Resource Type: Social Science Research

             
Social science research affirms the need for “critical capacities” of effective social movements (narrative, disruptive, electoral/institutional). What are these? How do we develop them in our campaigning and organizing work? In this training, we will work through the meaning of the critical capacities and their utility in multi-racial cross-class organizing. We will review case studies about how different coalitions have developed and sustained their critical capacities using evidence-based advocacy.
 

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*.

The power of organizing is the ability to apply enough people-power to win – and keep – the changes we need for a future in which we can all thrive. This power is a renewable resource built through the trust and mutual accountability fostered by the relationships the organizer seeds between members and the organization, members and the organizer, and members and other members. This session will equip you to apply organizing principles and evidence-based advocacy insights to your work with volunteers.

President Biden delivered his first State of the Union on Tuesday night, addressing the US response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as well as a variety of domestic policy concerns – from COVID to inflation to prescription drug prices. He only spoke briefly about climate change, highlighting the cost-saving and job-creation benefits of “Build Back Better” policies that would invest in home weatherization, electric vehicles, and renewable energy.
President Biden also announced the release of 30 billion barrels of oil from the strategic reserve (booo!) and, notably, failed to even mention the recent IPCC report, which details “terrifying” current and projected climate impacts. Just across the street, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on West Virginia vs. EPA, which could undermine the agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emission from power plants.
The Lab last covered the “state of the climate movement” back in 2019, when Democrats had just regained control of the House, we were writing explainers on Green New Deal, and global pandemics were the stuff of scary movies. All of which is to say… it was a really different world!

Discussion of climate on the social media platform Reddit looks less like polarized echo chambers than other social media sites. This resource may be the first to study climate conversation on Reddit, specifically. While the researchers found some evidence of polarization on Reddit (in the form of the topics discussed and sources of information shared), other Reddit sub-communities see more deliberative debate. Reddit may be unique from Twitter and others insofar as it does show some types of quality political debate about climate. These researchers studied the topics discussed, information provided as evidence, and quality of debate among various Reddit communities.

“Perceived fairness” and “effectiveness” are the most important determinants of public support for climate policies. “Self-enhancement values” and “knowledge about climate change” showed weak relationships to public opinion support, and demographic variables showed only weak or close to zero relationship to support for climate policies (or climate concern). “Fairness” refers to the extent that people or a process are treated or implemented equally, or according to criteria like need or merit. “Effectiveness” is people’s beliefs that a policy can fulfill a specific aim.

Does “evaluation” sound judgy, “research” feel like a luxury, “testing” pointless, or “data” too technical?
Then we welcome you to explore with us how developing a culture of testing, evaluation and learning is crucial to multiracial, cross-class organizing in the climate movement. Evaluation and learning allow you to get real-time feedback about what is working (or not), and the space to grow from your experience and make shifts to your work. So it’s crucial to understanding the areas we are successfully building power and where we need to experiment and iterate. If we can’t track and improve, how do we know if we are on the way to winning?

This resource identifies three distinct food consumer groups in the United States: “Motivated,” “Health-conscious,” and “Uninterested.” Members of the “Motivated” group are strongly motivated by health, environmental, and ethical considerations. “Health-conscious” group members are primarily motivated by health, and members of the “Uninterested” are not motivated to eat plant-based foods. We provide a four-question survey that can be used to identify these groups to best craft communication campaigns to persuade different people to choose plant-based diets. This survey asked lots of questions about the foods in diets that people prefer, influences on their food choices, their political and environmental beliefs, and more.