Our technological progress has also afforded us opportunities to collaborate with other groups in the philanthropic ecosystem in new ways to increase our impact. When philanthropic data can be accessed more easily, we can deduce best practices and strategic opportunities based not only on what our own organization has done, but what others have done as well. It simply allows us to be better learners.
Paradigm Shift Definition
The evolution of technology in philanthropy has provided us with incredible time savings, a robust system of record, and a chance for increased knowledge sharing and collaboration. A Cultural Shift With the benefits afforded to us by technology, we hypothetically have more time than ever to engage in meaningful, high-level work. But how will we use the extra time? Suspend disbelief for a moment.
The sheer amount of possibilities can seem a little overwhelming. What is our single truth? How does what we do compare to what we say we do? How can we work better, together as a sector? This is easier said than done. We need to start thinking: what can we learn from this partnership?
This program? This success or that failure? The organizations that will make the biggest impact will be the ones that are constantly learning. It comes from you, the human using the technology. During the Flint water crisis, there was an outpouring of support — dollars and volunteers rolled into the town ready to make an impact. Sure, a ton of water and filters were coming into town, but what else did they need?
Were there organizations already involved who would be a good fit to partner with? What knowledge about the community did the local charities have that they should know before going in? These massive hurricanes have caused billions of dollars of damage and left tens of thousands without homes and electricity. As heart-wrenching photos and videos circulated in the press and on social media, a wave of donations of supplies, money, manpower, and time landed in the affected regions. Despite the advanced notice of the storm, there was confusion and anxiety over where donations should go to be used most effectively.
What if the type of information charities need to make the best impact was readily available the second that an organization wanted to start a program?
- Are We There Yet? Travels with my Frontline Family.
- Background to the establishment of ImPACT?
- These 4 Major Paradigm Shifts Will Transform The Future Of Technology.
- Post navigation?
- Gutenberg the Geek (Kindle Single).
The answer to this question unlocks the true democratization of philanthropy. StormHelpers formerly provided full-spectrum disaster funding, but decided to focus their program efforts on food, since data they had collected over the course of several years revealed they had the highest impact per dollar in that area. StormHelpers reaches out to these local charities, local government, and the people affected by the storm, and starts discussing how best to combine efforts.
Rather than competing with the local efforts, StormHelpers knew where they excelled and plugged their funding efforts in where they were most effective. Lisa has no handle on what the local philanthropic network in a storm-strewn area like Houston or Florida looks like. Luckily, she can easily find a list of organizations in the region who 1 have already been approved for funding, so she knows her dollars are building on an existing plan, 2 have a history of high impact, so she knows her money is going to make a difference and 3 work in specific program solutions that appeal to Lisa on an individual level.
Direct comparison pairs the pre-change and post-change vibration intensities without a gap in between after a change has been missed to support the use of relative judgment rather than absolute.
While all significantly improve performance, the second and third countermeasures are most effective. Though comparatively little research has been done on change blindness in other animals, a few species of animals exhibited the same effects of change blindness as humans. Using the same motion detection paradigm for monkeys as humans, researchers found the results were the same in showing change blindness in motion. The results show that the same levels of attention is demanded for chimpanzees as humans in these tasks.
This method was used in the first, , experiment. A change is made in an image at the same time as the image is moved in an unpredictable direction, forcing a saccade. This method mimics eye movements and can detect change blindness without introducing blank screens, masking stimuli or mudsplashes.
In this paradigm, an image and an altered image are switched back and forth with a blank screen in the middle. The first finding is that it usually takes a while for individuals to notice a change even though they are being instructed to search for a change. The second important finding is that changes towards the middle of a picture are noticed at a faster rate than changes on the side of a picture. Individuals who are tested under the forced choice paradigm are only allowed to view the two pictures once before they make a choice.
These studies have shown that even while participants are focusing their attention and searching for a change, the change may remain unnoticed. Mudsplashes are small, high contrast shapes that are scattered over an image, but do not cover the area of the picture in which the change occurs. This mudsplash effect prevents individuals from noticing the change between the two pictures. Previously, it has been stated that humans hold a very good internal representation of visual stimuli.
The future tech infrastructure for philanthropy: 10 per cent tech, 90 per cent paradigm shift
Studies involving mudsplashes have shown that change blindness may occur because our internal representations of visual stimuli may be much worse than previous studies have shown. The foreground-background segregation method for studying change blindness uses photographs of scenery with a distinct foreground and background. Researchers using this paradigm have found that individuals are usually able to recognize relatively small changes in the foreground of an image. Various studies have used MRIs magnetic resonance imaging to measure brain activity when individuals detect or fail to detect a change in the environment.
When individuals detect a change, the neural networks of the parietal and right dorsolateral prefrontal lobe regions are strongly activated. In addition, other structures such as the pulvinar , cerebellum , and inferior temporal gyrus also showed an increase in activation when individuals reported a change.
A decrease of activation in these brain areas was observed if a change was not detected by the organism. Other studies using fMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging scanners have shown that when change is not consciously detected, there was a significant decrease in the dorsolateral prefrontal and parietal lobe regions. In addition to fMRI studies, recent research has used transcranial magnetic stimulation TMS in order to inhibit areas of the brain while participants were instructed to try to detect the change between two images.
If the PPC is inhibited, the area of the brain responsible for encoding visual images will not function properly. The information will not be encoded and will not be held in working memory and compared to the second picture, thus inducing change blindness. The role of attention is critical for an organism's ability to detect change. In order for an organism to detect change, visual stimulation must enter through eye and proceed through the visual stream in the brain. A study in demonstrated that if the superior colliculus responsible for eye movements of a monkey's brain is electrically stimulated, there would be a significant decrease in reaction time to detect the change.
Organisms are only able to detect this change once the visual stimulation comes through the eye its movements are controlled by the superior colliculus and is subsequently processed through the visual stream. Age has been implicated as one of the factors which modulates the severity of change blindness. Children from 6—13 years old looked at colored pictures of real world scenes that were manipulated by color, location of objects, or the removal of objects, in the central or peripheral focus of the image. Adults are more accurate when noticing the changes that occur in the picture.
Children can accurately detect central changes, but aren't as good at detecting peripheral changes, and their accuracy depends on the type of manipulation. Younger drivers average of 22 years old were compared with older drivers average of 69 years old. Images were presented on a screen showing various driving situations that included an original image and a modified image, and participants had to identify where a change had occurred in the modified version, if any.
Older drivers expressed reduced accuracy, higher reaction times, and more false positive responses compared to younger drivers. Attention is another factor that has been implicated in change blindness. Increasing shifts in attention decrease the severity of change blindness  and changes in the foreground are detected more readily than changes made to the background of an image, an effect of the intentional bias for foreground elements. Community volunteers had to focus on a screen and accurately identify if there was a change between series of dots after being fixated on a point in the center of the screen.
Distraction of attention by visual disruptions and the observers' ability to focus on potential change were found to have an effect on attention with change blindness. Object presentation is the way in which objects appear and is a factor that determines the occurrence of change blindness.