Just a quick word from me, Nicoll from The Mission Motor (TMM supports Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning in the animal movement). Thanks Stien, for your balanced and clear thoughts and for asking for our take.
Based on what I read, I would consider this to be a novel and higher-risk intervention. Many of the more common interventions in the animal space could do with more robust data gathering, but a higher-risk/​novel intervention would warrant an even stronger focus on MEL.
Common data gathering instruments, such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc. (when asking the right questions), can work well here to gather relevant data. And, saying this with a bit of caution, I don’t think more elaborate MEL tools are needed.
Some of the challenges we foresee are reaching particular groups you might want data on (eg. people who read the campaign materials and don’t actively engage, but could change their attitude or behaviour) and saying something sensible about the overall effect of the campaign. Particularly as it likely impacts another campaign (Veganuary), and because of comparing increased animal welfare through donations vs less animals in factory farming leading net negative lives as a result of less animal consumption.
I think it is possible to overcome these and other challenges, but this might come at too high a cost to still be a responsible use of resources.
To be able to properly comment on credible indicators, I’d love to know the specific Theory of Change, so I won’t go into that now.
I totally assume FarmKind has done some MEL work already, but if we can be of assistance, we’d be happy to help!
Just a quick word from me, Nicoll from The Mission Motor (TMM supports Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning in the animal movement). Thanks Stien, for your balanced and clear thoughts and for asking for our take.
Based on what I read, I would consider this to be a novel and higher-risk intervention. Many of the more common interventions in the animal space could do with more robust data gathering, but a higher-risk/​novel intervention would warrant an even stronger focus on MEL.
Common data gathering instruments, such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc. (when asking the right questions), can work well here to gather relevant data. And, saying this with a bit of caution, I don’t think more elaborate MEL tools are needed.
Some of the challenges we foresee are reaching particular groups you might want data on (eg. people who read the campaign materials and don’t actively engage, but could change their attitude or behaviour) and saying something sensible about the overall effect of the campaign. Particularly as it likely impacts another campaign (Veganuary), and because of comparing increased animal welfare through donations vs less animals in factory farming leading net negative lives as a result of less animal consumption.
I think it is possible to overcome these and other challenges, but this might come at too high a cost to still be a responsible use of resources.
To be able to properly comment on credible indicators, I’d love to know the specific Theory of Change, so I won’t go into that now.
I totally assume FarmKind has done some MEL work already, but if we can be of assistance, we’d be happy to help!