We collaborate with active researchers and methodologists who care about doing empirical work properly. If that describes you—and you value rigor, honesty, and intellectual independence—we would like to hear from you, whether for ongoing collaboration or a single project.
MAS Research operates as a network of specialists rather than a conventional employer, and that shapes what a career with us looks like. You are not slotted into a fixed role executing whatever comes through the door; you are matched to projects that fit your genuine expertise, in your method and your field. An econometrician works on econometrics, a qualitative specialist on qualitative studies, a bibliometrician on science mapping—because the whole premise of the network is that depth beats breadth, and that the right match produces better work than mere availability ever could.
The work is intellectually serious. Our clients bring us the questions their in-house capacity cannot answer, which means the projects are, by selection, the ones that need real methodological depth—a demanding identification strategy, a subtle measurement problem, a synthesis that has to be authoritative. For a researcher who enjoys the craft of doing a method properly, this is engaging work rather than routine analysis. And because we document and explain everything, the work is transparent: there is no black-box culture, no pressure to cut corners, and no expectation that you will produce a result the evidence does not support.
It is also flexible. Members of our network combine MAS Research work with their own research, teaching, or other commitments, taking on projects that fit their capacity and interests. Some collaborate with us intensively; others take occasional projects in their specialism. What we ask for is not a fixed number of hours but a commitment to the standards—rigor, honesty, clarity, and confidentiality—that define how we work.
We build the network around genuine depth in a method or domain. These are the profiles we are most often looking for.
Econometricians, statisticians, financial econometricians, and forecasting specialists with a strong applied record in economics, finance, or management—and, crucially, the ability to explain their methods clearly to a non-specialist. Depth in a specific area (say, panel methods, causal inference, or time-series) matters more to us than shallow familiarity with everything.
Machine-learning and text-as-data specialists who understand the difference between prediction and explanation, care about interpretability and honest out-of-sample validation, and know how to make ML publishable in fields that expect more than a high accuracy score.
Specialists in grounded theory, case study, thematic and content analysis, QCA, and mixed designs who hold qualitative work to the same standard of transparency and rigor as quantitative—documented coding, audit trails, and genuine integration.
Psychometricians and SEM experts, meta-analysts, and economic modellers (CGE, DSGE, microsimulation) with deep, current command of their technique and the standards their sub-field expects.
Researchers with genuine knowledge of a specific field—its literature, its debates, and its journals—across our six subject domains, who can bring field-awareness as well as technical skill to a project.
People fluent in bibliometrics, scientometrics, and journal analytics—VOSviewer, Bibliometrix, CiteSpace—who can turn a literature into a strategy and support institutional and accreditation analytics.
We need specialists who can teach, not just execute. A result a client cannot understand is a result they cannot own, so clear explanation is a core requirement, not a bonus.
We value the willingness to say a result does not hold, that a simpler method fits better, or that the data cannot answer the question. That honesty is the foundation of trustworthy research support.
We look for people who keep up with their method's evolving literature and know what reviewers now expect—not those applying a technique the way it was taught a decade ago.
Our whole model rests on supporting clients' research without claiming it. We need collaborators who share that principle and hold the line on it.
Confidentiality is absolute in our work. We need people who treat clients' unpublished data and ideas with complete discretion.
Clients come to us under deadline pressure. We value collaborators who scope honestly and deliver what they commit to, when they commit to it.
We are expanding our specialist network across methods and domains. All roles are remote and engaged on a flexible, project-based basis unless otherwise agreed—we match specialists to projects in their area of expertise. If your specialism isn't listed, we still welcome a speculative application.
We are looking for an experienced econometrician to lead cross-sectional, time-series, and advanced panel analyses for economics, finance, and management research—from model specification through to defensible, journal-ready results.
We are seeking a causal-inference specialist to design and execute quasi-experimental evaluations with identification assumptions that are tested rather than assumed.
We are looking for a specialist in latent-variable modelling for management and behavioural research, with measurement validated before any structural model is estimated.
We are seeking a researcher to plan and deliver evidence syntheses to PRISMA standards, from protocol through to a defensible pooled estimate.
We are looking for an analyst to model volatility, risk, and market dynamics, and to build time-series forecasts validated honestly out-of-sample.
We are seeking a data scientist to apply predictive, explainable, and causal machine learning, and NLP/text-mining, to research problems—with rigorous evaluation and clear interpretation.
We are looking for a qualitative and mixed-methods researcher who holds qualitative work to the same rigour as quantitative analysis.
We are seeking an analyst to map fields and research portfolios through citation analysis, science mapping, and collaboration-network analysis.
We are looking for an academic editor to take sound research through to acceptance—without changing whose work it is.
We are seeking an analyst to support universities and business schools with research-portfolio analysis, benchmarking, and evidence for AACSB and EQUIS accreditation.
Don't see your specialism? We're always interested in hearing from active researchers with genuine methodological depth—send a speculative application to help@masresearch.org.
If this describes you, we would like to hear from you. Send a short note about your specialism—the methods and fields you work in, and the kind of projects you do best—together with a CV or a link to your research profile, to help@masresearch.org with “Careers” in the subject line. Tell us whether you are looking for occasional project-based work or a more sustained collaboration, and what your availability looks like.
We read every application from an active researcher with genuine methodological depth, and we respond. Because we match people to projects in their specialism, joining the network does not commit you to a fixed workload—it means that when a project fits your expertise and your availability, we can bring you in. If your background is a strong fit for the kind of work we do, we will want to talk.
We particularly welcome applications from researchers whose expertise extends the range of methods or domains we can serve, and from those in regions and fields where rigorous, affordable research support is hardest to access. Building a genuinely broad and deep network is how we make good methodology available to more researchers, which is the point of what we do.
The researchers in our network tend to value a particular combination that is hard to find elsewhere. The first is intellectual quality of work: because clients bring us the questions their own capacity cannot answer, the projects are, by selection, the ones that genuinely need methodological depth. For someone who enjoys the craft of applying a method properly—the careful identification, the subtle measurement problem, the synthesis that has to be authoritative—this is far more satisfying than routine analysis, and it keeps a specialist's skills sharp rather than letting them atrophy.
The second is flexibility and control. Network members set their own availability and take on the projects that fit their expertise and interests, combining MAS Research work with their own research, teaching, or other commitments. There is no fixed quota and no obligation between projects; when work that suits you comes in and you have capacity, we bring you in. For active researchers who want interesting applied problems without a fixed institutional role, that flexibility is a large part of the appeal.
The third is a culture that matches their own standards. Researchers who care about doing things properly often find commercial “research services” environments frustrating—the pressure to cut corners, the black-box delivery, the blurring of authorship lines. We are built as the opposite: rigorous, transparent, honest about limits, and firm about integrity. For a specialist who holds those values, working within a network that shares them is a relief rather than a compromise.
There is also a quieter satisfaction that many network members mention: the work reaches researchers who genuinely need it. A doctoral candidate without strong methods support, a scholar at an under-resourced institution, a small institute doing important applied work—these are people for whom expert methodological help is otherwise hard to find or afford, and being the person who makes their research stronger is meaningful in a way that routine commercial analysis rarely is. For researchers who care about the health of their field as well as their own careers, contributing to a network that widens access to good methodology is part of the appeal.
It is worth being clear about the boundaries, because they are part of what makes the work sustainable. We do not ask anyone in our network to do work outside their genuine expertise—the entire premise of the model is matching specialists to projects that fit them, so you are never pressed to take on a method you do not command. We do not ask anyone to produce a result the evidence does not support, to overstate confidence, or to help a client around the standards that make research trustworthy; those requests we decline at the source, so they never reach you.
And we do not ask you to compromise your own research identity. Working with us is compatible with an active academic career; the confidentiality that protects clients also protects your independence, and the flexible structure means the collaboration flexes around your own priorities rather than competing with them. We are looking for a sustainable, long-term relationship with specialists who do excellent work on their own terms—not to absorb your time or dilute your standards, but to give your expertise interesting problems to work on and researchers who need it a way to reach it.
For most people who join the network, the relationship begins with a single, well-scoped project rather than a broad commitment—which suits both sides, since it lets us confirm the fit on real work before either party relies on it. After an initial conversation about your specialism and availability, we match you to a project where your expertise is a genuine fit, agree the scope and terms clearly, and you do the work to the standards that define our practice: rigorous method, full documentation, clear explanation, and complete confidentiality. There is no expectation beyond that first project; if it works well for both of us, more follow naturally.
From there, most collaborations settle into a rhythm that fits the specialist's own life. We reach out when a project matches your expertise and you have signalled availability; you take it on or decline freely; and between projects there is no obligation in either direction. Some network members work with us regularly, others take occasional projects that align with their interests, and both patterns are entirely normal. The model is built to accommodate active researchers with their own careers, not to demand that MAS Research become the centre of your working life.
Practically, that first project is also where you learn how we operate—how scoping works, how we document and hand off, how the single-point-of-contact model coordinates larger engagements—so that subsequent projects run smoothly. We invest in making that first collaboration clear and well-supported precisely because we are looking for lasting relationships, not one-off transactions, and the experience of that initial project is what tells both of us whether a longer collaboration makes sense.
We ask our network to hold to demanding standards, and we hold ourselves to matching commitments in return. We scope work clearly and honestly, so you know what a project involves before you take it on. We do not overload people or expect availability we have not agreed. We handle the client relationship, the coordination, and the difficult conversations, so you can concentrate on the analytical work you do best. And we are transparent in our dealings, because a network of independent specialists only functions on mutual trust—a researcher who feels fairly treated does their best work and stays, and that continuity is what lets us serve clients well over time.
Above all, we are committed to the same integrity we ask of network members. We will never put you in the position of being asked to compromise your standards, produce a result the evidence does not support, or work outside your genuine expertise, because those requests are declined before they ever reach you. Working with MAS Research is meant to be a way for serious researchers to apply their expertise to interesting problems, on fair terms, within a culture that shares their values—and we regard sustaining that as our side of the bargain.
We'd like to hear what you work on and how you like to work.