See companion question here.
I realized that after I posted my previous question that asking that question might be a "solution in search of a problem." I'm interested in what people perceive to be their biggest bottlenecks in doing great work in independent research.
I was an independent researcher for a while. Some things that come to mind:
These were pretty quickly written, more may come to mind.
A computer with backups that happen automatically, and which is fast enough that I don't have to worry about speed. I was previously using a fairly old laptop and then an old tower machine, and these broke occasionally, which was kind of a pain.
I was also being thrifty on monitors, and bought a really nice keyboard only fairly late. It would have made sense to have a fairly good keyboard and monitor all along, given that I spend a whole lot of my time in front of a computer
I also made the mistake of not buying good enough equipment for calls, so my video calls were a bit janky for a long time.
This is how my setup looks while working in the Bahamas. The special keyboard is probably overkill, but I had an RSI scare, and I thought it was worth it. Elements:
Things you don't see in the picture:
Longer term funding is definitely an issue, but the biggest thing is working alone. I appreciate interacting with people around my work and ideas, so when I am working primarily as an independent researcher, I build collaborations and work with others to ensure that I stay motivated. But even then, not having support for the work in the form of institutional backing and promotion, along with things like help with proofreading and copyediting, and doing graphic design, is definitely a possible cause for reduced impact.
I actually reflected on what points were holding me back as independent research quite recently.
A major point seems to be a lack of research oversight. This isn't so much about accountability for getting things done, more to have somebody thinking objectively and providing a detached perspective on which ways to address open-ended problems and when to change directions, etc. This kind of management isn't necessarily well done in academic research (at least in my experience) but I have recently found that Jason Schukraft's management style has been helpful for a project that I'm working on with him at RP.
Another I've noticed is that it can be hard to prioritize my independent research over competing projects that I already have in progress with academic researchers (or getting drawn into new projects with people who I've already published with - although I'm getting better at saying no to new things). In most cases, I think my independent research in physical virology is likely to have much more impact than continuing research in my former field of visual biophysicis, but dropping an in-progress academic project (particularly if I've been paid to do some work on it previously) feels like a strong violation of an academic norm so I tend to stick them out until they are done. These projects usually also involve working with a larger team of people, which is also appealing when you are used to working alone.
For me what leaps to mind is all of the in-between stuff, like proofreading, LateX issues, graphics, plots, etc. Of course, I've also tried to hire help on some of these fronts with very mixed results (generally negative). So I guess I'd say that fundamentally, independent work can really suffer from its independence (not having various supports and connections that would make it better). Building relationships and collaborations that alleviate these problems is part of being an effective independent researcher.
Seconded, independence offers freedom but creates many difficulties to work around as well.
That said, I never received any structured institutional support for proofing, editing, graphic design etc when working in academia although some of these tasks were supported by co-authors or supervisors.