Heart or head?

The role of research in giving decisions is not clear-cut. Whilst many donors, particularly those who describe themselves as ‘new philanthropists’, advocate using data and research-based information, other donors emphasise the importance of following their passions and trusting their emotional impulses in making decisions about giving. Philanthropy UK spoke to a number of donors, advisers and researchers to ask what is the right balance between ‘heart’ and ‘head’ in giving decisions.

Many people that we spoke to argued that there is room for both. “Head versus heart is a false dichotomy”, says Martin Brookes, Chief Executive of New Philanthropy Capital (NPC). “The only truly defensible position is to tie your heart to the fates of those you wish to help and use data, analysis and research to find out which charitable causes, organisations and solutions can maximise the impact on other people’s lives”.

“Thinking and feeling are not mutually exclusive”, concurs Patricia Walls, research officer at the National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO). “Asking whether it is our heads or our hearts that most influence giving is a more complex question than this simple juxtaposition implies.”

However, a number of people we spoke to made claims for the importance, and growing role, of research to both individual philanthropists and to the wider philanthropic sector. 

Theresa Lloyd, an adviser on philanthropy to individuals and institutions, argues there is growing evidence that research matters to philanthropists. “One only has to look at the success of Philanthropy UK and the fact that the Guide to Giving is about to go into its third edition, the growth and influence of New Philanthropy Capital, websites such as Intelligent Giving, magazines such as Alliance and the increasing number of intermediaries using data to support would-be donors. Clearly there is a demand for guidance on how to give well, how to identify competent charities in the chosen sectors, how to assess the effectiveness of a particular intervention and how to ensure that money will be well spent”. 

One donor who supports the proposition that both research and passion matter, is Dr Helen Bowcock, a fundholder with the Surrey Community Foundation and a member of its grants policy committee. Speaking to us in a personal capacity, Helen says, “Some good research that matters has been prompted, in the first instance, by a personal feeling of injustice or by no more than a sense of indignation that something is not right. For example, we are told in a new report by the Policy Exchange think tank that the government’s SureStart programme lacks an appropriate evidence base and that it is out of touch with what parents and their children need. Contrast that with the humble dedication of a couple of volunteers in my own community who established a group for very young, marginalised mothers and their children, out of sympathy and frustration that their specific needs were not being accommodated elsewhere. My own decision to invest a few thousand pounds to fund this group’s annual budget was prompted by an emotional response to their vulnerability and to an awkward realisation that I had never really understood the concept of social exclusion. Emotion was necessary to move my own assumptions along and to trigger a much more rational reflection on the reasons why these women and their children find themselves in such great need.”

Liz Goodey, Head of Research at CAF (Charities Aid Foundation), recognises the situation described by Helen, where donors want access to credible information to support their giving decisions. Liz says, “Many donors want to find a way to plan their giving, and ensure that their donation is as effective as possible. Yet people often do not know where to start their research. CAF often receives requests for guidance from potential donors who want to choose a charity to support, perhaps by identifying a local charity, the cause that receives the least money, or the charity which spends the least on administration.”

However, Theresa Lloyd also notes that ‘head’ and ‘heart’ are more important at different stages of the philanthropic journey. “As donors gain experience they learn to trust their own judgment, appreciate the joys of learning more about the issues first hand, and develop their own sense of what questions to raise and where intervention may be most effective. In my experience, once donors have become passionate about a cause, detailed analyses and reports from the charity become far less important than personal judgement, confidence in the competence of those delivering the mission and relationships with charity staff and other donors. Trust in those who have become partners in the philanthropic journey and links with beneficiaries create a strong emotional bond and as time goes on it becomes less and less likely that donors will be influenced in their giving by external research and advice”. She added, “where people are passionate from the start, and confident in their own judgment, such as in the arts or supporting their university, little or no research will be undertaken.”

There is widespread agreement that donors’ demand for reliable research is on the increase. But does research matter to charities, policymakers and the wider philanthropic sector? Liz Goodey is unequivocal, “research-driven behaviour is not just for donors, it is also vitally important for charities and the wider sector to take research seriously in order to be well informed about giving behaviours and philanthropy.”

Joe Saxton, Driver of Ideas at nfpSynergy and outgoing Chair of the Institute of Fundraising, makes an equally strong case for the universal importance of research. “Research matters because all of us see the world through the filters of our perceptions and our experience, through the lens of our prejudice and our desires. So we see the things that reinforce our prejudices and screen out those loose threads that don't. Without research, without that independent evidence that research provides, we can often fall into the trap of taking for granted as true what are commonly-held prejudices. But research is not a tool that works best in isolation but rather when it is answering questions. For example: Do tax incentives make a difference to how much people give? Is duty, altruism, embarrassment, guilt or ego the best reasons to get people to give? Would donors give more or less if higher-rate tax went to the charity instead of the donor? Sadly people find it all to easy to answer these questions irrespective of the evidence of research - and all too often dress up their theories as facts, and convert the prejudice of what they want into self-evident truth.”

A number of people express hope that the newly established Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy will enhance both the quantity and quality of useful information. Patricia Walls of NCVO is optimistic, “the new Centre is well-placed to develop the knowledge required to increase donations and improve the practices of giving. It will create not just new knowledge about giving but knowledge on what can be done to inspire more giving”. But Joe Saxton strikes a more cautionary note, “The reality is that there is not enough good research out there that helps understand how to get people to give more. The new Centre may produce more good research (though I'm not holding my breath), which provides more insight. But whoever and however it gets done, we need to go on asking and rigorously answering those questions.”

In conclusion, there is general agreement that research plays a vital role in translating people’s passions into practical action, but it must be conducted to the highest standards to ensure credibility and to inspire confidence amongst those seeking to use it as a basis for decision-making. Reflecting on the question of whether giving is, or should be, primarily driven by research or emotion, Liz Goodey of CAF reflects the sentiments expressed by many. “People are often told not to let their heart rule their head, but I believe that it is our heart that tells us to give to charity, and it is often our head that controls how and who we give to.”