Research And Data As Tools In Advocates’ Decision-Making: A Focus On China & Southeast Asia

Asia is home to a substantial portion of the world’s farmed animals (Faunalytics, 2024) and yet receives a fraction of global advocacy resources (Farmed Animal Funders, 2021). Faunalytics’ new report, in partnership with The Good Growth Co., aims to equip animal advocates and funders with essential insights to bolster animal protection efforts in this underrepresented region. Based on focused discussions with leaders of animal advocacy organizations across China and Southeast Asia, this study sheds light on how advocates use, adapt, and produce research to strengthen their work amidst distinctive cultural and logistical challenges.

https://faunalytics.org/research-and-data-as-tools-china-and-southeast-asia/

Key Findings

1.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. 

Figure 1: Internal and External Uses of Research in Asian Animal Advocacy

2. 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.

Figure 2: The Four Pillars of Research Use In Animal Advocacy

3. 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. 

Figure 3: Key Steps and Questions Involved in the Research Engagement Process

4. 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.

5. 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. 

6. 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.

7. 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.

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.

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.

Conclusions

This study highlights both the shared challenges and unique opportunities faced by animal advocates in Asia. While many findings resonate with global trends from Phase I—such as the importance of research in influencing stakeholders and guiding internal decisions, and the need for sharing and adapting research findings—Asian advocates also encounter distinct barriers. Alongside the core issue of the scarcity of localized research, we also identified difficulties in translation and adaptation, specific hurdles in tracking and collaborating with producers, a lack of data consolidation, and the unique challenges posed by non-democratic governments, diverse cultural and religious contexts, and significant socio-economic disparities in the region. This may indeed reflect a challenge faced by advocates operating in many geographies where the movement is nascent—in these contexts there may be only a limited body of local research, and advocates are driven to fill in knowledge gaps themselves. Yet organizations in nascent movements tend to be smaller with fewer resources, forcing advocates to juggle multiple roles, and blurring the lines between advocacy and research.

From Knowledge Translation To Research Engagement 

Interestingly, this has led to a more complex relationship between Asian advocates and research, where advocates and even external stakeholders are engaged across different stages of the research process. This challenges the more traditional view of research as a contained and linear process, first conducted by researchers and then handed over for utilization by end users (e.g. advocates). In fact, the intermingling of researchers, advocates and external stakeholders across the research process may offer a more impactful model for research in advocacy, providing multiple opportunities for the ultimate users of the research to shape its direction, interpret results (integrating their knowledge of operating contexts) and adapt findings to most effectively communicate and drive change in their local contexts.

Thus, this report has presented the Research Engagement process to expand our focus beyond simply translating research to actively involving stakeholders in the formulation, production, communication, application and evaluation of research. In particular, we have endeavored to key considerations and potential best practices across each stage to provide a guiding tool for advocates and researchers looking to increase the impact of their research efforts. 

Building Culture And Infrastructure For Knowledge Sharing

That said, a central theme from this study (and Phase I) is the need to foster greater sharing of research and knowledge, both across the international community and among regional peers. Our findings indicate that both research infrastructure and culture need to be considered here. 

Improving the infrastructure for knowledge sharing through shared resource databases, Asia-focused advocacy events, and joint research agendas will encourage more effective collaboration. Another important consideration is the use of data consolidation platforms and tools to support advocates. While many organizations use internal databases, few have expanded these to a regional level—a gap that could potentially be filled by community-building organizations in the region. The value of research could also be expanded through the development of reusable tools that aid in decision-making or support external research use cases.

The other half of the knowledge-sharing equation is culture—while Phase I noted recent improvements in the culture of sharing in global animal advocacy, some Asian advocates expressed reluctance to share research findings with the international community. Investigating ways to foster a more supportive environment for sharing research and data within the movement, particularly for research generated by smaller organizations in the Global South, could be a valuable area for further exploration.

Optimizing Resources Through Local And International Coordination

In the short term, greater support, acknowledgment and sharing of local research findings is essential—empowering or funding advocates to conduct local research in some high-impact areas may also significantly enhance their ability to quickly address pressing local issues. Addressing short-term research shortages could benefit from improved coordination and creative strategies to answer questions for multiple organizations simultaneously. One approach could be to co-prioritize a research agenda between local advocates, researchers, funders and local stakeholders. This would involve collaboratively planning and developing open-access research in accessible formats, focusing on shared goals or identified data gaps, and identifying projects that address common questions across organizations.

Looking to the mid- to long-term, the international animal advocacy community can consider redirecting research resources to neglected regions, particularly parts of Asia with high concentrations of factory-farmed animals and potential for change. Some of the cases we highlighted, where an advocate shifted their focus from street outreach to corporate advocacy based on research findings, and where a large organization focused their operations on specific Southeast Asian countries after developing a research-based prioritization tool, indicate how marginal improvements in research in these areas could significantly influence the direction of organizations in nascent movements. 

Scaling Research Capacity In Emerging Advocacy Landscapes

As well as redirecting the efforts of targeted research organizations, and increasing research funding, this shift of resources to Asia could be accomplished by strengthening international university partnerships, and fostering local researchers' interest in these fields. It is critical to note that developing local research capacity is crucial. As we saw from this study, producing research for Asian stakeholders often requires a deep understanding of local norms, attitudes, and on-the-ground advocacy, which international researchers may lack. In fact, one experienced international advocate who moved to Asia noted that, only after conducting a field visit in Indonesia did he recognize the scope, and limitations, of what was possible in that context. This highlights the difficulty of understanding key strategic issues without firsthand knowledge of the local context. 

Advocate-researchers bring immense value to the field through their deep understanding of local contexts and stakeholder networks. However, as they engage in research, we must acknowledge the trade-off with time spent on direct advocacy actions. As the movement grows and specializes, it's likely that we'll see a greater division of labor between researchers and advocates. The key question becomes: How can we preserve the unique insights and local knowledge that advocate-researchers provide while scaling and specializing our efforts?

We believe the research engagement model, a more inclusive approach to research, offers a promising solution. By integrating different stakeholders across the research process to align interests and capture contextual knowledge. This approach can help maintain the valuable perspective of advocate-researchers while allowing for increased efficiency and specialization. This isn't a rigid model, but rather a flexible way of working that we'll need to adapt and refine as we go. This brings us back to the critical importance of knowledge sharing within the movement. By openly sharing our experiences, successes, and failures of conducting research in emerging advocacy landscapes, we can collectively learn and continuously improve our efforts and impact for animals.