On Field Building
Announcing a new interview series + an invitation to get involved as a researcher.
I owe you a third essay.
The previous two laid the groundwork:
“Small, Fast Grants at the National Science Foundation” — On the blindspots and weaknesses of the federal funding ecosystem, especially regarding small, fast grants.
“Where are the field builders?” — Lessons from our funding experiments at Experiment and an appreciation of the unsung, emerging heroes of technoscience: the field builders.
The third piece—how to measure and improve the pipeline of field builders—remains unwritten, but for good reason.
After publishing the second essay, I heard from many field builders, both seasoned and aspiring. They shared their stories, frustrations, and hopeful nuance. I’ve delayed the third essay to account for the added interest in the idea, which needed more time to steep.
In the meantime, I’m taking the research public. Here are two updates:
On Field Building
I’m recording an interview series with established and successful field builders. I’ve just published the first with Tito Jankowski of Airminers. More will be published soon.
You can listen to these interviews on all the regular podcasting platforms, but it’s not a podcast. They are in-depth, unpolished discussions meant to tease out lessons and wisdom. It’s open-source research for future essays and curriculum development.
An Experiment experiment
As Matt Clancy mentioned on his Substack today, we’re looking for a researcher to study the science funding experiments we’ve been running at the Experiment Foundation, including the field building idea mentioned in the previous essay. The scope of possible engagement is wide. Read the matchmaking memo for more details.
We are interested in research questions such as:
Who is effective at funding science through the Science Angel program?
What characteristics define successful Science Angels?
How do microgrants influence the trajectory of new scientific fields and researchers?
How do field builders operate, and what strategies make them successful?
What lessons can be drawn to improve future models of decentralized science funding and field-building?
A mix of methodologies could be employed, including:
Quasi-experimental designs (e.g., difference-in-differences or matched comparisons)
Surveys and interviews with past and current Science Angels, field builders, and grantees
Analysis of grant outcomes, including follow-on funding and scientific progress metrics
RCT feasibility assessment, considering how controlled experiments could be structured for future iterations of the program
Are you the right metascientist for the job? Email us.
It feels strange to offer your whole organization up for an RCT. I suspect few CEOs, politicians, or directors would willingly subject their entire corpus of work to such rigid constraints or public accountability. It’s an existential gamble for the organization.
But it matters, now more than ever.
Startups make bet-the-company decisions all the time—it’s where all the upside is. They’re supposed to take those odds. The metascience experiments in science—the funding, research, and institutions—should aspire to the same type of risk-taking.
Good on Matt Clancy for instigating.