How do inclusive and collaborative approaches belong together? Is one possible without the other?
It is my strong belief that only inclusive and collaborative philanthropy has a chance to make a long-term positive difference in the world. So this is not a ‘nice to have’ but really a ‘must have’. When I joined Porticus, I came with the experience of having worked on the receiving end of philanthropy, and therefore had a lot of ideas of how funders could be better partners. Funders in particular have a lot of potential to improve collaboration; the way they approach, incentivise and engage in partnerships often results in the creation of a dominant influence. We all know how fundamental collaboration can be in addressing the big issues of this day and age, yet, very little attention is paid to the actual processes that can allow multi-stakeholder collaboration to flourish.
Do you recognise improvements in recent years?
I have been happy to witness over the last decade a growing interest – and recognition of the necessity – for the sector to be more inclusive. Inclusion is in my view a prerequisite for transformative collaboration, and vice versa, ‘to include’ often requires collaboration. A truly collaborative approach needs to include lenses that reveal root causes of marginalisation, such as race, ethnicity, gender or economic standing. Likewise, a practice that promotes inclusion often uses methods to bring people together and facilitate dialogue, so collaboration is implicit. These concepts are therefore so intertwined that I think we need to address them in tandem and allow them to mutually reinforce each other.
What is the significance of diversity and inclusion in education and training?
Education and training is the perfect space for people to grapple with these concepts, and to be challenged in their own beliefs and world views. It is a safer space to engage with new ways of seeing the world, especially if you have a lot of diversity in the room – whether that be a physical or virtual one. I believe that everyone’s world view is limited by the content, time and place of our education, so we will all carry biases. The best you can do is to enable people to become as aware of them as possible.
How should we deal with it?
The qualities of humility and curiosity are invaluable in understanding other groups of people or systems, especially if you work in this sector and you want to support positive change for them. I am happy that institutions like UNIGE are giving this a lot of space in their curriculum, notably in their Master in Philanthropy, which now features a fully online module on collaborative and inclusive philanthropy that can also be followed as a stand-alone module from anywhere in the world. Of course it’s important to learn about legal regulations, accounting principles and a whole host of other aspects that help run healthy organisations, but honestly I think collaboration and inclusion are more fundamental. Eventually, it has the power to change the way you approach basic business practices such as learning, human resource management and even financial reporting.
Why are you including the topic in the University of Geneva MAS in Philanthropy programme?
Since this is an advanced studies module, most of the people that will engage with this material already have a fair amount of professional experience, and they will (hopefully!) come from all corners of the earth. It’s delivered online and this makes it as accessible as possible. I hope this will spark some fascinating dialogue, as only in these conversations will we be able to understand how nuanced these issues are.
Were there any particular issues during the development of the module?
Since it’s not really a discipline of ‘rights and wrongs’, it has made it quite a challenging area to measure performance. I did not envy my academic colleagues for having to come up with online testing methodologies for the course material that we created. We grapple with this at Porticus too. Colleagues would naturally prefer a chapter-and-verse handbook on how to incorporate more inclusion into their work, but the truth is that it is extremely context dependent and being over-prescriptive can be counterproductive. It again comes back to the awareness one brings to this work, the approaches you take and your ability to reflect and learn. One of my colleagues puts this very nicely by saying that there is an ‘inner personal journey’ you need to go on first, before you can go on the ‘outer professional journey’.
Where does the philanthropy sector stand in these topics?
It is noticeable that foundation staff sometimes have an uneasy relationship with money, and the power that comes with it. What I think helps, is again more awareness of how power imbalance can manifest itself and also the simple and obvious recognition that, yes, money can be a fundamental part of the equation, but that it needs to be part of a broader idea of exchange. Many people in the sector are already somewhere on the path to make philanthropy more inclusive and collaborative, and some organisations are further along on this path than others.
What needs to be considered?
It’s a politically sensitive subject area, and I think most people who choose to work in this space all sign up to these principles. But changing the way we work in organisational structures is not easy. So sometimes an individual can find themselves in more challenging situations when not automatically following the path of least resistance.
Can you explain this with an example?
For sure. One good example is how foundations develop new areas of work, do you co-create it with other organisations, running the risk that you raise expectations for something that isn’t internally signed off yet, or do you prefer to develop things in house, getting all the required buy-in first and then hoping others will join your trajectory when the important choices have already been made?
In the past at Porticus, we did a lot of work behind closed doors before we dared to involve others, let alone facilitate groups of people to design work together, and I’ve really seen this shift during my time at the organisation. This excites me, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg of course, as there is so much to learn and improve when it comes to meaningful and inclusive collaboration.
Is there an international difference in where organisations stand and what importance the philanthropy sector attaches to the topic?
To some extent we are breaking new ground here and so data and insights as to how different international organisations approach the topic of collaboration and inclusion aren’t that available yet. The risk is that discussion doesn’t manifest itself in enough change and action. It of course matters to all organisations, no matter where they are based. Allowing myself to dream, you’d hope that inclusion and collaboration are embedded in organisations without having to make it a specific ring-fenced agenda, but I’m afraid many organisations still appear to be far away from this ideal.
Is there any research evidence on the benefits or impact that a diverse and inclusive sector has on society?
As the area becomes more embedded institutionally, we will see more evidence emerge. Our societies are incredibly diverse and therefore I think this automatically means the philanthropic sector needs to grapple with inclusion as well. Within Porticus, there is definite evidence that participatory practices can make a difference. We in fact commissioned a study with the Closer than you think Collective (2024) which references the wealth of evidence already available, while also concluding that more is needed. Porticus is planning to meet with a number of like-minded foundations to continue working on this evidence base on the effectiveness of participation.
