researcher is attentive to how much of himself there is in that work of his. The awareness of its implication leads the researcher to discover artifices (theoretical and methodological rigor) so that it is not only his subjectivity that guides the research, by the bias of his desires, defenses, beliefs, certainties, partisanism or prejudice or anticipated conception, but, so that he has the domain, at least partially, of his involvement in the ways of research through a planned project with the rigor required by an investigation. But, that consciousness also becomes important so that, in the opposite direction, it can use its involvement in a way to enrich the research with human knowledge, the knowledge of the life experiences of that person who perhaps is also a researcher. It is inserted in that game of distance and proximity in which the investigation is given. Difficult, but intrinsic and inevitable.
If we return to the subject of this article and seek to understand the relationship between research under commission and the involvement of the researcher, we are again presented with more questions, such as: How to handle the question of research involvement on request ? What is the degree of distance and exemption of the researcher if the object of the investigation has been defined by another? Would it be easier to handle its implications when elections are not yours? The researcher happens to be clearly a performer of a project of another? In that case, how would his involvement manifest? Is it possible to reconcile theoretical choices, methodologies and definition of criteria for analyzing the reality investigated between who asks and who does it? If in the unrolling of the research other objectives are shown that are not those defined in the initial contract, how should the researcher position himself in front of the main interested parties in the research? (The one who orders and those who constitute the universe of the investigation?) It will be that the population that composes the universe of the investigation would perceive and react to the investigator of different forms in case that an investigation took place on own initiative or by order ?
In addition to these, other practical issues arise that must always be well defined in the agreements between the person commissioning the investigation and the researcher himself. Even in these cases, it is essential that one and the other discuss the adjustments and details of the investigation to the maximum, from its explicit objectives to the use of the results of the same: Who owns the research? Who defines the rules of the game, that is, how are power relations established? What is the researcher’s autonomy to introduce changes in the development of research based on his observations, his perceptions, his difficulties? What guarantees will be offered to you that your results, whether or not they confirm the initial hypotheses, will be respected as they are and fully disclosed? Is it permissible to take advantage of the development of research commissioned to carry out in parallel a research of self-interest? Should all results be delivered to whoever commissioned the investigation?