"我们忘了驴子!"对动物福利从直接实施向倡导型计划转变的制度分析。

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES Animal Welfare Pub Date : 2024-02-14 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1017/awf.2024.11
Emily Haddy, Leanne Proops, Faith Burden, Zoe Raw, Juliane Kaminski, Julia Brown
{"title":"\"我们忘了驴子!\"对动物福利从直接实施向倡导型计划转变的制度分析。","authors":"Emily Haddy, Leanne Proops, Faith Burden, Zoe Raw, Juliane Kaminski, Julia Brown","doi":"10.1017/awf.2024.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Shifts from direct implementation to advocacy-based programming have been documented across many non-governmental organisation (NGO) sectors, including animal welfare. Semi-structured interviews with 32 staff from different positions within animal welfare NGOs explored recent programming changes. Maintaining a balance between direct implementation and advocacy-based activities emerged as a strong theme. The findings suggest that risks are associated with both the direct implementation <i>status quo</i> and transitioning to an advocacy-based focus. Risks of the former include treating symptoms rather than root causes of welfare problems. Organisational change can be disruptive and necessitates realignment of core competences, in turn influencing NGO mission. Identified risks of transition include loss of individuals whose values fail to align with new programming directions, increased upwards accountability requirements for accessing institutional donors and difficulties when phasing out direct implementation approaches. Whilst having to be dynamic, NGOs need to evaluate the risks associated with programming decisions, considering their vision, mission and staff identity in order to ensure that welfare programming is as effective as possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":"33 ","pages":"e9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10951660/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"We forgot about the donkeys!\\\" An institutional analysis of the shift in animal welfare from direct implementation towards advocacy-based programming.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Haddy, Leanne Proops, Faith Burden, Zoe Raw, Juliane Kaminski, Julia Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/awf.2024.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Shifts from direct implementation to advocacy-based programming have been documented across many non-governmental organisation (NGO) sectors, including animal welfare. Semi-structured interviews with 32 staff from different positions within animal welfare NGOs explored recent programming changes. Maintaining a balance between direct implementation and advocacy-based activities emerged as a strong theme. The findings suggest that risks are associated with both the direct implementation <i>status quo</i> and transitioning to an advocacy-based focus. Risks of the former include treating symptoms rather than root causes of welfare problems. Organisational change can be disruptive and necessitates realignment of core competences, in turn influencing NGO mission. Identified risks of transition include loss of individuals whose values fail to align with new programming directions, increased upwards accountability requirements for accessing institutional donors and difficulties when phasing out direct implementation approaches. Whilst having to be dynamic, NGOs need to evaluate the risks associated with programming decisions, considering their vision, mission and staff identity in order to ensure that welfare programming is as effective as possible.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Welfare\",\"volume\":\"33 \",\"pages\":\"e9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10951660/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Welfare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.11\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.11","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多非政府组织(NGO)部门,包括动物福利部门,都记录了从直接实施项目到倡导性项目的转变。对动物福利非政府组织内不同职位的 32 名工作人员进行的半结构式访谈探讨了最近的计划变化。在直接实施活动和宣传活动之间保持平衡是一个突出的主题。研究结果表明,无论是维持直接实施的现状,还是过渡到以倡导为重点,都存在风险。前者的风险包括对福利问题治标不治本。组织变革可能具有破坏性,需要重新调整核心能力,进而影响非政府组织的使命。已确定的转型风险包括:价值观与新的计划编制方向不一致的个人的流失,对机构捐助者的向上问责要求的提高,以及逐步淘汰直接执行方法时的困难。非政府组织必须充满活力,同时需要评估与计划编制决定有关的风险,考虑其愿 景、使命和工作人员的身份,以确保福利计划编制尽可能有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"We forgot about the donkeys!" An institutional analysis of the shift in animal welfare from direct implementation towards advocacy-based programming.

Shifts from direct implementation to advocacy-based programming have been documented across many non-governmental organisation (NGO) sectors, including animal welfare. Semi-structured interviews with 32 staff from different positions within animal welfare NGOs explored recent programming changes. Maintaining a balance between direct implementation and advocacy-based activities emerged as a strong theme. The findings suggest that risks are associated with both the direct implementation status quo and transitioning to an advocacy-based focus. Risks of the former include treating symptoms rather than root causes of welfare problems. Organisational change can be disruptive and necessitates realignment of core competences, in turn influencing NGO mission. Identified risks of transition include loss of individuals whose values fail to align with new programming directions, increased upwards accountability requirements for accessing institutional donors and difficulties when phasing out direct implementation approaches. Whilst having to be dynamic, NGOs need to evaluate the risks associated with programming decisions, considering their vision, mission and staff identity in order to ensure that welfare programming is as effective as possible.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Animal Welfare
Animal Welfare 农林科学-动物学
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Animal Welfare is an international scientific and technical journal. It publishes the results of peer-reviewed scientific research, technical studies and reviews relating to the welfare of kept animals (eg on farms, in laboratories, zoos and as companions) and of those in the wild whose welfare is compromised by human activities. Papers on related ethical, social, and legal issues and interdisciplinary papers will also be considered for publication. Studies that are derivative or which replicate existing publications will only be considered if they are adequately justified. Papers will only be considered if they bring new knowledge (for research papers), new perspectives (for reviews) or develop new techniques. Papers must have the potential to improve animal welfare, and the way in which they achieve this, or are likely to do so, must be clearly specified in the section on Animal welfare implications.
期刊最新文献
Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of bonobo emotional expressivity across observer groups and zoo housing environments. Human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions in animals under human care: A summary of stakeholder and researcher perceptions and future directions. Does tail docking prevent Cochliomyia hominivorax myiasis in sheep? A six-year retrospective cohort study. Standard methods for marking caudate amphibians do not impair animal welfare over the short term: An experimental approach. Why are some people in the UK reluctant to seek support for their pets?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1