Once everything is tested etc I’d do some research ideation and prioritisation with partner orgs. Once done you could then start tackling these research questions in order of priority.
By “once everything is tested etc” I am guessing that you may and once we have a good understanding and track record of doing and gaining value from each type of advertising, split-testing, etc?
We are working to identify the key research questions are, considering
the importance for EA organisations and fundraisers of these ‘tools’ (how much could these be used)
the existing evidence, both on general psychological providers and specifically in the charitable donation (and effective action) contexts
the extent to which we can practically conduct trials and learn from these … (feasibility and applicability of interventions, the observability of relevant outcomes, generalizability of evidence across platforms and contexts..)
I’d probably favour focusing on big and general issues (e.g, what is the best messaging for x in context y) rather than the needs of specific organisations (e.g., what should org do here on their website). Context shifting can be very demanding/inefficient and the advisory work might not generalise as much.
This is a good point, and I mostly agree, but of course we need to strike some balance. I suspect some things that seem like ‘very specific needs and practices for organization A’ might have greater applicability and relevance across organizations, and specific observations may lead to themes to study further. I’m also concerned about asserting and claiming to “test of general principles and theories of behavior” that prove to be extremely context-dependent. This is a major challenge of social science (and marketing), I think.
By “once everything is tested etc” I am guessing that you may and once we have a good understanding and track record of doing and gaining value from each type of advertising, split-testing, etc?
We are working to identify the key research questions are, considering
the importance for EA organisations and fundraisers of these ‘tools’ (how much could these be used)
the existing evidence, both on general psychological providers and specifically in the charitable donation (and effective action) contexts
the extent to which we can practically conduct trials and learn from these … (feasibility and applicability of interventions, the observability of relevant outcomes, generalizability of evidence across platforms and contexts..)
This is a good point, and I mostly agree, but of course we need to strike some balance. I suspect some things that seem like ‘very specific needs and practices for organization A’ might have greater applicability and relevance across organizations, and specific observations may lead to themes to study further. I’m also concerned about asserting and claiming to “test of general principles and theories of behavior” that prove to be extremely context-dependent. This is a major challenge of social science (and marketing), I think.