building evidence-based advocacy in cyberspace: a social work imperative for the new millennium john...

7/31/2019 Building Evidence-Based Advocacy in Cyberspace: A Social Work Imperative for the New Millennium John G. McNut

1/13


2/13

KEYWORDS. Electronic advocacy, Internet, accountability, evidence-based practice

INTRODUCTION

Social work prides itself on a commitment to the poor, the downtrod-den and the dispossessed. Our advocacy activities are the ones thoughtclosest to our mission, our ethical codes and our values. Many of themethods that we use to promote the profession and the public interestare time-tested approaches such as lobbying, community organizing,the use of initiatives and referenda and administrative advocacy (Ezell,

1994; Haynes & Mickelson, 2000). These approaches are generally re-garded as effective by practitioners and the field in general, but have lit-tle empirical evidence to vouch for their efficacy. Given the criticalnature of these methodsto the professionsgoals of social and economicjustice, the lack of hard evidence is a major drawback.

At the same time, technology has entered the social change arenaand, in a short period of time, become a major contributor to the arsenalof advocacy efforts, political campaigns and related social change pro-grams (Cornfield, 2004; Hick & McNutt, 2002; McNutt, 2000; Price,2000). Once thought a curiosity, even the least forward-looking effortshave a website or use an e-mail distribution list. Electronic advocacy isclearly a part of the advocacy landscape. This will probably expand asnew technology becomes available and Internet access expands.

The need for evidence-based advocacy practice, coupled with thegrowth of technology-based advocacy and campaigning techniques,represents an almostunparalleled opportunity for thedevelopment of anevidence-based advocacy practice in cyberspace. This may eventuallycreate the motivation for a reexamination of the empirical base of socialwork advocacy in general. Because these methods are new, it might beeasier to introduce the concept of evidence-based advocacy here than inmore traditional fields where practitioners have long experience andbigger investments in traditional methods. Emerging areas promote ex-perimentation while more conventional areas tend to stifle that type ofeffort.

This paper has three parts. First, we will examine the growth of elec-tronic advocacy as an emerging form of social work advocacy practice.

Next, we will explore some of the barriers to an evidence-based ap-proach to electronicadvocacy. Finally, we will explore several promis-ing approaches to creating evidence-based advocacy in cyberspace.

92 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND EVIDENCE-BASED SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE


3/13

THE GROWTH OF ELECTRONIC ADVOCACY

The use of high technology for the promotion of political and policychange is a relatively new development (Davis, Elin & Reeher, 2002;Hick & McNutt, 2002; McNutt & Appenzeller, 2004), but one thatpromises to make major changes in political campaigns, issue advocacyefforts and other attempts at social change. The growth of this practiceis demonstrated by news coverage, use by interest groups, consultingfirms and research results (McNutt, 2000).

Electronic advocacy can be thought of as a social work practice methodthat uses high technology to influence policy decision-making (Fitzgerald& McNutt, 1999; Hick& McNutt, 2002). Technology can be used to facil-

itate and extend traditional methods and expand what one can do well be-yond what wasonce possiblewitholder technology. Toputit another way,technology makes traditional approaches faster, easier and more effective.In addition, it allows the creation of new practice approaches that were im-possible without technologicaldevelopments. As the technologydevelops,more approaches will fall into the second type of approach. This is gener-ally called reengineering or reinventing (Champy & Hammer, 1993; seealso Rogers, 1995).

In general, electronic advocacy practice consists of four functions: Pol-icyResearchandInformationGathering,Public Awareness andEducation,Organizing and Coordinating, and Pressure and Influence (McNutt &Penkaukaus, 2000). Each of these functions can occur at any stage of the

social change effort and one function might be more visible than others.Research and Information Gathering harnesses the considerable power oftechnology to gather, categorize, disseminate and analyze information. In-formation is critical to any type of policy change effort and quick access todata can often be thedifferencebetween success and failure. Technologiessuch as data mining, geographic information systems and artificial intelli-gence base systems such as neural networks can greatly facilitate analysis,while the extensive data-seeking abilities of databases and networks canmake the raw data easier to find. The data preserving and sharing capacityof knowledge management software canmakeinformationeasilyavailabletoadvocates. Of course, web searches, e-mail anddiscussionlists alsopro-vide access to information.

Public Information and Education utilizes technology to inform the

public about the gravity of an issue or policy choice. This can be assimple as putting up a Website or using an e-mail discussion list to distrib-ute a leaflet, tousing Web video tocreatea movie that tells a policy-related

Section I: Technology and Evidence-Based Practice 93


4/13

story. It can include the provision of research findings, on-line courses,and so forth.

Coordination and Organizing might well be the most useful functionof electronic advocacy. Technology can reduce the transaction costs ofbringing people together over time anddistance (Bonchek, 1995). Elec-tronic mail, for example, is much more efficient than a traditional tele-phone tree and an e-mail alert costs far less than even a simple trad-itional mailing.

This use of technology for coordination takes on truly impressive di-mensions with the advent of wireless communication and portable com-munications devices. Text messaging systems (SMS) and wirelesscommunications are the technology behind what Rheingold (2002) re-

fers to as smart mobs, quickly developing social groupings aimed atan objective or issue. Smart Mobs have been influential in a number ofpolitical actions but it remains to be seen if they can be part of plannedand sustainable political action campaigns.

One relatively simple technological tool, Meet Up became well-known as a result of the Dean Campaign for President in the UnitedStates. This tool uses a website (www.meetup.com) to arrange face-to-face meetings around issues (Cornfield, 2004; Trippi, 2004; Williams,Weinberg & Gordon, 2004). Deans campaign team used Meet Up toengage large numbers of supporters and raise substantial amounts offunds.

The final function is applying Pressure to decision-makers. This in-cludes e-mail campaigns, on-line petitions, e-mail to fax campaigns (a

site set up to fax e-mail messages to decision-makers). Early researchindicated that there was resistance from decision-makers to e-mail cam-paigns but it is no longer clear that this situation still exists (Lemmon &Carter, 1998; McNutt, Lima, Penkaukaus & Rusoff, 1999). There arealso some tools that are used for civil disobedience, such as client sidedenial of service campaigns and hacking attacks on opponents web-sites (Meikle, 2002).

Many, if not most, campaigns will use a combination of traditionaland electronic techniques in their efforts. There is a wide range of rea-sons for this situation, but the combination plate approach to strategywill probably continue into the near future. This can make it difficult todisentangle the impact of one intervention over another.

As it currently stands, electronic advocacy, like traditional advocacy

methodology, lacks a substantial research base to vouch for its effec-tiveness. While proponents of traditional advocacy are quick to decrythe lack of effectiveness that new tools have, their claims are made



5/13

largely without evidence. At the same time, traditional advocacy andpolitical campaign techniques often have littleor no evidence to supporttheir claims of effectiveness.

BARRIERS TO EVIDENCE-BASED ELECTRONICADVOCACY PRACTICE

The road to creating evidence-based advocacy is neither smooth norsure. This becomes more complex when technology is introduced as anadditional consideration. Evaluating practice interventions is a chal-lenging enterprise in any case, but especially for interventions that in-

volve political change and policy action.There are three major barriers to evaluating electronic advocacy in-terventions in terms of their effectiveness at promoting policy change(McNutt & Hick, 2002, 226-227; McNutt & Penkaukaus, 2000).

Multiple Factors and Causality

Rarely is any significant policy issue change caused by a single fac-tor. There are always multiple motivations for policy-makers and orga-nizations to take certain actions and it is usually in no ones interest todisclose the actual reasons for a decision. A legislator may decide tovote for a particular bill primarily because of the interest of an importantcolleagueor supporter but may say that his or her reason was something

more practical or altruistic, which are also motivations. It is also oftenhard to determine if a letter has more weight than an e-mail message andif any input has significant importance in the decision calculus.

Shifting Focus in Advocacy Efforts

Advocacy efforts often shift over time as new developments emergeand are encountered in the change process. Politics is a quickly chang-ing field and it is often difficult to use the same intervention in the faceof new problems or new issues. In addition, social change methods areoften used in sequence or in tandem to achieve the desired result, as inthe Mixing and Phasing component of Rothmans (2001) classic ap-proach. This creates barriers to intervention research when multiple

methodsare used or when the effects of a given method cannot be disen-tangled from the effects of others or the effects of a larger effort, such asa campaign (Green & Gerber, 2004).



6/13

Political Nature of Evaluation

Evaluationsare always political to some extent (Weiss, 1971) butevalu-ations of political phenomenahave to be considered much more likely can-didates for this type of problem than other interventions. Justifications foractions are often more politically expedient than necessarily truthful and,withmuch ridingon the outcome, it mightbe politicallydamaging to admitthat an intervention failed to achieve the desired results.

These factorsmake conducting evaluations difficult in traditional ad-vocacy situations as well as electronic advocacy situations. In addition,the following factors are unique problems in electronic advocacy:

The evolving nature of electronic advocacyAs technology andskill develop, electronic advocacy practice is forced to change.When a better or cheaper alternative becomes available it is oftenimpossible to use the earlier choice.

Mixing traditional and electronic advocacyIt was noted earlier inthe paper that technology-based advocacy is often combined withtraditional methods. This occurs for a number of reasons that mightinclude preferences of advocates and decision-makers, lack of ex-pertise with all aspects of the technology, lack of funding and gapsin the available technology infrastructure.

Because of these obstacles, practice evaluation in the electronic ad-vocacy arena is especially challenging. The researcher is faced with a

broad range of potential problems in determining which techniques areunderpinned by evidence and which are not.

In spite of these difficulties, research has been conducted in this area.There are a number of strategies that have been used by researchers toovercome these barriers and allow them to explore the effectiveness is-sue (Hick & McNutt, 2002, 227). Each of these has assets and liabilitiesas a foundation for evidence-based practice in electronic advocacy.

FOUNDATION FOR EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICEIN ELECTRONIC ADVOCACY

The Effective Organizations Approach

It is possible to determine which organizations have the best track rec-ords in advancing their program and then look at the methods that they



7/13

use (Rees, 1999), but that does not tell us very much about which meth-ods are effective in promoting that agenda. Most organizations use acombination of methods and not all are equally as effective in all situa-tions. It is also true that most effective organizations both win and losepolitical battles. This approach tells us something about effectivenessbut leaves much of the story hidden.

Perceived Effectiveness Approach

We can ask practitioners about which methods are effective and if aset of methods is effective (McNutt & Boland, 1999). While practitio-ners canprovidesome information to confirmeffectiveness, issues such

as investment in a particular methodology can taint the quality of the in-formation. Again, we can glean some understanding of the effective-ness of electronic advocacy, but the evidence is far from conclusive.

The Theory-Based Evaluation Approach

The theory-based approach aims at evaluating the theoretical link-ages between concepts in a theory. While this eventually becomes anevaluation of theoutcome of an intervention or effort, the determinationof causality is limited by the ability to isolate the intervention from otherfactors. Thisapproach is, however, useful in developing emergent eval-uations. This approach makes a useful contribution but has limitationsthat prevent it frombecoming an overall model for practice evaluation.

Activity-Based Approaches

This approach looksat the proliferation of different techniqueswithin anorganizational field. The logic is that more organizations will adopt the ef-fective techniques. It therefore follows that those techniques that are mostwidely adopted are the most effective. This is probably the weakest of thefour approaches because there are many competing explanations to the ma-jor assumptions. Organizations may adopt a given intervention becauseother organizations did, or because a funder required it, or because a staffmember was interested in having it. None of these reasons more than im-ply a connection to effectiveness.

None of these approaches is sufficient to sustain a truly evidence-

based approach to electronic advocacy. In order to create research-sup-ported electronic advocacy practice, more causal information is needed.In addition, because it is an emerging practice, new techniques need to be



8/13

created and evaluated. This in no way implies that the research base cre-ated thus far is useless. It is only to say that new methodologies areneeded to validate and develop a maturing form of advocacy practice.

BUILDING EVIDENCE-BASED ELECTRONIC ADVOCACY

Electronic advocacy is a developing subfield of social work prac-tice that must become more evidence-based in order to develop andmature. In order to overcome the various barriers to such an evi-dence-based approach, different research strategies are needed. A use-ful strategy would be to combine rigorous field experiments with a

design and development model. This would allow the validation of ex-isting techniques along with the development of promising new inter-ventions. It would also allow the incorporation of existing evidenceinto the creation of viable practice models.

Field Experiments of Existing Intervention

Experimentation is often thoughtof as the gold standard of social sci-ence. Experiments provide excellent information on causality and thecontrolof sources of contamination (Babbie, 1989). The useof field ex-periments is still comparatively rare in evaluating political phenomena(Green& Gerber, 2004). Experiments have significant advantages over

other types of research designs in creating evidence-based politicalpractice.

Recently, a group of political scientists, based at Yale UniversitysInstitute for Social and Policy Studies, conducted a series of carefullydesigned experiments intended to evaluate the effectiveness ofGet Outthe Vote Techniques (GOTV) used in political campaigns (Green &Gerber, 2004). The experiments evaluate canvass, direct mail, elec-tronic mail, phone banks, robocalls and leaflets in terms of their abilityto turn out votes and their cost per vote ratio. Because of the features of-fered by the experimental designs, researchers were able to determinethe number of voters registered added to those who voted with a fairlygood degree of precision. Since there is a clear outcome measure (those

who vote and those who are registered but do not are a matter of publicrecord), the experiments were provided with a solid measure to evaluateperformance.



9/13

This provides campaign practitioners with far more reliable informa-tion about the efficacy of these methods than the previous knowledgebase, which is largely based on practice wisdom. It also demonstratesthat experiments can be useful in a political context. Granted thatGOTV represents the low-hanging fruit of political practice due to itseasily measured outcome variable, it is still clear that experiments canbe added to the study of political practice. It will be more difficult tomeasure outcomes for lobbying and other of the more spongy areas ofpolitical practice, but it should be ultimately possible.

Technology also provides some support for the use of experimentsbecause it often provides records of the phenomena of interest. Serverlogs, for example, can provide information on the numbers of people

who contacted a public official without the need for additional datacollection.

The use of experiments provides a highly useful approach to evaluatingthe effectiveness of individual electronic advocacy techniques. It is notsufficient on its ownbecausecampaigns generally usemore than one tech-nique, whichmeans that the impact of individualmethods can beunclear. Italso can evaluatea technique only after it is developed. In order tocompen-sate for these limitations, it is essential toadd Design andDevelopment Re-search to the perspective provided by experiments.

Design and development research is a perspective created over a periodof decades at the University of Michigan (Rothman, 1980; Rothman &Thomas, 1994). In design and development research, ideas are culledfrom the social science literature and used to create model programsthrough the application of generalizations from the research results. Theprograms are developed and field tested in the context of a demonstrationprogram. Each intervention is evaluated, revised and evaluated again.Following this period of trial and improvement, the intervention is dis-seminated to organizations that might find it useful. The end product isan intervention that is carefully developed and supported by research evi-dence and is also carefully evaluated within an experimental paradigm.

This approach could allow the creation of campaigns or sets of inter-ventions. It also would allow a structured development process for cre-ating new interventions that were already validatedand whose evidencebase was already established.

This is an excellent approach for the development of evidence-based

practice. In this context, however, many of the barriers to this type ofapproach are eliminated or greatly reduced. The cost of a demonstrationprogram, for example, might be a substantial expense for a traditional



10/13

programthat might require renting facilities, hiringstaff andso forth. Ina virtual context, however, the creation of a program can be substan-tially easier. An example of this is the initiative Witness Move On, aninterest group created by two software engineers in the wake of theClinton impeachment hearings (Bennett & Fielding, 1999; Cornfield,2004). This organization originally had no real staff or facilities. Thiswas, in many ways, very much like a demonstration project. It was ashort-term effort aimed at trying a new concept. By creating such an ef-fort as an entity to test a campaign or set of interventions, the researchercan use both the experimental approach and the design and develop-ment model. The costs could be very reasonable and considerable num-bers of modifications could be made for small increments in cost. This

might be referred to as a Virtual Demonstration Project and couldhave enormous potential as a research device. Added to the new meth-odologies that are being developed for studying Internet-based phe-nomena (Jones, 1999), there are wonderful possibilities for the develop-ment of evidence-based practice in cyberspace.

CONCLUSIONS

In many ways the virtual environment greatly expands the possibilitiesfor the development of evidence-based practice within social work, andvirtual advocacy methods are an almost ideal subject for examination. As

such, this might be the best way to introduce evidence-based practice intosocial policy practice and advocacy areas of the social work profession.Virtual advocacy is a new and experimental area in social work ad-

vocacy practice. The experimental spirit is still there, which mightlessen the resistance from long-standing practitioners. Many aspectsof cyberspace create a fertile ground for evaluation and the creationof a research and development approach. Perhaps most importantly,this is an area that needs to prove itself. The push to prove that whatelectronic advocacy does is valuable will overcome a great deal ofpotential resistance.

There are also many barriers. Advocacy is difficult to evaluate. Thearea of electronic advocacy is always changing. It is often frustratingand unrewarding. Uncertainty and secrecy often shroud the political

process.The use of rigorously designed field experiments, coupled with a de-

sign and development approach, offers much promise. These methods



11/13

can enhance our transition toward evidence-based advocacy within thevirtual realm. In any case, the struggle for social justice is much too im-portant to be left to methods that could work or might work. This is oneplace where we do need to be sure.

REFERENCES

Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bennett, D.,& Fielding,P. (1999).Theneteffect: Howcyber-advocacy is changing thepolitical landscape. Merrifield, VA: E-Advocates Press.

Bonchek, M.S. (1995). Grassroots in cyberspace: using computer networks to facili-

tate political participation. Presentation at the 53rd

Annual Meeting of the Midwest

Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 6, 1995.

Champy, J., & Hammer, M. (1993). Reengineering the corporation. New York, NY:

Harper.

Cornfield, M. (2004). Politics moves online. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Davis, S., Elin, L., & Reeher, G. (2002). Click on democracy: The Internets power to

change political apathy into civic action. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Ezell, M. (1994). Advocacy practice of social workers. Families in Society, 75(1),

36-46.

FitzGerald, E., & McNutt, J.G. (1999). Electronic advocacy in policy practice: A

framework for teaching technologically based practice. Journal of Social Work Ed-

ucation, 35(3), 331- 341.

Green, D. P., & Gerber, A.S. (2004). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout.

Washington, DC: Brookings.


Practitioner/Provider Questions

1. As an advocate, how sure are you that your methods are effective? Do you have research-based evidence to supportyour conclusions?

2. Does it concern you that, when better methods become available, mastering them may require you to obtain additionaltraining?

3. Will you encounter resistance in your agency to theuse of newmethods? Will researchfindings reduce that resistance?

4. Some people are resistant to new, technology-based methods and insist that they are ineffective. Do you feel that thisis an evidence-based conclusion? Can this same criticism be applied to traditional advocacy efforts?

Consumer/Client Questions

1. How sure are you that the advocates who work on your behalf use methods that are effective?

2. Should you allow people to advocate on your behalf if they use ineffective methods? How about methods that mightbe effective but do not have research evidence to support their effectiveness?

3. Should you ask advocates who want to represent you to specify what research findings support their methods?


12/13

Haynes, K.S., & Mickelson, J.S. (2000). Affecting change (4th

ed.). Needham, MA:Allyn & Bacon.

Hick, S., & McNutt, J. (Eds.) (2002). Advocacy and activism on the Internet: Perspec-tives from community organization and social policy. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Press.

Jones,S. (Ed.). (1999).Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for exam-ining the net. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lemmon, P., & Carter, M. (1998). Speaking up in the Internet age. Washington, DC:OMBWatch.

McNutt, J.G. (2000). Coming perspectives in the development of electronic advocacyfor social policy practice. Critical Social Work, 1(1).

McNutt, J.G., & Appenzeller, G. (2004). The three ages of cyberadvocacy: prospectsfor the future of advocacy in cyberspace. Paper presented at Communication & De-mocracy: Technology & Citizen Engagement Colloquium, Fredericton, NewBrunswick, August 4-6, 2004.

McNutt, J.G., & Boland, K.M. (1999). Electronic advocacy by non-profit organizationsin social welfarepolicy.Non-Profit andVoluntary SectorQuarterly, 28(4), 432-451.

McNutt, J.G., & Penkaukaus, K. (2000). Electronic advocacy. Presentation at GettingWired: Advocacy in Cyberspace. The First Boston College Conference on Elec-tronic Advocacy in Social Work Practice, Chestnut Hill, MA, April 14, 2000.

McNutt, J.G.,Lima, J.,Penkaukaus, K.,& Rusoff,M. (1999, November).A study of theimpact of Internet based technologies on the legislative process at the state level.Presentation at the 28

thAnnual Meeting of the Association of Voluntary Action

Scholars, Arlington, VA.Meikle, G. (2002). Future active: Media activism and the Internet. New York, NY:

Routledge.Price, T. (2000). Cyberactivism: Advocacy groups and the Internet. Washington, DC:

Foundation for Public Affairs.Rees, S. (1999). Strategic choices for nonprofit advocates. Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 28(1), 65-73.Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart Mobs. New York, NY: Harper.Rogers,E.M. (1995).Thediffusion of innovation.4th Edition.New York,NY: Free Press.Rothman, J. (1980). Social R & D: Research and development in the human services.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Rothman, J. (2001). Approaches to community intervention. In J. Rothman, J.L.

Erlich, & J.E. Tropman (Eds.), Strategies of community intervention (6th ed.). Pp.27-64. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Rothman, J.,& Thomas, E. (eds.) (1994).Intervention research. Binghamton, NY: TheHaworth Press, Inc.

Trippi, J. (2004). The revolution will not be televised: Democracy, the Internet and theoverthrow of everything. New York, NY: Reagan Book/Harper Collins.

Weiss, C. (1971). Evaluative research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Williams, C.B., Weinberg, B.D., & Gordon, J.A. (2004). When Onlineand Offline pol-

itics Meetup: An examination of the phenomenon, presidential campaign and itscitizen activists. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual meeting of the American Polit-ical Science Association, Chicago, IL, September 2-5.

doi:10.1300/J394v03n03_07



13/13

building evidence-based advocacy in cyberspace: a social work imperative for the new millennium john...

Documents