Rising Wisely

Note: This is the 3rd part in a series on my experiences at the Games for Change Festival

In a panel on Funders Perspectives Laura Callanan from the Social Sector office at McKinsey & Co., ran a well moderated discussion of the kinds of things foundations and funding bodies are looking for in games as agents of change.

Jessica Goldfin from the Knight Foundation discussed how many organizations need help in understanding the value and potential of games in the first place, even though they are funding them.  She suggested that audience, cost, goals, and maintenance were key variables that needed addressing in any proposal.

Ben Stokes, program officer at the MacArthur Foundation, went into the culture at MacArthur and described how they operate using questions to drive their strategy.  He said that they almost always value proposals that are phrased in the form of a question–that is, what is the driving goal of the project?  In this way, grants are tools that the foundation uses to answer questions for themselves.

Arlene deStrulle, representing the education directorate of the national Science Foundation, predictably emphasized that NSF needs evidence based projects that demonstrate quantitatively defensible solutions–especially on games that already exist.

I asked a question about international funding since almost none of the discussion over the two days even touched on people trying to do this work anywhere other than the United States. Ben Stokes discussed MacArthur’s expansion of the Digital Media and Learning program to include international recipients, but he added that it something they are only starting to develop.

Someone asked a question of all the panelists and wondered about the roles that artists and creative entrepreneurs can play in the current funding landscape.  Ms. deStrulle attempted a reasoned response, but she, like many, clearly misunderstands the role of artists and designers today, favoring instead the “early modern interpretation” as the questioner pointed out.  I was a bit surprised that she didn’t mention work being done at the NSF which specifically enfranchises artists and creative types as catalysts for robust design and creative opportunities.

Ben Stokes followed up on the question, pointing out that funding for arts is something that everyone is struggling with.  Too bad none of the panelists really understood the question’s intent–which was that artists and designers (or diversity in general) make significant contributions socially and methodologically to the problem-solving processes that were under discussion.  This theme of human resources and social capital never really surfaced in the conference, overshadowed instead by questions of measurement, education, and issues development.