Big data, small data…

I work with small data primarily. This means that my research is largely interpretive, qualitative. However, I recently conducted a national survey of faith-based schools (for a book that is due to be released in Fall 2017) and used that in conjunction with semi-structured interviews. While the tension between qualitative and quantitative researchers remains – with each looking at the other with skepticism – I think we need to find a common language and mutual respect for each other’s methods.

As much as I believe in the value of big data to help us understand the big trends and nationally representative samples, there are reasons to be skeptical as well. Here is a short video on the dangers of ‘big data’.

Ms.Roy is talking about the national ID or Aadhar card that the government in India is trying to implement. The claim being made by the government is being questioned here. What she is pointing to is a pervasive problem. Especially with communities that don’t have access to data sciences or are unable to access them – due to high entry barrier, or costs.

What do you think?

Does transparency in philanthropy matter?

David Fahrenthold won the Pulitzer for reporting this year, for reporting on Donald J Trump Foundation, the current President’s charity. His entry into this subject is interesting, as he points out in this video.

Transparency, accountability and efficiency are the new trinity of philanthropy it seems. With greater calls for accountability and transparency, the American public is asking for more. But is this call being met by donors or those who run foundations? I am not quite sure.

One of the biggest criticisms of foundations is their lack of transparency and lack of accountability to anyone. Foundations are started by wealthy individuals, who want to create a certain change in the world. Often, it is for good. However, there are instances, as we have seen in the current political climate, where individuals have gone against commonsense and scientific consensus to fund climate change deniers, anti-public school initiatives etc. How does this bode well for democracy?

The answer is all too clear. Not too well.

But the Pulitzer committee seems to have recognized the importance of this issue in choosing Fahrenthold as the winner.

Does philanthropy need to be re-framed?

When we use terms like philanthropy, usually it means giving away of the money by the wealthy to those who are well off. In recent times, this notion has come to be challenged. While the billionaires give money to causes both locally and internationally, it is often with a lot of fanfare and publicity.

On the other hand, there are also quite a lot of Hi-Networth individuals who give anonymously. This is a fact not well known. If you look up lists like the Million Dollar List, for instance, you will find many multi-million dollar gifts that are given away anonymously.

While the scholarship on philanthropy has predominantly focused on the giving practices of the rich, I ask : Is it time we started looking – with more seriousness – the giving practices of the not so rich. The middle class, the poor even. The Giving USA is one of the most comprehensive survey of its kind, that tracks nationally, the giving behavior of Americans, it does a great job of capturing what is going on in the country. At the same time, there needs to be greater attention to the philanthropy of the underdogs. Horizontal giving among the poor, to the poor is also a significant phenomenon.

Giving of charity from African Americans to other African Americans for instance, is an under-studied phenomenon. While there are some excellent biographical accounts of such individuals, a more careful analysis must be carried out. The same must be done across other minority and ethnic groups, where there is great community solidarity and attempts at helping each other. This fact has been documented by scholars such as Robert Wuthnow, among others.

Kambiz Ghaneabassiri writes in his book A History of Islam in America that Black slaves in GA practiced a form of giving of charity – giving of rice cakes – to their neighbors, as a form of ‘charity,’ which he traces to possible roots in Islamic practices of ‘Sadaka.’ This is an interesting finding and one that builds on our understanding of how inter-community relations are formed, through giving practices.

Similar practices exist among other communities as well, and these deserve greater attention. Especially, given that the election of Trump came about through the perceived and (to some extent) real disenfranchisement – primarily economic, though- of the working class Whites in the US, perhaps there needs to be greater focus on how poor communities, across all racial and ethnic communities practice giving and helping each other. Insights in these areas may actually help address some real problems that our country faces. This may well be one of the smaller solutions to building communal harmony and better understanding between the different people that make up this country.

Can celebrity philanthropy be harmful?

Remember the ads in which Angelina Jolie comes out and shames the world for ignoring the plight of refugees?  Or the Bono concert for helping AIDS victims? While each of them have done incredible good in the world, there is an argument out there; and it is a fairly strong one that goes like this : Since these celebrities are part of a governing regime of capitalism that causes this poverty in the first place; they are not doing anything substantive to address/ ameliorate poverty. They are just putting a bandage over a wound that is bleeding a patient to death.

Here is a scholarly paper by one of my PhD committee members, who helped me think about this aspect when I was a Phd candidate. I was aware of some of the negative influences of celebrity culture. This whole notion of attention seeking has never appealed to me. While attention seeking for a purpose is OK, most celebrities seek attention for  the sake of attention, that has never appealed to me.

Patricia Nickel says in her paper  “modern-day parables of philanthropic celebrities powerfully govern the oppositional impulse as they impart as sense of ‘benevolence’ in the form of an individualized disposition towards well-being and entitlement.” She further argues that this ‘governing regime’ which the celebrities sanitize with their appeals to charity is itself rotten.

In another paper, she, along with another scholar Angela Eikenberry argue that “However, this discourse (of celebrity philanthropy) falsely conveys a community of individuals with access to a venue for shaping social change. Rather than providing an open, discursive space for imagination, philanthropy as it has come to be defined, disguises its own discourse in its portrayal of the mediums of consumption, profit, and media celebration as the basis for benevolent human relations.” So, the issue that is problematic is one of relying on the market to manage relationships of benevolence. The buying of a laptop to eradicate AIDS (Red’s campaign) is problematic, according to Nickel and Eikenberry. This is also problematic given the ‘end of discourse’ that they suggest is going on.

This is also to suggest that while celebrities bring up certain problems, they don’t really talk about the structural problems that caused the crisis we are in, in the first place. This is the real issue with celebrity philanthropy.

While I agree with her assessment that there is an over-reliance of market mechanism for philanthropic activities, we seem to be enveloped in the market, the world over. There seems to be little space, if any for transactions or discourses to occur outside of the market mechanism. How does one impact lives outside of the market mechanism?

There are mechanisms and tools available to reach people and meet their needs. One is to explore traditional systems of charity, for instance religious giving to one’s place of worship or charitable organizations that are faith-affiliated. My dissertation work looked at some of these possibilities.

Indeed there needs to be greater space for personal benevolence and charity to occur, but the manner and speed with which celebrity philanthropy is occurring is not without its flaws.

Are corporations going to save America?

With the recent Executive Order banning entry of people from seven Middle Eastern countries, the nation is in uproar. This order also includes refugees, who were fleeing violence and oppression in Syria, among other countries.

The fact that several companies such as Lyft and Starbucks have stepped up and spoken out against this order is heart-warming. While Lyft donated a million dollars to ACLU, Starbucks has announced that it will hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years, globally. Others such as Uber, have stood by the government’s decision – either by inaction or by remaining silent. And for this, many of their customers are punishing them.

What does this mean, fundamentally? At the surface level, it looks like a bunch of corporations standing up to the President of the US.

At a deeper level it could mean that even the President of the US cannot stop globalization. It also means that corporations are interested in keeping diversity intact, especially in a country such as the US, which was built by immigrants and refugees.

What does this signal for the future of Corporate Social Responsibility? We will have to wait and watch, as this could mean a new era of social justice issues taking forefront, rather than other forms of CSR activities being pursued.

At least for now, this is a welcome sign that some of the biggest and most influential firms will not stand by when the fundamental values of their business are threatened.  They may at least contribute to the ‘saving of America’ from forces that want to make it exclusive, mean and small.

What role do U.S. foundations play abroad?

The role of American foundations – those that dole out money to causes – has been controversial for a long time. For those who know the history, it is a well-known fact that private foundations arose from the wealth of wealthy industrialists, who wanted to use their wealth for ‘common good.’

The ‘Robber barons’ of the 19th century were scrutinized for their use of wealth and often criticized for how they made their wealth, often by not paying their workers enough and suppressing labor unions. This trend seems to have changed, for foundations are universally accepted as being forces for ‘good.’ While there is some criticism among academics, there seems to be  an emerging consensus among academics and even nonprofit professionals that private foundations are necessary – even if they end up distorting ground realities in societies where they function.

Recently released book ‘Unequal Partners’ by Fabrice Jaumont examines the role of American foundations in the space of Higher education in Africa. Jaumont offers a nuanced perspective of how American foundations have operated in the continent. While there is a clear understanding that each foundation comes with its own cultural understanding of what is relevant and what is not, the book takes a hard look at the operating conditions of these foundations and the countries where they work.

An observation he makes is relevant : He suggests that there seems to be a bias towards English speaking projects/ countries, where American foundations operate and among French speaking countries, there is a greater influence/ support from France/ Francophone foundations, reflecting a bias from the days of the colonial powers.

An area of conflict is when research priorities of the universities receiving the grants dont match those of the grantees. For instance, Jaumont points out “Grantees must compete for grants and although their research agendas do not always match those of donors, their priorities are realigned in order to access the available funds.” (p.125). This also complicates issues of ownership and priorities of national development, emanating from the local governments. All these are terribly complex situations and the reason for much confusion. He suggests that many of the foundations contributed positively by increasing the capacity of these universities to carry out work, both by training and increasing the IT infrastructure.

Jaumont also enforces the idea that collaboration is needed, between the foundations; given that no single foundation can solve the complex problems that are before the nation.


Is American philanthropy exceptional?

In discussions I have had with some friends in the past few weeks, a theme has emerged. This theme is one of how Americans view their own giving or philanthropy.  While  a friend suggested that Americans viewed their own philanthropic practices as being exceptional, it is worthwhile to see if this is true or not.

By ‘exceptional’ I mean one that is uniquely its own and one that cannot be understood by the logics of another framework of philanthropy.

For sure, American philanthropy has its origins in how American civil society emerged – with its own neighborhood associations and societies for self-help. Alexis Tocqueville, the French aristocrat who documented the American society during his visit in his Democracy in America gives a good overview of how this society functioned and operated.

In the book, Tocqueville wrote of the equality that Americans had – while noting that slavery still existed and also that native-Americans were mistreated. These points are worthy of mention, given that American civil society has always had this tension and battle of ideas. And of course, the contradictions inherent within this system.

As we observe MLK Day, we are witnessing the same tension in American society, almost two hundred years ago. We celebrate the life of an icon, who spearheaded the civil rights movement and gave new meaning to ‘service’ and effortless giving to the cause of one’s nation and community, while days away from inaugurating a President who not only believes in American exceptionalism, but has also won his election based on many falsehoods and a divisive agenda.

While we can compare American philanthropy with that of other countries and find much that is exceptional – indeed there are elements that make American philanthropy stand out. There is also much that ties American philanthropy to that in other parts of the world , especially given that even today more than one-third of giving is to religious institutions and causes. This is a global trend and one can see religious giving as being very high on the giving radar of most people around the world, with the exception of Western Europe.