This weekend I attended the Animal Rights Conference 2011 in Los Angeles, CA. On Friday I had the pleasure of presenting at the conference with Nick Cooney, author of the book Change of Heart, to an audience of over 100 animal advocates. Our talk centered on the need to incorporate research into advocacy.
It is important for researchers to engage in work that can inform advocacy. On the Humane Thinking blog a number of researchers have used their professional expertise to inform advocates. For example, Caryn Ginsberg and Courtney Dillard recently contributed articles to help advocates improve their campaigns and messages based on the work they have done professionally.
My talk at the conference highlighted a need for more such work by researchers, and provided advice on ways that researchers can make their work more available to advocates. I also provided practical advice on how advocates can conduct research. This talk is based off of a working paper, portions of which will be highlighted on the Humane Thinking Blog throughout the following month.
Below is an excerpt of the paper that discusses the need for research and advocacy to function together to further the goals of the animal protection movement.
Thank you,
Carol Glasser, PhD
HRC Research Director
P.S.: The Humane Research Council serves a vital role by providing research to advocates and giving scholars a venue for their research. Please make a small donation to HRC today to help us continue to serve this role and help bridge the gap between scholars and animal advocates.
Bridging the Gap Between Research and Advocacy
I am in the business of research. I am also in the business of animal advocacy. From my perspective, these activities are complementary, each informing and improving the other; they are symbiotic activities on a path toward animal liberation – meaning an end to animal suffering caused by humans. Researchers and academics have access to training, experience and tools that will let them answer important questions for animal advocates, such as: what are cultural attitudes toward animal practices; how many animals are used in different industries; and what are the links between animal abuse and human social problems?
Animal advocates can tap into this research to inform campaigns, improve messages and materials, and better understand the challenges they face. Furthermore, advocates can enlist the help of researchers as they develop materials that should change public perception or to evaluate the effectiveness of the work that they are doing on behalf of other animals.
Unfortunately, academics are not widely producing work that is of use to advocates. Furthermore, advocates are not accessing the research that is crucial to improving their effectiveness. This issue is two-fold. Researchers and academics need to make their work useful, available, and understandable to advocates. This is arguably the bigger issue, and where the most work must be done. At the same time, advocates need to do more to inform their campaigns and use tactics and materials that are proven to effect change.
This paper will discuss both issues and identify concrete ways that both researchers and advocates might work to ameliorate these problems. Further, this paper addresses the ways that these groups can learn from each other. The way that advocates organize has much to teach academics, and advocates can learn from the ways that academics share knowledge and address problems.
Praxis
To ameliorate both the lack of research directed toward advocacy and the often esoteric and inaccessible research, we need a clear line of praxis. Praxis is theory in action. The need for praxis has long been recognized; theorists as early as Aristotle discussed the way that theory can become actualized or enacted in practice. The work of Karl Marx is exemplar of praxis, as theory-building for Marx was intended exclusively to inform action. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2006 [1970]: 51), Paulo Friere highlights the need for praxis in order for humans to truly be free from oppression:
-
Functionally, oppression is domesticating. To no longer be prey to its force, one must emerge from it and turn upon it. This can be done only by means of the praxis: reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it.
Friere’s definition of praxis is inspirational; nonetheless, action and theory rarely work in concert. Until action is guided by theory-building and research, transforming the world into a place tolerable to the currently exploited masses of other animals will be a slow and difficult process.
The act of reflecting upon the world in a manner that incorporates animal others has been taken up by scholars to a minimal degree. In 1987 the journal Anthrozoos was launched, marking the beginning of the field of Human Animal Studies (HAS) (Shapiro, 2008: 7). HAS is focused on the relationships between humans and other animals, taking the role of other animals seriously, rather than just focusing on what they can provide to humans. Since its inception, the field of HAS has grown exponentially (Best, 2009; Shapiro 2008).
Critical Animal Studies (CAS), as developed and imagined by Steven Best and Anthony Nocella, pushes HAS to a point of praxis (my words, not theirs). They argue that the role of animal studies is not just to examine animals in a respectful way, but to make those studies deliberately useful to the struggle for animal liberation and liberation from all oppression (see Best et al., 2007 for a list of the 10 tenants of CAS).
If some research is already available and there are researchers willing to study “animal issues,” why are advocates without the research they need? The problem lies on both sides of the equation. Academics and researchers are not getting the necessary research to advocates, due to what I call the Ivory Trap, and advocates are not seeking out or utilizing research in their campaigns, due to a lack of training and organization.
Read the full article...
Email this Blog Entry
awesome
Post new comment