Do funders use knowledge to inform and improve their work? If so, how do they use it? What role does it play? Find out what Lindsay Louie & Fay Twersky’s research discovered about how funders make decisions.


Photo courtesy: Freepik

Lindsay Louie & Fay Twersky worked with two companies–Harder+Company and Edge Research–to conduct a first-of-its kind collaborative field scan aimed at understanding how knowledge products influence philanthropic practice in the United States.

The field scan included a survey with 738 foundation employees, 75 interviews with a representative sample of foundation staff and board members, and four in-depth case studies.

Below is an excerpt from their article. More in-depth insights from their research can be found here.

Funders do use knowledge.
Importantly, we found that knowledge does indeed influence funders’ practice. Funders primarily use it to question or affirm current practice, and to compare their foundation to the field.

Peers are the main way funders seek out knowledge.
Funders’ primary source for knowledge is peers and colleagues (92 percent), followed by conferences, email/newsletters, and grantee interactions.

Curation is important.
One challenge facing knowledge producers is that foundation staff feel overwhelmed by the volume of information coming at them, regardless of whether or not they ‘opted-in’ to receive it. Similarly, foundation boards say they face their own firehose of information and generally look to staff to curate knowledge about philanthropic practice; it rarely reaches them directly.

Grantees are an important source of knowledge.
More than two-thirds of survey respondents (67 percent) cited grantee interactions as one of the main ways they seek out knowledge. This finding stood out to us because while power dynamics between funders and grantees may sometimes inhibit candor, it’s clear that many funders recognise grantees’ valuable expertise.

There are no ubiquitous trusted sources.
We were most surprised to find that, with some important exceptions, trust in and loyalty to specific knowledge producers and disseminators seemed relatively low. No specific knowledge producer was cited as a trusted source by substantially more than 25 percent of respondents.

Knowledge alone is insufficient for making practice change.
Last but certainly not least, for a knowledge product to catalyse or contribute to change, it must be part of a larger process that includes trust, accessibility, peer support, organisational readiness, and leadership support and interest. Change is a complex process, and knowledge is but one piece of the puzzle. Knowledge can spark or help catalyse change, but it’s rarely sufficient on its own.


When we embarked on this scan in partnership with the organisations we fund, our hope was that our findings would both help us better understand the assumptions embedded in our strategy, and provide grantees with more-nuanced and relevant data to inform their work. It has succeeded at both. Together with the organisations we fund, we are committed to repeating this research in a few years.

We want IDR to be as much yours as it is ours. Tell us what you want to read.
Stanford Social Innovation Review

Stanford Social Innovation Review

Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) is published by the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at Stanford University. It seeks to advance, educate, and inspire the field of social innovation by seeking out, cultivating, and disseminating the best in research- and practice-based knowledge. SSIR informs and inspires millions of social change leaders from around the world and from all sectors of society—nonprofits, business, and government. With webinars, conferences, magazines, online articles, podcasts, and more, SSIR bridges research, theory, and practice on a wide range of topics, including human rights, impact investing, and nonprofit business models.

Write A Comment

Close Icon