bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Protest Event Research
Authors: Soule Sarah A. 
Published: January 2013

AbstractSocial movement research has developed a rich tradition of using data on collective action and protest events (hereafter “events”) that is culled from various sources (e.g., news reports, police records). Event data has been used by scholars to answer questions about the causes of ethnic violence and collective action (Olzak 1992), citizen protest of various types (Soule & Davenport 2009), and strikes (Biggs 2005). Event data has also been used to analyze the outcomes of social movements (Soule et al. 1999; Olzak & Soule 2009), including the policing of protest (Soule & Davenport 2009). A major benefit of this type of data is that it facilitates both comparative and historical research (Tarrow 1996), while also allowing for quantitative research on social movements (Olzak 1989). Additionally, there is often no better alternative (Franzosi 1987).
Public Sphere
Authors: Eder Klaus 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
The public sphere is hard to define in terms of boundaries—it has in principle no limits. We can try to separate it from the private sphere; yet even here claims abound that the private is political, thus undermining a clear separation of the sites where public communication takes place from sites where private communication takes place. We can try to separate it from the economic sphere or from other spheres; yet the porosity of the boundaries is obvious. Some sites succeed better than others in keeping the public sphere outside for a time. Often such attempts collapse. Boundaries move in and out of other spheres of social life, and no definition can be given that clearly delineates either a spatial boundary (as the concept of public space insinuates) or a functional boundary (private versus public) or a thematic one (things you do not talk about, i.e. tabooed topics, and things you talk about). This difficulty has preoccupied one of the most sensitive functionalist thinkers, Luhmann, who struggled with the problem of how to make sense of what he finally called the “reality of the mass media” (Luhmann 2000). The public sphere is constituted in acts or practices which seek to make public what others may try keeping from becoming public. There is also the other movement of keeping private what others want to make public (e.g., talk shows, Facebook, etc.). This particular character of the public space prevents us from treating it as a clear entity with boundaries. Rather, it emerges from moving boundaries. This also explains the variety of theories of the public sphere (Ferree et al. 2002).
Radical Flank Effects
Authors: Haines Herbert H. 
Published: January 2013

AbstractRadical flank effects (RFEs) are interactive processes involving radical and moderate factions of social movements and third parties outside those movements. They result in detrimental and/or beneficial impacts of radical group actions upon the reputations and effectiveness of more moderate collective actors — typically social movement organizations. The relative “radicalism” or “moderation” of actors is generally defined in terms of the degree of legitimacy that is imputed to their objectives, rhetoric, and tactics by relevant external audiences. Radical flank effects were first studied systematically by Haines (1984, 1988) in his investigations of the American civil rights/black power movements, but other scholars had made reference to RFE‐like phenomena in earlier works on the civil rights (Killian 1975), feminist (Freeman 1975), labor (Ramirez 1978) and antinuclear (Barkan 1979) movements.
Rational Choice Theory and Social Movements
Authors: Opp Karl‐Dieter 
Published: January 2013

AbstractScholars who systematically apply rational choice theory (RCT) to explain social movement phenomena are a minority. Examples are Oberschall 1980, 1994; Klandermans 1984; Taylor 1988; Chong 1991; Karklins & Peterson 1993; Marwell & Oliver 1993; Pfaff 2006; Wood 2008; Opp 2009a, 2009b. For applications of game theory, which is not discussed for limitations of space, see Chong 1991; Pierskalla 2010. This may suggest that RCT is a deficient theoretical approach, and that other perspectives are better suited to explain social movements and political protest. Is this conclusion correct? This question will be addressed here.
Resistance
Authors: Trom Danny , Cefai Daniel 
Published: January 2013

Abstract

The uses of the concept of “resistance” have multiplied in the printed literature, even if without success in the attempts to define it in an unequivocal way. That notion implies the dimensions of habit, imagination and judgment. It lies
short of
any organized action, collective and public, of any obvious social unrest. Being infrapolitical, resistance expresses a will to elude a power, a predominant norm, or a social control. It deploys in the background of everyday life. It does not form a consistent repertoire of action, but rather shows itself by means of such practices as trickery, concealment, smartness, double meaning, humor, feigned ignorance, work‐to‐rule, absenteeism. It comes with all the dynamics of contention.
Resonance, Frame
Authors: McCammon Holly 
Published: January 2013

AbstractOne of the most utilized concepts in social movement framing studies is “frame resonance.” Snow and Benford (1998) introduced the term to account for the ability of a collective action frame to resonate or appeal to a targeted audience. They ask, “[u]nder what conditions do framing efforts strike a responsive chord or resonate with the targets of mobilization?” (1988: 198). In order to answer this query, one must explore both the properties of the frames themselves and the characteristics of the broader cultural environment in which collective action framing takes place. That is, the source of frame resonance lies in aconjunctionof the content of framing and ideational elements in the wider cultural milieu. Frames resonate because a segment of individuals find them convincing, or as Gamson (1992: 135) states, they find them “natural and familiar.” Identifying the precise circumstances in which movement frames achieve this persuasive status, then, is the critical question researchers confront. When will a collective action frame rouse the interests of bystander publics, elected officials, institutional authorities, or potential social movement recruits?
Revolutions
Authors: Rojas Rene , Goodwin Jeff 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
In common parlance, “revolution” has come to mean virtually any fundamental change. Transformations of ways of thinking, technologies, and even fashions and consumer goods are often described as “revolutionary.” Social scientists, however, generally define revolution in one of two ways. For some, a revolution refers broadly to any extralegal overthrow and transformation of a political regime or state by a popular rebellion, whether by violent or nonviolent means. (Although some state officials may support revolutionaries, a revolution differs from a coup d'état, which refers to the overthrow of a government by political elites, often led by military officers, with little if any popular support or active participation by ordinary people.) Others define revolutions more narrowly as only those historical episodes in which the overthrow of a regime or state is accompanied by or facilitates fundamental changes in a society's economic institutions and class structure (e.g., the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions). This latter type of revolution is often called a “social revolution” (or “great revolution”) in order to distinguish it from those revolutions (or “political revolutions”) that entail new political orders, but little, if any, change in economic or class structures (e.g., the English and American revolutions). Of course, what begins as a political revolution may end up being a social revolution.
Situational Analysis and Social Movements
Authors: Cefai Daniel , Trom Danny 
Published: January 2013

Abstract

The notion of situational analysis has different origins. The most relevant, historically, are Max Gluckman's ethnography of a conventional crowd, that met at the “inauguration of a bridge in Zululand,” and Goffman's innovative ecology of public encounters and gatherings, as exposed in
Behavior in Public Places
(1963). In the first case, the situational analysis was highlighting the link between face to face relationships and exchanges, and the macroprocesses of the colonial society in Rhodesia; in the second case, it intended to discover an “interactional order,” meaningful in itself, “loosely coupled” with social structures. Both meanings can be found in the literature on social movements.
Social Capital and Social Movements
Authors: Edwards Bob 
Published: January 2013

AbstractScattered mentions of “social capital” or similar terms date back at least to the 1920s, yet the concept did not gain currency and widespread use until popularized by the work of Robert Putnam in the 1990s. By the time Putnam's bookBowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Communitycame out in 2001, criticisms had already emerged regarding the scope of social, economic, and political processes social capital was said to affect, the lack of clarity in its conceptualization, and about both the validity and reliability of how it was being measured (Foley, Edwards, & Diani 2001). In the years since, the scholarly literature using some conceptualization of social capital has exploded, with the term appearing in the titles of over 300 books and upward of 6000 scholarly articles. The diversity of definition and elasticity of measurement evidenced in much of the recent literature confirms concerns expressed a decade ago that social capital was becoming merely a catch‐all concept capable of solving any problem from local to global and thus problematic.
Social Change and Social Movements
Authors: Andrews Kenneth T. 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Do movements matter? The impact of movements on patterns of social change is one of the most enduring topics in the study of protest and social movements, and it has gained considerable attention in recent years. Understanding this complex topic requires careful attention to several interrelated issues including conceptualizing social change and appraising whether movements matter and, if so, how. Debates continue regarding how significant movements are for explanations of social change, the conditions under which movements matter, and the movement characteristics associated with greater or lesser impact.
Social Class and Social Movements
Authors: Eder Klaus 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
The link between social class and social movements refers back to the assumption of Karl Marx that in some specified cases the formation of social classes is connected with the mobilization of these classes. Social movements then become what Marx has called “Klassen für sich,” classes conscious of themselves. Marx points to the small tenants in France as a famous example of a class not capable of developing a collective consciousness of itself and therefore being unable to act collectively. He referred to them as a “sack of potatoes.” Regarding the industrial worker, Marx was much more optimistic because of the intersection of two critical factors: (1) the presumed centrality of the conflict this emerging class would address; and (2) the social conditions that link the proletarian workers via their concentration in the industrial workplace and the urban housing conditions which makes communication and strong relationships among them more probable.
Social Movement Industry
Authors: McCarthy John D. 
Published: January 2013

AbstractIndividual social movement organizations (SMOs) play a significant role in mobilizing social movement activity and it is common for scholars to take the powerful analytic advantage of aggregating all of the SMOs that identify themselves with a particular social movement in their analyses. Such aggregates of SMOs have been termed social movement industries (SMIs), conceptualized as similar to the many industrial categories of firms that compose an economy. All SMIs in a nation make up the social movement sector (SMS) (McCarthy & Zald 1977). The size and structure of SMIs has been hypothesized to have important consequences for the likelihood of a social movement's success (Zald & McCarthy 1980). Although the SMI designation has not gained the widespread usage of SMO, nevertheless, many analysts of social movements have more or less consciously adopted its fundamental insight and gone on to proliferate acronyms to conceptually bound an SMI, the organizational analogue of a social movement. These include, among many others, peace movement organizations (PMOs), environmental movement organizations (EMOs), and health social movement organizations (HSMOs).
Social Movement Organization (
SMO
)
Authors: McCarthy John D. 
Published: January 2013

Abstract

Traditional approaches to understanding the emergence and mobilization of social movements focused primarily upon fluctuations in the hearts and minds of aggrieved individuals. Analysts of social movements inspired by the accelerated founding rates of more or less bureaucratically organized groups of citizens in the 1960s—joining early risers in the organizational field some of which, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), had emerged in the nineteenth century—began to focus more directly upon the central mediating role that social movement organizations (SMOs) play in mobilizing social movement activity. Zald and Ash (1966) first systematically deployed the concept in their classic paper that effectively challenged the universality of Roberto Michels' (1949) “iron law of oligarchy.” Denotatively bounding the SMO, their analyses referenced civil rights movement organizations of the 1960s, including the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and the NAACP, as well as the American Communist Party and the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). The concept was later more clearly specified by McCarthy and Zald (1973: 1218): “A
social movement organization
(SMO) is a complex, or formal organization which identifies its preferences with a social movement or a counter‐movement and attempts to implement those goals.” In subsequent years, the term and its acronym, SMO, have come into widespread use as scholars have sought to understand patterns of SMO emergence, variations in SMO structure, and functioning.
Social Movement Sector
Authors: McCarthy John D. 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Many social movements at varying stages of mobilization may exist in a nation's society at any time, or there may be very few struggling to exist. Understanding that variation in social movement mobilization across national societies remains a relatively unexplored arena of social science research. Social movements in most nations are importantly defined by the social movement organizations (SMOs) that identify with their goals, even though much collective action by social movement actors is not directly associated with SMOs. Nations differ dramatically in the extent to which they encourage and facilitate or discourage and repress SMOs. All the SMOs in a nation with roughly comparable goals, issue orientations, or ideological congruity constitute its social movement industry (SMI). All the SMIs in a nation constitute its social movement sector (SMS). The size and orientation of a nation's SMS is a function of the amount of resources devoted to social change (whatever its substantive focus across the ideological spectrum), the associational supports provided by the larger society, the democratic or authoritarian orientation of the its state, and the relationship of the movement sector to the political party space. The size and shape, or configuration, of the SMS varies between nation‐states and over time within them (see McCarthy & Zald 1977, 2002).
Social and Solidary Incentives
Authors: Passy Florence 
Published: January 2013

AbstractMancur Olson stated: “Rational, self‐interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests” (1965: 2). Since no one is excluded from the benefit brought about by the achievement of public goods, individuals free ride and leave the costs of their production to others. Onlyindividual inducements, that is “a separate and selective incentive will stimulate a rational individual…to act in a group‐oriented way” (51). In Olson's utilitarian theory, personal and instrumental incentives become the main motivator of actors' participation in collective action.
Solidarity and Movements
Authors: Benford Robert D. 
Published: January 2013

AbstractParticipation in a social movement often occurs out of a sense of solidarity. People become movementadherentswhen they feel they share with others a sense of enthusiasm and devotion for the group (Hunt & Benford 2004). Herbert Blumer (1939) referred to such shared feelings asesprit de corps. From his vantage point,esprit de corpshas two dimensions: a body of confederates that are seen as a collectivity and a spirit that entails feelings of close identification with that group. Thecorpusfeature of solidarity calls attention to the body of actors that comprise a group. Some organizations such as the military, police, athletic teams, marching bands, and so on, project an image of an actual corporal entity by having members wear uniforms and engaging in coordinated drills such as marching. In the present context, social movement organizations employ banners, placards, T‐shirts, and bumper stickers to mark their membership boundaries. Thespiritusfeature of solidarity pertains to the feelings of belonging to a collectivity.
Spillover, Social Movement
Authors: Whittier Nancy 
Published: January 2013

AbstractSpillover refers to the influences that social movements have on each other. Social movement spillover takes place through both direct and indirect paths through which one social movement affects another's ideology, frames, tactics, membership, organizational structure, or available cultural or political opportunities. These and related phenomena are also referred to as diffusion (McAdam & Rucht 1993; Soule 1997) and “spin‐off movements” (McAdam 1995). The study of social movement spillover focuses on the paths, types, and mechanisms of influence. The types of social movement spillover can be broken down into two broad categories. First, movements can lead tonew challenges, by changing the overall level of protest or opportunities for protest, sparking “spin‐off” movements (McAdam 1995), or provoking countermovements. They can also affect or enable later waves of the same movement. Second, social movements can alter theformof other protests. Activists define themselves, frame their issues, develop tactics, and establish organizations with reference to what other collective actors have done. These effects can occur between movements that are contemporaries or across time.
Subcultures and Social Movements
Authors: Martin Greg 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Subcultures and social movements are both empirically and analytically quite different creatures. In one formulation, youth subcultures are seen as groups subordinate to the dominant middle‐class culture because they derive from a working‐class “parent” culture, although they “exhibit a distinctive enough shape and structure to make them identifiably different from their ‘parent’ culture” (Hall & Jefferson 2006: 7). Thus, subcultures might be characterized as “interests that operate within the confines of the existing social order,” while social movements are conceived as “forms of solidarist action which force the conflict to the point of breaking through the system's compatibility limits” (Melucci 1996: 28). It is largely for these definitional reasons that the study of subcultures and social movements studies have remained relatively separate and distinct. Fusing the fields, however, reveals two areas of commonality: (1) similar ideas and debates about how to conceptualize subcultures and social movements; and (2) shared concerns over the effectiveness of cultural politics (Martin 2002).
State Breakdown and Social Movements
Authors: Paczynska Agnieszka 
Published: January 2013

AbstractAs Mancur Olson pointed out in his 1965 book,The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, one of the great puzzles of social dynamics is how people overcome collective action problems and organize to pursue common goals. What conditions facilitate and which hinder the emergence of social movements, what allows social movements to persist over time, and what accounts for their impact on social and political dynamics are some of the key questions that scholars have explored over the last few decades.
Survey Research
Authors: Klandermans Bert 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Survey research is a frequently employed research design in social movement studies (Crist & McCarthy 1996). As there are quite a few excellent source books for researchers who want to apply survey methodology (e.g., Robson 1993), I will restrict myself to the specificities of survey research in the context of social movement studies (see Klandermans & Smith 2002 for a detailed discussion).
Tactical Interaction and Innovation
Authors: McAdam Doug 
Published: January 2013

Abstract

The concepts of
tactical interaction, tactical innovation
, and
tactical adaptation
were introduced by McAdam in a 1983 article in
American Sociological Review. Tactical innovation
refers to the introduction of new and novel tactics by movement actors. McAdam defines
tactical adaptation
as “the ability of [movement] opponents to neutralize these [innovative] moves through effective tactical counters.” Taken together these two “define an ongoing process of
tactical interaction
in which insurgents and opponents seek, in chess‐like fashion, to offset the moves of the other. How well each succeeds at this task crucially affects the pace and outcome of [movement activity]” (1983: 736, emphasis in original). McAdam goes on to demonstrate the utility of these concepts by showing empirically that the pace of insurgency in the US civil rights movement waxed and waned in accordance with these two processes. Peaks in protest activity correspond to the introduction and spread of tactical innovations (e.g., bus boycott, sit‐in, Freedom Rides, etc.), while valleys reflect the gradual development of effective tactical counters by social control forces.
Technology and Social Movements
Authors: Mattoni Alice 
Published: January 2013

Abstract

The history of social movements developed in parallel to technological changes in societies. From the invention of the press to the diffusion of television, communication technologies gave social movements new opportunities of expression and organization. Frequently, therefore, social movements met, appropriated and reshaped technological devices and supports that were at the same time opportunities and challenges for grassroots political participation. Technology intertwines with social movements at different levels. At the
instrumental level
, technology has an impact on mobilizing structures, organizational patterns, and protest activities of social movements. At the
symbolic level
, social movements have an impact on discourses about technologies and their role in societies, often including new technological visions in alternative systems of meanings. Finally, at the
material level
, social movements have an impact on technological supports and devices, in that activist technical knowledge and competencies lead to alternative and creative use of technology.