Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- List of Tables and Figures -- Acknowledgments -- List of Acronyms and Descriptions for Organizations -- 1: Introduction -- 2: Explaining the Consequences of Social Movements -- 3: The Contours of Struggle -- 4: The Formation of Local Movement Trajectories in Mississippi -- 5: The Struggle for Political Power -- 6: The Politics of Poverty -- 7: Federal Authority, School Desegregation, and Countermobilization -- 8: The Acquisition of Political Power -- 9: Conclusion: The Legacies of the Civil Rights Movement -- Appendix A: Study Design -- Appendix B: Archival Collections -- Appendix C: List of Interviews -- Appendix D: Descriptions of Major Variables and Sources -- Notes -- References -- Index

Investigates the mechanisms & strategies through which civil rights movements are able to bring about social, legal, & political change, drawing primarily on the example of the US civil rights movement of the 1960s, particularly its manifestations in MS. Key organizations in this movement are identified, along with the public activities in which they engaged, including riots, demonstrations, boycotts, & other protest events. Leading theories on the causal mechanisms through which movement organizations & activities work together to effect change are reviewed & illustrated with real-life examples. K. Hyatt Stewart

Investigates the mechanisms & strategies through which civil rights movements are able to bring about social, legal, & political change, drawing primarily on the example of the US civil rights movement of the 1960s, particularly its manifestations in MS. Key organizations in this movement are identified, along with the public activities in which they engaged, including riots, demonstrations, boycotts, & other protest events. Leading theories on the causal mechanisms through which movement organizations & activities work together to effect change are reviewed & illustrated with real-life examples. K. Hyatt Stewart

We introduce the concept of embedded legal activity to capture the ways in which lawyers and legal organizations can become intertwined in the ongoing activities of social movements. Embedded legal activity is characterized by diverse issues and venues and comprises legal activities that help support movement infrastructure, close coordination between movement lawyers and other activists, and responsiveness to constituent needs. Investigating a comprehensive data set on legal activity during the southern civil rights movement, we identify forms of legal activity beyond the typical focus of legal mobilization, including defense for movement participants charged with misdemeanors and other crimes, movement assistance on organization‐level legal matters, and general legal aid to movement constituents. These were by far the more common types of legal activity and emerged from the embeddedness of lawyers in a mass movement. We argue that embedded legal activity is likely where movements prioritize grassroots leadership and community organizing and face significant countermobilization, hostile legal and political opportunity structures, and substantial social and economic inequality.

We examine scholarship on the role and influence of advocacy organizations in the U.S. political process. We identify common theoretical questions in the disconnected literatures on social movements, interest groups, and nonprofits, and we propose a unifying conceptual framework for examining advocacy organizations. Focusing on the post-1960s growth in advocacy organizations, we examine major organizational characteristics including organizational structures, membership and participation, resources, and interorganizational networks and coalitions. Our analysis of organizational influence focuses on five dimensions of the policy process: (a) agenda setting, (b) access to decision-making arenas, (c) achieving favorable policies, (d) monitoring and shaping implementation, and (e) shifting the long-term priorities and resources of political institutions. Finally, we identify recurrent theoretical and methodological problems, including the compartmentalization of research within disciplines, an overreliance on studies of large national organizations, a disproportionate focus on recruitment and selective incentives, and limited research on the influence of advocacy organizations. We conclude by highlighting productive pathways for future scholarship.

Media are central to the dynamics of protest and social movements. Contemporary social movements face a shifting environment composed of new media technologies and platforms that enable new identities, organizational forms, and practices. We review recent research focusing on the ways in which movements shape and are shaped by the media environment and the ways in which changes in the media environment have reshaped participation, mobilization, and impacts of activism. We conclude with the following recommendations for scholarship in this burgeoning area: move toward a broader conception of media in movements; expand engagement with scholarship in neighboring disciplines that study politics, media, and communication; develop new methodological and analytical skills for emerging forms of media; and investigate the ways in which media are enhancing, altering, or undermining the ability of movements to mobilize support, shape broader identities and attitudes, and secure new advantages from targets and authorities.

Mazumder investigates the long-term effect of protest on political attitudes. He finds that whites have more liberal views on race and are more likely to be Democrats in counties where Civil Rights protest was reported in the early 1960s. The analysis omits a crucial predictor of protest and of racial attitudes: college education. We include the proportion of adults with a college degree and the number of college students at the county level. The inclusion of these variables, along with some other contextual variables from the original dataset, cuts the effect of protest by about half. Protest is no longer statistically significant in eight out of nine combinations of outcome variables and protest measures. The size of the effect remains trivial when we shift analysis from the county to the individual level. Even accounting for the individual's own education, the county's proportion of college graduates is strongly associated with racial liberalism. This finding emphasizes the importance of education as a contextual variable. Our conclusion highlights two methodological lessons. First, causal inference should be paired with sustained historical inquiry that specifies plausible mechanisms. Second, statistical tests for sensitivity can induce complacency about the risk of confounding.

This article charts the emergence of protest in the wake of the 2016 presidential election describing trends in protest activity from the first to second Women's Marches. We document characteristics including the magnitude, issue diversity, geographic range, tactical repertoire, and persistence of street protest, and we highlight key similarities and differences between this wave of protest and other recent episodes in the U.S. We conclude by pointing to important empirical and theoretical questions that movement scholars should address through analysis of this case.

Leaders make vital contributions to the survival and success of civic associations, but they vary widely in levels of commitment to those groups. Why are some leaders more committed than others? We draw from scholarship on civic participation, volunteering, social movements, and team management to develop an original explanation. Although theory suggests individual and organizational factors may explain differences, most prior empirical studies examine only individual-level hypotheses. We use data collected from 1,616 Sierra Club volunteer leaders and the 368 chapters and groups they led to conduct multilevel analyses of the determinants of behavioral commitment among leaders. At the individual level, we find that leaders with more applicable skills, available time, and aligned motivations are more committed to the organization. At the organizational level, we find that leaders whose organizations are more complex, and who are on teams that operate more interdependently, share work more equally, and devote smaller shares of time to meetings, are more committed. These findings have implications for scholars of leadership and commitment and for organizations seeking more committed leaders.

Scholars of nonprofits, interest groups, civic associations, and social movement organizations employ samples of organizations derived from directories or other available listings. In most cases, we are unable to evaluate the representativeness of these samples. Using data on the population of environmental organizations in North Carolina, we assess the methodological strengths and weaknesses of widely used strategies. We find that reliance on any single source yields bias on theoretically important characteristics of organizations. We show that scholars can reduce bias significantly by combining sources, creating what we call a "peak list" compiled from different types of sources. Compared to any single source, our peak list differed less from the population on the thirty-one organizational characteristics including geographical coverage, issues, discursive frames, targets, and organizational demographics such as age, organizational form, and resources. From these analyses, we offer methodological recommendations for making better-informed decisions for constructing representative organizational samples.