You make a good point, the part on funding priorities does become kind of circular. Initially the heading there was “Grantmakers are not driven by impact”—but that got confusing since I wanted to avoid defining impact (because that seemed like a rabbit hole that would make it impossible to finish the post). So I just changed it to “Funding priorities of grantmakers”—but your comment is valid with either wording, it does make sense that the one who spends the resources should set the priorities for what they want to achieve.
I think there is still something there though—maybe as you say, a lack of alignment in values—but maybe even more that a lack of skill in how the priorities are enforced or translated to incentives? It seems like even though the high-level priorities of a grant-maker is theirs to define, the execution of the grantmaking sometimes promotes something else? E.g. a grantmaker that has a high-level objective of improving public health, but where the actual grants go to very hyped-up fields that are already getting enough funding, or where the investments are mismatched with disease burdens or patient needs. In a way, this is similar to ineffective philantropy in general—perhaps “ineffective grantmaking” would be an appropriate heading?
In a way, this is similar to ineffective philantropy in general—perhaps “ineffective grantmaking” would be an appropriate heading?
That sounds a better heading indeed. Although grantmakers define the value of a research outcome, they might not be able to correctly promote their vision due to their limited resources.
However, as the grantmaking process is what defines the value of a research, your heading might be misinterpreted as the inability to define valuable outcomes (which is in contradiction with your working hypothesis)
What about “inefficient grant-giving”? “inefficient” because sometimes resources are lost pursing secondary goals, “grant-giving” because it specifically involves the process of selecting motivated and effective researchers teams.
Thanks for this!
You make a good point, the part on funding priorities does become kind of circular. Initially the heading there was “Grantmakers are not driven by impact”—but that got confusing since I wanted to avoid defining impact (because that seemed like a rabbit hole that would make it impossible to finish the post). So I just changed it to “Funding priorities of grantmakers”—but your comment is valid with either wording, it does make sense that the one who spends the resources should set the priorities for what they want to achieve.
I think there is still something there though—maybe as you say, a lack of alignment in values—but maybe even more that a lack of skill in how the priorities are enforced or translated to incentives? It seems like even though the high-level priorities of a grant-maker is theirs to define, the execution of the grantmaking sometimes promotes something else? E.g. a grantmaker that has a high-level objective of improving public health, but where the actual grants go to very hyped-up fields that are already getting enough funding, or where the investments are mismatched with disease burdens or patient needs. In a way, this is similar to ineffective philantropy in general—perhaps “ineffective grantmaking” would be an appropriate heading?
That sounds a better heading indeed. Although grantmakers define the value of a research outcome, they might not be able to correctly promote their vision due to their limited resources.
However, as the grantmaking process is what defines the value of a research, your heading might be misinterpreted as the inability to define valuable outcomes (which is in contradiction with your working hypothesis)
What about “inefficient grant-giving”? “inefficient” because sometimes resources are lost pursing secondary goals, “grant-giving” because it specifically involves the process of selecting motivated and effective researchers teams.
I added an edit with a link to this thread now =)