Research And Data As Tools In Advocates’ Decision-Making: A Focus On China & Southeast Asia
Background
In January 2024, Faunalytics released Phase I of the “Research And Data As Tools In Advocates’ Decision-Making” project (Faunalytics, 2024), 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 (Founders Pledge, 2020).
With the aim of enhancing our understanding of how animal advocacy organizations in these regions engage with research and data, we conducted small focus group discussions with leaders of animal advocacy organizations across the region. During the analysis phase, we build on the knowledge translation framework from Phase I (which primarily focused on research utilization post-production), expanding to the more expansive framework of research engagement, which looks at stakeholders’ interaction with research before, during, and after its production.
This report analyzes three aspects of research use: the five ways research is used, the four barriers and enablers of research use, and an overview of the entire research engagement process. It also seeks to understand the differences in how Asian advocates use research, as compared to advocates in the Global North. By understanding these critical levers of data usage, advocates and funders—both within Asia and globally—can support animal advocates in China and Southeast Asia in their efforts to protect animals in the region.
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. Some stakeholders found certain research more credible due to contextual factors, such as a preference for specific universities or partners, or viewing the work of organizations like the World Bank as particularly credible due to its role as a major funder. 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. This is likely to be because of the lack of local studies and data, which compels advocates to conduct their own research to fill knowledge gaps. With the small size of the Asian advocacy movement, this means advocates often have to wear both advocacy and research hats.
- Advocates frequently engage stakeholders such as farmers and corporations throughout the different stages of research to increase the use and usefulness of research efforts. Advocates gave many examples of how they engaged external stakeholders in order to effectively produce research. For example, collaborating with farmers and local officials during the planning phase facilitated smoother data collection in a rural agricultural research project, incorporating feedback from local researchers and partners from different disciplines allowed for improved analysis, and engaging key corporate stakeholders when building advocacy cases enabled advocates to tailor research content and dissemination formats to build a more persuasive case.
- 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. Current challenges include advocates spending excessive time searching across multiple platforms, discomfort with data sharing, and difficulty accessing materials used by other advocates.
- 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. Many advocates want more research targeted specifically on Asian consumer behavior, meta-level studies (such as identifying the most impactful advocacy tactics or interventions in Asia), and intersectional research that explores various factors like religion, social change, and dietary change. Research into animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and the effects of animal products on human health are the most commonly used topics, but are perceived as less neglected, potentially due to their universal applicability.
Recommendations
For Animal Advocacy Organizations
- For organizations in Asia, explore alternative funding and human resources. Small organizations may lack internal resources, but could tap into university research budgets by partnering with university researchers and applying for targeted funding, or leverage international talent through platforms like Vegan Thesis.
- For organizations in Asia, explore ways to leverage technology for improved data collection and consolidation. Increasingly accessible and powerful AI systems may expand the possibilities for advocates to create independent data monitoring and collection systems that streamline data management and analysis. Advocates can leverage support from groups like Vegan Hacktivists, and draw inspiration from recent examples including the Global Fishing Watch.
- For organizations in Asia, consider underlooked ways where research can improve your impact. While advocates commonly use research for purposes like influencing external stakeholders, informing internal strategy, and designing new interventions, many could likely benefit from exploring additional use cases. Potentially overlooked areas might include generating training materials for staff and volunteers, developing research-based decision-making tools, or using data to estimate the effectiveness of their work. Expanding how research is used (or not used) in your organization could significantly enhance advocacy efforts.
- For organizations in the Global North, actively foster a research-sharing culture. Advocates from smaller Asian organizations reported experiencing “imposter syndrome” and hesitated to share their research to the global community (e.g. with the FAST community). Strategies to improve this could include supporting smaller Asian organizations to share research online or at events, organizing research exchange workshops, and active encouragement of research that discusses regional issues in developing nations.
In the coming years, Faunalytics plans to expand its role as a central database hub, adding tools to help advocates understand the public’s opinion of farming practices, the impact of undercover investigations, and more. We aim to create resources that can be customized to any region, allowing advocates from across the world to use the data that’s most relevant to them.
For Researchers (Including Advocate Researchers)
- Engage your target research users when planning, producing, and evaluating research. Researchers should prioritize engaging local advocates early in the process to understand what kinds of research they need, and consider involving large-scale stakeholders, such as policymakers or corporate leaders, to ensure the research is relevant and useful. For example, consulting with policy campaigners or policymakers when seeking to influence welfare policy can help researchers tailor their research to be more useful by aligning the format, content, or data source with policymakers’ preferences, thereby increasing its potential impact.
- Conduct targeted, locally relevant research and consider replicating global research on a regional level. Researchers should focus on subjects important to local contexts, such as welfare science and the intersections of agriculture, environment, and human health, while also addressing neglected but in-demand topics like Asian consumer behavior and effective advocacy tactics in Asia. Researchers should also consider conducting localized replications of influential international studies, such as the EU “smart protein” study, which are likely to yield relevant and usable findings. Conducting broader landscape studies could further provide comprehensive insights that benefit both international and local advocates. Read Faunalytics’ replication guide for inspiration.
- Adapt research reports into other formats—such as training materials, briefs, or videos—to improve accessibility for advocates and other stakeholders. In addition to translating existing and future research outputs, researchers should consider creating tailored adaptations for different stakeholder groups in various countries. This could include training materials for advocates, briefs for policymakers, or video overviews for the general public. Collaborating with local advocates and community builders can enhance this process, ensuring that materials are accessible and relevant across diverse contexts. These could be shared in a repository or shared database.
- Conduct a movement-level data audit to strategically set a research agenda. Assessing the data currently held by each organization is necessary to understand existing resources and identify key gaps. Based on this audit, prioritize coordinated data collection, areas where existing evidence can be synthesized and reviewed, and new studies targeting the most critical gaps, ensuring that efforts are concentrated on areas with the highest potential impact. This kind of systematic approach has the potential to streamline research efforts across the movement and improving the quality of research available can allow the proliferation of evidence-driven strategies in the region.
For Funders
- Fund initiatives that address local knowledge gaps. Direct funding towards areas where Asian advocates face significant knowledge gaps that limit their ability to impact important, neglected practices affecting large populations of farmed animals. This may also involve increasing support for local research efforts and allocating resources for the localization and translation of research to ensure that research remains relevant and accessible in these key areas.
- Fund the entire research pipeline, including research dissemination, engagement, and evaluation. In order to prioritize impactful research, initiatives should consider the key stages of the research process. This might involve including research engagement as a funding criterion or allocating resources for research planning, production, dissemination, engagement, and evaluation, recognizing that the impact of research can occur at various stages.
- Invest in infrastructure to improve research access and distribution. Ensure that Asian researchers and advocates have the necessary infrastructure to access, share, review, and enhance the research used in the animal advocacy movement. This could include creating regional data hubs to consolidate and share research data among organizations, developing user-friendly tools to integrate research into advocacy efforts, or establishing accessible sharing platforms for advocates across the movement.
Applying These Findings
We understand that reports like this have a lot of information to consider and that acting on research can be challenging. Faunalytics is happy to offer pro bono support to advocates and nonprofit organizations who would like guidance applying these findings to their own work. Please visit our virtual Office Hours or contact us for support.
For an in-depth, accessible overview of this study’s findings in video format, be sure to check out the webinar below.
Behind The Project
Research Team
The project’s lead authors were Jah Ying Chung (Good Growth) and Jack Stennett (Good Growth). Dr. Jo Anderson (Faunalytics), Dr. Peter John Chen (University of Sydney), and Dr. Andie Thompkins (Faunalytics, Mercy for Animals) reviewed and oversaw the work.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank several advocates who provided valuable input about this research throughout the process. We would like to thank our funders for their generous support of this research.
Research Terminology
At Faunalytics, we strive to make research accessible to everyone. We avoid jargon and technical terminology as much as possible in our reports. If you do encounter an unfamiliar term or phrase, check out the Faunalytics Glossary for user-friendly definitions and examples.
Research Ethics Statement
As with all of Faunalytics’ original research, this study was conducted according to the standards outlined in our Research Ethics and Data Handling Policy.
Let us know what you think!
We conduct research to help advocates like you, so we really value your input on what we’re doing well and how we can do better. Take the brief (less than 2min) survey below to let us know how satisfied you were with this report.
Citations:
Chung, J. Y. & Stennett, J. (2024). Research And Data As Tools In Advocates’ Decision-Making: A Focus On China & Southeast Asia. Faunalytics & Good Growth. https://faunalytics.org/research-and-data-as-tools-china-and-southeast-asia/
