Funders and Providers Working Together

While reading about the differences in the ways that providers and funders view feedback and its utility, the main thought I kept coming back to was that it is unfortunate that there is such a disconnect between what providers and funders think about these topics. As explained in Professor Campbell's (2010) article, providers are frustrated because they feel feedback practices that are required by funders do not reveal information that is as useful as it could be if the feedback practices/mechanisms were different. Meanwhile, many funders do not even know whether or not organizations they fund use the feedback they gather (Campbell & Lambright).

Based on the disconnect described above, it seems plausible that one way providers and funders can see eye-to-eye and improve the utility of feedback practices is to communicate more openly to "develop feedback measures that address both their interests" (Campbell & Lambright). Campbell and Lambright suggest that one way this could occur is if "funders and providers meet after a funding award to identify and discuss what each would like to learn as a result of that award and discuss what it would take to learn those things." While I agree that such a meeting could potentially do a great deal to improve the utility of feedback practices, I wonder if it would have its intended effects. One of the reasons that I have my doubts about the success of such a meeting is that the beliefs between funders and providers about exactly what should be evaluated (Ebrahim, 2009) may be too great for them to reach a consensus. Perhaps I am being too pessimistic, though. What do you think? Could providers and funders reach a consensus about what should be evaluated?