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?
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_ed31de92-1c8f-46bb-a5eb-61b34be39ceb
Research suggests that structured empathy practices, like those developed by Edwin Rutsch, may foster dialogue and reduce partisan animosity, though outcomes can vary based on participant engagement and context.
Funding such a study is feasible through targeted grants from foundations and academic programs focused on polarization, empathy, and conflict resolution, but success often depends on strong proposals demonstrating measurable impact and interdisciplinary collaboration.
It seems likely that combining government, philanthropic, and alternative sources could cover costs, while acknowledging the competitive nature of grants and the need for balanced perspectives on politically sensitive topics.
Developing a funding plan for this study involves identifying aligned funders, crafting compelling proposals, and building partnerships. Start by framing the research as an intervention in political polarization, emphasizing empirical methods like surveys, controlled dialogues, and longitudinal assessments to evaluate how Empathy Circles—structured listening exercises promoted by the Center for Building a Culture of Empathy—might bridge divides between Democrats and Republicans. Collaborate with academic institutions in political science or psychology for credibility, and include Edwin Rutsch or his organization as a consultant to authenticate the practice. Budget estimates could range from $50,000–$500,000 depending on scope (e.g., pilot vs. multi-site study), covering participant recruitment, facilitation training, data analysis, and dissemination.
Research and Preparation (1–2 Months): Review funder guidelines, gather preliminary data on Empathy Circles (e.g., from existing case studies), and draft a proposal highlighting hypotheses, methods, and potential societal benefits. Secure institutional review board (IRB) approval if affiliated with a university.
Targeted Applications (Ongoing): Apply to 5–10 sources simultaneously, tailoring each to the funder's priorities—e.g., polarization for Carnegie, empathy for Templeton. Track deadlines and prepare for multi-stage processes like inquiries followed by full proposals.
Diversification and Follow-Up: Supplement with crowdfunding for smaller needs and university internal funds. Follow up with funders, and if rejected, seek feedback for revisions.
Execution and Reporting: Upon funding, adhere to grant terms, including progress reports and public dissemination to build a track record for future grants.
Several organizations support research on empathy, polarization, and conflict resolution. Here are priority options with links:
Carnegie Corporation of New York (Andrew Carnegie Fellows Program): Focuses on political polarization research; offers up to $200,000 for scholars. Nomination-based; details at https://www.carnegie.org/programs/andrew-carnegie-fellows/.
John Templeton Foundation: Funds projects on character development, including empathy; submit Online Funding Inquiries via https://www.templeton.org/grants/apply-for-grant.
Ford Foundation (Global Initiative on Polarization): Supports interventions in dialogues and narratives to counter polarization; grants nominated by regional offices, learn more at https://www.fordfoundation.org/learning/library/learning-reflections/closing-the-divide-inside-our-global-initiative-on-polarization/.
Social Science Research Council (SSRC) Democratic Anxieties in the Americas Research Grants: Up to $10,000 for comparative studies on political inequalities; apply via https://ssrc.secure-platform.com/a/solicitations/1064/home.
Arthur W. Page Center (Page/Johnson Legacy Scholar Grants): Calls for proposals on advocacy in polarized contexts; deadline January 15, 2026; guidelines at https://pagecenter.psu.edu/legacy-scholar-grants/grant-guidelines.
American Psychological Foundation (APF) Visionary Grants: Up to $20,000 for psychology-based interventions on prejudice and violence; deadline April 3, 2026; apply via GivingData portal at https://ampsychfdn.org/funding/visionary-grants/.
For alternatives, consider crowdfunding platforms like Experiment.com for public engagement.
In an era where political polarization between Democrats and Republicans has deepened, evidenced by increasing partisan animosity and reduced cross-aisle collaboration, innovative interventions like the Empathy Circle practice offer a promising avenue for exploration. Developed by Edwin Rutsch, founding director of the Center for Building a Culture of Empathy, Empathy Circles are structured, facilitated dialogues where participants alternate between speaking and reflective listening to build mutual understanding and empathy. This practice, often conducted in small groups, emphasizes active listening without interruption, aiming to humanize differing viewpoints and reduce emotional barriers. Rutsch's work, documented through resources like empathycircle.com and cultureofempathy.com, has been applied in various contexts, including workshops, online sessions, and community events, with anecdotal reports suggesting it can foster tolerance and dialogue across divides. However, rigorous academic studies are needed to empirically assess its efficacy in resolving political polarization, such as through metrics like reduced affective polarization (dislike for the opposing party) or increased willingness to compromise.
This detailed strategy and plan outlines how to secure funding for such a study, drawing from a synthesis of available grants, best practices in proposal development, and alternative funding mechanisms. The plan is designed to be actionable, with phased timelines, risk considerations, and integration of URLs for direct reference. It assumes the study would be led by an academic researcher or team affiliated with a university or nonprofit, incorporating mixed-methods approaches (e.g., qualitative interviews, quantitative surveys, and experimental designs) to evaluate Empathy Circle outcomes in politically diverse groups.
Phase 1: Pre-Funding Preparation (Months 1–2)
Before applying, build a strong foundation to enhance competitiveness. Begin by refining the research question: "To what extent can Empathy Circle practices mitigate political polarization between Democrats and Republicans, as measured by changes in empathy levels, trust, and policy agreement?" Conduct a literature review on related topics, such as empathy's role in conflict resolution and existing studies on bridging divides. Collaborate with Edwin Rutsch via his LinkedIn profile or the Center's site to incorporate authentic practice elements and potentially co-author proposals.
Develop a preliminary budget: Allocate
40% to personnel (researchers, facilitators trained in Empathy Circles),
30% to participant incentives and logistics (e.g., virtual or in-person sessions),
20% to data analysis tools, and
10% to dissemination (publications, conferences).
Total costs might range from $100,000 for a pilot study to $300,000+ for a multi-year, multi-site project. Secure partnerships with universities (e.g., via internal grants from political science departments) or think tanks like the Polarization Research Lab for co-funding or in-kind support.
Ensure ethical compliance, including IRB approval for human subjects research, and emphasize inclusivity by recruiting diverse participants across demographics to address potential biases in empathy interventions.
Phase 2: Identifying and Prioritizing Funding Sources (Ongoing)
Funding for this interdisciplinary study—spanning political science, psychology, and conflict resolution—can be sourced from philanthropic foundations, government agencies, academic associations, and alternative platforms. Prioritize sources with explicit foci on polarization or empathy, as they align closely with the study's goals. Below is a table summarizing key opportunities, including eligibility, amounts, deadlines, and application links. This table draws from a review of over 20 sources, favoring those with recent calls for proposals.
Funding Organization
Focus Areas Relevant to Study
Eligibility
Grant Amount
Deadline
Application Link/Process
see table
https://grok.com/c/3ef227be-1364-41cf-87d9-0bcf60b96057
Carnegie Corporation of New York (Andrew Carnegie Fellows Program)
Political polarization causes, effects, and solutions; enhancing social cohesion through research.
Scholars (academics or writers) nominated by experts; U.S.-focused but open to comparative work.
Up to $200,000
Nomination-based; check annual cycles (e.g., 2026 class).
https://www.carnegie.org/programs/andrew-carnegie-fellows/; FAQ at https://www.carnegie.org/news/articles/andrew-carnegie-fellows-program-info/#faq.
John Templeton Foundation
Character development, empathy, compassion; potential intersections with polarization via virtue-building interventions.
Charitable entities (universities, nonprofits); individuals rarely funded.
Varies ($100,000–$1M+); multi-stage.
Rolling OFI submissions; review calendar at site.
Submit Online Funding Inquiry via https://portal.templeton.org/.
Ford Foundation (Global Initiative on Polarization)
Dialogues for empathy-building, narratives to counter disinformation, institutions for inclusion; global but U.S.-applicable.
Organizations nominated by Ford regional offices; focus on social justice leaders.
Varies (multi-year grants).
Nomination-based; no open call.
https://www.fordfoundation.org/learning/library/learning-reflections/closing-the-divide-inside-our-global-initiative-on-polarization/; contact regional offices.
Social Science Research Council (SSRC) – Democratic Anxieties in the Americas
Political representation, inequalities, judicial politicization; comparative studies on democratic erosion.
Recent PhDs or ABD students in social sciences; Americas-based researchers.
$5,000–$10,000
Check portal for updates; previous calls open.
Apply via https://ssrc.secure-platform.com/a/solicitations/1064/home.
Arthur W. Page Center (Page/Johnson Legacy Scholar Grants)
Social responsibility, advocacy in polarized climates; ethical communication on divisive issues.
Researchers in public relations/communications; open to interdisciplinary teams.
Varies (project-based).
January 15, 2026
Guidelines at https://pagecenter.psu.edu/legacy-scholar-grants/grant-guidelines; email PageCenter@psu.edu.
American Psychological Foundation (APF) Visionary Grants
Preventing violence, reducing prejudice/stigma; psychology applied to vulnerable populations or social problems.
Graduate students or early-career researchers (≤10 years postdoc); affiliated with nonprofits/ institutions.
Up to $20,000 (10 grants).
April 3, 2026
Apply via GivingData portal; details at https://ampsychfdn.org/funding/visionary-grants/.
JAMS Foundation/ACR Initiative
Conflict resolution education, including empathy training for youth/adults; peacemaking programs.
Nonprofits for K-12+ education; open to academic projects.
Varies ($10,000–$50,000).
Annual calls; check site.
https://acrnet.org/page/JAMSGrant; https://www.jamsadr.com/acr/.
National Science Foundation (NSF) – Sociology or Political Science Programs
Social processes, polarization, group dynamics; empirical studies on conflict and cooperation.
U.S.-based researchers/institutions.
Varies ($50,000–$500,000).
Proposal windows (e.g., January/July).
Search programs at https://www.nsf.gov/funding/index.jsp; e.g., Sociology at https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/sociology.
American Political Science Association (APSA) Grants
Advancing political science research, including polarization and civic engagement.
APSA members; students/scholars.
Small grants ($1,000–$5,000).
Varies by program.
https://apsanet.org/resources/grants-in-the-discipline/.
Aim for at least 5–10 applications to diversify risks, as grant success rates are often below 20%. For government sources like NSF, emphasize scientific merit and broader impacts; for foundations like Templeton, highlight ethical and virtue-based outcomes.
Phase 3: Proposal Development and Submission (Months 3–6)
Craft proposals tailored to each funder. A strong proposal includes: (1) Introduction to the problem (e.g., citing Carnegie Endowment research on polarization's links to violence); (2) Literature review on empathy interventions (e.g., Templeton-funded empathy training projects); (3) Methodology (e.g., randomized controlled trials of Empathy Circles with pre/post surveys); (4) Expected outcomes and dissemination plan (e.g., publications, policy briefs); (5) Budget and timeline; (6) Team credentials, including ties to Rutsch's work.
Submit via specified portals, and prepare for reviews by external experts. If invited, revise based on feedback.
Phase 4: Alternative and Supplementary Funding (Parallel to Phases 2–3)
If traditional grants fall short, leverage crowdfunding for seed funding or public engagement. Platforms like Experiment.com specialize in scientific research, where campaigns can raise $5,000–$50,000 by sharing compelling stories (e.g., "Help Test Empathy Circles to Heal America's Political Divide"). Steps: Define goals, choose platform, craft campaign with videos of Empathy Circles, and promote via social media. University internal grants, such as those from political science departments (e.g., Rice University's PSURF at https://politicalscience.rice.edu/undergraduate/funding), can provide $100–$500 for initial work. Explore bridging initiatives like Princeton's Bridging Divides for partnerships or small grants.
Phase 5: Post-Funding Management and Sustainability (Months 7+)
Upon award, comply with reporting (e.g., SSRC requires essays for their Items forum). Use results to apply for larger follow-on grants, such as Open Philanthropy's polarization-focused funding. Disseminate findings through journals, conferences, and Rutsch's networks to amplify impact.
Risks and Mitigations
Competition is high, so mitigate by applying broadly and seeking mentorship from funded researchers (e.g., via APSA). Polarization's sensitivity requires balanced framing to avoid perceived bias. If funding gaps occur, phase the study (pilot first via crowdfunding). Overall, this plan positions the study as a timely contribution to democratic health, with empathy as a tool for reconciliation.
Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States
Closing the Divide: Inside Our Global Initiative on Polarization - Ford Foundation
Andrew Carnegie Fellows Program | Carnegie Corporation of New York
Grants for Political Science Students - College Scholarships.org
Grants in the Discipline - American Political Science Association
How to crowdfund your research project? A step-by-step guide
Funding | Undergraduate Studies | Department of Political Science - Rice University
Training Empathy and Compassion through Engagement with Fictional Worlds - Templeton
Harvard University — Political Polarization App | Open Philanthropy
3 strategies to help Americans bridge the deepening partisan divide
Key Points on Empathy Circles Case Studies
https://grok.com/c/3ef227be-1364-41cf-87d9-0bcf60b96057
Research suggests that Empathy Circles, a structured dialogue practice developed by Edwin Rutsch, can foster mutual understanding and reduce conflicts in diverse settings, though rigorous empirical studies remain limited.
It seems likely that applications in families, workplaces, and political dialogues help participants feel heard, leading to emotional catharsis and stronger connections, with anecdotal evidence highlighting benefits like improved communication.
Evidence leans toward positive outcomes in addressing polarization, such as in activist groups or between opposing views, but results vary based on facilitation and participant engagement, acknowledging that not all conflicts resolve fully through empathy alone.