Really impressed by your work so far, thanks for sharing this.
I’m curious about how you are using multiple researchers for this. Most steps can be done in parallel, but I wonder- how much do you rely on multiple views on the same analysis, and how do you go about it?
Also, is there anything that the EA community can do to assist the research process? If so, what could be the most valuable? (I’m interested specifically in small volunteer research projects that non-experts can take without your explicit direction, perhaps reviewing reports or rechecking ideas that did not successfully passed through the funnel)
Really impressed by your work so far, thanks for sharing this.
Hey Edo, I’m glad to hear that you find our work useful.
I’m curious about how you are using multiple researchers for this. Most steps can be done in parallel, but I wonder- how much do you rely on multiple views on the same analysis, and how do you go about it?
We have one lead researcher for each cause, responsible for conducting comprehensive research in their area; this way, they become experts in their respective fields. But we also want to capitalize on the fact that we are one of only a few organizations conducting research in multiple causes. We’re in a unique spot to learn and cross-apply methodologies and practices from other causes, as Neil Buddy Shah illustrates. Animal advocacy can cross-apply from global health research e.g. a comprehensive system to grade the quality of evidence. In turn, global health can learn from animal advocacy e.g. how to answer questions when there is little information, or when the evidence-base is low. For this reason, after the initial draft of a report is completed, it is peer-reviewed by a researcher from a different cause. On top of that, we have a senior staff member whose work is dedicated to thoroughly reviewing the reports. He looks for contradictory research; challenges crucial assumptions; double-checks key inputs in the CEA; verifies that the strength of evidence has been adequately expressed in the report based on its source; etc. At the end, I analyze the conclusions of the report. So for example, I consider whether any crucial considerations have been missed; if the evidence is strong enough to warrant the conclusion; and if equal rigor has been applied across different charity ideas. We also engage external research reviewers and experts in the field.
I’m always looking to improve our systems, so I’m open to suggestions on how we can do things better.
Also, is there anything that the EA community can do to assist the research process? If so, what could be the most valuable?
Thanks for this question and for facilitating this research group! It seems like a fascinating project, and I cannot wait to see updates from it.
Researching marginal ideas on our priority list would be most valuable (ideally using the same process so it is comparable). Ideas that almost made it to our priority list probably have the highest odds of being better than the idea we recommend, so researching them might change what charities will be started. To get more granular, it would be really helpful to conduct crucial consideration research that may determine whether an intervention merits deeper research. As an example, here are the first ideas that didn’t quite make the list for each cause: 1. Mental health and subjective well-being: Addressing mundane, suboptimal happiness through conditional cash transfers for using gratitude journals
2. Animal welfare: Developing and advocating for pre-hatch sexing to reduce the suffering of male chicks 3. Family planning: Informing parents and girls about future economic opportunities
4. Health and Development Policy: Improving health systems through community monitoring of health problems (e.g. through scorecards, planning meetings, etc.; regional comparison/competition for outcomes-focused government)
You can read about each of these possible interventions in more detail in the linked Idea Prioritization reports.
Really impressed by your work so far, thanks for sharing this.
I’m curious about how you are using multiple researchers for this. Most steps can be done in parallel, but I wonder- how much do you rely on multiple views on the same analysis, and how do you go about it?
Also, is there anything that the EA community can do to assist the research process? If so, what could be the most valuable? (I’m interested specifically in small volunteer research projects that non-experts can take without your explicit direction, perhaps reviewing reports or rechecking ideas that did not successfully passed through the funnel)
Hey Edo, I’m glad to hear that you find our work useful.
We have one lead researcher for each cause, responsible for conducting comprehensive research in their area; this way, they become experts in their respective fields. But we also want to capitalize on the fact that we are one of only a few organizations conducting research in multiple causes. We’re in a unique spot to learn and cross-apply methodologies and practices from other causes, as Neil Buddy Shah illustrates. Animal advocacy can cross-apply from global health research e.g. a comprehensive system to grade the quality of evidence. In turn, global health can learn from animal advocacy e.g. how to answer questions when there is little information, or when the evidence-base is low. For this reason, after the initial draft of a report is completed, it is peer-reviewed by a researcher from a different cause. On top of that, we have a senior staff member whose work is dedicated to thoroughly reviewing the reports. He looks for contradictory research; challenges crucial assumptions; double-checks key inputs in the CEA; verifies that the strength of evidence has been adequately expressed in the report based on its source; etc. At the end, I analyze the conclusions of the report. So for example, I consider whether any crucial considerations have been missed; if the evidence is strong enough to warrant the conclusion; and if equal rigor has been applied across different charity ideas. We also engage external research reviewers and experts in the field.
I’m always looking to improve our systems, so I’m open to suggestions on how we can do things better.
Thanks for this question and for facilitating this research group! It seems like a fascinating project, and I cannot wait to see updates from it.
Researching marginal ideas on our priority list would be most valuable (ideally using the same process so it is comparable). Ideas that almost made it to our priority list probably have the highest odds of being better than the idea we recommend, so researching them might change what charities will be started. To get more granular, it would be really helpful to conduct crucial consideration research that may determine whether an intervention merits deeper research. As an example, here are the first ideas that didn’t quite make the list for each cause:
1. Mental health and subjective well-being: Addressing mundane, suboptimal happiness through conditional cash transfers for using gratitude journals
2. Animal welfare: Developing and advocating for pre-hatch sexing to reduce the suffering of male chicks
3. Family planning: Informing parents and girls about future economic opportunities
4. Health and Development Policy: Improving health systems through community monitoring of health problems (e.g. through scorecards, planning meetings, etc.; regional comparison/competition for outcomes-focused government)
You can read about each of these possible interventions in more detail in the linked Idea Prioritization reports.