Campaign and Program Evaluation

In my last post, I noted that a major concern of researchers is that survey respondents are willing to provide opinions on issues about which they have little knowledge. This is one example of how the research process itself can influence our understanding of the people whose attitudes and behavior we are studying. The simple act of asking people questions becomes more complex when you consider that the respondent's opinion may not have existed prior to that person hearing the question.

In 1951, Stanley Payne wrote the landmark survey design book, "The Art of Asking Questions," which advocated for brevity, simplicity, and relevance when designing survey questions. It's always good to keep these and other principles in mind when planning your research. It's also important to understand that asking about opinions can overstate the degree to which people think about the subject of the interview. This is particularly important when addressing issues that are not "top of mind," like animal and environmental protection.

At the Humane Research Council, we know a few things about conducting surveys to gauge public opinion or evaluate the impact of a campaign or program. We are also big believers in the power of surveys -- including online surveys -- when they are used correctly. A new article from Idealware provides an in-depth review of available online survey tools. To that we add a few of our own suggestions.

This past weekend I was one of the presenters at "Speaking Their Truth," the 23rd Annual International Compassionate Living Festival. The topic was economics as it applies to animal protection campaigns, and our panel covered a range of different issues relevant to economic matters. Here is a summary of my part of the presentation, which touched on capitalism, current global trends in animal consumption, and using economic data to measure the success of programs and campaigns for animals.

In my last post, I asked whether or not it's presumptuous for animal advocates (who are most often human) to attempt to quantify suffering for different species and animals in diverse situations. It may seem reasonable to generalize that mammals are more capable of suffering than insects, for instance, although some people would argue the point. Getting more specific than that, like by suggesting that "battery hens" suffer more than shelter animals, would certainly generate more controversy. So, can we quantify animal suffering?

In my last post, I wrote that "the essential goal of the animal protection movement is to eliminate animal suffering or, in more realistic terms, to reduce animal suffering as much as possible." While I think most advocates would agree with that goal, some would argue that anything short of total elimination of animal suffering would be a failure. However, one thing I think we can probably all agree on is that it will become increasingly important to define our overall goals as a movement, even if we don't agree on the specifics.

As I was organizing some old files the other day, I came upon a 10-year vision statement for the animal protection movement, which I wrote for a meeting a couple of years ago. A vision statement is a picture of how you would like the world to be. My 10-year vision is necessarily high-level and incomplete, but it may provide interesting food for thought as we consider the future of animals, their advocates, and the public’s awareness, attitudes, and behavior.