We want to create an academic study of How the empathy circle, as developed by Edwin Rutsch, can help resolve polarization between democrats and republicans. Give me a plan on how to fund this study?
Here is a practical, multi-tiered funding plan specifically tailored for an academic study on how the Empathy Circle (as developed by Edwin Rutsch) reduces polarization between Democrats and Republicans. This approach mixes academic, philanthropic, governmental, and community-based funding streams to maximize feasibility and credibility.
Before funding, lock in the study type—this will shape budget, partners, and funders.
Possible formats:
University-based RCT (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Mixed-methods longitudinal study (qualitative + quantitative)
Field experiments with civic organizations
Dyadic or group physiological-empathy study (heart rate, GSR, fNIRS, etc.)
Budget ranges from $50k – $2M, depending on ambition.
These are the most credible sources for a polarizing-topic study.
Programs:
Human-Environment & Geographical Sciences (HEGS)
Social Psychology
Science of Learning and Augmented Intelligence
Political Science Program
Why good: NSF funds polarization, deliberation, conflict resolution, group dynamics, and civic engagement.
Target: $250k–$1M
Known for funding:
empathy
human flourishing
moral psychology
bridging divides
Target: $250k–$750k
Programs:
Dialogues on the Experience of Democracy
Public Humanities Projects
Focus: civic dialogue, democratic practice, community healing.
Target: $50k–$150k
Supports:
social-emotional learning
empathy in education
community-based research
Target: $75k–$500k
Such as:
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services → Community Mental Health & Social Cohesion
USAID local conflict stabilization funds
New initiatives from the White House Office of Civic Bridgebuilding
Focus: empathy, bridging divides, civic harmony.
High probability fit.
Funds:
depolarization efforts
civic dialogue
democratic strengthening
Invests in projects improving democratic culture.
Funds international dialogue & empathy research.
Focus: love, forgiveness, empathy, democracy.
Strong mission alignment.
Currently funding “bridging divides” and constructive dialogue.
Focus: community wellbeing → includes social cohesion.
Partner with:
psychology departments
political science departments
conflict-resolution centers
peace studies programs
Sources:
Internal seed grants ($5k–$50k)
Graduate student research funds
Faculty innovation funds
Interdisciplinary centers (e.g., “Bridging Divides Initiative” programs)
Strategy: Find one academic PI (principal investigator) and co-develop a proposal.
Companies that fund social connection, trust-building, or depolarization:
Meta Research (especially for group-dynamics, conflict resolution)
Google.org
Microsoft Philanthropies
LinkedIn Social Impact
Zoom Cares (given that Empathy Circles use Zoom heavily)
Targeted ask: $25k–$150k for pilot experiments, tech support, or measurement tech.
Some states and cities have social cohesion funds.
For example:
CA 501(c)(3) mental health funding on community healing
CA state-level civic engagement funding (depending on election cycle)
County-level community grants for dialogue initiatives
Use community backing to demonstrate interest:
Kickstarter / GoFundMe for the pilot
Patreon for ongoing research updates
Donorbox for Empathy Center supporters
Goal: $5k–$20k to pay for early pilot data to strengthen larger grant proposals.
Funders want:
Researcher partners (respected academics)
Clear hypotheses
Impact on democracy
Measurable outcomes
Your unique selling point:
Edwin Rutsch’s Empathy Circle is one of the few structured, scalable, replicable, open-source empathy-building protocols with strong anecdotal evidence of reducing polarization, yet no large-scale academic RCT exists.
To succeed, create a standard funding package:
What is the Empathy Circle?
Study description
Polarization relevance
Expected outcomes
Background research
Methodology
RCT or quasi-experimental design
Measures: political attitudes, trust, physiological correlates, etc.
Budget
Timeline
PI (academic)
Co-PI (psychologist or political scientist)
Empathy Circle facilitator coordinator
Data analyst
External evaluator
Find a professor in:
social psychology
political psychology
peace/conflict studies
communication science
Approach:
Make a list of 10–15 potential partners
Offer co-authorship and full research collaboration
Purpose:
Produce early data
Demonstrate feasibility
Identify potential flaws in methodology
Build credibility for large grants
Sources: community donors, small foundation grants, university seed grants.
Choose two top target funders:
NSF
Templeton
Einhorn
Create:
A master proposal
Two customized versions
You’ll need:
Republican participant recruitment partners
Democratic recruitment partners
Civic bridgebuilding partners (e.g., Braver Angels, Living Room Conversations)
These partners make the proposal stronger.
Once early publications come out:
Seek multi-year academic grants
Create a Center for Empathy & Depolarization Research
Open doors to corporate support for AI + empathy research
Pilot Study: $10k–$30k
University-backed RCT: $200k–$500k
Multi-year national study: $1M–$2M
If you'd like, I can generate:
A full 2-page funding pitch
A detailed budget
A grant proposal outline
A list of 20–40 high-value funders with contact info
Recruitment plan: Democrats vs Republicans
Academic partner outreach email template
Just tell me which you want.
Give me this report and with links to the organizations and programs mentioned.
Here is a refined funding-report (2–page style) for your academic study on Empathy Circles + polarization, with links to the key organizations and funders mentioned. (You can adapt or extract sections for grant proposals.)
Project Aim: Investigate how the Empathy Circle (as developed by Edwin Rutsch) can reduce affective and cognitive polarization between Democrats and Republicans.
Significance: Polarization is a major threat to democratic trust, institutional legitimacy, and civic collaboration. Research on structured, dialogic interventions like Empathy Circles is underdeveloped in rigorous academic studies, especially randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Innovation: The Empathy Circle is a scalable, replicable, human-centered process that may foster listening, vulnerability, and perspective-taking — all central to bridging divides.
Here are funders and grant programs that align well with this kind of study, plus links and relevant programs.
see the links https://chatgpt.com/g/g-p-691ec2ade5d081919653a9fc933c4aae-empathy-study/c/69224866-2050-832e-a6ea-450750adcdab
Seed / Pilot Phase ( ~$10–30K)
Use Einhorn Collaborative: apply for a small grant to run pilot Empathy Circles, collect qualitative and preliminary quantitative data.
Combine with university matching funds (e.g., internal seed grant).
Full Academic Study (e.g., RCT, 1-2 years, $200K–$500K)
Submit to NSF Political Science Program (or equivalent) for a rigorous RCT: randomly assign participants (Dem / Rep) to Empathy Circle vs control, measure outcomes (trust, affective polarization, behavioral intentions).
Simultaneously apply to Templeton Foundation, highlighting the character-development, virtue, and empathy angle.
Scale / Long-term Study ($1M+)
Combine multi-year grants from Templeton, Hewlett, and potentially Einhorn Collaborative.
Build a research center (or project team) to replicate in different geographic / political contexts.
Partner with Constructive Dialogue Institute for implementation & scalability.
Leverage Partnerships
Civic organizations for recruitment (e.g., Braver Angels). Braver Angels is a well-known nonprofit working on bridging partisan divides. Wikipedia
Academic partners in political science, psychology, communication, conflict resolution.
Media / dissemination via GGSC: share findings in ways that influence public discourse.
Risk: Political sensitivity / backlash, particularly from funders who may view “bridging” work as partisan.
Mitigation: Frame the project as nonpartisan, academic social science research. Use rigorous methods, pre-registered hypotheses.
Risk: Low recruitment of true cross-partisan participants.
Mitigation: Partner with civic bridgebuilding orgs (such as Braver Angels) and use stratified recruitment to ensure balanced ideology representation.
Risk: Measuring “empathy” and “polarization” is challenging.
Mitigation: Use validated survey instruments, pre- and post-measures, potentially physiological measures (if budget allows), and mixed-methods (qualitative interviews).
Draft a two-page pitch deck / executive summary including objectives, methods, and budget.
Identify and reach out to potential academic partners (professors in political science, psychology, communications).
Apply for a pilot grant from Einhorn Collaborative + university internal seed funding.
Once pilot data is collected, refine and write full grant proposal for NSF + Templeton.
Explore partnerships with CDI, Braver Angels, and other civic organizations to scale the project.
If you like, I can turn this report into a real grant-proposal outline, with sample budget, timeline, and deliverables — do you want me to do that?