Data Analysis was my favorite class in business school. Two reasons why:
1. I’m a big dork.
2. I love when there is a Right Answer.
It’s a messy, messy land we all live in. So it is exciting to say: This Is Correct. We celebrate not only solving the problem but the fact that a neat and clear solution exists in the first place.
The trend in philanthropy is to push for measurable results. “Trend” is likely the wrong word, as it implies some fleetingness, and most philanthropists argue that this is a lasting paradigm shift. Sean over at Tactical Philanthropy makes the excellent analogy to the same shift that happened in medicine, when that field was revolutionized by employing evidence-based metrics. It reshaped the whole field. Oh, and now we’re all living longer. Bonus!
Eighty-percent of me loves this. Giving should be based on the numbers! Right answers will abound!
But the other 20% is a tad worried. Because data-driven paradigms only care about things that can be measured with data.
Medicine focuses on things that are measurable. Like the length of a person’s life. It ignores questions that can’t be answered with data. Like the quality of a person’s life. And so we have a culture of data-driven medicine that only focuses on extending the number of days of a life, even if that “life” is a mess of tubes thrust into a mere shell of a person.
We’re living longer. But are we living better?
Recipients of our gifts may have more because of us. But are they happier because of us?
Data analysis can zero in on the right answer. We just can’t let it for the wrong problem.
**
Likey? Get updates through a reader by subscribing here or have posts delivered directly to your email.
Sean Stannard-Stockton // Aug 4, 2010 at 6:01 am
You are exactly right. I think the shift in philanthropy towards supporting organizations that actually make a difference is critical. But this doesn’t mean that “data” can figure everything out. Social scientists still don’t fully understand human behavior and society nearly well enough to come close to proving what works and what doesn’t all of the time.
In the article you cite, I also wrote “Importantly, the medical community has realized that while evidence-based decision making is critical, it does not suggest that removing the human doctor from the equation is the end game. Evidence-based decision making does not mean turning to spreadsheets and statistics, but instead allows doctors to draw on a deep evidence base when making case by case decisions.”
Your point about living longer vs better is perfect. Personally, I’d like to live better.
Panaso Nic // Aug 4, 2010 at 11:22 am
I really respect Warren Buffet. It would be very easy for him to just hold onto all his dollars and avoid sharing, but he loves individuals who have less money than him.
Brigid // Aug 4, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I loved that quote from your post.
Now I’m wondering… is giving a way that we can live better?
Thanks for your thoughts.
John Godfrey // Aug 4, 2010 at 11:36 pm
I am hoping that 80 percent of me will live 80 percent longer!
Undoubtedly statistical analysis is beneficial for broadly based fundraising such as direct mail and web/electronic appeals.
However, when we are seeking major gifts – in my view the most effective form of fundraising – we deal with whole units.
Incidentally, so do doctors!
John
Mazarine // Aug 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Here’s what I think Brigid.
People are not going to live happier until we all have income equality a bit more than we have now.
There was an interesting article about this, a researcher found out that you actually CAN buy happiness, it costs about $60,000 a year, and anything more than that isn’t going to make you measurably happier, but anything below that is going to cut your life short by stressing you out. So. Now the question becomes, how can we get income parity in our lifetimes?
I wrote a blog post about this here
http://www.wildwomanfundraising.com/uncharitable-culture-of-destitution/
and would love to get your comments on it.
Mazarine
Brigid // Aug 17, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Mazarine – love this post. I like the idea of more income parity in theory, but not sure how in practice to achieve it. I’ve heard economists say “all boats rise together” and philanthropists say “boats clearly are not rising together.” Perhaps more research is needed, but what are we doing in the meantime? No clear thoughts from me, yet, but you’ve given me something to ponder. And for this I thank you muchly!