Research And Data As Tools In Advocates’ Decision-Making- A Focus On China and Southeast Asia (Faunalytics)
This Faunalytics study uncovers both internal and external applications of research, examines why advocates do or don't incorporate research into their work, and presents a roadmap for enhancing research engagement across China, Southeast Asia, and beyond.
Background
In January 2024, Faunalytics released Phase I of the “Research And Data As Tools In Advocates’ Decision-Making” project, which sought to understand how the animal advocacy movement utilizes data in order to improve the production, funding, and use of research to help animals. That report, which was based on interviews with researchers from across the world, identified that advocates in the Global South had distinctive perspectives on the use of research, noting in particular that evidence gaps on regional trends hindered their ability to use research effectively.
This study—Phase II of the same project—takes a deeper dive into research and data use among animal advocates in the Global South, specifically looking at China and Southeast Asia, a region of particular importance due to its large farmed animal population and relative neglectedness in the advocacy community.
Key Findings
- Research is used both externally (to understand, influence, and support external stakeholders) and internally (to inform internal organizational and program decisions) and can sometimes lead to a significant shift in strategy. In advocates’ external engagement, research is a key part of campaigns working with corporate stakeholders, policymakers, producers, or other members of the advocacy movement. For internal use cases, we found that research is used to prioritize and improve activities within an organization, to test the effectiveness or viability of interventions, or even to reconsider an organization’s broader strategy or advocacy approach—one advocate described how research encouraged them to shift from vegan street advocacy to corporate campaigns.
- Barriers to research use include localization, credibility, accessibility, and usability. Localization—adapting research to be relevant to Asian contexts in both content and format—is a key enabler. Localized research makes it easier for advocates to design locally-relevant interventions, generate persuasive arguments for local stakeholders, and prioritize appropriate strategies. Credibility is also essential, as trustworthy findings from known sources reinforce an organization’s legitimacy by enhancing its evidence-based image. Accessibility is also an important consideration, and ensuring that research is free-to-access and consolidated in easily accessible locations enhances an organization’s ability to find and effectively use existing research. Finally, to ensure usability, the format, content and timing are also key—research should be delivered in stakeholder-appropriate formats, with relevant content at an appropriate level of detail, and at a time when it can be most useful.
- The research engagement process has four stages- Plan, Produce, Apply, and Evaluate. In the Plan stage, organizations set goals, allocate resources, and identify the stakeholders they need to engage. The Produce stage involves designing research, collecting data, and analyzing results. The Apply stage focuses on communicating and sharing findings in practical work. The Evaluate stage focuses on refining processes through feedback and reflection for continuous improvement.
- Many Asian advocates localize and produce their own research, sometimes through partnerships. Nearly all advocates in our study were involved in some form of research production, often in collaboration with local university researchers or other research organizations.
- Advocates frequently engage stakeholders such as farmers and corporations throughout the different stages of research to increase the use and usefulness of research efforts.
- Data consolidation, sharing, and tools may be promising ways to improve research access, use, and data collection efficiency. Many advocates highlighted the need for more consolidated data and increased sharing among advocates to facilitate access to a broader range of resources, avoid duplicating efforts, and save time spent searching for materials.
- The most widely used scientific fields are welfare science and environmental research, but advocates also cite behavioral research, meta-level studies on advocacy approaches, and interdisciplinary crossovers as key subjects for further exploration.