Foundation Communications Today: Findings from the 2011 Survey of Foundation Communications Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(The survey was designed and analyzed by Michael Remaley, founder, Hamill Remaley breakthrough communications.)"Foundation Communications Today" updates our 2008 "State of the Practice Survey." Once again, we asked professionals who hold communications jobs in foundations to tell us "how and what are you doing?"Through our online questionnaire, we probed to learn how foundation communicators perceive their roles and whether they feel they are central to the work of their organizations. We asked questions about how they spend their time, size of budgets, what is working and the challenges they face. We also wanted to know how quickly they are adopting social media and other forms of digital communications, how transparent they considered their organizations, what are their attitudes toward communicating about failure and more.Among the findings:Communications professionals at America's grantmaking foundations are responding to the digital age. Our survey of 155 foundation communicators shows U.S. foundations are making use of all forms digital communications, especially social media, a top priority. The survey results suggest the growth of social media and other emerging digital technologies is changing the way foundations communicate with target audiences. Almost half of foundation communicators surveyed (47%) said they work for organizations that have blogs and over three-quarters (76%) host videos on their websites. On average, respondents estimated that nearly a quarter (24%) of their communications dollars in 2011 would be spent on electronic communications, more than any other tactic, although printed annual reports and other print publications still consume a sizeable share of the communications budget. Increasing capacity for new media and related digital work was cited as a high internal priority by 60 percent of survey participants, more than any other response.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.030 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".