I’m only in the beginning stages of trying to figure out how I may be able to contribute independently and haven’t talked to a lot of individuals yet, but I agree on the difficulty of figuring out tractable, non-technical research questions and potential funding to pursue those questions. I submitted a proposal to IFP’s Launch Sequence RFP and am noodling on one or two more. Kudos to you for taking the initiative!
Adapting a living literature review seems like one potential platform to host updated project lists. Since they already synthesize existing research, it’d be natural to look there to understand outstanding research areas. On your idea for folks to select from a lit, it does strike me that there should be a little bit of friction for someone to demonstrate interest in the beginning and continued attention over time, like a requirement every three weeks that they provide a mini-update or the project will be considered abandoned.
I really like what you said about connecting rejected applicants. Inspired by @abrahamrowe’s language in your Shared EA Operations Hiring Platform post, silver (finalists) and bronze (semi-finalists?) medalists could have a lot of impact. To where if someone hosted an RFP or otherwise was opening to supporting exploration of new research streams, I’d say their group applicants should merit serious review. To help make this happen: Similar how EA applications ask applicants if they’d consent to having their information shared with other organizations, they could ask applicants if they’d want to be connected with others who almost but don’t quite make it to the finish line.
Btw, great back and forth with @Aaron_Scher! I had similar questions about independent research produced outside of a fellowship or academic context.
I’m only in the beginning stages of trying to figure out how I may be able to contribute independently and haven’t talked to a lot of individuals yet, but I agree on the difficulty of figuring out tractable, non-technical research questions and potential funding to pursue those questions. I submitted a proposal to IFP’s Launch Sequence RFP and am noodling on one or two more. Kudos to you for taking the initiative!
Adapting a living literature review seems like one potential platform to host updated project lists. Since they already synthesize existing research, it’d be natural to look there to understand outstanding research areas. On your idea for folks to select from a lit, it does strike me that there should be a little bit of friction for someone to demonstrate interest in the beginning and continued attention over time, like a requirement every three weeks that they provide a mini-update or the project will be considered abandoned.
I really like what you said about connecting rejected applicants. Inspired by @abrahamrowe’s language in your Shared EA Operations Hiring Platform post, silver (finalists) and bronze (semi-finalists?) medalists could have a lot of impact. To where if someone hosted an RFP or otherwise was opening to supporting exploration of new research streams, I’d say their group applicants should merit serious review. To help make this happen: Similar how EA applications ask applicants if they’d consent to having their information shared with other organizations, they could ask applicants if they’d want to be connected with others who almost but don’t quite make it to the finish line.
Btw, great back and forth with @Aaron_Scher! I had similar questions about independent research produced outside of a fellowship or academic context.