It sounds like part of your thinking is that ToC diagrams wonāt add much value when (1) the organisation already has consensus /ā āa coherent framework for how to think about their missionā, and (2) all of its researchers are already very good at prioritization. Iād guess that both of those conditions will be harder to maintain as an organisation scales up. Would you guess that ToC diagrams tend to become more useful as organisations scale up?
Also, when you say āprioritization abilitiesā, do you just mean ability to prioritise between research questions? Or also things like ability to generate new research questions, generate ideas of non-research activities to do (e.g., different ways of disseminating research findings to different audiences), and prioritise among those non-research activities?
I ask largely because one reason I suspect ToC diagrams may be helpful is to guide decisions about things like which forms of output to produce, who to share research findings with, and whether and how to disseminate particular findings broadly. It seems plausible to me that a researcher whoās excellent at prioritizing among research questions might not be good at thinking about those matters, and a ToC diagram (or the process of making one) might speed up or clarify their thoughts on those matters.
But you might find that researchers with that discrepancy of skills are uncommon or selected against, or that strategy discussions without ToC diagrams can cover that, or that staff members other than researchers can cover that.
Iād guess that both of those conditions will be harder to maintain as an organisation scales up. Would you guess that ToC diagrams tend to become more useful as organisations scale up?
I think so. Iām somewhat nervous about this because if the culture changes drastically, maybe thatās generally bad and ToC documents just mitigate some of the badness, but canāt quite get you back the culture at a smaller organization. Whether large scaling even makes sense might depend on the organizationās mission, or the ability of the executive director (and hiring committee) to scale in a way that preserves the right culture.
Also, when you say āprioritization abilitiesā, do you just mean ability to prioritise between research questions?
Also the other things you list.
I ask largely because one reason I suspect ToC diagrams may be helpful is to guide decisions about things like which forms of output to produce, who to share research findings with, and whether and how to disseminate particular findings broadly. It seems plausible to me that a researcher whoās excellent at prioritizing among research questions might not be good at thinking about those matters, and a ToC diagram (or the process of making one) might speed up or clarify their thoughts on those matters.
That seems reasonable. My experience is that people often know the right answers in theory, but need a lot of nudging to choose mediums or venues different from the ones they find personally the most rewarding. I think there are also just large constraints by individual psychology that make things less flexible than one might think. So, to preserve intrinsic motivation for research, itās maybe not a good idea to push researchers too much. Still, I think itās crucial to have a culture where researchers think actively about which medium to pick, why theyāre doing it, and how the output will be shared. As long as this is being diligently considered and discussed, I think itās reasonable to defer to the judgment of individual researchers.
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing.
It sounds like part of your thinking is that ToC diagrams wonāt add much value when (1) the organisation already has consensus /ā āa coherent framework for how to think about their missionā, and (2) all of its researchers are already very good at prioritization. Iād guess that both of those conditions will be harder to maintain as an organisation scales up. Would you guess that ToC diagrams tend to become more useful as organisations scale up?
Also, when you say āprioritization abilitiesā, do you just mean ability to prioritise between research questions? Or also things like ability to generate new research questions, generate ideas of non-research activities to do (e.g., different ways of disseminating research findings to different audiences), and prioritise among those non-research activities?
I ask largely because one reason I suspect ToC diagrams may be helpful is to guide decisions about things like which forms of output to produce, who to share research findings with, and whether and how to disseminate particular findings broadly. It seems plausible to me that a researcher whoās excellent at prioritizing among research questions might not be good at thinking about those matters, and a ToC diagram (or the process of making one) might speed up or clarify their thoughts on those matters.
But you might find that researchers with that discrepancy of skills are uncommon or selected against, or that strategy discussions without ToC diagrams can cover that, or that staff members other than researchers can cover that.
I think so. Iām somewhat nervous about this because if the culture changes drastically, maybe thatās generally bad and ToC documents just mitigate some of the badness, but canāt quite get you back the culture at a smaller organization. Whether large scaling even makes sense might depend on the organizationās mission, or the ability of the executive director (and hiring committee) to scale in a way that preserves the right culture.
Also the other things you list.
That seems reasonable. My experience is that people often know the right answers in theory, but need a lot of nudging to choose mediums or venues different from the ones they find personally the most rewarding. I think there are also just large constraints by individual psychology that make things less flexible than one might think. So, to preserve intrinsic motivation for research, itās maybe not a good idea to push researchers too much. Still, I think itās crucial to have a culture where researchers think actively about which medium to pick, why theyāre doing it, and how the output will be shared. As long as this is being diligently considered and discussed, I think itās reasonable to defer to the judgment of individual researchers.