The Case for Showing Our Work: Open Grantmaking and the Future of Research Stewardship

For most of the modern history of philanthropy, the decisions of research funders traveled a well-worn path: from boardroom to checkbook, with little public record in between. A nonprofit might announce a generous award to a university lab or a field research initiative, but the deliberation behind it—the proposals considered, the criteria applied, the projects declined—remained private. That tradition of discretion is now under challenge, and at RSSE we believe the challenge is a welcome one.

Across the United States, a quiet movement toward open grantmaking is taking hold. Foundations and research nonprofits are publishing their funding portfolios in searchable detail: award amounts, selection rationale, reviewer considerations, and even the studies they chose not to support. The practice asks a fair question of every steward of charitable resources—if our decisions serve the public good, why not make them public?

Transparency as a Form of Accountability

The most immediate argument for open portfolios is one donors already understand intuitively. Americans give more than half a trillion dollars annually to charitable causes, and research consistently shows that confidence in an organization's decision-making—not merely its mission—drives sustained giving. When a funder publishes not only what it supports but the reasoning behind each award, it converts trust from an act of faith into an act of verification.

This matters particularly for science funders, whose grantees occupy a space between charity and public infrastructure. A donor to a watershed research initiative is, in effect, underwriting evidence that may shape regulation, land management, or public health guidance for years. Openness about how that evidence is selected for support is a reasonable expectation, not an imposition.

The Scrutiny Dividend

There is a second benefit that receives less attention: transparency invites peer review of the funder itself.

When a research nonprofit publishes its portfolio, academic partners can evaluate whether its awards cluster productively or redundantly, whether methodological standards are consistent across disciplines, and whether promising lines of inquiry are being neglected. Several open-grantmaking pioneers have reported that publication of funding rationales prompted unsolicited critiques from researchers—critiques that meaningfully improved subsequent funding cycles. In effect, the portfolio becomes a living manuscript, subject to revision by the very community it serves.

This scrutiny dividend is especially valuable for mid-sized organizations that lack large internal program evaluation staffs. External eyes, freely offered, are a form of quality assurance most nonprofits could never afford to purchase.

Acknowledging the Risks

Honesty requires acknowledging the objections. The most serious is strategic gaming: if applicants can see precisely what a funder rewards, some will tailor proposals to fit the pattern rather than pursue the strongest science. Critics warn that published portfolios could homogenize research agendas, nudging the field toward whatever questions happen to be in fashion.

The concern is legitimate but, we would argue, manageable. Private funders have always signaled preferences—through requests for proposals, priority areas, and public statements. Formal publication adds granularity, not a fundamentally new incentive. Moreover, several open funders have responded by publishing their criteria rather than a template for proposals, emphasizing the qualities of rigorous inquiry over topic checklists. The antidote to gaming is not secrecy; it is thoughtfully designed disclosure.

A secondary risk is reputational. A transparent portfolio exposes every award to public second-guessing, including the inevitable grants that underperform. But funders should be candid with themselves: opaque portfolios do not conceal failure, they merely delay its acknowledgment. An organization confident in its evaluation and learning processes has little to fear from daylight.

A Standard Worth Setting

We do not suggest that every funder must publish every deliberation. Confidentiality protections for applicants, embargo periods for sensitive research, and respect for intellectual property all remain essential. Openness is a spectrum, not a switch.

But the direction of travel should be clear. Nonprofits that steward resources for scientific advancement hold those resources in trust for the public, and the public's interest is best served when the machinery of decision-making is visible. Donors give more confidently, researchers compete more fairly, and the sector learns more quickly when portfolios are open.

At RSSE, we view this movement as an extension of the same principle that guides everything we do: knowledge, honestly gathered and openly shared, is the foundation of good stewardship. It is time more funders showed their work.