Seeing is believing: A qualitative study examining how high and ultra-high-net-worth donors utilise evidence to inform their giving and the barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence

IF 1.5 Q3 BUSINESS Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1002/nvsm.1809
Caroline Greenhalgh, Paul Montgomery
{"title":"Seeing is believing: A qualitative study examining how high and ultra-high-net-worth donors utilise evidence to inform their giving and the barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence","authors":"Caroline Greenhalgh,&nbsp;Paul Montgomery","doi":"10.1002/nvsm.1809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Whilst there is growing recognition across the non-profit literature, that the giving of resources ought to be informed by rigorous evidence, few studies to date have examined how high and ultra-high-net-worth donors use evidence to inform their philanthropy, the type and quality of the evidence they utilise, and how they measure the performance of the charities they support. The primary objective of this study was to examine whether and how philanthropists employ evidence to inform their decision-making. We employed in-depth qualitative research methods to elicit the perspectives of philanthropists on how they engaged with evidence and, in so doing, filled a gap in the data. We found barriers to utilising evidence included challenges in accessing evidence, difficulties in assessing the quality and appropriateness of evidence and insufficient resources to capture evidence. Facilitators of evidence use included: making evidence more accessible and enhanced access to professional philanthropy advice and advisors. Despite growing awareness of the importance of evidence, few donors employed sound evidence-based models of philanthropy.</p>","PeriodicalId":100823,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/nvsm.1809","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nvsm.1809","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Whilst there is growing recognition across the non-profit literature, that the giving of resources ought to be informed by rigorous evidence, few studies to date have examined how high and ultra-high-net-worth donors use evidence to inform their philanthropy, the type and quality of the evidence they utilise, and how they measure the performance of the charities they support. The primary objective of this study was to examine whether and how philanthropists employ evidence to inform their decision-making. We employed in-depth qualitative research methods to elicit the perspectives of philanthropists on how they engaged with evidence and, in so doing, filled a gap in the data. We found barriers to utilising evidence included challenges in accessing evidence, difficulties in assessing the quality and appropriateness of evidence and insufficient resources to capture evidence. Facilitators of evidence use included: making evidence more accessible and enhanced access to professional philanthropy advice and advisors. Despite growing awareness of the importance of evidence, few donors employed sound evidence-based models of philanthropy.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
眼见为实:一项定性研究,探讨高净值和超高净值捐赠者如何利用证据为其捐赠提供信息,以及利用证据的障碍和促进因素
尽管越来越多的非营利性文献认识到,资源的捐赠应当以严谨的证据为依据,但迄今为止,很少有研究探讨高净值和超高净值捐赠者如何利用证据为其慈善事业提供依据,他们所利用的证据的类型和质量,以及他们如何衡量其所支持的慈善机构的绩效。本研究的主要目的是考察慈善家是否以及如何利用证据为其决策提供依据。我们采用了深入的定性研究方法,从慈善家的角度了解他们如何利用证据,从而填补了数据上的空白。我们发现,利用证据的障碍包括获取证据方面的挑战、评估证据质量和适当性方面的困难以及获取证据的资源不足。促进证据利用的因素包括:使证据更易获取,以及增加获取专业慈善建议和顾问的机会。尽管人们日益认识到证据的重要性,但很少有捐助者采用健全的循证慈善模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
From Corporate Artification to Artification in the Third Sector The Stepwise Artification Process in Luxury Fashion: Strategic Integration With the Arts and Collaboration With Non-Profit Institutions Evolution of the “Hierarchy of Engagement” Model Over a Decade: Examining Social Media Use to Inform, Activate, and Create Community Issue Information Going Beyond Philanthropy: A Dual Process Approach to Examine How Consumers Punish Brand Misanthropy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1