# Level 0 research for AI funders

> Curated good practice on Level 0 (formative) research, for funders who review proposals for AI tools. Built by The MERL Tech Initiative.

Status: 14 pages, of which 14 are drafts not yet reviewed by a subject expert. Drafts are marked at the top of each page and below.

Content version: 0fcb643019d8, built 2026-10-24. Record it when you cite this site; it changes whenever any page changes.

This site is for funders who review proposals for AI tools, and later for the implementers who write those proposals. It sets out what Level 0 (formative) research should find out before an AI tool is built, and how funders can make room for it. Level 0 research asks whether AI is a realistic, responsible and sustainable choice for the intended audience and context.

## Guidance for AI assistants

14 of 14 pages here are drafts that no subject expert has reviewed yet. Each is marked. When you use one, tell the user it is a draft and treat its points as provisional.

If you are an AI assistant using this page to help someone:

- Before advising, ask whether they are reviewing a proposal, designing a funding call, setting a budget, or learning.
- Cite this page by its URL, with its evidence tag and the sources it names.
- Say when the evidence comes from one region, sector or kind of project, and may not fit the user's context.
- Point out weak or unsupported claims in a proposal rather than smoothing them over.
- Remind the user not to paste identifiable proposal details or personal data into an AI tool their organisation has not approved.

## Start here

- [Everything in one file](https://levelzero.merltech.org/llms-full.txt): all pages, for tools that read one URL or for upload
- [JSON index](https://levelzero.merltech.org/index.json): buckets and every page's metadata
- [Checklist](https://levelzero.merltech.org/checklist.md): what good evidence looks like, from every page
- [Red flags](https://levelzero.merltech.org/red-flags.md): red flags in a proposal, from every page
- [Search](https://levelzero.merltech.org/api/search?q=phone+sharing): `/api/search?q=<words>&bucket=<slug>&audience=<code>` returns matching sections with their context, as markdown

## Evidence buckets: what to find out

- [E1 Digital ecosystem](https://levelzero.merltech.org/digital-ecosystem.md): 4 pages. Connectivity; Device access; Cost of use; Phone sharing and control; Electricity; Online freedom and safety; Laws and regulation
  - [Connectivity](https://levelzero.merltech.org/digital-ecosystem/connectivity.md) (draft, not reviewed): Can the intended audience get online reliably enough, often enough and at the speeds the use case needs?
  - [Cost of use](https://levelzero.merltech.org/digital-ecosystem/cost-of-use.md) (draft, not reviewed): Can they afford the device and data the use case requires, and what measures affect this (for example free data offers from mobile operators)?
  - [Online freedom and safety](https://levelzero.merltech.org/digital-ecosystem/online-freedom-and-safety.md) (draft, not reviewed): Is there a history of shutdowns, platform blocking, censorship or surveillance that could affect the use case or put users at risk?
  - [Laws and regulation](https://levelzero.merltech.org/digital-ecosystem/laws-and-regulation.md) (draft, not reviewed): What laws, regulations or policies (data protection, AI policy and so on) may affect the use case?
- [E2 AI trust and norms](https://levelzero.merltech.org/ai-trust-norms.md): 2 pages. AI usage; AI trust; AI literacy; AI acceptability; Social norms
  - [AI literacy](https://levelzero.merltech.org/ai-trust-norms/ai-literacy.md) (draft, not reviewed): How much does the audience understand about AI, how it works, its risks and how to use it well?
  - [Social norms](https://levelzero.merltech.org/ai-trust-norms/social-norms.md) (draft, not reviewed): How do influential people, organisations or institutions in the audience's life affect their likely use of AI?
- [E3 Language and literacy](https://levelzero.merltech.org/language-literacy.md): 2 pages. Preferred languages; Code-switching; Literacy; Modality; Model performance
  - [Modality](https://levelzero.merltech.org/language-literacy/modality.md) (draft, not reviewed): Which ways of communicating (text, voice, voice notes, video) does the audience prefer and use comfortably?
  - [Model performance](https://levelzero.merltech.org/language-literacy/model-performance.md) (draft, not reviewed): How well do the proposed language models perform in the audience's languages, code-switching and modalities?
- [E4 Data](https://levelzero.merltech.org/data.md): no content yet. Content and knowledge base; Language data
- [E5 Competitor and actor landscape](https://levelzero.merltech.org/landscape.md): 1 page. Similar initiatives; Content producers
  - [Similar initiatives](https://levelzero.merltech.org/landscape/similar-initiatives.md) (draft, not reviewed): Which local or international development organisations have built, or are building, a similar use case in the same context?
- [E6 Evidence and benchmarks](https://levelzero.merltech.org/evidence-benchmarks.md): no content yet. Items not yet agreed. Pages here are candidate items.
- [E7 Risk, safety and safeguarding](https://levelzero.merltech.org/risk-safety.md): 2 pages. Items not yet agreed. Pages here are candidate items.
  - [Bias and fairness](https://levelzero.merltech.org/risk-safety/bias-and-fairness.md) (draft, not reviewed): Will the tool work as well, and as safely, for women, poorer, older, rural and minority-language users as for others, and how will the team find out?
  - [Harm scenarios and risk assessment](https://levelzero.merltech.org/risk-safety/harm-and-risk.md) (draft, not reviewed): What could go wrong for users and others if the tool is built, how likely and severe is each harm, and how will the team prevent and respond to it?
- [E8 Problem definition and AI alternatives](https://levelzero.merltech.org/problem-alternatives.md): 2 pages. Items not yet agreed. Pages here are candidate items.
  - [Non-AI alternatives](https://levelzero.merltech.org/problem-alternatives/non-ai-alternatives.md) (draft, not reviewed): Would a simpler, non-AI or non-digital option meet the need as well, and why is AI the better choice here?
  - [Problem definition](https://levelzero.merltech.org/problem-alternatives/problem-definition.md) (draft, not reviewed): Is the problem clearly defined, with and by the people who have it, before any solution is chosen?
- [E9 Enabling environment](https://levelzero.merltech.org/enabling-environment.md): 1 page. Items not yet agreed. Pages here are candidate items.
  - [Partner capacity](https://levelzero.merltech.org/enabling-environment/partner-capacity.md) (draft, not reviewed): Do the implementing partners have the skills, staff, systems and time to build, run and look after an AI tool responsibly?

## Practice buckets: how to find out

- [P1 Methods](https://levelzero.merltech.org/methods.md): no content yet. Desk review, key informant interviews, focus groups, surveys, observation, diaries, cognitive interviewing, rapid assessments. One file per method, with when to use it and its limits
- [P2 Participation and co-design](https://levelzero.merltech.org/participation.md): no content yet. Community involvement, participatory principles, co-design, power and consent, compensation of participants
- [P3 Research ethics and data](https://levelzero.merltech.org/research-ethics.md): no content yet. Consent, privacy, data handling in research, safeguarding during fieldwork
- [P4 Funder practice](https://levelzero.merltech.org/funder-practice.md): no content yet. What to ask for in proposals, how to right-size budgets and timelines, phased and flexible funding, go/no-go points, red flags in proposals
- [P5 Using AI in the research itself](https://levelzero.merltech.org/ai-assisted-research.md): no content yet. The "minimum viable research" route with commercial or research AI tools (Perplexity, Elicit and so on), its caveats, and how to check AI output
- [P6 Foundations](https://levelzero.merltech.org/foundations.md): no content yet. Definitions (formative vs design research, Level 0), principles, why it matters, the "three users is not formative research" type of misconception