We want to create an academic study of How the Empathy Circle practice, as developed by Edwin Rutsch, can help resolve polarization between democrats and republicans. Give me a detailed strategy and plan on how to fund this study with URL links to the organizations and references mentioned?
You’re aiming to show how Empathy Circles—pioneered by Edwin Rutsch—reduce affective and ideological polarization. Below is a complete plan: study design, funding strategy, grant calendar, budget, and a credible reference scaffold with direct URLs.
Research questions and hypotheses
Primary question: Do Empathy Circles reduce affective polarization and increase cross‑party trust between Democrats and Republicans?
Hypotheses:
Empathy Circles will decrease outgroup animus and social distance.
Empathy Circles will increase perceived listening quality, empathic concern, and willingness for future cross‑party engagement.
Effects will persist at 1–3 month follow‑up.
Population, sampling, and recruitment
Participants: Registered Democrats and Republicans (balanced by age, gender, race, and geography).
Sampling frame: Community organizations, civic groups, university clubs, faith communities, and online signups.
Incentives: Small stipends or charitable donation credits to encourage completion across waves.
Intervention conditions
Treatment: Standard Empathy Circle format (structured turn‑taking, reflective listening, timekeeping, trained facilitator). See practice materials from Edwin Rutsch and Empathy Summit transcripts that discuss facilitation efficacy and movement-building considerations empathysummit.com edwinrutsch.com.
Control A: Unstructured dialogue (same topic, no facilitator or rules).
Control B: Brief text-based perspective-taking prompt (online exercise).
Control C (optional): Content-only exposure (watch one bipartisan issue briefing video; no interaction).
Measurement plan
Pre–post surveys:
Affective polarization (feeling thermometer toward outgroup).
Social distance (willingness to have outgroup as neighbor, coworker).
Perceived listening, empathic concern, and accuracy of reflective paraphrase.
Political misperceptions and issue-specific knowledge checks.
Behavioral intentions (future cross‑party contact, volunteering).
Behavioral outcomes: Sign-up rates for follow-up circles; cross‑party contact logs.
Follow-up windows: 1 month and 3 months.
Qualitative: Post-session open-ended reflections; thematic coding of trust, dignity, and mutual understanding.
Process fidelity: Session recordings coded for adherence (turn-taking, reflection accuracy, equal time). IRB planning and variable control were explicitly flagged in prior Empathy Circle discussions—useful for operationalizing group size, turn-taking intervals, and feedback mechanisms Defining Empathy.
Design and analysis
Design: Cluster randomized trial (participants randomized by session to intervention vs. controls to minimize spillover).
Power: Target N=300–600 for detectable medium effects across groups.
Analysis: Mixed-effects models with session-level clustering; pre-registered analysis on OSF; subgroup analyses (ideology strength, political interest).
Ethics and IRB
IRB: Apply through partnering university; include safeguards for political stress and confidentiality. Prior discussions on IRB needs and data collection in Empathy Circle working meetings underscore the procedural requirements Defining Empathy.
Start with a broad portfolio of foundations and partners that prioritize democracy strengthening, pluralism, and civic dialogue. Combine grants, sponsorships, and fee-for-service pilots with civic organizations.
Funder type: Organization
Focus fit
Why this study aligns
Link
Philanthropy: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (Madison Initiative)
Reducing polarization, improving Congress and civic culture
Rigorous RCT on dialogue interventions fits democracy strengthening and evidence-based field-building
https://hewlett.org/strategy/madison-initiative/
Philanthropy: Einhorn Collaborative
Building a culture of connection and pluralism
Empathy Circles operationalize social connection across difference
https://einhorncollaborative.org/
Philanthropy: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Health and community well-being
Reducing social fragmentation supports community health and resilience
Philanthropy: John Templeton Foundation
Character/virtue, civility, curiosity
Empathy as intellectual humility and civility; supports experimental research
Philanthropy: Fetzer Institute
Love and forgiveness, community healing
Dialogic practices that heal divides match mission
Philanthropy: Charles Koch Institute (Civic Life)
Free expression, civil discourse
Structured empathy may foster viewpoint diversity and civility
https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/
Philanthropy: Knight Foundation
Informed communities, trust, local civic life
Community-based pilots with media partners; evaluation-friendly
Civic partner: Braver Angels
Depolarization programs
Co-recruitment pipeline; cross-validation; venue partnerships
Civic partner: National Institute for Civil Discourse
Civil dialogue, research
Academic credibility; evaluation guidance
Academic: Stanford Polarization and Social Change Lab
Polarization research
IRB host, methods support, co-authorship potential
Academic: Penn’s Center for Social Norms & Behavioral Dynamics
Behavioral interventions
Design nudges for follow-up participation
Government: National Endowment for the Humanities (Dialogues on the Experience of War; civic)
Public dialogues, humanities framing
Issue-based circles tied to humanities content and civic reflection
Corporate CSR: Microsoft, Meta, Google
Responsible AI, civic integrity
Sponsor tech-enabled facilitation, measurement infrastructure
https://www.microsoft.com/corporate-responsibility / https://about.fb.com/company-info/ / https://about.google/philanthropy/
Sources: Empathy practice and facilitation context from Empathy Summit and Edwin Rutsch’s sites empathysummit.com edwinrutsch.com.
Partnership anchors
Empathy Center / Empathy Circle Network: Provide facilitator training, session standards, and public-facing materials that contextualize impact for funders. Finance-focused sessions in the Empathy Circle community have already explored movement funding and investor outreach, offering narrative hooks for proposals empathycircle.com empathycircle.com.
Empathy Circle finance page: https://www.empathycircle.com/schedule/schedule-2025/2025-03-23-finance empathycircle.com
Empathy Summit Empathy Circle (movement strategy, trust building): https://www.empathysummit.com/dates/oct-4-2025-movement/empathy-circle-10-4 empathysummit.com
Edwin Rutsch services: https://www.edwinrutsch.com/ edwinrutsch.com
Phase 1: Pre‑proposal (Weeks 1–6)
Concept note (2–3 pages): Problem, intervention, methods, outcomes, and policy relevance.
Letters of support: Empathy Center, at least one university lab, and a bipartisan civic partner.
Pre‑registration: Draft analysis plan for OSF; list primary/secondary outcomes.
IRB scoping: Begin materials; note previous community discussions highlighting IRB, variables, and conflict-handling protocols Defining Empathy.
Phase 2: Targeted submissions (Months 2–5)
Philanthropy rounds: Hewlett Madison Initiative LOI; Templeton small grant; Fetzer convenings; Einhorn pilot funding.
Civic co-funding: Braver Angels and NICD for site access and in-kind support.
Corporate CSR: Apply for measurement tooling and facilitator scholarships.
NEH/Humanities framing: If topic-based circles align with civic humanities, submit under appropriate track.
Phase 3: Pilot and scale (Months 6–12)
Pilot RCT: 8–12 cohorts across 3–4 regions; refine facilitator scripts and fidelity checks.
Interim brief: Share early neutral results to build trust; schedule funder learning session.
Scale grant: Use effect sizes and cost-per-point reduction in polarization to justify multi-year expansion.
Personnel: PI, co‑PI, project manager, data analyst, qualitative coder, IRB coordinator.
Facilitation: Lead trainers from Empathy Center; facilitator stipends; training workshops.
Participant costs: Recruitment, incentives, travel or virtual platform credits.
Measurement: Surveys, transcription, coding, data storage, statistical software.
Evaluation partner: External auditor for credibility.
Communications: Public report, policy brief, webinar series.
Contingency: 10% for recruitment variance.
Typical 12‑month pilot budget: $350k–$650k; 24‑month scale: $1.2M–$2.0M.
Empathy Circle finance and movement discussions: Resource hub for funding narratives and investor outreach.
Finance session page (ideas and strategy links): https://www.empathycircle.com/schedule/schedule-2025/2025-03-23-finance empathycircle.com
Finance planning recap (charging for training, merch, donation pitch): https://www.empathycircle.com/schedule/schedule-2025/2025-05-04-finance empathycircle.com
Empathy Summit session (movement-building, trust, structured circles): Transcript and summary useful for facilitator training appendices.
https://www.empathysummit.com/dates/oct-4-2025-movement/empathy-circle-10-4 empathysummit.com
Edwin Rutsch—services and empathy culture building: Use in bios, facilitator credentials, and project capability section.
https://www.edwinrutsch.com/ edwinrutsch.com
IRB/data design considerations mentioned in community meetings: Acknowledge prior planning and incorporate into the protocol.
https://www.definingempathy.com/meetings/2025/2025-10-21 Defining Empathy
These materials can be cited in proposals to demonstrate established practice frameworks, facilitator training standards, and the community’s prior attention to evaluation and ethics empathycircle.com empathysummit.com edwinrutsch.com Defining Empathy empathycircle.com.
Pre‑registered outcomes: Affective polarization; social distance; perceived listening and empathy; behavioral intentions; session fidelity metrics.
Quarterly memos: Enrollment, attrition, adherence, interim effect sizes.
Final report: Executive summary, methods appendix, codebook, anonymized datasets (if permitted), facilitator manual updates.
Policy brief: Actionable recommendations for civic organizations and campuses.
Open webinars: Share learnings with funders and partners; invite replication.
Recruitment bias: Partner with bipartisan groups; quota sampling for ideology strength and geography.
Facilitator variance: Centralized training; fidelity checks; cross‑session supervision from Empathy Center trainers edwinrutsch.com.
Backfire risk: Include a warm-up protocol and clear norms; offer optional debrief resources; IRB-approved distress protocols Defining Empathy.
Attrition: Use staggered incentives and short surveys; schedule-friendly session windows.
Secure partners: Empathy Center, one university lab, one bipartisan civic org.
Empathy Center resources: https://www.edwinrutsch.com/ edwinrutsch.com
Draft concept note and IRB outline referencing prior community planning signals Defining Empathy.
Submit LOIs to Hewlett, Einhorn, Templeton, Fetzer, RWJF.
Line up facilitators and training dates leveraging Empathy Summit learnings empathysummit.com.
Pre‑register and launch pilot cohorts; schedule funder learning session at Month 6.
Publish interim brief; apply for scale-up grants with effect sizes and cost metrics.
If you want, I can tailor the concept note and a 2‑page LOI for any one of the funders above, and draft the IRB summary with measures and scripts drawn from Empathy Circle facilitation materials.