FWIW, I think this sequence is intended to be relevant to many more “pipelines” than just that one (if we make “pipeline” a unit of analysis of the size you suggest), such as:
Getting junior, intermediate, or senior researchers to be more EA-aligned and thereby do higher priority research and maybe do it better (since one’s worldview etc. could also influence many decisions smaller than what topic/question to focus on)
Getting junior, intermediate, or senior researchers to be more EA-aligned and thereby in various ways support more and better research on high priority topics (e.g., by providing mentorship)
Getting junior, intermediate, or senior researchers to do higher priority research without necessarily being more EA-aligned
E.g. through creating various forms of incentives or capturing the interest of not-very-aligned people
E.g., through making it easier for researchers who are already quite EA-aligned to do high priority research, e.g. by making research on those topics more academically acceptable and prestiguous
Improving the pace, quality, dissemination, and/or use of EA-aligned research
E.g., helping people who would do EA-aligned research to do it using better tools, better mentorship, better resources, etc.
(This sequence doesn’t say much about dissemination or use, and I think that that’s a weakness of the sequence, but it’s in theory “in-scope”)
I think there’s basically a lot of pipelines that intersect and have feedback loops. I also think someone can “specialise” for learning about this whole web of issues and developing interventions for them, that many interventions could help with multiple pipes/steps/whatever, etc.
I think that this might sound frustratingly “holistic” and vague, rather than analytical and targeted. But I basically see this sequence as a fairly “birds eye view” perspective that contains within it many specifics. And as I say in the third post:
When you’re currently designing, evaluating, and/or implementing an intervention for improving aspects of the EA research pipeline, you should of course also think for yourself about what goals are relevant to your specific situation.
And you should also probably consider doing things like conducting interviews or surveys with potential “users” or “experts”.
Relatedly, I don’t think this sequence has a much stronger focus on one of those pipes/paths/intervention points than on others, with the exception that I unfortunately don’t say much here about dissemination and use of research.
FWIW, I think this sequence is intended to be relevant to many more “pipelines” than just that one (if we make “pipeline” a unit of analysis of the size you suggest), such as:
Getting junior, intermediate, or senior researchers to be more EA-aligned and thereby do higher priority research and maybe do it better (since one’s worldview etc. could also influence many decisions smaller than what topic/question to focus on)
Getting junior, intermediate, or senior researchers to be more EA-aligned and thereby in various ways support more and better research on high priority topics (e.g., by providing mentorship)
Getting junior, intermediate, or senior researchers to do higher priority research without necessarily being more EA-aligned
E.g. through creating various forms of incentives or capturing the interest of not-very-aligned people
E.g., through making it easier for researchers who are already quite EA-aligned to do high priority research, e.g. by making research on those topics more academically acceptable and prestiguous
Improving the pace, quality, dissemination, and/or use of EA-aligned research
E.g., helping people who would do EA-aligned research to do it using better tools, better mentorship, better resources, etc.
(This sequence doesn’t say much about dissemination or use, and I think that that’s a weakness of the sequence, but it’s in theory “in-scope”)
I think there’s basically a lot of pipelines that intersect and have feedback loops. I also think someone can “specialise” for learning about this whole web of issues and developing interventions for them, that many interventions could help with multiple pipes/steps/whatever, etc.
I think that this might sound frustratingly “holistic” and vague, rather than analytical and targeted. But I basically see this sequence as a fairly “birds eye view” perspective that contains within it many specifics. And as I say in the third post:
Relatedly, I don’t think this sequence has a much stronger focus on one of those pipes/paths/intervention points than on others, with the exception that I unfortunately don’t say much here about dissemination and use of research.