Can Anybody Critique Funders' Choices?

We're all free to comment, but the holders of the purse strings make the decisions.

Thu, 03/28/2013
Gary Rosenblatt
Gary Rosenblatt

Philanthropist Michael Steinhardt is one of the key founders and funders of the Birthright Israel program, providing free 10-day trips to young Jews from around the world.

He is also the benefactor of the Steinhardt Social Research Institute at Brandeis University, which has evaluated the Birthright trips and found them to be highly effective in terms of influencing positive feelings about Israel and enhancing Jewish identity among program participants.

As a result, some educators have raised questions about the seeming conflict of interest, implying that the findings may be biased in favor of presenting Birthright in a most favorable way.

In several articles and presentations questioning whether free programs like Birthright ultimately are good or bad for the Jewish community — whether they coddle and spoil young people rather than prepare them to pay their own way — David Bryfman of the New York-based Jewish Education Project has said that “free initiatives often have solid research that supports them — and in almost all cases this research has been commissioned by the same people who fund the initiatives.”

The implication is that such practice is improper and highly suspect. But some social scientists say that it is common and does not pose an ethical dilemma.

The latest round of debate on the subject took place at a panel I moderated on “The Cost of Free” at the international conference of the Jewish Funders Network in Los Angeles last week.

Bryfman, director of the New Center for Collaborative Leadership at the JEP and a rising star in the field of Jewish education, summarized some of the reasons why he questions the widely praised practice of free programs, from Israel trips to books for children to synagogue services. He said that providing them at no cost might cheapen their value rather than heighten Jewish identity down the road.

He was challenged most directly by fellow panelist Mark Charendoff, a board member of Birthright (and of The Jewish Week) and former president of the Jewish Funders Network. He argued that Birthright donors had confidence in their program and, like businesses that increase brand loyalty by giving out free samples of their product, the donors were succeeding in increasing Jewish identity among participants as a result of the trips.

The session heated up when Bryfman asserted that “the lead researcher at Brandeis” said publicly, at a conference last spring on Birthright data, that the first several years of evaluations of Birthright were done to please the donors. He was referring to Leonard Saxe, a prominent social psychologist and director of the institute.

“We have a research dilemma,” Bryfman said, “when we’re scared to ask certain questions of certain people.”

When challenged by an audience member about the statement attributed to Saxe, Bryfman said he was in the room when Saxe said it last May.

Saxe, in an interview the day after the panel session, strongly denied the allegation and said that the comment he had made, and which may have been misinterpreted, was that “we probably would not still be in the business of research [of Birthright] if the results had not been positive.”

He stressed that his work is independent, and offered several examples indicating that he and his team bent over backward to avoid accusations of pro-Birthright bias. He noted, for example, that while some had encouraged interviewing Birthright participants about the experience while they were still on the Israel trip, or at the airport coming home, he insisted on delaying the interviews for months so as “to separate from the glow of the experience.”

Saxe also asserted that the Steinhardt gift to Brandeis in creating the research institute “has absolutely no strings attached and doesn’t restrict my work in any way. We have total independence.”

(Steinhardt is widely known for his willingness to give and take criticism.)

The larger point Saxe emphasized, regarding how foundations and other Jewish organizations commission research, is that “the key issue is the rigor of the study. Far more important than who funds a project is the question of whether funders allow researchers to apply state-of-the-art methods and encourage open dissemination of the products.”

The fact is that there are only a handful of key researchers in the Jewish community doing studies on population figures, assimilation, religious practice and other key elements of Jewish life, with an eye toward communal planning. And invariably, each new study tends to be criticized and questioned by competing experts in the field.

Some attribute this kind of professional sniping to the decision by the Jewish Federations of North America to suspend its National Jewish Population Study, a longstanding, once-a-decade major project. The last one, in 2001, was particularly expensive, complicated and the subject of intense scrutiny and controversy regarding its methodology. But sociologists now bemoan the fact that there has been no national Jewish population survey since then.

Lee Shulman, an educational psychologist and professor emeritus at the Stanford University School of Education, is familiar with Jewish organizational life and gave the closing talk at the Birthright conference at Brandeis last May. Shulman, who has worked closely with another titan of Jewish philanthropy — the Jim Joseph Foundation — said he “absolutely did not hear” Saxe make the statement attributed to him by Bryfman, adding that he “would have leaped out of my seat” if he had heard such a comment.

He also asserted that “not only is it not unusual for the same funder to fund both a project and the research on it, but it is the norm. It’s not new or unique to the Jewish world.”

He said he wished, though, that the research institute at Brandeis had not had Steinhardt’s name on it so as to avoid unfair criticism of its work. And he added that “the big mistake” made regarding publicizing Birthright research was in holding a major public conference after the first findings were released, more than a decade ago.

The data was so positive regarding the participants’ feelings about Israel and Jewish life that it gave the impression that the researchers had “crossed the line from careful research to public relations,” Shulman said. “It was too early out of the gate,” and prior to “careful peer review.”

Shulman said Saxe was criticized by some of his colleagues for releasing the full data too slowly. But he said Saxe was still working on the database at that time and probably “didn’t want others to get ahead of him.”

Shulman’s overall advice, based on more than 50 years in the profession, was for Jewish foundations to work “with their eyes open and base decisions on real facts, and not fantasies.”

As for Bryfman, he now has officially retracted his allegation about Saxe, and says he has apologized to him. “I’m pulling back on that statement,” he says, adding that while he was “quite persuaded by the [Birthright] research” itself, he still believes it would be best if independent bodies did the evaluations."

But the sense persists that there are Jewish professionals who look upon the handful of major funders of national Jewish educational projects as sacred cows, with the risks too high in challenging their work and motives.

It was Bryfman who said at the outset of his remarks at the panel last week that he might be committing “professional suicide” in voicing his concerns. Still, he said the same thing last year, when he first introduced his criticism, and appears no worse for wear.

The question that remains is whether there is any communal body that could, or should, critique how foundations and funders choose to spend their money in the cause of Jewish survival and continuity.

Some spend thoughtfully, others don’t, and we’re all free to comment. But as long as they hold the purse strings the decisions are up to them, as it should be.

Gary@jewishweek.org 

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

Comments

As a social scientist and a member of Leonard Saxe's research team, I find David Bryfman's allegation as disturbing as it is ridiculous. Saxe does not research the Taglit-Birthright Israel program alone. To cast aspersions on his good name and the integrity of his team’s research is to tarnish simultaneously the reputations of every one of his colleagues who worked with him on the evaluation of the Taglit-Birthright Israel program. Neither Saxe individually nor the rest of us collectively have done anything to warrant such an accusation.

I have been fortunate to work with Saxe on the evaluation of the program since the beginning of Taglit’s second year, first as his student and more recently as his colleague. Along with the dozens of other researchers who worked on the evaluation and whose names appear on the many published reports about the program from the Cohen Center/Steinhardt Institute research team, I can personally attest that there is nothing fabricated about our findings, whether regarding the program’s tremendous impact on participants’ lives or any other topic. Most tellingly, our findings do not establish a new narrative about the impact of Taglit. Rather, they quantify and contextualize an already extant narrative, one that begins on the trip, as documented by a diverse set of published works, from Shaul Kelner’s Tours That Bind to Sarah Glidden’s How to Understand Israel in 60 Days, as well as the testimonials of countless Taglit participants.

The research team that Saxe directs takes its work very seriously. We take great pains to ensure that our methods are consistent with the established standards of the social science research community and that our published findings are robust and wholly supported by evidence. We believe that our efforts are reflected in the quality and consistency of our work, as well as the great care we take to ensure its accurate dissemination. Neither Saxe nor any of us would tolerate falsification or fabrication of data for any reason; doing so would violate not only the ethical and scientific standards of research but also our personal consciences.

If Bryfman honestly believes he heard Saxe admit that he and his team falsified data, it defies belief that neither he nor anyone else attending the Taglit conference in June 2012 raised the alarm until now, nine months later. And if he does not honestly believe he heard such an admission, he has slandered Saxe and everyone else involved in the evaluation of Taglit.

Regardless of his retraction, Bryfman's allegation is offensive and utterly without merit, and it never should have been given voice. If he has legitimate concerns rather than slanderous accusations about the scientific merit of the Taglit evaluation, he is as welcome to voice them as anyone else. However, if he is truly as concerned about "professional suicide" as his remarks might suggest, his concern ought not to be in regard to taking an unpopular position -- we at the Cohen Center/Steinhardt Institute tend to applaud unpopular positions when they are supported by evidence. Rather, Bryfman would be well advised not to accuse other scholars of scientific misconduct when there is no evidence to support his claims and ample evidence to contradict them. Should he or any other scholar wish for clarification about our methods, I encourage earnest examination of our published works and their methodological appendices, available on our website (see below), or correspondence with members of the research team. We would be happy to enlighten anyone with sincere interest in our research on the Taglit-Birthright Israel program.

http://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/researchareas/taglit-publications.html

It's not a "seeming conflict of interest"--it IS a conflict of interest.

Every single time Saxe and company write a communal or scholarly article or Op-Ed, they make sure to give Birthright as much PR as they possibly can. Surely a truly independent researcher would not stoop to this level.

As someone who has known Michael Steinhardt for eleven years, I can attest that he loves to criticize and loves to be criticized. He is a no-nonsense type of guy (although he would use a more colorful description) and if a program he was funding was not working he seems to me to be the type of guy who would welcome such criticism backed up by data in order to shift his resources elsewhere. Full disclosure: Mr. Steinhardt supports the Halachic Organ Donor Society, an organization that I run. Does that make my comment and observation invalid?

Robby:

It does not necessarily make your particular comment or observation invalid and indeed you have quite a good reputation. But there needs to be independent verification of Birthright and its research by someone not connected in any way to Steinhardt or his handpicked researchers. Steinhardt can say that he is impressed with the research, but he's not a researcher himself. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be avoided--this is basic research ethics here.

Just for starter I have a problem with the name of this Program; Birthright ! What birthright are we referring to here ? I would have not have a problem with this if its implication is general and not limited to one group of people(Jews) on the expense of another group of people(Palestinians). There is a pure singling out racism in the application of such a program. Would any Jewish person have an issue if some native American group started taken groups of their faith/people , lets say to Brooklyn, and started telling this students and impressionable kids, that Brooklyn, even though, this is their first time there,belongs to them and their fathers from three hundred years ago, and they need to keep that in mind and work against all others ,living there or not, to get rid of them, as they are fully instilled to this land as by some divine promise? How would all the Hassidim Jews and others feel about such a program? Some Jews ,sadly have been so brain washed, and sold to such stories, that they can't see straight, nor can get a balanced view. They are walking with those notion of colonizing ,occupying and oppressing another people with almost zero guilt, and zero sense of justice. That is what your program means . That is what you ought to debate before anything else.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.