Resource Type: Field Research

While adding injustice messaging did not consistently improve performance over their existing messaging (which employs shared identity and efficacy elements) for republicEn’s conservative audience, research revealed several promising techniques for how best to optimize injustice messaging for conservatives going forward (such as by generating anger and emphasizing unfairly distribute health impacts).
 

For both those who are planning on climate deep canvassing, as well as those just curious about it, an all-star panel guides you through the ins and outs of designing, running, and evaluating a climate deep canvassing program, including a walkthrough of the entire deep canvassing design process; a haul of instructional materials, tipsheets, and sample scripts.

With the threats from telecom carriers to restrict broadcast and peer-to-peer texting, advocates may need to pivot to alternative modes of contact to reach and engage supporters. Sunrise Movement partnered with the Climate Advocacy Lab and The Movement Cooperative to test a relatively new technology as a potential replacement for text messages: ringless voicemail messages (a.k.a. voicemail drops). This approach allows senders to “drop” a voicemail into a recipient’s phone without registering as an incoming call, allowing for some of the same benefits of texting (asynchronous communication, notification on phone, etc.) but outside of the purview of carriers.

At the Lab, we are wrapping up field research projects with six great partner climate advocacy organizations. While I can’t wait to share what we’ve learned once they are complete, today I wanted to provide some of my reflections on best practices for field research I’ve learned from these tests and other projects. Think of these as extra dollops of advice on top of our core guidance on research and testing and Learning 101*.

You’ve probably heard a lot from us about evidence-based advocacy, but what are we talking about when we talk about “evidence?” Does it mean we privilege academic research that has withstood the rigor of peer review, or that we should raise up lessons learned through the hard work of organizing on the ground? Do we gather evidence from a bird’s-eye view of the public at large through polling, a detailed examination of a particular audience through interviewing, or an introspective analysis of how our own organizations and coalitions operate? The short answer is that we think all of it matters as long as the insights generated can help us be more effective, challenge our assumptions, and grow as a movement. This post examines how we think about evidence at the Lab and how we can break evidence down into the categories of Listening, Watching, Tinkering, and Reflecting*.