Frequently Asked Questions About Research
Isn't consumer and market research expensive?
But don't we know most of this stuff already?
Haven't we already done enough of this research?
What are the different research methods and why are they needed?
But don't people say one thing and do another in qualitative research?
What about surveys and margin of error?
What about other types of research?
I'm still not convinced. Why should we use research?
What if I have questions about the Humane Research Council?
Q: Isn't consumer and market research expensive?
A: It doesn't have to be. There is a wide variety of free and low-cost resources available to animal advocates, including those offered by HRC. For small-scale campaigns and projects, costs can be reduced or eliminated by using only secondary research or very inexpensive primary methods. For instance, low-cost surveys can be emailed or mailed to members of the target audience, often for the cost of printing and postage alone.
However, HRC urges animal advocates to think of research as an investment. The time and energy spent on research should be commensurate with the stakes of the campaign or project it is meant to support. For larger programs or campaigns, the long-term costs of not listening to your audience -- literally and figuratively -- may far outweigh the cost of conducting research. The expense of a poorly designed advertisement or publication, for instance, can have ramifications for many years.
Animal advocates devote substantial resources to their public education campaigns and other programs. Without research and evaluation, an organization runs the risk of missing its target and misusing its resources. Research can not only save advocacy groups money on potentially wasted materials, but even entire campaigns. Inexpensive consumer research, currently underutilized by most animal protection groups, can help advocates more effectively help animals.
Q: But don't we know most of this stuff already?
A: Unfortunately, no. Hunches and gut feelings about our target audiences are sometimes accurate, but we cannot rely on those assumptions when the stakes are big. Similarly, animal advocates should not assume that their programs are having a positive impact. We owe it to our supporters, ourselves, and especially the animals to constantly evaluate and improve our efforts. When animal advocates launch and/or measure key programs without the aid of good research, it is like crossing their fingers and just hoping they are waging an effective campaign.
In recent years the animal protection movement has unfortunately suffered several important setbacks relating to public opinion and consumer behavior. It is conceivable that some of these setbacks could have been predicted, checked, and even avoided by a "preventive" research campaign covering the attitudes and behaviors of people who consume animal products. A sustained research program covering the key issues that impact non-human animals will allow advocates to stay "ahead of the curve" and identify and respond proactively to such industry trends and counter-messages.
Don't forget the words of Mark Twain: "The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that ain't so."
Q: Haven't we already done enough of this research?
A: The animal advocacy movement has only scratched the surface of potential consumer research. Thus far, the movement has conducted only sporadic research studies relating to the public's perception and use of animals and animal products. Moreover, most of these studies are outdated, very small in scale, or both. Many of the most widely used advocacy materials have never been evaluated or improved with feedback from the target audience, which is too often defined as the "general public."
There is much that animal advocates have yet to learn about consumers. Consider the following questions:
- Which messages resonate best with which target audiences? (Pick any target audience -- do we have enough information to reach them effectively?)
- Which methods of persuasion (i.e., tactics) will lead to more animal-friendly behavior?
- When are emotional appeals more effective than providing facts or "rational" arguments?
- How well do the opposition's messages resonate with your audience? Conversely, which of their messages are weak and therefore vulnerable?
- How are people's behavior and society's attitudes toward animals and animal advocates changing over time?
Q: What are the different research methods and why are they needed?
A: Generally speaking, most primary research is divided into two categories: quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative research methods are usually those that result in projectable data. In other words, the results can be used to represent, or predict, the attitudes or behavior of a larger population (assuming appropriate probability sampling). The data can also be used to establish baselines and measure the impact of your campaigns. Quantitative research methods include large-sample surveys, analysis of statistical data, benchmarking studies, etc.
The results of qualitative research are not projectable, and are typically used to identify and explore ranges of attitudes and behaviors. Qualitative research methods include ethnographic research, in-depth cognitive interviews, focus groups, and analysis of open-ended survey data. Each type of research, and indeed each specific methodology, has its own particular strengths and weaknesses. Campaign strategists diversify their research using both methods in order to produce more reliable data. For instance, qualitative research is often conducted prior to the design and implementation to identify the appropriate issues to measure quantitatively.
For more about the need for integrating quantitative and qualitative research in the context of social marketing, read this excellent article from Weinreich Communications.
Q: But don't people say one thing and do another in qualitative research?
A: Qualitative research is an essential tool for researchers and advocates alike, but it can be subject to certain limitations. Respondents' answers may differ from their actual opinions or behavior for a variety of reasons, particularly when it comes to making predictions about themselves. Some participants intentionally misrepresent their behavior and opinions about an issue in an effort to please the researcher or avoid social stigma; others do so inadvertently. This may also occur when asking research participants to describe their own motivations and barriers to change, including cases in which participants may not be aware of their own motivations.
Despite these limitations, much can be learned from qualitative data if we apply intelligent methods and analysis. Self-reported intentions can provide a very useful starting point for advocates to evaluate the true intentions and potential changes for different groups of people. Their answers in interviews and focus groups may not align perfectly with their true feelings or intentions, but a skilled researcher will be able to identify meaningful trends for advocates. In the end, most qualitative research is really about cognitive science (understanding how people think); the researcher plays the role of psychoanalyst, hopefully discovering the true meanings behind the words.
Q: What about surveys and margin of error?
A: People unfamiliar with research and statistics are often surprised (or skeptical) when they learn that a survey of only 1,000 people can truly reflect the beliefs or behavior of the entire US adult population. Indeed, probability sampling techniques form the basis of public opinion surveys, and they are used consistently by politicians and corporate decision-makers. The basic principle of probability sampling is this: a randomly selected, small percent of a population of people can represent the attitudes, opinions, or projected behavior of all of the people, if the sample is selected correctly (Gallup 2005).
Just like qualitative research, quantitative data are subject to certain limitations, specifically the reliance on probability samples. One must have a truly random sample to apply rigorous statistical tests and ensure confidence that the results are representative of the population. For probability samples, one measure of accuracy is the survey's margin of error. Margin of error represents the sampling error of the estimated statistic in question and is typically represented as a plus or minus percentage applied to the results of survey questions. All else being equal, the margin of error is higher for small-sample surveys, and the results are less projectable for surveys with smaller samples.
Read more about sampling error on Wikipedia.
Q: What about other types of research?
A: A wide range of accessible and low-cost research methods exist for potential use by animal advocates. In addition to the tried and true interviews, focus groups, and surveys discussed in other questions, research also includes establishing benchmarks, performance/impact measurement, media content analyses, ethnographic research, secondary research, etc. Many of these methods require special research knowledge or skills such as those offered by HRC's personnel. Others can be conducted with little or no outside help and can be as simple as searching the internet.
There are as many methods for research as there are research problems to solve, but most are just more complex variants of the same basic techniques involving interviews, focus groups, and surveys. The important thing for advocates is to know which methods to apply to address which problems or questions about their programs and campaigns. HRC currently offers many of these research services and significantly discounted fees for animal advocates; for more information, please go here.
Q: I'm still not convinced. Why should we use research?
A: Simply put, because they are using it. You can bet the major meat processors, pharmaceutical companies, and fur industry trade groups allocate significant resources to such consumer and market research. These industries know from experience that research can pay big dividends. When times change, smart companies (and advocates) let consumers dictate strategy and message development, rather than relying on biased or outdated information. Animal advocates must adopt these time-tested techniques pioneered by the tacticians in the worlds of industry and public policy. These methods work equally well in other areas and animal advocates can benefit from using the same techniques.
Q: What if I have questions about the Humane Research Council?
A: Please go here for a list of HRC-related frequently answered questions.