Research And Data As Tools In Advocates’ Decision-Making

Faunalytics published a research paper that investigates exactly how research is used by animal advocacy organizations. In particular, the report discovers the research needs of advocates, like more accessible material, summaries, and reports on how to effect change. These findings will be of interest to animal advocates, researchers, and those interested in the science of effecting change:

https://faunalytics.org/research-and-data-as-tools/

Key Findings:

Research and evidence in animal advocacy can be categorized in terms of five purposes, which may inform how the research should be undertaken. First, being evidence-based helps organizations establish their legitimacy. Almost all organizations report that framing their positions, priorities, and tactics as evidence-based increases their external legitimacy with all types of individuals and institutions they seek to influence. Research and evidence also support internal decision-making on how to act on foundational priorities. Research processes and outputs can build partnerships and alliances across animal advocacy organizations and with other related movements. Evidence is often used to catalyze action by individuals and institutions, and in communication more generally around identifying problems and solutions to animal welfare and wellbeing challenges.
Most organizations and audiences see peer-reviewed publications and the research behind them as the gold standard for rigor. Government and industry research is often seen as biased, but also the basis for the dominant systems and narratives and thus cannot be ignored. Animal advocacy organizations are well-positioned to identify research priorities, collect data related to internal strategies, and share evaluation evidence. However, when research is used for the first category, external legitimacy, it is best done by an academic or other institutional researcher not directly affiliated with a specific animal advocacy organization or effort.
Research is not often used to set foundational priorities for existing organizations, but it is used to shift tactics and identify emerging issues or opportunities for advocacy. That is, organizations are “tactic flexible and cause inflexible.” While they are not reorienting their missions based on research, they use research and data at every other level—looking for information that supports existing positions, adjusting data points and messaging when new information emerges, and pivoting or reorienting their tactics in the face of new data. Research and knowledge translation that is oriented toward solutions or catalyzing action is useful for a wide range of audiences.
Organizations need evidence syntheses that provide a ‘state of the state’ on specific topics, including agreement on key facts and figures when possible, as well as detailed annotated bibliographies, exhaustive literature reviews, or similar extensive summaries of the current state of the knowledge on general topics.
The most foundational gaps in the evidence base are related to how to effect change, especially regarding under-researched species and geographies. More social science research and knowledge translation is needed on the impact and efficacy of behavioral nudges on one hand and social movement tactics on the other. Organizations also noted that gaps in the evidence base related to particular species, often those that are low economic value or not common in the Global North, and related to specific geographies, especially in the Global South.
Challenges to using existing research include having the time and expertise to translate complexity and ambiguity in research findings into actionable information. More evidence is needed from evaluation and internal data collection about tactics that work AND tactics that do not work to achieve intended outcomes.
Many organizations seek out research both actively and passively. Organizations access new information somewhat passively through extensive affinity networks, and intentionally through knowledge translation hubs and trusted individuals and organizations when seeking information for specific programming and communication purposes.

Background:

While all animal advocacy organizations have clear mission statements, priorities, and tactics that guide both day-to-day activities and big-picture planning, groups vary in how they use data in their decision-making. There is a growing interest in the animal advocacy ecosystem across many focal areas in taking evidence-based actions and having a research foundation for statements and positions. However, some organizations hypothesize that research and data might not be seen as relevant or able to be integrated with these foundational commitments.

In the animal advocacy space, Faunalytics acts as a knowledge broker, committed to what’s known as knowledge translation: the process of moving research, data, evidence from original researchers and research outputs into formats and framings for a wide range of actors. That’s why Faunalytics commissioned this study about the use of research in animal advocacy. This isn’t a program evaluation: none of the interview questions mentioned Faunalytics, though several of the participants did in their answers.

The purpose of this study is to explore how animal advocacy organizations access, interpret, and use research, data, and other forms of evidence in their work. The research project included primary data collection through interviews and thematic analysis of the interview transcripts. Participants were 20 staff members of animal advocacy organizations around the world, all of which include farmed animals in their mandate.

Research Team:

This project was conducted by Dr. Kristal Jones of JG Research and Evaluation. Dr. Jo Anderson (Faunalytics) contributed to the research design and reviewed the final report, but was not involved in data collection or analysis, to ensure that this study would provide an anonymous arms-length view of research in animal advocacy.

Conclusions:

Animal Advocacy Organizations Use Research and Evidence in Several Ways

Research and evidence are used to build legitimacy both internally and externally for the decisions, actions, and messages made by animal advocacy organizations. External legitimacy comes from using peer-reviewed and other rigorous research, and is a top priority for organizations whose tactics focus on institutional change in the public and private sectors. Campaigns and communications with the general public use data points alongside storytelling to support the identification of problems and description of solutions. Data are used strategically by organizations to catalyze action, especially on emerging or timely topics and contexts. Knowledge translation processes and formats are most effective when they reflect these varied purposes and applications of research and evidence.

The research and knowledge translation process can also help build partnerships among animal advocacy organizations, when questions, projects, and findings are coordinated or at least well communicated. Sharing research findings through the knowledge translation process can also build alliances with other social movements, including those focused on climate change, food system transformation, and human health. Collaborative relationships can also increase the efficient use of funding and human resources by ensuring that research projects are not duplicated if a settled evidence base already exists.

More Evidence Is Needed on Effective Tactics and Emerging Production Systems

The general consensus among interview respondents is that there is ample evidence related to animal wellbeing, animal sentience, and the negative impacts of industrial food and animal entertainment systems. The major and fundamental research gap identified by many people working across different types of organizations is related to the efficacy of different types of tactics. More evidence is needed on how to induce and sustain individual behavior change, the long-term impact of certain tactics like disruptive actions, and the keys to successful social movements. Many of these research topics require more engagement from and investment by social and behavioral science researchers, and also need longer time horizons than other types of research. Funders can support investments in research on tactics that are specific to animal welfare and wellbeing, and knowledge translation organizations and activities can put time into summarizing social and behavioral science evidence from other topics or sectors that could be relevant to animal advocacy organizations.

There are also evidence gaps for animal species and production systems that are not well-represented in the Global North. More research is needed focused on hotspots for animal production in the Global South, including South and Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Many species in these systems are not well-known in the Global North and the evidence base for even a basic understanding of their wellbeing is lacking. Research is also needed about consumer preferences and behaviors in emerging markets, especially in middle-income countries where rising incomes could lead to more consumption of animal products but also more willingness to consider animal welfare and wellbeing, as compared to lower income contexts that lack the resources to make different decisions about the use of animals.

Investments in Collaboration and Knowledge Translation Can Enhance the Impact of Research for Animals

Several key bottlenecks exist in the knowledge translation process from research to application. We need to invest in relationship building among animal advocacy organizations and researchers to ensure that research is relevant for animal advocates. Collaborative relationships could help identify gaps in the evidence base, specific research questions or topics of highest priority, and appropriate translation pathways to ensure that interpretation of findings are able to be used. For instance, successful collaborations between academic researchers and advocates require clear communication of movement needs—for example, to ensure that academics are asking the right questions—as outlined in our blog.

Ongoing researcher-advocate relationships can also support more efficient discovery and dissemination of new information, rather than individual organizations having to seek out information each time it is needed. Funders need to invest not only in primary research but also in synthesis research (for example, meta-analyses, evidence reviews, and landscape scans) that can highlight connections between animal welfare and wellbeing, and other issue areas like human health and climate. These cross-connections are seen as crucial to broadening campaign and action messages to reach a wider audience and are especially difficult to derive from a single study or disciplinary approach.

Funders also need to invest in knowledge translation activities. Knowledge translation can come from animal advocacy organizations that conduct their own applied research and evaluation activities, but the lack of time and capacity limits this in practice. Organizations should build time into their grant applications and budgets to support translation work when relevant. Knowledge brokers—organizations that focus on summarizing, integrating, and communicating about the existing body of evidence and research—can be the catalyst for building collaborative relationships early in the research process and can support increased coordination throughout the translation process.