I’m a big fan of these intervention reports. They’re not directly relevant to anything I’m working on right now so I’m only skimming them but they seem high quality to me. I especially appreciate how you both draw on relevant social science external to the movement, and more anecdotal evidence and reasoning specific to animal advocacy.
When you summarise the studies, I’d find it more helpful if you summarised the key evidence rather than their all-things-considered views.
E.g. in the cost-effectiveness section you mention that costs are low, seeming to assume that the effects would be high enough to justify them. I assume this confidence depends on your reading of the external studies. But from what I see here, without clicking on links, my takeaway is currently something like: “oh so some social scientists think they can work”, which doesn’t fill me with much confidence given that I don’t know what their methods were, how clear the findings were, etc.
I’m a big fan of these intervention reports. They’re not directly relevant to anything I’m working on right now so I’m only skimming them but they seem high quality to me. I especially appreciate how you both draw on relevant social science external to the movement, and more anecdotal evidence and reasoning specific to animal advocacy.
When you summarise the studies, I’d find it more helpful if you summarised the key evidence rather than their all-things-considered views.
E.g. in the cost-effectiveness section you mention that costs are low, seeming to assume that the effects would be high enough to justify them. I assume this confidence depends on your reading of the external studies. But from what I see here, without clicking on links, my takeaway is currently something like: “oh so some social scientists think they can work”, which doesn’t fill me with much confidence given that I don’t know what their methods were, how clear the findings were, etc.
Great suggestion, I’ll adopt for future reports. Thank you :)