Changemakers beware and be smart when trying to use evidence to motivate people.
“Do you want your lungs to go black??” a mom shouted to her daughter puffing a cigarette in a 1920s-based film about the Littlehampton Letters. (great movie!) This soundbite caught my ear because even before published proof, they knew smoking was bad for the body. I like to use smoking as an example when debating the usefulness of evidence. There are volumes of studies showing all the ways smoking harms the human body. And, people still smoke. Research and proof can move the needle, but not always.
Big Bang – the initial spike of people changing
It’s hard to picture restaurants, planes, stores, and homes full of smoke around the 1940s and 50s. The Surgeon General started to issue reports of the effects of smoking in 1964. In the first two months afterwards, there was a sharp decline. I’m calling this the big bang effect. Everyone is all of a sudden woken up and brought to attention. Something which was commonplace pulls us in because new information is on the table. The effect is greatest on topics which directly affect our safety or our body’s health.
Proof of risks for the planet doesn’t fare well, regardless of timing
There are some issues for which proof of the risk hasn’t moved the majority of people to action. Scientists have been studying climate change-related phenomena for decades and continue to measure that it’s worse. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006 and that truth has only gotten inconvenient-er. Lack of action may be due to how climate research is designed. Many environmental studies encompass the planet or an ecosystem and show proof of how it’s changing. Macro-level proof is much less likely to move people to action. It’s too distant from our reality. It’s as though this research community wants to pass on the next generation a detailed, data-driven, holistically designed, and well-documented memoire of destruction -- rather than designing studies focused on getting people to take action.
Many Issues’ Research Isn’t Action-oriented, Not Just the Environment
Research substantiating the effects of racism abounds from multiple sectors and issues. The ones that come to mind for me are Black maternal health, criminal justice system, real estate markets, and access to higher education. In comparison to studies which relate to our physical health, my hunch is that this evidence does very little to change behavior. It compels those already working to reduce the effects of racism or those passing laws, but evidence of racism does not have the “big bang” effect to spike true changes.
The pay gap first published in the 1960s The Economic Status of Women is one of the first pieces of proof that women are paid less than men for the same work. Economic data allows us to calculate the gap frequently, and it still shows how much less women make than men, usually disaggregated to show how white women still make significantly less, but are ahead of Black women and Latina women. Once again, no “big bang” effect here. The gap has shrunk a bit over the decades. And, we can see some specific actions on pay equity overall (not just gender), such as some companies’ pay equity audits. Salary gaps are still pervasive which indicates a lack of action despite proof of the problem being calculated annually. US Women’s soccer was a prominent example of winning pay equality, but their advocacy made the difference – the disparity had been transparent for years.
Keeping Data in the Mix of Methods to Make Change
Deciding whether or not to use existing research or conduct new research is complicated. The decision depends so much on the audience – the group of people you hope will make a change. Information is frequently not what people need most to change. To prove, or not to prove? Consider freshness: proof moves people the most when it is new information. Consider reach: is the action you are taking spreading information to more people? Consider effect: if the evidence shows something personally detrimental, especially to someone’s health, the ratio of action to research improves. Consider timeline: the initial resistance from someone you need to change is best answered with evidence. It strengthens your position to follow an initial no from a blocker with proof of why the conversation isn’t over.
In Conclusion
The information age and endless online access means that the appetite for research isn’t slowing down. Keeping our eye out for research, evidence, or proof that moves people to act is critical. Use that more! Equally critical is not allowing a perpetual cycle of questioning, focus groups, surveying, and reports to take over. Think about smoking. Even with proof left, front, and sideways, you can still find someone right in front of you on the streets of New York asking, “got a light?”
Comments