I/we would love to get input on this mapping [...] ii. any of the problems described here is overstated.
Point 2.3 “founding priorities of grantmakers ” does not sound a problem to me in the context of your analysis. In the opening of your post, you show concern in the production of a valuable results:
Instead, I will just assume that when we dedicate resources to research we are expecting some form of valuable outcome or impact.
Who is supposed to define the valuable outcome if not a grantmaker? Are you perhaps saying that specific grantmakers are not suitable to define the valuable outcome?
Nonetheless you can see that this a circular problem, you cannot defend the idea of efficient research toward a favourable outcome without allowing the idea that somebody has the authority to define that outcome and thus become a grantmaker.
Perhaps, would ‘lack of alignment between grantmakers values and researchers values’ be a better definition of the issue?
I/we would love to get input on this mapping [...] there are significant issues that jeopardize the value of research results which are not included in this post
I would say that boldness itself is a problem as much as lack of boldness is.
As there is a competition to do more with less resources, researchers are incentivised to underestimate what they need when writing grant proposals. Research is an uncertain activity and likely benefits from a safety budget. So when project problems arise, researches need to cut some planned activities (for example, they might avoid collecting quality data for reproducibility results).
Researchers are also incentivised to keep their options open and distribute their energy across several efforts. Thus, an approved short-term project might not receive full attention (as well as it happens to long-term projects toward their ends) or might not be perfectly aligned with the researchers interests.
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.
Point 2.3 “founding priorities of grantmakers ” does not sound a problem to me in the context of your analysis. In the opening of your post, you show concern in the production of a valuable results:
Who is supposed to define the valuable outcome if not a grantmaker? Are you perhaps saying that specific grantmakers are not suitable to define the valuable outcome?
Nonetheless you can see that this a circular problem, you cannot defend the idea of efficient research toward a favourable outcome without allowing the idea that somebody has the authority to define that outcome and thus become a grantmaker.
Perhaps, would ‘lack of alignment between grantmakers values and researchers values’ be a better definition of the issue?
I would say that boldness itself is a problem as much as lack of boldness is.
As there is a competition to do more with less resources, researchers are incentivised to underestimate what they need when writing grant proposals. Research is an uncertain activity and likely benefits from a safety budget. So when project problems arise, researches need to cut some planned activities (for example, they might avoid collecting quality data for reproducibility results).
Researchers are also incentivised to keep their options open and distribute their energy across several efforts. Thus, an approved short-term project might not receive full attention (as well as it happens to long-term projects toward their ends) or might not be perfectly aligned with the researchers interests.
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 =)