You are on page 1of 13

Building Evidence-Based Advocacy in Cyberspace: A Social Work Imperative for the New Millennium

John G. McNutt, PhD

SUMMARY. The conduct of advocacy is critical to the accomplishment of the mission of professional social work. Unfortunately, traditional advocacy practice is rarely based on any real evidence attesting to its effectiveness. This leaves advocates almost completely dependent on practice wisdom. As we move toward advocacy practice in virtual environments, we are faced with new opportunities to build evidence-based advocacy practice. This paper provides a discussion about how this end might be accomplished and offers suggestions about developing evidence-based practice in cyberspace. The major issues are discussed, problems are identified and strategies for overcoming those problems are developed. The paper provides a foundation for subsequent work in developing evidence-based electronic advocacy. doi:10.1300/J394v03n03_07 [Article copies available for a
fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mailaddress: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.] John G. McNutt is Associate Professor, College of Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29209 (E-mail: mcnuttjg@netzero.com).
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: Building Evidence-Based Advocacy in Cyberspace: A Social Work Imperative for the New Millennium. McNutt, John G. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work (The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 3, No. 3/4, 2006, pp. 91-102; and: Information Technology and Evidence-Based Social Work Practice (ed: Judith M. Dunlop, and Michael J. Holosko) The Haworth Press, Inc., 2006, pp. 91-102. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: docdelivery@haworthpress.com].

Available online at http://jebsw.haworthpress.com 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1300/J394v03n03_07

91

92

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND EVIDENCE-BASED SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

KEYWORDS. Electronic advocacy, Internet, accountability, evidencebased practice

INTRODUCTION Social work prides itself on a commitment to the poor, the downtrodden and the dispossessed. Our advocacy activities are the ones thought closest to our mission, our ethical codes and our values. Many of the methods that we use to promote the profession and the public interest are 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 regarded as effective by practitioners and the field in general, but have little empirical evidence to vouch for their efficacy. Given the critical nature of these methods to the professions goals of social and economic justice, the lack of hard evidence is a major drawback. At the same time, technology has entered the social change arena and, in a short period of time, become a major contributor to the arsenal of advocacy efforts, political campaigns and related social change programs (Cornfield, 2004; Hick & McNutt, 2002; McNutt, 2000; Price, 2000). Once thought a curiosity, even the least forward-looking efforts have a website or use an e-mail distribution list. Electronic advocacy is clearly a part of the advocacy landscape. This will probably expand as new technology becomes available and Internet access expands. The need for evidence-based advocacy practice, coupled with the growth of technology-based advocacy and campaigning techniques, represents an almost unparalleled opportunity for the development of an evidence-based advocacy practice in cyberspace. This may eventually create the motivation for a reexamination of the empirical base of social work advocacy in general. Because these methods are new, it might be easier to introduce the concept of evidence-based advocacy here than in more traditional fields where practitioners have long experience and bigger investments in traditional methods. Emerging areas promote experimentation while more conventional areas tend to stifle that type of effort. This paper has three parts. First, we will examine the growth of electronic advocacy as an emerging form of social work advocacy practice. Next, we will explore some of the barriers to an evidence-based approach to electronic advocacy. Finally, we will explore several promising approaches to creating evidence-based advocacy in cyberspace.

Section I: Technology and Evidence-Based Practice

93

THE GROWTH OF ELECTRONIC ADVOCACY The use of high technology for the promotion of political and policy change is a relatively new development (Davis, Elin & Reeher, 2002; Hick & McNutt, 2002; McNutt & Appenzeller, 2004), but one that promises to make major changes in political campaigns, issue advocacy efforts and other attempts at social change. The growth of this practice is demonstrated by news coverage, use by interest groups, consulting firms and research results (McNutt, 2000). Electronic advocacy can be thought of as a social work practice method that uses high technology to influence policy decision-making (Fitzgerald & McNutt, 1999; Hick & McNutt, 2002). Technology can be used to facilitate and extend traditional methods and expand what one can do well beyond what was once possible with older technology. To put it another way, technology makes traditional approaches faster, easier and more effective. In addition, it allows the creation of new practice approaches that were impossible without technological developments. As the technology develops, more approaches will fall into the second type of approach. This is generally called reengineering or reinventing (Champy & Hammer, 1993; see also Rogers, 1995). In general, electronic advocacy practice consists of four functions: Policy Research and Information Gathering, Public Awareness and Education, 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 of technology to gather, categorize, disseminate and analyze information. Information is critical to any type of policy change effort and quick access to data can often be the difference between success and failure. Technologies such as data mining, geographic information systems and artificial intelligence base systems such as neural networks can greatly facilitate analysis, while the extensive data-seeking abilities of databases and networks can make the raw data easier to find. The data preserving and sharing capacity of knowledge management software can make information easily available to advocates. Of course, web searches, e-mail and discussion lists also provide 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 as simple as putting up a Website or using an e-mail discussion list to distribute a leaflet, to using Web video to create a movie that tells a policy-related

94

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND EVIDENCE-BASED SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

story. It can include the provision of research findings, on-line courses, and so forth. Coordination and Organizing might well be the most useful function of electronic advocacy. Technology can reduce the transaction costs of bringing people together over time and distance (Bonchek, 1995). Electronic mail, for example, is much more efficient than a traditional telephone tree and an e-mail alert costs far less than even a simple traditional mailing. This use of technology for coordination takes on truly impressive dimensions with the advent of wireless communication and portable communications devices. Text messaging systems (SMS) and wireless communications are the technology behind what Rheingold (2002) refers to as smart mobs, quickly developing social groupings aimed at an objective or issue. Smart Mobs have been influential in a number of political actions but it remains to be seen if they can be part of planned and sustainable political action campaigns. One relatively simple technological tool, Meet Up became wellknown as a result of the Dean Campaign for President in the United States. This tool uses a website (www.meetup.com) to arrange face-toface meetings around issues (Cornfield, 2004; Trippi, 2004; Williams, Weinberg & Gordon, 2004). Deans campaign team used Meet Up to engage large numbers of supporters and raise substantial amounts of funds. The final function is applying Pressure to decision-makers. This includes e-mail campaigns, on-line petitions, e-mail to fax campaigns (a site set up to fax e-mail messages to decision-makers). Early research indicated that there was resistance from decision-makers to e-mail campaigns but it is no longer clear that this situation still exists (Lemmon & Carter, 1998; McNutt, Lima, Penkaukaus & Rusoff, 1999). There are also some tools that are used for civil disobedience, such as client side denial of service campaigns and hacking attacks on opponents websites (Meikle, 2002). Many, if not most, campaigns will use a combination of traditional and electronic techniques in their efforts. There is a wide range of reasons for this situation, but the combination plate approach to strategy will probably continue into the near future. This can make it difficult to disentangle 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 effectiveness. While proponents of traditional advocacy are quick to decry the lack of effectiveness that new tools have, their claims are made

Section I: Technology and Evidence-Based Practice

95

largely without evidence. At the same time, traditional advocacy and political campaign techniques often have little or no evidence to support their claims of effectiveness. BARRIERS TO EVIDENCE-BASED ELECTRONIC ADVOCACY PRACTICE The road to creating evidence-based advocacy is neither smooth nor sure. This becomes more complex when technology is introduced as an additional consideration. Evaluating practice interventions is a challenging enterprise in any case, but especially for interventions that involve political change and policy action. There are three major barriers to evaluating electronic advocacy interventions 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 factor. There are always multiple motivations for policy-makers and organizations to take certain actions and it is usually in no ones interest to disclose the actual reasons for a decision. A legislator may decide to vote for a particular bill primarily because of the interest of an important colleague or supporter but may say that his or her reason was something more practical or altruistic, which are also motivations. It is also often hard to determine if a letter has more weight than an e-mail message and if any input has significant importance in the decision calculus. Shifting Focus in Advocacy Efforts Advocacy efforts often shift over time as new developments emerge and are encountered in the change process. Politics is a quickly changing field and it is often difficult to use the same intervention in the face of new problems or new issues. In addition, social change methods are often used in sequence or in tandem to achieve the desired result, as in the Mixing and Phasing component of Rothmans (2001) classic approach. This creates barriers to intervention research when multiple methods are used or when the effects of a given method cannot be disentangled from the effects of others or the effects of a larger effort, such as a campaign (Green & Gerber, 2004).

96

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND EVIDENCE-BASED SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Political Nature of Evaluation Evaluations are always political to some extent (Weiss, 1971) but evaluations of political phenomena have to be considered much more likely candidates for this type of problem than other interventions. Justifications for actions are often more politically expedient than necessarily truthful and, with much riding on the outcome, it might be politically damaging to admit that an intervention failed to achieve the desired results. These factors make conducting evaluations difficult in traditional advocacy 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 and skill develop, electronic advocacy practice is forced to change. When a better or cheaper alternative becomes available it is often impossible to use the earlier choice. Mixing traditional and electronic advocacyIt was noted earlier in the paper that technology-based advocacy is often combined with traditional methods. This occurs for a number of reasons that might include preferences of advocates and decision-makers, lack of expertise with all aspects of the technology, lack of funding and gaps in the available technology infrastructure. Because of these obstacles, practice evaluation in the electronic advocacy arena is especially challenging. The researcher is faced with a broad range of potential problems in determining which techniques are underpinned 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 to overcome these barriers and allow them to explore the effectiveness issue (Hick & McNutt, 2002, 227). Each of these has assets and liabilities as a foundation for evidence-based practice in electronic advocacy. FOUNDATION FOR EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE IN ELECTRONIC ADVOCACY The Effective Organizations Approach It is possible to determine which organizations have the best track records in advancing their program and then look at the methods that they

Section I: Technology and Evidence-Based Practice

97

use (Rees, 1999), but that does not tell us very much about which methods are effective in promoting that agenda. Most organizations use a combination of methods and not all are equally as effective in all situations. It is also true that most effective organizations both win and lose political battles. This approach tells us something about effectiveness but leaves much of the story hidden. Perceived Effectiveness Approach We can ask practitioners about which methods are effective and if a set of methods is effective (McNutt & Boland, 1999). While practitioners can provide some information to confirm effectiveness, issues such as investment in a particular methodology can taint the quality of the information. Again, we can glean some understanding of the effectiveness of electronic advocacy, but the evidence is far from conclusive. The Theory-Based Evaluation Approach The theory-based approach aims at evaluating the theoretical linkages between concepts in a theory. While this eventually becomes an evaluation of the outcome of an intervention or effort, the determination of causality is limited by the ability to isolate the intervention from other factors. This approach is, however, useful in developing emergent evaluations. This approach makes a useful contribution but has limitations that prevent it from becoming an overall model for practice evaluation. Activity-Based Approaches This approach looks at the proliferation of different techniques within an organizational field. The logic is that more organizations will adopt the effective techniques. It therefore follows that those techniques that are most widely adopted are the most effective. This is probably the weakest of the four approaches because there are many competing explanations to the major assumptions. Organizations may adopt a given intervention because other organizations did, or because a funder required it, or because a staff member was interested in having it. None of these reasons more than imply a connection to effectiveness. None of these approaches is sufficient to sustain a truly evidencebased approach to electronic advocacy. In order to create research-supported electronic advocacy practice, more causal information is needed. In addition, because it is an emerging practice, new techniques need to be

98

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND EVIDENCE-BASED SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

created and evaluated. This in no way implies that the research base created thus far is useless. It is only to say that new methodologies are needed to validate and develop a maturing form of advocacy practice. BUILDING EVIDENCE-BASED ELECTRONIC ADVOCACY Electronic advocacy is a developing subfield of social work practice that must become more evidence-based in order to develop and mature. In order to overcome the various barriers to such an evidence-based approach, different research strategies are needed. A useful strategy would be to combine rigorous field experiments with a design and development model. This would allow the validation of existing techniques along with the development of promising new interventions. It would also allow the incorporation of existing evidence into the creation of viable practice models. Field Experiments of Existing Intervention Experimentation is often thought of as the gold standard of social science. Experiments provide excellent information on causality and the control of sources of contamination (Babbie, 1989). The use of field experiments 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 political practice. Recently, a group of political scientists, based at Yale Universitys Institute for Social and Policy Studies, conducted a series of carefully designed experiments intended to evaluate the effectiveness of Get Out the Vote Techniques (GOTV) used in political campaigns (Green & Gerber, 2004). The experiments evaluate canvass, direct mail, electronic mail, phone banks, robocalls and leaflets in terms of their ability to turn out votes and their cost per vote ratio. Because of the features offered by the experimental designs, researchers were able to determine the number of voters registered added to those who voted with a fairly good 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 public record), the experiments were provided with a solid measure to evaluate performance.

Section I: Technology and Evidence-Based Practice

99

This provides campaign practitioners with far more reliable information about the efficacy of these methods than the previous knowledge base, which is largely based on practice wisdom. It also demonstrates that experiments can be useful in a political context. Granted that GOTV represents the low-hanging fruit of political practice due to its easily measured outcome variable, it is still clear that experiments can be added to the study of political practice. It will be more difficult to measure outcomes for lobbying and other of the more spongy areas of political practice, but it should be ultimately possible. Technology also provides some support for the use of experiments because it often provides records of the phenomena of interest. Server logs, for example, can provide information on the numbers of people who contacted a public official without the need for additional data collection. The use of experiments provides a highly useful approach to evaluating the effectiveness of individual electronic advocacy techniques. It is not sufficient on its own because campaigns generally use more than one technique, which means that the impact of individual methods can be unclear. It also can evaluate a technique only after it is developed. In order to compensate for these limitations, it is essential to add Design and Development Research to the perspective provided by experiments. Design and development research is a perspective created over a period of decades at the University of Michigan (Rothman, 1980; Rothman & Thomas, 1994). In design and development research, ideas are culled from the social science literature and used to create model programs through the application of generalizations from the research results. The programs are developed and field tested in the context of a demonstration program. Each intervention is evaluated, revised and evaluated again. Following this period of trial and improvement, the intervention is disseminated to organizations that might find it useful. The end product is an intervention that is carefully developed and supported by research evidence and is also carefully evaluated within an experimental paradigm. This approach could allow the creation of campaigns or sets of interventions. It also would allow a structured development process for creating new interventions that were already validated and whose evidence base 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 of approach are eliminated or greatly reduced. The cost of a demonstration program, for example, might be a substantial expense for a traditional

100 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND EVIDENCE-BASED SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

program that might require renting facilities, hiring staff and so forth. In a virtual context, however, the creation of a program can be substantially easier. An example of this is the initiative Witness Move On, an interest group created by two software engineers in the wake of the Clinton impeachment hearings (Bennett & Fielding, 1999; Cornfield, 2004). This organization originally had no real staff or facilities. This was, in many ways, very much like a demonstration project. It was a short-term effort aimed at trying a new concept. By creating such an effort as an entity to test a campaign or set of interventions, the researcher can use both the experimental approach and the design and development model. The costs could be very reasonable and considerable numbers of modifications could be made for small increments in cost. This might be referred to as a Virtual Demonstration Project and could have enormous potential as a research device. Added to the new methodologies that are being developed for studying Internet-based phenomena (Jones, 1999), there are wonderful possibilities for the development of evidence-based practice in cyberspace. CONCLUSIONS In many ways the virtual environment greatly expands the possibilities for the development of evidence-based practice within social work, and virtual advocacy methods are an almost ideal subject for examination. As such, this might be the best way to introduce evidence-based practice into social policy practice and advocacy areas of the social work profession. Virtual advocacy is a new and experimental area in social work advocacy practice. The experimental spirit is still there, which might lessen the resistance from long-standing practitioners. Many aspects of cyberspace create a fertile ground for evaluation and the creation of a research and development approach. Perhaps most importantly, this is an area that needs to prove itself. The push to prove that what electronic advocacy does is valuable will overcome a great deal of potential resistance. There are also many barriers. Advocacy is difficult to evaluate. The area of electronic advocacy is always changing. It is often frustrating and unrewarding. Uncertainty and secrecy often shroud the political process. The use of rigorously designed field experiments, coupled with a design and development approach, offers much promise. These methods

Section I: Technology and Evidence-Based Practice

101

can enhance our transition toward evidence-based advocacy within the virtual realm. In any case, the struggle for social justice is much too important to be left to methods that could work or might work. This is one place where we do need to be sure.
Practitioner/Provider Questions 1. As an advocate, how sure are you that your methods are effective? Do you have research-based evidence to support your conclusions? 2. Does it concern you that, when better methods become available, mastering them may require you to obtain additional training? 3. Will you encounter resistance in your agency to the use of new methods? Will research findings reduce that resistance? 4. Some people are resistant to new, technology-based methods and insist that they are ineffective. Do you feel that this is 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 might be 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?

REFERENCES
Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bennett, D., & Fielding, P. (1999). The net effect: How cyber-advocacy is changing the political landscape. Merrifield, VA: E-Advocates Press. Bonchek, M.S. (1995). Grassroots in cyberspace: using computer networks to facilitate 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 Education, 35(3), 331- 341. Green, D. P., & Gerber, A.S. (2004). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings.

102 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND EVIDENCE-BASED SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Haynes, K.S., & Mickelson, J.S. (2000). Affecting change (4 ed.). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hick, S., & McNutt, J. (Eds.) (2002). Advocacy and activism on the Internet: Perspectives from community organization and social policy. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Press. Jones, S. (Ed.). (1999). Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining 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 advocacy for social policy practice. Critical Social Work, 1(1). McNutt, J.G., & Appenzeller, G. (2004). The three ages of cyberadvocacy: prospects for the future of advocacy in cyberspace. Paper presented at Communication & Democracy: Technology & Citizen Engagement Colloquium, Fredericton, New Brunswick, August 4-6, 2004. McNutt, J.G., & Boland, K.M. (1999). Electronic advocacy by non-profit organizations in social welfare policy. Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 432-451. McNutt, J.G., & Penkaukaus, K. (2000). Electronic advocacy. Presentation at Getting Wired: Advocacy in Cyberspace. The First Boston College Conference on Electronic 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 the impact of Internet based technologies on the legislative process at the state level. th Presentation at the 28 Annual 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). The diffusion 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: The Haworth Press, Inc. Trippi, J. (2004). The revolution will not be televised: Democracy, the Internet and the overthrow 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 Online and Offline politics Meetup: An examination of the phenomenon, presidential campaign and its citizen activists. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, September 2-5.

th

doi:10.1300/J394v03n03_07

You might also like