FWIW, I think this sequence is intended to be relevant to many more âpipelinesâ than just that one (if we make âpipelineâ 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 oneâs worldview etc. could also influence many decisions smaller than what topic/âquestion 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/âor 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 doesnât say much about dissemination or use, and I think that thatâs a weakness of the sequence, but itâs in theory âin-scopeâ)
I think thereâs basically a lot of pipelines that intersect and have feedback loops. I also think someone can âspecialiseâ for learning about this whole web of issues and developing interventions for them, that many interventions could help with multiple pipes/âsteps/âwhatever, etc.
I think that this might sound frustratingly âholisticâ and vague, rather than analytical and targeted. But I basically see this sequence as a fairly âbirds eye viewâ perspective that contains within it many specifics. And as I say in the third post:
When youâre currently designing, evaluating, and/âor 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 âusersâ or âexpertsâ.
Relatedly, I donât think this sequence has a much stronger focus on one of those pipes/âpaths/âintervention points than on others, with the exception that I unfortunately donât say much here about dissemination and use of research.
FWIW, I think this sequence is intended to be relevant to many more âpipelinesâ than just that one (if we make âpipelineâ 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 oneâs worldview etc. could also influence many decisions smaller than what topic/âquestion 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/âor 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 doesnât say much about dissemination or use, and I think that thatâs a weakness of the sequence, but itâs in theory âin-scopeâ)
I think thereâs basically a lot of pipelines that intersect and have feedback loops. I also think someone can âspecialiseâ for learning about this whole web of issues and developing interventions for them, that many interventions could help with multiple pipes/âsteps/âwhatever, etc.
I think that this might sound frustratingly âholisticâ and vague, rather than analytical and targeted. But I basically see this sequence as a fairly âbirds eye viewâ perspective that contains within it many specifics. And as I say in the third post:
Relatedly, I donât think this sequence has a much stronger focus on one of those pipes/âpaths/âintervention points than on others, with the exception that I unfortunately donât say much here about dissemination and use of research.