Proof Behind Conducting Analysis for Efficient Advocacy

20 minute learn

What’s This Intervention?

• Efficient advocacy analysis includes investigating and evaluating methods, interventions, and trigger areas to establish impactful and cost-effective methods to assist animals. It could possibly additionally embody extra foundational analysis, comparable to within the social sciences, to know the context through which advocates function.
• The purpose is to tell the Efficient Animal Advocacy (EAA) subject and methodology, which entails utilizing proof and motive to do essentially the most good for animals, adjusting interventions based mostly on out there proof, prioritizing techniques with good proof of causal effectiveness, and prioritizing less expensive techniques.¹
• Analysis is carried out by lecturers, analysis organizations, or researchers at animal advocacy organizations.
• Observe that this proof evaluation focuses on analysis for efficient farmed animal advocacy; see our separate proof evaluations for wild animal welfare analysis and farmed animal welfare science.

Abstract: What’s our General Evaluation of This Intervention? How Assured are We in This Evaluation?

• Efficient advocacy analysis appears to be a bottleneck for the animal advocacy motion, and its funding is comparatively low in comparison with different interventions, and when in comparison with analysis funding in different fields. Nonetheless, advocates don’t merely want extra analysis, however particular forms of analysis, particularly in China, Southeast Asia, and Low- and Center-Revenue International locations (LMICs).
• A significant barrier is translating analysis findings into impactful actions. Given how a lot interventions fluctuate of their value effectiveness, efficient advocacy analysis has the potential to be extremely impactful if it encourages a shift from much less to less expensive interventions and techniques. Nonetheless, advocates typically favor making small changes to their applications quite than adopting completely new techniques, partly on account of funder expectations and contextual constraints. This lack of flexibility might considerably restrict the impression of analysis on advocacy outcomes.
• Primarily based on our proof evaluation, we predict the effectiveness of this intervention is extremely context-specific. Meaning every analysis undertaking must be evaluated by itself deserves based mostly on who would use the analysis and its potential impression, whether or not the analysis query is strategically actionable, and whether or not there’s a plan to translate the findings into accessible and sensible insights.
• Given the excessive value of analysis and the challenges in translating analysis findings into impression for animals, analysis efforts must be extremely strategic. Promising, focused analysis efforts embody:
  • Fostering nearer collaboration between researchers and advocates all through the analysis life cycle to pick and co-create related analysis questions, and to develop sensible, actionable insights which are related to the top customers’ particular wants and context. This consists of producing localized and context-specific knowledge that advocates can readily apply. Analysis in China and Southeast Asia may very well be notably beneficial given the massive farmed animal inhabitants and relative lack of localized knowledge, which may power advocates to make use of their restricted capability to supply their very own analysis.
  • Creating high-quality proof syntheses, comparable to systematic evaluations, which may information extra impactful future analysis questions, assist establish precedence areas for additional analysis, and provides researchers and advocates an understanding of the state of the proof round an intervention or trigger space. Studying concerning the want for such syntheses contributed to ACE launching Higher for Animals!
  • Establishing a movement-wide analysis agenda and rising collaboration between analysis teams, which might assist scale back duplication of effort, steer researchers towards an important questions, and encourage extra implementation-focused analysis.
  • Growing movement-wide requirements for measurement, analysis methodology, and analysis finest practices, which might facilitate synthesizing analysis and evaluating the effectiveness of various approaches, and assist enhance analysis high quality.
• All analysis efforts ought to be communicated and disseminated with finish customers in thoughts. Meaning:
  • Findings have to be translated into accessible language and clearly actionable insights, as analysis is usually tough to interpret for these with no analysis background, and advocacy organizations’ capability is usually restricted.
  • Communication ought to be proactive, utilizing codecs like movies and accessible summaries which are sensible for advocates to use.
  • This course of could also be aided by “data brokers,” that are intermediate organizations that may assist bridge the hole between researchers and advocates.
• Our confidence on this evaluation is low to average, given the shortage of Randomized-Managed Trials (RCTs) or different empirical research immediately testing the consequences of analysis, and on condition that a lot of the knowledge introduced is self-reported, which may very well be skewed by social desirability or different biases. A number of of our conclusions are based mostly on theoretical analyses or opinion items that, though well-reasoned and well-researched, can’t present any causal proof.
• We predict analysis is indispensable for social actions, and as such, future meta analysis ought to place a robust emphasis on figuring out methods to extend the uptake of analysis findings. It will even be beneficial to research the consequences of utilizing proof to affect funders—on condition that this can be extra tractable than influencing advocates—and of influencing governments and different analysis funders to incentivize a concentrate on high-impact analysis questions amongst lecturers.

In Depth

What does the analysis say about how efficient this intervention is?

To the most effective of our data, there are presently no empirical research immediately testing the impact of analysis on advocates’ effectiveness, and the impression of analysis basically is notoriously difficult to measure.² This proof evaluation subsequently depends largely on oblique proof, and focuses on 1) theoretical arguments, 2) whether or not efficient advocacy analysis fills an essential hole for the motion, 3) whether or not and the way advocates use analysis to information their work, 4) whether or not and the way analysis has impacted the motion prior to now, and 5) whether or not efficient advocacy analysis appears prone to be a cheap intervention.

1. What’s the theoretical argument for analysis on Efficient Animal Advocacy?

Theoretical arguments posit that advocates ought to use analysis proof to optimize their efforts to cut back animal struggling, given the large scale of struggling and the motion’s restricted sources. Nonetheless, this method has additionally been criticized for specializing in easily-measurable outcomes on the expense of extra systemic methods, and for potential points with analysis high quality and rigor.

• Fisher argues that there’s a ethical obligation for advocates to make use of proof and reasoning to optimize their work as a result of (i) with a transparent aim of lowering animal struggling and restricted sources, it’s important to maximise the impression of these sources to attain the best discount in struggling; (ii) sources presently disproportionately profit smaller teams of animals, comparable to companion animals; and (iii) totally different interventions fluctuate extensively of their value effectiveness, so advocates ought to prioritize those who supply the best impression per unit of sources spent.³
• Nonetheless, critics argue that this method might be overly centered on short-term impression and quantifiable metrics. These biases might steer efforts away from broader methods comparable to motion constructing or political outreach, and failing to deal with the deeper structural causes of social and environmental injustice. Moreover, there could also be issues concerning the high quality and rigor of analysis throughout the subject, e.g., on account of a frequent lack of peer evaluation.⁴

2. Is efficient advocacy analysis filling a niche within the motion?

Funding for analysis appears to be disproportionately low, each in comparison with different interventions and to analysis spending in human-focused fields, comparable to International Well being and Growth. Survey and interview knowledge (see additionally the subsequent part) recommend {that a} lack of particular forms of proof bottlenecks advocates, however it’s unclear whether or not this could primarily be addressed by extra analysis, translating present findings into actionable methods for advocates, or higher coordinating the sometimes-scattered analysis efforts throughout the motion.

• An Bold Impression (AIM) report argues that lack of proof is a key bottleneck for efficient animal advocacy, based mostly on a panorama evaluation of the animal advocacy motion, professional views, and comparability to the International Well being and Growth motion.⁵ The motion’s proof base, when measured by way of expenditures allotted, has been estimated to be lower than 1% of the sources allotted to analysis within the International Well being and Growth motion.⁶ As a part of a (very speculative) cost-effectiveness evaluation, the authors estimate that the animal advocacy motion could be 15% extra impactful with a greater proof base.⁷
• There has solely been a minimal improve in relative spending on analysis throughout the farmed animal motion, from solely round 3% of the $220 million allotted to farmed animal advocacy spent on analysis and improvement in 2021 to 4% of $260 million in 2024.⁸
• One other AIM report argues that whereas a number of teams are conducting movement-building analysis, its high quality and focus stay inconsistent, with analysis agendas typically pushed by workers pursuits quite than strategic priorities, indicating a necessity for higher coordination and extra focused efforts to deal with high-priority gaps in understanding of animal advocacy techniques.⁹

3. How are advocates utilizing analysis findings of their work?

A number of stories, principally carried out by Faunalytics, have explored how advocates use analysis findings, and what kind of analysis they’re missing specifically. Advocates typically report utilizing analysis of their work, however they hardly ever shift their group’s foundational priorities. Advocates are notably in want of extra localized knowledge, particularly in uncared for geographical areas, and proof evaluations synthesizing present analysis to supply actionable insights.

• In 2024, Faunalytics interviewed 20 workers members from farmed animal advocacy organizations on their use of analysis and knowledge.¹⁰
  • The outcomes recommend that advocates use analysis in 5 key methods: to bolster their legitimacy with exterior stakeholders; information inside strategic choices; establish urgent issues and potential options; construct partnerships inside and past the animal advocacy motion; and catalyze broader motion by connecting animal points to wider societal issues, comparable to local weather change and public well being.
  • Analysis just isn’t typically used to set foundational priorities; organizations have a tendency to regulate techniques and messaging based mostly on new info with out altering their core mission.
  • Essentially the most important reported gaps in analysis embody understanding the best way to impact change for under-researched species and in uncared for areas such because the International South, and a scarcity of social science insights on social motion techniques.
  • Challenges confronted by organizations embody restricted time and experience to translate complicated analysis into actionable methods, in addition to a necessity for complete proof syntheses.
• Within the second part of the identical undertaking, the Faunalytics researchers carried out focus teams with leaders of animal advocacy teams in China and Southeast Asia particularly.¹¹
  • Right here, too, advocates reported utilizing analysis each internally and externally, and even typically to shift broader technique (e.g., one participant reported that analysis drove a shift from particular person outreach to company campaigns).
  • Key obstacles to implementing analysis findings embody points with localization, credibility, accessibility, and value. For analysis to be efficient, it have to be adaptable to the native context, and are available from a trusted supply that stakeholders discover professional. Findings have to be straightforward to seek out and afford, and the format and timing of the analysis have to be sensible for stakeholders to use. Challenges additionally embody time-intensive searches for analysis findings on account of lack of information sharing and centralized analysis dissemination.
  • Many Asian advocates report being concerned in producing their very own analysis to compensate for a scarcity of localized knowledge, additional lowering the capability of an already small motion.
  • Particular analysis gaps cited embody behavioral analysis on Asian shopper conduct, meta-level research on efficient advocacy techniques, and intersectional analysis that explores how elements comparable to faith and social change might have an effect on dietary change.
• A 2024 Faunalytics examine concerned a survey of 197 decision-makers at animal advocacy organizations throughout 84 nations, together with six focus teams of 20 individuals.¹²
  • In step with the above findings, outcomes confirmed that advocacy organizations are likely to favor scaling up present campaigns or utilizing new media methods, quite than adopting completely new approaches. Nonetheless, 63% of advocates surveyed expressed a willingness to attempt no less than one new technique, with important curiosity in institutional approaches amongst direct animal work organizations (66%) and particular person advocacy teams (91%).
  • Importantly, strategic choices are constrained not simply by inside elements, comparable to mission and sources, but in addition by exterior elements, such because the expectations of funders and the native political and cultural context.
  • However, analysis is seen as a key useful resource for advocacy, and advocates report a selected want for extra native knowledge, e.g., on dietary habits and food plan change interventions, given their tendency to prioritize context-specific analysis to information their methods.
• Faunalytics’ 2024 group survey (which relies on a non-random pattern with probably particularly-favorable views of analysis) confirmed that whereas many advocates worth Faunalytics’ analysis—79% mentioned it guided their advocacy choices and 77% famous enhancements of their efforts due to it—just a few of them translate this into adjustments of their techniques: 31% of respondents aimed to make use of analysis to enhance their advocacy strategies, and 23% used it to pick methods. Respondents expressed a transparent want for extra analysis within the International South.¹³
• A 2019 AIM report typically corroborates these findings, suggesting that advocates are extra receptive to altering particulars of their campaigns in response to new info—like refining particular advocacy asks—than to broader strategic shifts, comparable to transitioning from particular person to institutional outreach. Most analysis just isn’t presently used or utilized by funders or NGOs; researchers the authors interviewed might solely establish a couple of cases the place analysis considerably influenced advocacy teams, and advocacy teams hardly ever cited analysis as a major issue of their resolution making. This means that the primary concern round efficient advocacy analysis is its sensible utility. Nonetheless, as one professional we spoke to famous, it’s essential to remember that analysis can be used to speak the pondering behind their present technique to exterior stakeholders, with out essentially adjusting technique.
• Influencing funders—notably these aligned with efficient altruism—could also be extra tractable than influencing advocates immediately.¹⁴ Specialists we spoke to agreed that lack of flexibility to shift technique is far much less of a barrier for funders. In addition they steered this method may very well be extra environment friendly and price efficient: Influencing one funder’s technique has the potential to impression many organizations directly, bypassing the necessity to persuade a crucial mass of advocates inside every group to alter their method.

4. What are some examples of the consequences of advocacy analysis?

Whereas we have been unable to seek out many examples of advocates reporting that particular items of analysis have led to elevated impression, efficient advocacy analysis has probably influenced the motion by encouraging the prioritization of animals struggling in giant numbers.
Price-effectiveness analyses have highlighted the excessive anticipated impression of company outreach to enhance farmed animal welfare, encouraging uptake of this method and resulting in quite a few welfare commitments for animals farmed in giant numbers. In different fields, like poverty discount, analysis has considerably strengthened impression by guiding strategic priorities and efficient interventions.

• Intervention analysis into promising trigger areas, mixed with a better emphasis on the Scale, Neglectedness, and Tractability framework,¹⁵ has led some advocates to prioritize efforts on animals farmed in nice numbers, particularly chickens and fishes.¹⁶ This shift has probably resulted within the motion’s initiatives benefiting a bigger variety of animals total.
• Analysis and cost-effectiveness analyses have additionally led many advocates to assist or work on company campaigns, with 1000’s of commitments received to enhance chickens’ wellbeing prior to now three many years.^{17 18}
• An professional we consulted additionally highlighted that analysis by AIM¹⁹ has led to the founding of quite a few animal advocacy teams, a few of whom ACE considers extremely efficient, comparable to Shrimp Welfare Undertaking.
• Whereas examples from animal advocacy particularly are restricted, different fields, like poverty discount, have seen important enhancements of their proof base via analysis, together with quite a few randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and a stronger understanding of efficient improvement methods. Notable analysis facilities, comparable to The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Motion Lab, Improvements for Poverty Motion, and the Middle For International Growth, reveal the impression that centered analysis can have, regardless of being a gradual and expensive course of even in extremely evidence-driven fields.²⁰

5. How value efficient is advocacy analysis?

Price-effectiveness analyses of advocacy analysis are extremely speculative, with outcomes extremely depending on mannequin inputs. General, the fashions we thought-about recommend that analysis might be extremely value efficient, however it is vitally difficult to foretell which tasks may have an outsized impression, and the selection of analysis query is a crucial think about figuring out a undertaking’s total impression.

• Rethink Priorities’ cross-cause cost-effectiveness mannequin²¹ estimates the impression of various kinds of analysis tasks, based mostly on elements comparable to the standard of the intervention, funding standing, and the likelihood of discovering or bettering a goal intervention. Estimates vary from -3,330 to 47,000 DALYs averted per $1,000, relying on mannequin inputs.²² These variations spotlight the significance of contemplating elements comparable to counterfactual prices, the probability of discovering or bettering an intervention, the potential improve in value effectiveness from research-based enhancements, and the way a lot counterfactual credit score ought to be assigned to a given analysis undertaking when estimating the impression of analysis tasks.
• A tough back-of-the-envelope cost-effectiveness evaluation revealed within the Efficient Altruism Discussion board in 2022 estimates that reallocating 2% of funding to more practical interventions (based mostly on analysis findings) might result in 8.2 extra chicken-years affected per greenback, based mostly on a 20% enchancment in funding allocation effectiveness.²³ Nonetheless, the cost-effectiveness estimate relies upon closely on the extent to which an intervention or funding allocation might be improved, and the creator thinks this determine might moderately be between 5–50%.²⁴
• Rethink Priorities developed a mannequin for estimating the price effectiveness of analysis to affect funders. Whereas the estimate depends upon a number of inputs, such because the probability {that a} piece of analysis will affect funder choices, the sum of money that may very well be influenced, and the price of the analysis undertaking, the authors observe that the mannequin implies that it may well typically be less expensive to conduct analysis than to immediately fund extremely efficient interventions. Moreover, transferring some funders from low to middling value effectiveness might be aggressive with—or much more efficient than—working with extremely cost-effective funders.²⁵

Power of proof

• Relating to the meta analysis on efficient advocacy analysis, there’s a big lack of empirical research, notably RCTs, immediately testing the causal impression of efficient advocacy analysis on advocacy outcomes. This makes it tough to ascertain cause-and-effect relationships.
• A lot of the present knowledge comes from self-reports by advocates (e.g., surveys, interviews). One of these knowledge might be inclined to biases comparable to social desirability (respondents answering in a manner they understand as favorable) or recall bias (inaccuracies in remembering previous occasions or influences).
• A number of conclusions are drawn from theoretical arguments or opinion items. Whereas these could also be properly reasoned and completely researched, they don’t present any empirical proof.
• Qualitative focus group and interview research typically contain small pattern sizes, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings.
• It’s notoriously tough to immediately measure the impression of analysis and to attribute advocacy successes to particular analysis tasks.

Below what situations is that this intervention roughly efficient?

The effectiveness of analysis probably varies extensively based mostly on elements comparable to the selection of analysis query, regional context, and analysis high quality. There isn’t a consensus on whether or not extra major analysis or extra evaluations ought to be prioritized.

• AIM means that, based mostly on relative neglectedness, it could be notably essential to conduct extra major analysis and analysis in LMICs.²⁶
• An issue-mapping report on the EA Discussion board argues that secondary analysis, together with systematic evaluation articles, is required to information impactful analysis questions. In response to the creator, poor analysis questions are sometimes pushed by publication bias and a tutorial system favoring short-term, high-volume output. This makes it more durable for researchers to achieve a complete understanding of a subject, which may result in misguided analysis priorities. Assessment articles might help synthesize proof, establish gaps, and information future analysis towards a better impression potential.²⁷
• The identical report additionally means that deciding on the best analysis query is vital to maximizing impression, and that influencing analysis coverage and funder choices might assist information analysis priorities.²⁸ Specialists we spoke to agreed that analysis questions have to be chosen based mostly on their strategic implications, and that researchers typically choose questions which are too area of interest to be of actual curiosity to advocates. Low-quality analysis may also be a difficulty, and sometimes stems from insufficient peer evaluation and poor methodological practices, whereas beneficial replication research are sometimes uncared for.²⁹
• In response to AIM, amongst varied doable approaches to increasing animal advocacy analysis, ask-focused analysis appears to be essentially the most promising, adopted by analysis directed at funders, making a movement-wide analysis agenda, conducting RCTs on animal points, and producing extra in-depth intervention stories.³⁰ Specialists we spoke to added prioritization analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and monitoring and analysis as key priorities.
• Arguably among the many most essential elements influencing the effectiveness of analysis is whether or not and the way it’s used. Effectively-conducted analysis focusing on high-priority questions can nonetheless have a negligible impression if the findings are usually not disseminated and actioned. Whereas we’re unaware of analysis particularly testing the situations that make analysis findings extra prone to be carried out, based mostly on this proof evaluation we predict some forms of analysis are more likely to be successfully carried out than others:
  • Analysis that’s co-created with, or no less than closely knowledgeable by, finish customers (advocates), and tackles matters and questions that matter to them. Suggestions based mostly on this analysis ought to consider the contextual realities of advocates that would pose obstacles to implementation, together with cultural and political elements and the affect of donors and funders.³¹ Cultivating sustained relationships between researchers and advocates, constructed on a shared understanding of one another’s contexts, pressures, and desires, might assist obtain this.
  • Analysis that comes with a powerful dissemination technique and is translated into accessible language and clearly actionable findings to avoid wasting organizational capability. Information brokers, i.e., intermediate organizations that bridge the hole between researchers and advocates, might help with this.³²
  • For advocates who primarily use analysis to affect exterior stakeholders, analysis must be seen as unbiased and credible, which may typically imply that lecturers or unbiased analysis institutes could be higher positioned than advocacy-focused researchers.³³
  • On the aspect of the top customers, proof from healthcare system research means that having a devoted “champion” inside a company, who oversees the implementation of analysis proof within the group’s techniques and technique, can increase the uptake of extra evidence-based practices,³⁴ although this has not been examined inside animal advocacy particularly.

Our Priorities for Enhancing this Proof Assessment

• For future iterations of this proof evaluation, we hope to incorporate extra case research of particular items of analysis which have shifted techniques or methods within the motion, with a believable optimistic impression on animals. To this finish, we plan to talk to extra researchers and advocates within the motion.
• We’d additionally like to talk to funders within the motion and add a piece on how funders use analysis of their methods and choices.
• We’d additionally prefer to seek the advice of with analysis organizations on how they measure their very own impression and request inside impression knowledge.

Final up to date January 28, 2026.

We want to thank Chris Bryant, Michael St. Jules, and Sueda Evirgen for his or her useful suggestions as peer reviewers.

1. Fisher (2017) 

2. Tilli (2021) 

3. Fisher (2017) 

4. Broad (2018) 

5. Hilton & Bansal (2023) 

6. See additionally Greig (2021) 

7. Observe that this evaluation is all principally based mostly on animal welfare science analysis (which is extra related for ask prioritization than for figuring out efficient interventions). Whereas quite a lot of the identical issues probably apply to efficient advocacy analysis, not all will.  

8. Driscoll et al. (2025) 

9. Savoie & Sarek (2019) 

10. Jones & Anderson (2024) 

11. Chung & Stennet (2024) 

12. Stennet et al. (2024) 

13. Anderson (2024) 

14. Savoie & Sarek (2019) 

15. Wiblin (2019) 

16. Salazar et al. (2021) 

17. Hen Watch (n.d.) 

18. However this might need additionally led the motion to overfocus on company campaigns; see e.g., right here. 

19. See right here for AIM’s analysis stories. 

20. Savoie & Sarek (2019) 

21. Rethink Priorities (2023) 

22. For comparability, cost-effectiveness analyses of direct interventions estimate that cage-free campaigns avert 4.59 DALY/$ (Grilo, 2024a) and Shrimp Welfare Undertaking’s Humane Slaughter Initiative averts 639 DALY/$ (Grilo, 2024b). 

23. For comparability, a cost-effectiveness evaluation of cage-free company campaigns estimates that cage-free campaigns enhance 10.8 chicken-years/$ (Grilo, 2024a).  

24. Nameless (2022) 

25. Greig & Davis (2023) 

26. Hilton & Bansal (2023) 

27. Tilli (2021) 

28. Observe that this evaluation refers particularly to the tutorial system, however lots of the issues probably additionally apply to unbiased analysis organizations or analysis carried out inside advocacy organizations.  

29. Tilli (2021) 

30. Savoie & Sarek (2019) 

31. Stennet et al. (2024) 

32. Jones & Anderson (2024) 

33. Jones & Anderson (2024) 

34. McArthur et al (2021) 

---

---

---

About Alina Salmen

Alina joined ACE in September 2022. She holds a Ph.D. in Social Psychology, with a concentrate on gender position beliefs and attitudes towards veganism. She is captivated with utilizing her analysis expertise to assist ACE’s mission and scale back animal struggling as a lot as doable.

ACE is devoted to making a world the place all animals can thrive, no matter their species. We take the
guesswork out of supporting animal advocacy by directing funds towards essentially the most impactful charities and applications,
based mostly on proof and analysis.

167
Recipients engaged on promising tasks

42
International locations throughout six continents.

$68M
Donations throughout the animal advocacy motion.

$58,000,000+
in donations already made to our really helpful charities between January 2019 and March 2025

Seeking to make your first donation? We’re glad to assist

Study extra

Donate now