Animal Advocacy Decision-making In Critical Events
Description with the Michael Vick dogfighting case as a backdrop, this article explores the decision-making process that animal advocates engage in when deciding whether to respond to a critical event in the world of animal protection. The examination showed that in this instance, advocacy groups’ decision-making process was shaped by concerns about legitimacy and at times by contemplations about their organizational identity. This, the authors say, highlights noteworthy complexities in the dynamics of animal advocacy.
[Abstract excerpted from original source.]
“Using the quasi-experimental setting of the Michael Vick dogfighting case, the researchers employed rich interview content to explore the question, “When a critical event occurs in the animal advocacy field, what motivates advocacy groups to respond?” The investigation reveals that what was thought to be one critical event was in actuality three unique yet interrelated critical events—(1) the revelation of the transgressions; (2) the punishment of the perpetrator; and (3) the decision about whether to ally with the perpetrator in advocacy. The study shows that legitimacy concerns, occasionally paired with reflections on organizational identity, influenced the decision-making of advocacy organizations across all three critical events, as each held the potential either to legitimize or to delegitimize the advocacy organizations and/or the perpetrator (i.e., Vick).”