What is your process for identifying and prioritizing new research questions? And what percentage of your work is going toward internal top priorities vs. commissioned projects?
[This is like commentary on your second question, not a direct answer; I’ll let someone else at RP provide that.]
Small point: I personally find it useful to make the following three-part distinction, rather than your two-part distinction:
Academia-like: Projects that we think would be valuable although we don’t have a very explicit theory of change tied to specific (types of) decisions by specific (types of) actors; more like “This question/topic seems probably important somehow, and more clarity on it would probably somehow inform various important decisions.”
E.g., the sort of work Nick Bostrom does
Think-tank-like: Projects that we think would be valuable based on pretty explicit theories of change, ideally informed by actually talking to a bunch of relevant decision-makers to get a sense of what their needs and confusions are.
Consultancy-like: Projects that one specific stakeholder (or I guess maybe one group of coordinated stakeholders) have explicitly requested we do (usually but not necessarily also paying the researchers to do it).
I think RP, the EA community, and the world at large should very obviously have substantial amounts of each of those three types of projects / theory of change.
I think RP specialises mostly for the latter two models, whereas (for example) FHI specialises more for the first model and sometimes the second. (But again, I’ll let someone else at RP say more about specific percentages and rationales.)
What is your process for identifying and prioritizing new research questions? And what percentage of your work is going toward internal top priorities vs. commissioned projects?
[This is like commentary on your second question, not a direct answer; I’ll let someone else at RP provide that.]
Small point: I personally find it useful to make the following three-part distinction, rather than your two-part distinction:
Academia-like: Projects that we think would be valuable although we don’t have a very explicit theory of change tied to specific (types of) decisions by specific (types of) actors; more like “This question/topic seems probably important somehow, and more clarity on it would probably somehow inform various important decisions.”
E.g., the sort of work Nick Bostrom does
Think-tank-like: Projects that we think would be valuable based on pretty explicit theories of change, ideally informed by actually talking to a bunch of relevant decision-makers to get a sense of what their needs and confusions are.
Consultancy-like: Projects that one specific stakeholder (or I guess maybe one group of coordinated stakeholders) have explicitly requested we do (usually but not necessarily also paying the researchers to do it).
I think RP, the EA community, and the world at large should very obviously have substantial amounts of each of those three types of projects / theory of change.
I think RP specialises mostly for the latter two models, whereas (for example) FHI specialises more for the first model and sometimes the second. (But again, I’ll let someone else at RP say more about specific percentages and rationales.)
(See also my slides on Theory of Change in Research, esp. slide 17.)