I've worked more than 15 years as a full-time researcher in a philosophy research institute. At least in my area, I highly doubt that any noteworthy amount of "misfit research" should get funding and is worth pursuing. Research is embedded into and needs to be part of the international research culture where many people and many different institutions work on the same topic. In philosophy, this is and has always been mostly within academia. "misfits" are unfortunately often close to "crackpots." There is a myriad of funding opportunities, some of them rather obscure and based on personal projects with a wide range of application conditions and requirements. For example, I know a colleague who once did research in philosophy for the Volkswagen Stiftung, and another one obtained funding from NATO.

Of course, there is research outside of academia in many more practical disciplines like STEM and medical research. But I doubt the situation is very different there. If you're too much of a "misfit" chances are high that your research proposals just aren't good enough. If you have many publications in top journals, you will get funding.

What's more concerning is that for lack of career prospects and job security, mostly those postdocs seem to prevail who are very adapted to the system and those who are extremely persistent and willing to relocate indefinitely. There is too much talent wasted in the second category. I've seen too many good and talented people drop out of the "publish or perish rat race" because they got children or wanted to settle down. These were the opposite of misfits, though.

This is the exact mindset that when used at the level of the grant awarding body causes incremental research to prevail while pushing out outsider thoughts.

Things requiring unorthodox (but not incorrect) combinations of knowledge are met with the kind of skepticism that forgets to be skeptical of its own skepticism.

Things on longer horizons than the short term, corporatized ROI of our research institutions—who are themselves supposed to be less beholden to quick wins at the expense of knowledge generation—leads to a chilling effect on trying anything revolutionary at all.

The outcome is echo chambers, local maxima/minima in research, and promising avenues of research that are underfunded simply because they aren’t popular. Inevitably it also leads to the kind of institutional stagnation that results in p-hacking, and so on.