A number of new members recently have arrived describing themselves as 'an Independent Researcher'

It would be interesting to hear what other members understand by this self reference.

In academia an independent researcher is a specific designation for a PhD-level person not on a traditional faculty track (which is usually a mix of some sort with teaching and research duties), but which is not associated to someone who is (like a postdoc).

They are not terribly common, but can include folks leading core facilities, or so-called research professor positions. They often are soft-money based, (i.e., externally or service funded), but there are exceptions.

In the online world this designation takes a different meaning, usually referring to folks to lazy to understand the basics and diving right into WAG. Doing "a research" here often means casually watching random videos until they consider themselves an expert.

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

A number of new members recently have arrived describing themselves as 'an Independent Researcher'

It would be interesting to hear what other members understand by this self reference.

A crank, usually. And by usually I mean practically always.

Thanks for the quick answers folks.

The only person I know (and who made a pretty good living out of being one 1975 - 2005) sort of fits CharonY's first definition. But her research was conducted at the Bodliean on a self employed basis, mostly for specific topics on contract.

Would James Lovelock qualify? He's been self-funding since 1964 with money he got from his electron capture detector. Obviously, he's written quite a few well selling books over the years.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Thanks for the quick answers folks.

The only person I know (and who made a pretty good living out of being one 1975 - 2005) sort of fits CharonY's first definition. But her research was conducted at the Bodliean on a self employed basis, mostly for specific topics on contract.

Yes I suppose I should have qualified my response to indicate I was referring to the on line variety, as mentioned by @CharonY .

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Would James Lovelock qualify? He's been self-funding since 1964 with money he got from his electron capture detector. Obviously, he's written quite a few well selling books over the years.

I think it depends on the context and time a fair bit. Independent scientists outside of academia or industry are very rare and were probably more common until sometime around the 19th century but Lovelock could be such a rare example. At least considering the period where he was self-funded. Before that he did consultant work, IIRC where it would be considered a private entity but not entirely independent as such.

I think this sort of independence is predominantly one of fiscal nature, perhaps similar to certain gentlmen scholars. I.e. filthy rich scientists, which I feel are rather rare.

Most folks would rather fall into externally funded, but usually academia-affiliated group. One of the reasons being that most public funds require some sort of affiliation (to reduce risk of money funneled to grifters, for example).

In a different context an independent researcher could just be someone unaffiliated with the company or institution presenting a finding. But here I think it means little other than being a self-bestowed honorary title.