Section 2. Conducting Studies of the Issue

• What do we mean by conducting studies of the issue?

• Why would you want to conduct studies of the issue?

• How do you conduct studies of the issue?

What do we mean by conducting studies of the issue?

A study is a systematic effort to gather and analyze information for a specific purpose.

You may already have completed broad research to understand the issue at the beginning of your advocacy effort. Additional study can help you examine the issue more closely, test assumptions, understand different perspectives, identify gaps in existing information, and decide which strategies are most appropriate.

Depending on your question, a study may involve:

• Reviewing existing research or administrative data
• Analyzing public records
• Conducting interviews or listening sessions
• Surveying community members
• Holding focus groups
• Collecting observational or program data
• Conducting a formal quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods study

The method should fit the question you are trying to answer.

Advocacy research should not simply look for information that supports a position already chosen. A useful study may strengthen your original understanding, complicate it, or show that your proposed solution needs to change.

Why would you want to conduct studies of the issue?

Additional research may help your group:

• Understand the issue more fully
• Identify possible strategies and policy options
• Understand areas of support, uncertainty, and resistance
• Involve community members in learning about the issue
• Improve the accuracy of public statements
• Strengthen credibility through transparent use of evidence
• Identify gaps in existing services, policies, or information
• Assess whether a proposed intervention is likely to help
• Establish a baseline for future evaluation

Research can also reveal that the issue is different from what the group initially believed.

If credible evidence challenges your assumptions, reconsider the assumptions rather than looking only for data that support them.

How do you conduct studies of the issue?

Two broad approaches are common:

• Use existing information. Review research, public data, reports, records, and other sources that already address the issue.
• Collect new information. Gather information that is not already available or that needs to be updated for your community.

Many advocacy efforts use both approaches.

Documenting the issue using existing information

Before collecting new data, find out what already exists.

Existing research may save time, reduce duplication, and help you identify unanswered questions.

Ask:

• Which public agencies collect information related to the issue?
• Which community organizations are already working on it?
• Which researchers or institutions study it?
• Which businesses, professional organizations, or worker organizations may have relevant information?
• Which residents or community groups have lived experience that may not appear in formal datasets?
• What previous studies have examined this community or a similar issue?

Learn from other communities

Other communities may already have addressed a similar problem.

For example, if your community is concerned about industrial wastewater entering a river, another community may have dealt with a similar situation.

Ask:

• What information did they collect?
• Which agencies or experts were useful?
• What advocacy strategies did they try?
• What worked?
• What did not work?
• What would they do differently?
• Were there unintended consequences?

Be cautious when transferring findings from one community to another. Differences in law, population, geography, infrastructure, institutions, or economic conditions may affect whether an approach applies locally.

Potential sources of existing information

• Government data and records: Census data, public-health data, education records, housing data, environmental monitoring, budgets, inspections, permits, and other administrative information.
• Academic research: Peer-reviewed articles, university reports, research centers, and program evaluations.
• Community organizations: Needs assessments, community-generated data, program reports, and lived-experience information.
• Professional and trade organizations: Reports and data related to particular industries or professions.
• Local and regional media: Reporting and archives that can help establish history and identify public statements or previous events.
• Organizational reports: Annual reports, audits, strategic plans, issue briefs, regulatory filings, and evaluation reports.
• Archival records: Historical documents, meeting minutes, correspondence, and other records that provide context.

No category of source should automatically be treated as accurate simply because it is official, academic, nonprofit, corporate, or media-based.

Evaluate the quality of the evidence itself.

Evaluate existing sources carefully

For each important source, ask:

• Who produced the information?
• Why was it collected?
• How was it collected?
• How old is it?
• How are important terms defined?
• Which populations were included or excluded?
• What limitations are reported?
• Does the organization have relevant financial, political, or institutional interests?
• Can important claims be confirmed through another credible source?

Generating new data

Existing sources may not answer every question.

You may need local or current information about community experiences, attitudes, barriers, needs, or program outcomes.

Before collecting new data, define:

• What you need to know
• Why you need the information
• Who should be involved
• How the information will be used
• What privacy or consent issues may arise
• Whether you have the expertise to collect and analyze the information appropriately

Interviews with community members and leaders

Interviews can provide detailed information about experiences, history, institutional practices, barriers, priorities, and possible solutions.

Do not limit interviews to formal community leaders.

Depending on the issue, include:

• People directly affected
• Informal community leaders
• Youth
• Residents
• Service providers
• Educators
• Employers or worker representatives
• Public officials
• Advocates
• Researchers or other subject-matter experts

No single person should be assumed to speak for an entire neighborhood, racial or ethnic group, faith community, disability community, age group, or other population.

Community surveys

Surveys can help collect information from a larger number of people.

Surveys may be distributed through:

• Online forms
• Text messages
• Telephone
• Mail
• Paper forms
• In-person outreach

No method is automatically inexpensive, representative, or accessible.

Consider:

• Who can access the survey
• Language needs
• Disability access
• Literacy
• Internet and phone access
• Privacy
• Response rate
• Sampling method

If your sample is not representative, describe the results accurately rather than presenting them as the views of the entire community.

Personal or semi-structured interviews

Individual interviews can provide detailed information that structured surveys may not capture.

They are particularly useful for understanding:

• Why people hold particular views
• How policies affect everyday life
• Experiences with institutions or services
• Community history
• Possible explanations for patterns found in quantitative data

Interviews require time to conduct, document, and analyze.

Consider whether participants should be compensated for substantial time or specialized community expertise.

Focus groups

A focus group is a facilitated small-group discussion used to explore experiences, opinions, reactions, or ideas.

Focus groups can be useful for:

• Identifying themes
• Exploring reactions to a policy or program
• Understanding differences in experience
• Generating questions for additional research

Focus-group participants are not automatically representative of the entire community.

Focus groups generally provide qualitative insight rather than population-level estimates.

Consider confidentiality, power differences, accessibility, language, and whether people will feel comfortable discussing the topic in a group.

Guided discussions and listening sessions

Guided discussions can provide a less formal way to learn how community members understand an issue.

Use a set of broad questions to guide the discussion while allowing participants to raise concerns or ideas you did not anticipate.

Discussions may occur in person or remotely.

Select the format according to accessibility, participant preferences, privacy, and the purpose of the research rather than assuming face-to-face communication is always best.

Guidelines for collecting and using data

Use credible sources, not only official sources

Government and other official sources can be valuable, but official status does not automatically make information complete or correct.

Reliable evidence may also come from:

• Peer-reviewed research
• Universities
• Professional associations
• Community-based organizations
• Independent evaluators
• Tribal governments
• Public-interest research organizations
• Other credible sources

Use the strongest source available for the particular claim.

Verify important numbers and claims

Errors can damage credibility.

For major statistics:

• Check the original source
• Confirm the date
• Confirm the denominator
• Check definitions
• Review whether the statistic has been revised
• Make sure your interpretation matches what the source actually shows

Correct significant errors promptly if they are discovered.

Use qualified expertise when needed

Community organizations do not need to analyze every dataset themselves.

Statistical, legal, medical, engineering, environmental, or other technical questions may require specialized expertise.

If outside experts are involved, ask them to explain:

• The methods they used
• Important assumptions
• The limitations of the analysis
• What conclusions the evidence does and does not support

Your group should understand the findings well enough to communicate them accurately without pretending to have expertise it does not have.

Communicate data clearly without oversimplifying it

Charts, percentages, rates, and plain-language explanations can make findings easier to understand.

Simplicity is useful when it does not remove important context.

Do not avoid appropriate statistical detail merely because it is more complex.

Provide enough explanation for readers to understand what the numbers mean.

Show change over time when it is relevant

Trends can be more informative than a single point in time.

The appropriate timeframe depends on the issue.

Some conditions may change meaningfully month to month; others may require several years of data.

Avoid using a fixed rule such as requiring two points separated by five years.

Instead, use enough observations and an appropriate timeframe to show the pattern accurately.

Use current data when current conditions matter

Use the most recent reliable data available when the issue is changing over time.

Older data may still be appropriate for:

• Historical comparison
• Long-term trends
• Issues for which current data have not yet been released

Clearly identify the date and explain when newer information is unavailable.

Do not select data only because they motivate people

Evidence should be presented accurately even when the findings are discouraging, uncertain, or show that an intervention had limited effects.

Examples of successful efforts from other communities can be useful, but they should be presented with enough context to show whether the example is relevant locally.

Advocacy communication should not hide negative or mixed findings simply because positive findings may generate more enthusiasm.

Keep the scope realistic

A limited study conducted carefully is more useful than a broad study that cannot support its conclusions.

Before beginning, consider:

• Time
• Funding
• Staff capacity
• Research expertise
• Recruitment
• Data management
• Analysis
• Privacy and ethics

Get help with survey design and statistics

If your group intends to make population-level claims or conduct statistical analysis, involve someone with appropriate research or statistical expertise.

This might include a university researcher, evaluator, statistician, public-health professional, data analyst, or another qualified person.

Use graphs carefully

Charts and graphs can help people understand patterns.

Make sure:

• Axes are labeled clearly
• Scales are not misleading
• Units and denominators are clear
• Time periods are identified
• Important uncertainty or limitations are not hidden

Use personal stories ethically

Personal experiences can help explain what an issue means in everyday life.

Stories should not be treated as substitutes for data or as emotional tools to make an argument appear stronger.

Before sharing someone's story:

• Obtain meaningful and voluntary consent
• Explain where and how the story may be used
• Discuss whether identifying information will be included
• Protect sensitive information
• Allow the person to decline without affecting services or relationships

Avoid selecting a person primarily because their experience creates the most dramatic or persuasive public message.

Protect privacy and use data ethically

Advocacy research may involve information about health, housing, immigration, employment, disability, income, education, violence, or other sensitive circumstances.

Before collecting information, ask:

• Do we actually need this information?
• Do we need identifying information?
• Who will have access to it?
• How will it be stored?
• What risks could disclosure create?
• Do participants understand how the information may be used?

Organizations conducting formal research may also need to consider whether institutional review, legal requirements, or other research protections apply.

In Summary

Conducting studies can help an advocacy group understand an issue more accurately, identify possible strategies, establish a baseline, evaluate competing claims, and communicate with greater credibility.

Begin with existing information before collecting new data.

Government records, academic research, community organizations, professional associations, local media, organizational reports, archives, and lived experience can all provide useful information.

No source should be accepted automatically because it is official, academic, nonprofit, corporate, or media-based. Evaluate how the information was produced and what limitations it has.

When existing information is insufficient, use interviews, surveys, focus groups, guided discussions, or formal studies according to the question you need to answer.

Do not assume community leaders speak for everyone, surveys are representative simply because many people responded, or focus-group participants represent the larger community.

Verify important facts and statistics. Use current data when appropriate, but choose timeframes based on the issue rather than applying a fixed rule.

Report findings honestly, including mixed or negative results. Research should not be shaped mainly around what will generate enthusiasm for the advocacy effort.

Use qualified expertise for technical analysis and explain findings in language community members can understand without removing important context.

Personal experiences can add meaning to research, but people should have control over whether and how their stories are shared.

Finally, remember that the purpose of research is not simply to make your argument harder to challenge. It is to help your group and the wider community understand the issue accurately enough to make better decisions.