That makes sense! And thanks for pointing out the potential interpretation/vibe of spuriousness which I think it’s right to be sceptical of.
It has an impact driven theory of change that makes sense / a fairly rational researcher with the knowledge at the time would go for seems like an important additional bullet point.
I think it’s interesting to specifically think about whether any features of communications etc made it especially easy for people to enage with in addition to the theory of change / research in itself making sense (at least to me at the time and also to some extend now)
I’m most interested in features that don’t change relative prioritization much, but absolute levels if there are such, since purely relative interventions are only useful if you can do better at prio than the community which seems hard.
That makes sense! And thanks for pointing out the potential interpretation/vibe of spuriousness which I think it’s right to be sceptical of.
It has an impact driven theory of change that makes sense / a fairly rational researcher with the knowledge at the time would go for seems like an important additional bullet point.
I think it’s interesting to specifically think about whether any features of communications etc made it especially easy for people to enage with in addition to the theory of change / research in itself making sense (at least to me at the time and also to some extend now)
I’m most interested in features that don’t change relative prioritization much, but absolute levels if there are such, since purely relative interventions are only useful if you can do better at prio than the community which seems hard.