COMM-ORG
Papers Home

COMM-ORG Papers, Volume 16, 2010

Does Theory Matter in Social Movement Practice in the Midwest?  A Descriptive Study

Patricia N. Van Pelt-Watkins

godslady@msn.com

 


Contents

Abstract
Chapter 1. Introduction
     Introduction to the Problem
     Background of the Study
     Statement of the Problem
     Purpose of the Study
     Rationale
     Research Questions
     Significance of the Study
     Definition of Terms
     Study Variables
     Assumptions and Limitations
     Nature of the Study
     Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter 2. Literature Review
     Introduction to the Literature Review
     Theoretical Framework
     Crucial Theoretical/Conceptual Debates
     Bridging the Gap
     Review of the Critical Literature
          Political Opportunities
          Mobilizing Structures
          Collective Interpretations
     Evaluation of Viable Research Designs
     Chapter 2 Summary
Chapter 3. Methodology
     Introduction
     Researcher’s Philosophy
     Research Design Model
     Research Design Strategy
     Sampling Design
     Measures
     Data Collection Procedures
     Field Testing
     Data Analysis Procedures
     Limitations of the Research Design
     Timeline
     Internal Validity
     External Validity
     Expected Findings
     Ethical Issues
     Chapter 3 Summary
Chapter 4. Data Collection and Analysis
     Research Findings
     Description of the Sample
     Summary of Results
     Detailed Analysis
     Conclusion
Chapter 5. Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations
     Introduction
     Summary of Results
     Discussion of the Results
     Limitations
     Conclusion
     Discussion of the Conclusions
     Recommendations for Further Study
     Summary
References
Appendix A:  Survey Instrument
Appendix B:  Interview Questions
Dedication
Acknowledgments
About the Author


Abstract

A number of scholars have developed social movement theories to explain how, why, and under what conditions mass protests emerge and progress, all of which require the ability to gather and effectively use research data. Yet, in contemporary times, it is not known how and to what extent social movement organizers use social movement theory and research to plan, drive, and evaluate mobilization efforts. This 2-phase sequential mixed method research study explored whether and to what extent social movement actors in the Midwest value, access, and use research and social movement theory to inform a course of action. The study is important because it measures the degree to which social change agents use research and theory to guide and reinforce social movement work. Without the capacity to use research and theory for reinforcement in decision making, social change agents are forced to rely on hearsay, intuition, and popular knowledge to determine when and if conditions are ripe for movement. Further, according to Backer, Bleeg, & Groves (2006), “Exploring Foundation Financial Investments in Nonprofit Capacity Building,” nearly 25% of funders that traditionally fund capacity building, such as research and evaluation training, for nonprofit organizations planned to significantly reduce funding in these areas, leaving a gaping hole between the supply and support needs of the nonprofit social movement organizations at this critical juncture in history. Using a quantitative survey and qualitative measures, this study provides a rich source of data and a thick description of the utilization of research and theory among social movement organizations in the Midwest, informing the fields of grassroots organizing, nonprofit management, philanthropy, and sociology.


Chapter 1.  Introduction

Introduction to the Problem

When large swaths of marginalized people find themselves oppressed to a point that is no longer bearable, they try to find ways to improve their lot. In the process, an eruption of protests may swell up from the masses, insurgency ensues (Piven & Cloward, 1979; Simon et al., 1998), and inspired activists emerge to speak to issues that plague their times (Robnett, 1997). Social movement scholars laud movement-leaders’ ability to communicate and assess the political and social environment because historically these skills have proven to be crucial components to movement-building effectiveness (Mattson, 1999; McAdams et al., 1996).

To outsiders, it may appear that the work of the social change agent is simply to arouse the masses and lead protesters to participate in direct action. In reality, if the work is to be successful, it must be grounded in a deep understanding of the complex conditions that are relevant to situational analyses, cross-group interpretation, organizational capacity, and impact assessment (Piven & Cloward, 1979). Using information gathered through the cyclical process of research and situational analyses, social movement organizations can identify the root causes of many social ills that impact their constituencies. Employing these processes empowers social movement actors to (a) assess whether political opportunities are favorable for movement activities, (b) determine if sufficient public will exists to address the causes or injustices, and (c) to consider the movement arena’s capacity to house and sustain a mobilization effort.

Absent the use of research, social change leaders are forced to rely on hearsay, intuition, and popular knowledge to determine a course of action. This practice can lead to the sponsorship of misinformation causing the field’s constituencies to pay high tolls while social movement organizations stagnate and stumble over how to address the pressing social issues at hand. In order to garner a deep understanding of the complex challenges in movement building, there is a continual need for timely and relevant research data (McAdams, 1982; McAdams et al., 1996). Nevertheless, according to Dobson (2001), many contemporary grassroots social movement organizations rarely utilize research to guide their work.

Further, nearly a fourth of the funders that had been stalwarts in funding nonprofit capacity building, such as research and evaluation training, announced reductions in funding for these services starting in 2006 through 2008, leaving nonprofit social movement organizations to grapple with skill deficits at this critical juncture (Backer, Bleeg, & Groves, 2006).

Background of the Study

Society needs only to look back in recent history to see the power of effective movement-building organizations led by well-prepared social change agents. One of the most important social changes achieved by nonprofits occurred during the Civil Rights movement from 1954 to 1968 (Kasher, 2000). By the end of the 1960s the U.S. Congress passed legislation that outlawed school and bus segregation and instituted the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination in voting, public accommodations, and employment (Kasher, 2000).

Embodying the anxiety of the masses, the Civil Rights Movement leaders stirred the country and influenced the world, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a social change agent, led the effort. King, as lead spokesperson for the Civil Rights movement, was one of the most effective social change agents in the 20th century, and the mobilizing structure from which he worked was the Black Church. Capturing the attention of millions, the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was unparalleled. King led an effective and informed social movement campaign (McAdams, 1982).

Disadvantaged groups refusing to accept their lot in life joined the effort along with pacifists, religious leaders, and defenders of justice and equality (Gray, 2005). All of the aforementioned groups worked diligently, even willing to put their lives in danger, because they held a collective interpretation of what it meant to be free in the United States. It is evident that Dr. King understood the political and social conditions of his time, and he successfully framed the assertions of the masses in a way that was easily translated across many channels.

According to Gray (2005), the Kingian theory of social change was based on the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi. The process did not include a haphazard collection of actions, but rather a systematic method based on theory and research that led to concrete and definitive social change. Research and theory were essential components of the process for positive change. When uninformed movement leaders strike out to effect change without the intensive preparation of data gathering and analysis afforded by having a strong foundational understanding of social movement theory and current research, an old biblical adage is applicable, “When the blind lead the blind, they both will fall in a ditch” (Matthew, 15:14, King James Version).

Statement of the Problem

"If there is no struggle there is no progress…. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will" (Douglass, 1849, para. 1). Without power—freedom, equality, and justice are simply constructs of a different reality (Miller, 2000). Students at the University of California understood and embraced this notion to fuel activism on campus. However, they had a flawed concept of how to acquire power, cites Miller (2000). The student actions that led to failures and defeats were seen as calls to escalated rhetoric and militant tactics instead of opportunities to learn from their mistakes, research and assess their positions, make adjustments, and employ different strategies (Miller, 2000). Movements wane when members do not feel empowered through engagement, and movement leaders cannot engage members for long when strategies are misinformed. This is a clearly detailed assumption in social movement theory (McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996; Piven & Cloward, 1979; Robnett, 1997).

In the mid-70s, Perlman (1995) described the grassroots efforts in that era as, “uncoordinated and politically primitive” (p.1). The social movement organizations of that era had lost a valuable weapon that previous movement leaders used handily—research. Accordingly, disunity continues to plague social movement organizations in the 21st century; thereby, reducing the chances of effective movement-building activity around contemporary social ills. Rothman (2000) surveyed a number of social change activists and organizers to determine how and to what extent progressive leaders could unite and mobilize around a specific issue. As with Perlman (1995), Rothman’s (2000) findings were equally disturbing with regard to social movement organizers’ inability to construct a collective interpretation about issues with which the majority of their constituents struggle.

Reflecting a lack of use and knowledge of research, out of the 43 social change agents interviewed by Rothman (2000), a full 25% said there were no crosscutting issues around which to collaborate. Though research shows a preponderance of interconnections between social ills, the social change agents in Rothman’s (2000) study could not identify the interconnectedness of the challenges with which they were faced. Failure to see cross-cutting issues reflect a deficiency in informed leadership. Though the remaining 32 organizers agreed that it was possible to unite around issues, more than half of them introduced a new issue that no one else mentioned (Rothman, 2000). This level of fragmentation appears to be a reflection of the times.

In spite of the hegemonic forces perpetuated by the media that keep communities and their power sources divided (Druckman & Parkin, 2005; Nelson & Kinder, 1996), one would think that those on the front line of the battle for social change would be capable of articulating a platform for unity. The utilization of timely information generated through a cyclical process of assessment of possibilities, options, and actions could make a platform for unity possible.

Unfortunately, mass media is a major information source for many people. Popular knowledge about social ills and tools to overcome them are heavily influenced by the ideologies of the corporate-owned media giants (Druckman & Parkin, 2005; Nelson & Kinder, 1996). Using image frames, sound bites, and strategically placed stories, the corporate media giants construct a specifically crafted reality for the consumption of the masses (Nelson & Kinder, 1996). Promoting a blame-the-victim frame (Nelson & Kinder, 1996), the media turns pain into shame for the unemployed mother, the ex-offender father, and the family that cannot afford the rising rent, healthcare, or utility costs (Dobson, 2001).

Resultantly, the poor, marginalized, and isolated turn inward for the answers when in reality, the policies that govern society have birthed these circumstances (Piven & Cloward, 1979). The employment of this hegemonic tactic moves the masses to conformity to the values and beliefs of the dominant culture and, thereby, curbs resistance (Kottak, 2005). As long as the masses live under the self-condemnation mitigated by the peddled ideologies of the dominant culture, such as blame-the-victim, there will never be a reason for public outcry.

Using information gathered through the systematic study of research and social movement theory, social change agents and social movement organizations could remove the blinders that hinder the masses from seeing the manipulation of ideas that cause many of the social ills they strive to address. Without a clear understanding of how and why situations arise, misinformation progresses creating a dominant frame to which the masses adhere (Druckman & Parkin, 2005; Nelson & Kinder, 1996). Social movement organizations are best positioned to address the manufacture and proliferation of misinformation if they have access to and use research to inform their work.

A clear example of the promulgation of misinformation can be seen in U.S. criminal justice policy. Historically, the United States held four classic purposes for criminal punishment, including retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitative treatment; but U.S. policy supported the rehabilitative model (Branham, 2002). As a result, the per capita rate of imprisonment from 1925 to 1973 in the United States remained comparatively stable, at about 11 prisoners per 10,000 residents (La Vigne, Mamalian, Travis & Visher, 2003).

However, in the early 1970s, without even a chirp from social movement organizations or social change agents, the United States embarked on a change process that departed from the original agenda of rehabilitation of incarcerated U.S. citizens to the more aggressive ideologies embedded in the retribution model (Alschuler, 2003).

Promoted by Immanuel Kant in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it was argued the penological institution should install retribution as the only purpose for punishment (Alschuler, 2003). Under retribution theory, a person in an appropriate authority should inflict harm on the miscreant because the person is guilty of doing something immoral or illegal. The offender must always receive his just deserts. One is required to put harm to any that participate in illicit activities. Justice can only be served when the offender gets the punishment he deserves. It is always the public’s responsibility to administer hurt to offenders. For retributivist, there is no other goal for punishment other than to injure the assailant. Public benefit does not enter the discussion. The only purpose of punishment is that the lawbreaker deserves it (Cotton, 2000).

Retributivism demands that the miscreant suffer for the wrongdoing as he has caused others to suffer. The extent of the punishment is based on the retributivist assessment of a fit justification (Cotton, 2000). If one has murdered, even in self-defense, he can also be murdered or be turned over to receive a punishment that is more deserving of his act. In other words, the punishment must equal the crime (Alschuler, 2003). If one has stolen, he should be made to lose as much as he has stolen. No consideration is given to circumstances or any other issues. It is the capital responsibility of the public to give the offender his deserts or justice has not been served (Alschuler, 2003). The expectation of others is not a consideration, nor is there a concern about what benefit society might gain or losses that might be procured as a result.

Building on the revolutionary views of retributivists, by the close of the 20th century, U.S. policy spurred a 400% increase in the prison population (Harrison & Beck, 2002). Mauer and Kansal (2005) reported that nearly 5 million American citizens are ineligible to vote due to felony disenfranchisement laws that apply to all but two states in the Union. In 14 states, approximately 1.5 million persons remain disenfranchised even after the completion of the sentencing term. In many states, criminal records reduce ex-offenders' subsequent incomes, access to certain occupations, and overall employability. Consequently, the U.S. laws that aim to make society safer virtually force former offenders into a perpetual cycle of criminal activity and incarceration through the establishment of barriers, such as restrictions on employment, housing, access to education, and in some cases, voting, to successful reentry (Selke & Anderson, 2003).

Useem, Liedka, and Piehl (2003) agree that the prison increase in the United States began in the mid-1970s and continued throughout the century and that a broad-based social movement grounded in various ideologies supported the prison upsurge (Useem et al., 2003). One popular theory that spurred support of the prison build-up is the “Nothing Works” essay purportedly released in 1974 by Robert Martinson, an adjunct assistant professor at the City Colleges of New York. In all actuality, the essay was entitled “What Works?—Questions and Answers about Prison Reform” (Farabee, 2002). Its subject was more of an indictment against the inevaluability of rehabilitation programs rather than an assessment of the effectiveness of the programs.

Since the release of Martinson’s research, scholars repeatedly proved that academic education programs reduce the likelihood that an ex-offender will recidivate, derailing the chances of him or her returning to prison within three years (Brewster & Sharp, 2002). IIn spite of all of the research to the contrary of the “nothing works” dogma, few states have opted for the full implementation of rehabilitative measures. Meanwhile, the prison population continues to expand. A November 2007 editorial in the New York Times reported that the country was facing the release of 650,000 inmates in 2008 and nearly half would recidivate in less than three years (“Second Chance,” 2007). This is up from 2004 numbers, which were 630,000 with an additional 7,000,000 released from local U.S. jails (Reentry Policy, 2004). As the prison population continues to expand, many communities drown in the tragic conditions maintained through a recurring process of mass incarceration and mass reentry (La Vigne et al., 2003).

The active use of research could have provided the quality of information that was required to rebuff the erroneous notion that “Nothing Works.” Increased quality of outputs (material, services, ideas, policies, and messaging), clear analysis of policy outcomes, and the reality of the lived experiences of the masses of U.S. citizens can all be brought to the fore with research. In addition, this powerful tool can also be used to elucidate the costs of services versus the cost of non-delivery of services in prison and measure the country’s capacity to deliver services to the millions of ex-offenders that now reside in U.S. communities (Posavac & Carey, 2003). The results of such assessments could be very valuable for organizational leaders because it would assist decision-makers as they grapple with the major issues around reducing crime and increasing safety.

Nonetheless, while social movement organizations and social change agents desire to maximize efficiency, the fear of the unknown may cause tension and ultimate rejection of the social movement research that is readily available. Thus, it becomes increasingly tough to interject the idea of incorporating theory in a group’s planning when varying sector members could be hostile to research and impatient with the process by which information is generated (Connell et al., 1995).

When social change agents have the capacity to debunk flawed policies and ideologies using information grounded in empirical data, they are positioned to unearth the roots of unrest in communities instead of operating with inadequately prepared and flawed information in the heat of the campaign. Social movement organizations struggle for survival when they do not have the ability to answer the crises in communities with the right answers. Moreover, they cannot move the masses to fight for equitable, substantive, political, or social change when they do not have the quality of information generated freely by the systematic study or review of social movement scholarship.

Social movement organizations should wield two powerful weapons: the ability to define and win goals and the capacity to identify and apply effective tactics (Dobson, 2001). These weapons are easily acquired by using a continuous process of incorporating theory into practice. Effective movement-building organizations play a powerful role in social movement activities. However, only a few social change agents and social movement organizations in Chicago appear to pay sufficient attention to social movement research and evaluation. This is evidenced by how social change organizations supported the aggressive use of force and incarceration to address delinquency and drug trafficking in urban communities, rather than the more effective strategies of drug treatment, family support, and restorative justice. In 2002, research revealed that the rate of incarceration of Black drug offenders in Illinois was 57 times the rate of their White counterparts (United, 2000). Without an informed process for problem conceptualization, strategy and impact analysis, social change agents are not prepared to lead.

Mattson (1999) noted that the tenacity of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s organizing style embodied among other positive traits—intellectual shrewdness, the ability to negotiate and compromise, openness to possibilities other than those generated from his own camp, and a clear commitment to unearthing the roots of social ills. This is the level of shrewdness that should be present in any mobilization effort. Like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., wise leaders of social movement organizations ground their work in theories based on the knowledge and practices of successful social change agents of previous eras as well as the current research that reflect the realities of the political and social climates of contemporary society. Social change agents can build power by utilizing social movement theory and current research to assess both projects and processes. Following this model can keep groups on the cutting edge of the issue of concern. Unfortunately, according to Dobson (2001), many grassroots social movement organizations of today rarely utilize research to guide their work.

Tichy (1974) recommends that social change agents accept the innovations afforded by research as opportunities to learn about competing intervention strategies. Employing social movement research and theory forces social change agents to make their values and assumptions explicit, thereby, moving the process from an artisan endeavor to scientific exploration. Messaging for movement building should be based on fact and backed by research. Framing and messaging should not be subject to the whims or self-focused ideas of the movement-maker du jour alone. The work should have research underpinnings triangulated to capture the many voices and ideas of those impacted and those in power to impact. There are hosts of organizational development intermediaries that teach organizations how to develop organizing strategies and utilize methods for building strong campaigns. However, the availability of funding for capacity building activity is on a decline (Backer et al., 2006).

According to Backer et al. (2006), there was a significant drop in funding of capacity building in 2004, and several major funders have signaled that this trend will continue. On the heels of this reduction in funding, Backer et al. (2006) reported that nearly 25% of funders that traditionally fund capacity building, such as research and evaluation training, signaled that they plan to cut funding for capacity building in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The additional 25% reduction of funding sources from which nonprofits might garner support for learning how to use research is especially problematic because of the sheer number of social ills perpetuated by current U.S. policy including immigration policy, criminal justice issues, the distribution of wealth, lack of healthcare, and educational equity.

Knowledge is the best weapon for movement-building and social change efforts. Unfortunately, current trends in the field of philanthropy paint a very bleak picture for the future of capacity building opportunities, such as research and evaluation skill-building, for social movement organizations striving to unearth and address the roots of unrest. Connell et al. (1995) captured this conundrum in a quote from Ford Foundation’s then-Chief Architect for Urban Programs, Paul Ylvisaker. In 1963, speaking of the need for timely and reliable information, Ylvisaker stated, “We are confronted with the task of dealing with problems which we have no criteria upon which to base decisions.…we have to deal with the unknown” (as cited in Connell et al., 1995, p.34). Although Ford paid lip service to the need for research data, it remained a vaguely defined component of the foundation’s early effort (Connell et al., 1995).

Over time, however, research came to be widely accepted as an essential tool for social change agents seeking new ways to address the multiple social ills that plagued urban communities in the 1960s (Connell et al., 1995). According to Connell et al. (1995), leaders of social movement organizations came to understand the need for a comprehensive approach to solving social problems as they delved into academic findings and research data that unearthed the crippling effects of poverty on the populations they served. However, O’Connor (as stated in Connell et al., 1995) writes, “Although, both community-based initiatives and evaluation research have been prominent in the fight against poverty since the 1960s, they have taken distinctively divergent paths over the past three decades” (p.23). Without the reinforcements of research data, many social movement organizers find it difficult to interpret the social ills that plague communities.

Croteau, Hoyne, and Ryan (2005) note social movement theory can be utilized to frame, direct, and communicate a course of action aimed at unearthing and curing ills that plague the masses. Unfortunately, Croteau et al. (2005) maintain, “Times have changed. For more than a quarter century….the link between movement scholars and movement activist has dramatically weakened” (p. xi).

Problem Statement: The problem addressed in this study is that it is not known how and to what extent social change agents in the Midwest use research and social movement theory to inform a course of action and whether educational attainment levels influence these decisions.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this 2-phase sequential mixed method study is to provide a better understanding about how and to what extent social movement organizers in the Midwest value, access, and use social movement theory to inform a course of action and what role education plays in these decisions. In the first phase, a survey was used to obtain statistical, quantitative results that measure how and to what extent the social movement actors in the Midwest utilize research and social movement theory to inform a course of action. Phase 2 included a series of interviews with a sub-sample of the social movement actors who were surveyed to explore the survey results in more depth and to discover common themes and beliefs held by social movement leaders with regard to the use of research and theory.

Rationale

Many of the social movement organizers of 1960s and 1970s were also active in academia (Flacks, 2004). However, Bevington and Dixon (2005) assert the, “dominant American social movement scholarship has become detached from the concerns of actual social movements” (p.185). Thus the gap between the activist and academia has widened. Bevington and Dixon (2005) also assert, “If one’s goal is to produce useful information for movements, but the movements are not using this research, it is incumbent upon the researcher to ask why” (p.199).

This study determines how and to what extent social movement organizers access, use, and value research and social movement theory when planning mobilization activities, producing a significant contribution of knowledge to social change organizers, managers, scholars, and funders of nonprofit organizations that work on social justice issues.

Research Questions

For the quantitative segment of the study, the question is as follows:

Is there a statistically significant relationship between the educational levels of leaders of social movement organizations and the incorporation of research and social movement theory in organizational planning and mobilizing efforts?

The null hypothesis of the study is as follows:

H0. - There is no significant relationship between the educational level of the social movement organizer and the incorporation of research and social movement theory in organizational mobilization efforts.

The alternative hypothesis is as follows:

H1. There is a significant relationship between the educational level of the social movement organizer and the incorporation of research and social movement theory in organizational mobilization efforts.

The Phase 2 qualitative questions are as follows:

How do social movement organizers access research to inform mobilization activities?

How do social movement organizers use research to inform mobilization activities?

How do social movement organizers value research to inform mobilization activities?

Significance of the Study

A review of social movement theory and an empirical assessment of the utility of research among organizers in the Midwest produced information that is of significant value to doctoral students studying management of nonprofit agencies as it forecasts an important trend in the nonprofit social movement arena. This study provides an assessment of the capacity of social movement organizers and defines the limits of utilization of theory in practice in contemporary social movement organizations.

Without access to information, social change agents, funders, and citizens are forced to rely on hearsay, intuition, and popular knowledge to determine the best plan of action. The results of this study show how and to what extent social movement organizers in the Midwest use scholarship. The study should spur further research and other activities aimed at closing the gap between theory and practice in the social movement arena.

Definition of Terms

Social movement actor. Used interchangeably with social movement agent, social movement organizer, and social movement leader.

Social change agent. An “individual whose primary role is to deliberately intervene in social systems in order to facilitate or bring about social change” (Tichy, 1975, p.772).

Social movement leader. Used interchangeably with social movement organizer and social change agents.

Social movement organizations. Groups with a specific philosophy of organizing, namely Saul Alinsky style (a social activist who used tools of grassroots organizing, mass mobilization, and direct confrontation in order to achieve specific social justice goals, such as attaining reforms in immigration, housing, education, and criminal justice policies).

Social movement organizer. One that uses Saul Alinsky-style tactics to arouse the masses and trigger mobilization.

Study Variables

The two study variables include the education level of the social movement organizational leaders (independent) and the levels of incorporation of social movement theory in mobilizing efforts (dependent).

The education variable was operationalized as the eight levels of educational achievement of the movement leader. This ordinal level data was ranked in eight categories including (a) Zero – Eighth grade; (b) Some High School-Ninth through Eleventh; (c) High School graduate or GED; (d) Some College, but no degree; (e) Associate’s Degree; (f) Bachelor’s degree; (g) Master’s degree; and (h) Doctoral degree. Values were assigned as follows (a) = 1 point, (b) = 2 points, (c) = 3 points, (d) = 4 points, (e) = 5 points, (f) = 6 points, (g) = 7 points, and (h) = 8 points.

The study unearths how social movement organizers access, use, and value social movement theory and research in movement activities. The study examined four components of social movement theory including resource mobilization, political opportunities, collective interpretation, and existence of mobilizing structures. Approval to use a survey tool developed by Renee (2006) was attained.

Guided by the theories of social movement, research utilization, and educational equity, Dr. Renee’s survey tool measures how the respondents define, value, access, and use research to inform a course of action. The survey captured the level of importance respondents assign to the four constructs of social movement theory. The components of social movement theory are (a) The presence of funding for the subject of interest (resource mobilization), (b) the openness of the political system (political opportunities), (c) whether the issue has been framed in an easily communicated manner that is accepted by the constituents (collective interpretation), and (d) the existence of other groups that can help (mobilizing structures). The survey requires that respondents assign a value to describe how important each component is when initially strategizing, and subsequently planning, implementing, and assessing progress of a mobilization effort.

Employing an extensive process to ensure validity and reliability, Dr. Renee based her research questions on the tenets of social movement theory, education equity, and research utilization theory. The study’s research questions drove the development of the survey questions. In addition, Dr. Renee pretested the survey questions with local practitioners and her colleagues at University of California in Los Angeles, redrafting as needed to address misconception or confusion regarding the questions and ensuring practical relevance to the work of the respondents. The original survey asks a question about the importance of the State of California’s Department of Education, which would not be relevant for residents of Illinois. Therefore, the tool was slightly modified to reflect the fact that this study was administered in a Midwestern state.

Assumptions and Limitations

It was assumed that access to the sample population would be granted, and an adequate level of cooperation from the participants was expected. The method of sampling 100% of the population was determined to be the best sampling strategy to assess the genuine level of incorporation of social movement theory in the daily work of the social movement organizer. The procedures chosen to analyze the data were presumed to be adequate for this type of assessment. The survey instrument designed for this study was believed to be valid and reliable and to accurately measure the variables identified in this study. This study used a survey and interviews for data collection. Survey participants were asked to rate themselves on a number of usages of research. It was held that research was accessible to social movement organizers.

This study was limited by the number and characteristics of the participants who were able and willing to complete the survey. Those who did complete the survey may be different than those who chose not to or were unable to complete it due to lack of understanding of the workings of the organization. The survey was limited to those who could read and understand written English. This study was delimited by the scope of the sample being tested. Additional control variables that were considered that delimit this study are length of employment in the field, organizational age, gender, ethnicity, and network membership.

This is a sequential mixed method study, employing a quantitative survey tool to provide statistical results that measure whether and to what extent the social movement actors in Chicago utilize social movement theory to inform a course of action followed by a series of interviews with a sub-sample of the population to explore the survey results in more depth. The quantitative cross-sectional portion was designed to produce correlational results, providing a description of how two or more of the variables are associated with one another when observed at the same time within the sample population (Neuman, 2006). This approach allowed for the description of a relationship between the variables and to what extent the variables influence each other. However, it does not provide information to explain why one variable affects another. The disadvantage of this type of study is that causality is not determined, only correlation or association.

The qualitative face-to-face in-depth interviews were performed in the natural setting of the organizations’ offices or similar environments. The interviews were semi-structured, as is common in social movement research (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002). The information retrieved in the interviews was filtered through the interviewees’ perspectives (Creswell, 2003). The information was clarified and coded, identifying themes and concepts based on the interviewees’ accounts. The disadvantage of this type of research is that the results are based on the subjective interpretation of the respondents’ experiences. By employing the mixed method of quantitative and qualitative research, diverse types of data providing sufficient detail to develop a thick description of the phenomena studied was accessed (Mertens, 2005).

Nature of the Study

This study used a 2-phase sequential mixed method research model. By employing a quantitative survey tool in Phase 1, statistical results that measure whether and to what extent the social movement actors in the Midwest utilize social movement theory to inform a course of action were ascertained. Phase 2 was a series of interviews with a sub-sample of the population to explore the survey results in more depth and to gain insight into the beliefs, values, and actions of the social movement actors (Borden & Abbott, 2005; Creswell, 2003; Neuman, 2006; Staggenborg & Klandermans, 2002).

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

The remaining components of this study include the literature review, methodology, results, and conclusion. The literature review is an exhaustive review of current literature on the subject matter. The methodology section describes the research plan, assumptions, and strategies employed to answer the research questions.

Chapter 2.  literature Review

Introduction to the Literature Review

Chapter 2 provides a thorough review of the literature regarding a number of themes that are relevant to social movement among marginalized populations. John Wilson (in Piven & Cloward, 1979) defines social movement as “a conscious, collective, organized attempt to bring about or resist large-scale change in the social order by noninstitutionalized means” (p.5). A rich base of published and unpublished literature on past social movements exists.

Historically, nonprofits form to meet an urgent need that may otherwise be unaddressed. For many nonprofits, advocacy tops the list. Engaging citizens in dialogue and civic participation is the essence of democracy (Johnson, 2002). If there is no public participation and no public dialogue, citizens cannot participate in a democratic system (Cooper, 1998). Thus, historically many nonprofit organization leaders viewed civic participation as the most effective vehicle for democratizing the public policy process.

This frame of thinking, which had dominated the nonprofit world since its inception, has waned in recent years. Powell (2004) shares the sentiments of CEOs participating in a focus-group discussion as they recall, "the field attracted people passionate about social justice and motivated by the chance to help shape the system. They acted as the social conscience of the community, working as change agents to improve the human condition” (p.4). These social change agents challenged the status quo, mobilized the masses, and won victories that translated into a more equitable distribution of resources and less bias in the administration of justice.

According to Connell et al. (1995), leaders of social movement organizations came to understand the need for a comprehensive approach to solving social problems as they delved into academic findings and research data that unearthed the crippling effects of poverty on the populations they served. However, O’Connor (in Connell et al., 1995) states, “Although, both community-based initiatives and evaluation research have been prominent in the fight against poverty since the 1960s, they have take distinctively divergent paths over the past three decades” (p.23).

In the mid-70s, Perlman (1999) describes current grassroots efforts in that era as “uncoordinated and politically primitive” (p.1). Moreover, Rothman (2000) unearthed the depth of disunity, fragmentation, and ambiguity in the work of contemporary change agents and social movement organizations in a study of 43 movement leaders. Rothman’s (2000) survey painted a bleak picture, suggesting that the possibility of social change activists and organizers uniting and mobilizing around a specific issue was improbable.

With so many communities of color suffering under the heavy hand of injustice, inequity, and despair, one would think that the timing is right for mass protest and unity among social change agents. However, without access to information, social change agents are forced to rely on hearsay, intuition, and popular knowledge to determine when and if conditions are ripe for movement. This study yields valuable data that forecasts the likelihood of success or failure of social movement in the Midwest, filling gaps in the knowledge base and greatly benefiting the fields of sociology, philanthropy, grassroots organizing, and others.

The literature research for this study included accessing Capella Library, searching for key words on the internet, reviewing several scholarly books, communicating with a key social movement theorist (Doug McAdams); and speaking with other students working on social movement projects.

Several electronic databases such as Academic Search Premier, Science Direct, Ebscohost, ProQuest, and the SAGE Full-Text Collection database were used to search for documents that had keywords including social movement, mobilizing structures, political opportunities, collective interpretation, organizations, evaluation research, trend analysis, and marginalized communities. Internet search engines including Google, Dogpile, and AltaVista were explored using the same key words to discover additional journals, newspaper articles, and web pages dedicated to social movement and justice. Additionally, scholarly books written by leading social movement theorists were reviewed.

Theoretical Framework

Four components of social movement theory provide the foundation for the study including (a) political opportunities and challenges, (b) extant social movement structures, (c) collective interpretation, and (d) resource mobilization. Sub-themes, such as bounded rational theory, espoused theory (what people say they do), and theory-in-use (what people actually do) are used in the theoretical framework to explain the behavior of the various players that may have a role in spurring or stagnating movements based on various dilemmas (Cardno, 2007; Harmon, 2005).

Supported by scholars from around the world, McAdams’ (1982) social movement theory suggests what gives rise to insurgency is not only discontentment or the availability of resources, but timing that acknowledges political opportunities and challenges; the existence of organization from which to launch a movement; and the collective processes of interpretation, attribution, and social construction that mediate between opportunity and action (McAdams et al., 1996).

To determine if social movement actors in Chicago spur and maintain mass movement based on the ideas presented in McAdams’ (1982) social movement theory, the themes of this literature review are (a) political opportunities and challenges as they pertain to people who have been marginalized in society, (b) past and current social movement organizations and their functions, (c) and the processes of collective interpretation and framing of issues.

Crucial Theoretical/Conceptual Debates

A number of theorists have developed social movement theories to explain how, why, and under what conditions mass protests emerge and progress.

Reasoned Action Theory

Researchers, Simon et al. (1998), identified insurgency or collective action as a strategy employed by the disenfranchised to overcome. To explain what spurs collective action, Simon et al. (1998) shared Ajzen and Fishbein's theory of reasoned action, asserting that there must be a collective motive and a heightened possibility of a collective reward for participants to mobilize. Without collective motive and the possibility of collective reward, the effort will not gain the support of the oppressed masses. In other words, the individual must come to believe that that there are continuous contradictions in society that affect many people including him or herself—a collective motive— and that it is impossible for him or her to overcome the unfavorable conditions without joining a movement—a collective reward.

Classical Theory

The classical theory of social movement attributes the phenomenon to the insurgents’ disturbed psychological state of mind. The theory asserts that the strain of the environment and social isolation leads to psychological or cognitive dissonance and that from this trajectory, insurgency arises (Piven & Cloward, 1979). These disturbances take form when the subjects find themselves trapped between two conflicting ideologies at the same time, creating psychological imbalance. Festinger (1959) first coined the term, cognitive dissonance to explain how people come to a point of demanding change internally as well as from external forces. Thus, behavior is irrational and spontaneous (McAdams et al., 1996; Piven & Cloward, 1979; Robnett, 1997). Classical theory rests heavily upon these tenets.

Resource Mobilization Theory

Adherents of the resource mobilization theory refute many of the ideas consistent with classical theorists. Though insurgency may rise because of psychological strain and irrational behavior, it is very short-lived unless sufficient availability of resources exists. Thus, a movement happens when a large amount of outside resources are invested (McAdams, 1982). Resources include operating funds, available people, extant organizations, and other sources of support (Robnett, 1997). Consistent with resource mobilization theory, movement is a planned, rational, strategic endeavor guided by those that have been entrusted with the resources to do the work. Resource mobilization theorists refute what they believe to be the irrational haphazard model advanced by classical theorists.

Nevertheless, these theories alone do not explain why in some cases the oppressed appear to docilely accept the consequences of submitting to the hegemonic forces that combat their right to equity and at other times refuse to do so. Piven and Cloward (1979) assert that this phenomenon would have baffled Aristotle, as he believed that when people are forced into a system of inequality, the chief response is rebellion. History has proven him wrong. McAdams (1982) and Kottak (2005) enlighten this dialogue with other possibilities.

McAdams (1982) and Kottak (2005) agree that there is always some level of discontent in society, but conditions do not always produce the level of social action needed to effect change. Nevertheless, Kottak (2005) advises that society pays good attention to what is not being said in public. He notes James Scott’s assertions that there is both a public transcript and a hidden transcript of the oppressed. Publicly, the oppressed seem to adhere to rules, values, and beliefs of their oppressors, “but, they always question it offstage” (p.426), asserts Kottak (2005).

Synthesis of Theory

McAdams (1982) stated what gives rise to insurgency is not only discontentment or the availability of resources, but timing that acknowledges political opportunities and challenges; the existence of organization from which to launch a movement; and the collective processes of interpretation, attribution, and social construction that mediate between opportunity and action. In order to understand the political landscape; develop meaningful organization; and create and effectively translate a collective interpretation of opportunities, outcomes, and action, social movement actors need to utilize research and to evaluate ongoing efforts. In order to understand how the work of social movement organizations have aligned with social movement theory in the past, there is a need for a current literature review that assesses previous applications of the components of social movement theory to spur mobilization and social action.

Bridging the Gap

The study produced a significant contribution of knowledge to managers, leaders, researchers, and funders of nonprofit organizations that work on social justice issues. A review of social movement theory and an empirical evaluative assessment of the utility of social movement theory among social movement actors in Chicago are of significant value to doctoral students studying management of nonprofit agencies as it forecasts an important trend in the nonprofit arena.

In order to understand the political landscape; assess the capacity of the organization; and effectively interpret opportunities, outcomes, and actions that spur social movement, there is a need for research, assessment, and evaluation of conditions to bridge the knowledge gap regarding the social movement environment. Without access to information, social change agents, funders, and citizens are forced to rely on hearsay, intuition, and popular knowledge to determine when and if conditions are ripe for movement.

Review of the Critical Literature

Three themes are particularly salient in most contemporary movement theory literature including timing that acknowledges political opportunities and challenges; the existence of organization from which to launch a movement; and the collective processes of interpretation, attribution, and social construction that mediate between opportunity and action (Benford & Snow, 2000; Brockett, 1991; Kriesi, Koopmans, Duyvendak & Giugni, 1995; McAdams, 1982; McAdams et al., 1996; Robnett, 1997; Tarrow, 1994).

Political Opportunities

Michael Lipsey, a theorist, first explored the interplay between political opportunities and social movement in 1970, explaining that all governmental structures fluctuate, thereby, creating opportunity for social movement (McAdams, 1996). Since then, a number of researchers became proponents of Lipsey’s political opportunity model. Systems of government are not continuously entrenched, but are organic and are susceptible to shifts in vitality due to a number of different events. These shifts or stages of development can create vulnerability within political structures or serve to fortify the status quo stance. However, the academic world has produced a host of descriptions aimed at defining political opportunities so much so that researcher Tarrow (1988), as stated by McAdams (1996), proclaimed, “political opportunity may be discerned along so many directions and in so many ways that it is less a variable than a cluster of variables—some more readily observable than others” (p.26).

Nevertheless, a number of researchers agree that rooted in the broader context of the political environment, the prospects of insurgency increase when political structures are most vulnerable (Brockett, 1991; Kriesi et al., 1995; McAdams, 1982; McAdams et al., 1996; Piven & Cloward, 1977; Robnett, 1997; Tarrow, 1994). Researchers note that vulnerability increases if there have been recent transformations, such as drastic leadership changes, styles, ideologies, or diminution of supportive systems, affecting the ruling political party. Structural adjustments, such as a new party coming into majority, in the governmental systems that are open or receptive to social movement can increase access. Lastly, a rise in informal power structures, such as corporations, the Moral Majority, labor, etc., within a governmental system or party and the willingness of the governmental structures to support or resist movement activities can create susceptibility or stone-walling in political structures. The aforementioned changes can serve to support movement and spur insurgency or can insulate political structures and suppress mass mobilization (Benford & Snow, 2000; Brockett, 1991; Kriesi et al., 1992; McAdams, 1982; McAdams et al., 1996; Piven & Cloward, 1977; Robnett, 1997; Tarrow, 1994).

Similarly, the actions of mobilizing groups can serve to open political opportunities or contract them as well. Researchers (McAdams, 1999; McAdams et al., 1996; Robnett, 1997) agree that both the political system and the absence or presence of social movement groups predict the availability of access or contraction of political opportunities and vice versa (McAdams, 1982; McAdams, 1982; Robnett, 1997).

Social movement organizations use a number of tactics to combat, leverage opportunities, and engage political systems for change. Researchers note that one useful approach to understanding social movement organizational behavior is to assess the political context in which the organization exists. Meyer (2004) operationalized the political opportunity environment in which social movement organizations work in this way: The level of access citizens have to political entities, whether formal or informal, was used to measure the virtual openness or closure of the political system in which social movement organizations operate; and the frequency of police abuse and retaliation against challengers was used to assess the repressiveness of the political systems.

Meyer (2004) used a purposive sampling strategy to identify 27 social movement organizations engaged in peace and conflict resolution in Israel, Northern Ireland, and South Africa in order to learn how and why social movement organizations use the tactics they choose. Meyer (2004) drew data from organizational documents, books, and interviews with organizational leaders and members and produced 27 case reports. Using an international comparative case study model, Meyer (2004) unearthed a variety of salient elements of organizational identity. In addition, Meyer (2004) identified six tactics, with some used more often than others, employed by the 27 social movement organizations. Tactics employed include lobbying, protests, research, services, bridging (relationship-building), and public education. In agreement with other researchers, Meyer (2004) defines organizational identity as “a complex product of members’ political and/or religious values and beliefs, personal and professional identities, social positions, and informal political connections” (p.169).

An analysis of the case reports suggests that though the political contexts in which the social movement organizations work have some effect on the choice of tactics utilized, organizational identity is the aspect that ultimately drives social movement organizations’ tactical choices. These results imply that it can be predetermined what different tactics will be employed by social movement organizations and if and to what extent they are likely to become violent.

The study results cannot be generalized because the sampling strategy is non-random, the size of the sample was small, and no attention was given to a major tactic employed by many social movement organizations—resource mobilization. With such a small sample, it is likely that the case study method will fail to unearth important details about the subject matter. Moreover, the study sample is described as protest organizations; yet, it includes organizations that did not consider themselves as protests organizations, even though they used protests as a tactic (Meyer, 2004).

The comparative case study model is a good fit whenever the social inquiry is exploratory in nature. The case study method is a non-experimental, descriptive type of research that is useful when researchers want to get a thick description of a particular trend. However, case studies cannot explain behavior, show causal relationships, or generalize results.

As suggested by several theorists, political systems are impacted by multiple internal and external actions (Benford & Snow, 2000; Brockett, 1991; McAdams, 1982; McAdams et al., 1996; Kriesi et al., 1992; Piven & Cloward, 1977; Robnett, 1997; Tarrow, 1994). To discover the interacting “role of social movements, public opinion, and political climate on policy outcomes” (p. 473), Soule and Olzak (2004) employed a discrete time event history analysis to analyze the risk of a state ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment and the interacting components of political structure theory that caused its ratification or demise.

For the purposes of the Soule and Olzak (2004) study, political opportunity structure theory was acknowledged as a “function of changes in the level of elite receptivity of protesters, changes in the elite’s ability and willingness to repress insurgency, and the presence of elite allies” (p. 478). Using this theory, Soule and Olzak (2004) examines how the process of ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment on the state level was influenced by various events in the political system.

Using the state as the unit of analysis, Soule and Olzak (2004) identified the dependent variable as the rate of ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. The independent variables included the changes in public opinion, political climate, the presence of social movement organizations, and the existence of gendered political structures. Through these processes, political systems expand and contract.

Soule and Olzak (2004) hypothesized that public opinion and electoral competition would result in a positive effect on the Equal Rights Amendment. However, findings were not consistent with the hypothesis.

Soule and Olzak (2004) found that public opinion did impact the likelihood of the ERA ratification. However, public opinion had declined effects on the passage of ERA if other elements, such as electoral competition, were present. When electoral competition increased, the likelihood of ERA ratification significantly reduced. In addition, the ratifying of the ERA also declined when anti-movement entities were in existence, especially if there were more Republicans in the general assembly.

The implications of this study is that theorists should research the movement of interest and the counter-movements in order to determine the interplay of countervailing effects on the subject movement and how ultimate outcomes are impacted. In addition, Soule and Olzak (2004) found that a legislator’s gender, race, or religion should not be used to predict support of a measure, even if the legislation directly impacts him or her for the good. Soule and Olzak (2004) challenges theorists to expand and design their studies according to the particular movement of interest, understanding that there are multiple variables that should be included in future studies that are clearly germane to political opportunity structure theory.

The research design for this study is a good model because it accounts for the specific timing limitations posed on the study as a result of the ratification process in state legislature. Soule and Olzak (2004) employed a discrete time event history analysis to analyze the risk of a state ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment and noted that this technique was employed because ratification can only occur at distinct points of time in the given year. Soule and Olzak (2004) note that the study results cannot be widely generalized because the characteristics of American politics—which are rooted in vocal opposition, protest, and organization— are not the same as in many other countries. Soule and Olzak (2004) assert that future research should focus on movement structures on both sides of an issue—proponents and opponents.

Researchers note that showing causal links between social movements, outcomes, and mitigating factors such as the extent of the availability of political opportunity is a daunting task (Andrews, 1997; McAdams, 1982; Soule & Olzak, 2004). Andrews (1997) uses his study to refine political process theory, which “distinguishes the internal dynamics that shape the opportunities and constraints for mobilization” (p.800). Andrews (1997) asserts the need for disentanglement of internal and external factors that impact political processes in order to unearth the long-term consequences and the complex role of mobilization, as it pertains to politics and government.

By assessing components of the Civil Rights movement and using current literature, Andrews (1997) presents an analysis of the movement’s long-term impacts on electoral politics showing a causal link between mobilization and long-term policy outcomes. The 81 counties in Mississippi were used as the unit of analysis.

Andrews (1997) identified the following ten variables for this assessment:

1. The number of Freedom Summer volunteers

2. The number of Freedom Summer votes cast in 1964

3. The number of members of the NAACP

4. The number of physical attacks on civil rights workers from June to September 1964

5. The number of physical attacks/assaults on civil rights workers from 1960 to 1969

6. The presence of federal examiners in counties

7. The number of registered Black voters in 1960

8. The number of registered Black voters in 1967

9. The number of Black candidates running for office in county and state elections in 1967

10. The number of Black candidates running for office in county and state elections in 1971

Using archival data, governmental documents, and other published documents, Andrews (1997) drew data on eight cluster variable groups:

1. The civil rights movement

2. The countermovement

3. Voter registration

4. Federal participation in voter registration

5. The number of Black candidates running for office

6. Black voter turnout

7. Black elected officials

8. Demographic and social characteristics of the counties

Andrews (1997) sought to answer four questions:

1. What was the role of the civil rights movement in shaping the level of Black political participation and Black office holding after the Voting Rights Act?

2. What were the effects of repression on mobilization and outcomes?

3. What were the effects of the federal intervention on Black political participation?

4. What were the effects of the underlying social structural factors on the level of mobilization and outcomes (p.806)?

Using the Freedom Summer Vote of 1964 as a dependent variable to measure short-term impact and Black political participation and office-holding as independent variables, Andrews (1997) employed OLS regression and path analysis to assess the impact, and he used standardized regression coefficients to compare the size of the effects.

Andrews (1997) found that mobilization had a significant positive effect on the number of votes cast during the Freedom Vote. In addition, there was a significant rise in attacks on civil rights workers during the same period. However, when attacks rose, mobilization expanded. The counties with the most Freedom Summer volunteers also had the highest voter turnout.

The implication is that voter resistance and counter-movements can cause a short-term escalation in movement activities. Results showed a very significant increase in voter registration after the passage of the Voters Rights Act of 1965. The presence of federal examiners had more significant impact on voter turnout than the number of Freedom Summer volunteers. However, the presence of federal examiners had no significant impact on the number of Blacks that ran for office, while the number of Freedom Summer volunteers and membership in the NAACP did have a significant effect on the number of Black candidates that ran for office. Over time, the violent resistance against Black voters did have a significant impact on the number of Blacks that held office. The discussion confirms that there is a need to use longitudinal designs with multiple outcomes to assess the impact of movement on the political process.

The movement activities of the 1960s resulted in the development of a social movement infrastructure that took advantage of opportunities in the 1970s and 1980s as reflected in the number of Black office holders in 1984. The study results suggest that movements can generate long-term consequences, even if the movement does not fulfill all of its goals in the period of struggle. This aligns with collective memory theory which highlights how collective memory of events can trigger mobilization in later years.

The Andrews (1997) study did provide a good fit between the problem, research question, and the methodology. The strength of the study is revealed in the multiple variables and various measures employed to examine the interaction between the variables which increases the reliability and internal validity of the study. Limitations of the study include the fact that the sampling strategy included only southern counties in Mississippi, which did not reflect the same environment in other parts of the country. Nevertheless, the study results are generalizable back to the sample population which included the Black residents in 81 counties in Mississippi.

Mobilizing Structures

Formal and informal mobilizing structures provide the space for dialogue that may spark a movement. Because of the grassroots nature and collective interpretation of the issues at hand, traditionally, organizations such as churches, women’s associations, unions, university-based student groups, and similar membership-based groups provide the platform from which mobilization rises (McAdams, 1982; McAdams et al., 1996; Piven & Cloward, 1977; Robnett, 1997).

Social movement organizations play a vital role in the emergence of insurgency. However, political conditions play a major role in forming or shaping the structures that support insurgency as well as defining social movement possibilities (McAdams, 1982; McAdams et al., 1996; Piven & Cloward, 1977; Robnett, 1997). If the government or other major power players are repressive to civic engagement activities, mobilizing structures take distinctive shapes and forms in order to survive. If the system is open, receptive, indifferent, or ambivalent, mobilizing groups may more often take a public role in community discourse (McAdams, 1982; Piven & Cloward, 1977).

Transformation in character and behavior of a large mass of people is integral to protest movements (Piven & Cloward, 1977). The processes of collective interpretation and framing of issues usually include cognitive liberation from hegemonic forces (Kottak, 2005; McAdams, 1999; Nepstad, 1997; Piven & Cloward, 1977). Space from which to develop liberation from dominating ideologies is most often available in small familiar meeting circles including women’s meetings, church services, work meetings, and other public events. Understanding the implication of such gatherings in the southern states, Black slaves were not allowed to congregate in numbers of more than five without a Caucasian person being present (Kottak, 2005).

The importance of the existence of informal and formal mobilizing structures in frame analysis was further evidenced in a qualitative study with 32 peace activists in Central America. Nepstad (1997) outlines the value of the church as a connecting link between various players in the movement, thereby, transcending the conventional boundaries of nationality, ethnicity, and language and effectively promoting a common frame of analysis amongst disparate groups of players. Important elements in the process of collective interpretation include (a) people commonly associated with one another beginning to see the system of domination as illegitimate, (b) people beginning to assert their rights and demand change, (c) and insurgents beginning to believe that the power to change things lies within them (Piven & Cloward, 2005).

One main tactic employed by social movement leaders is the mobilization of constituencies. However, developing and maintaining the necessary environment to generate collective actions are evasive. Several theorists have used different research techniques to study the subject matter and have unearthed important elements for consideration for those interested in mobilizing the masses.

Harris (2006) makes good use of a rare survey and qualitative techniques to examine how collective memories can act as a catalyst for political activism. Knoke and Wood (1981) use surveys and in-depth interviews to discover how social movement organizations arouse their memberships and channel resources to achieve collective action goals. Carty (2002) uses a case study to present how technology is being used to trigger global collective action. In doing so, all of the research brings to light important tools for grassroots mobilizers.

The Harris (2006) study focuses in on the micro-dynamics of collective action. The study shows that through the processes afforded by memories, activists have access to a reservoir of experiences that position them to re-appropriate the events held in memory to trigger mobilization in campaigns for social change. Using the results of a 1966 Newsweek survey of 1059 participants that resided in 60 community areas in the United States, Harris (2006) addressed a research question aimed at exploring how collective memories of significant events trigger political mobilization of participants.

The civil rights movement provides a source of information for Harris (2006) as he examined how four key events evolved into the collective memories of African Americans and how those memories transpired into activism among Black insurgents. Harris (2006) incorporated both quantitative and qualitative measures to unearth the process. To make valid assumptions about the meaning of the lived experiences of the Black political insurgents, Harris (2006) incorporated qualitative techniques including autobiographies, biographies, and oral histories in the methodology. Making a clear distinction between political knowledge and collective memories, Harris (2006) defined collective memories as a “….psychological resource that boosts political participation, [and] considers knowledge of historical events that hold a particular salience for an affected social group” (p. 22).

Overall, this study provides valuable insight as it illuminates the micro-dynamics of collective actions. Internal validity is strengthened through the incorporation of various techniques such as survey data, autobiographies, oral histories, and biographies. In addition, the study provides a rare glimpse into the lives and experiences of a population of Black men and women that participated in the civil rights movement and details how their memories attributed to the likelihood of them participating in collective actions. However, the results do not conclusively prove that the memories alone generate the effect.

Though the analysis of the survey data indicates a causal, one-dimensional effect of collective memories on collective action, other elements that reduce external validity could be at play. The results were generalized to the Black population. However, Harris (2006) noted that groups can teach members about past events and the learning process may have the same effect of triggering collective action as the collective memory has on those that actually lived through the experience. Still, generalization to other populations is limited.

Knoke and Wood (1981) employed in-depth interviews and quantitative surveys to study the organizational strategies and tactics used by social movement organizations to develop and maintain social control, thereby allowing them to arouse their membership to engage in activities designed to influence public policy even in an adverse climate. Knoke and Wood (1981) assert, “Social control arises whenever diverse activities of a differentiated collectivity must be integrated around a common purpose or set of goals” (p.7).

Drawing from a population of 64 voluntary organizations that work to influence public policy, Knoke and Wood (1981) identified 32 organizations that fit the criteria for the study. The organization was the unit of analysis. Of the 32 organizations, the researchers culled a sampling frame of 1081 members to participate in the survey study, but actually interviewed 820 with an average of 26 participants per organization. The goal of the research study was to determine what impacts an organization’s ability to control its membership and whether the social control systems impact organizational ability to secure resources, attain external goals, and manage the environmental conditions that impact goal attainment.

The study variables included (a) organizational social control of participants, (b) the ability to attract resources, (c) the ability to attain external goals, and (d) the environmental conditions within which the organization operates.

To test the organizational social control of participants, the membership’s commitment to the welfare of the collectivity and loyalty to the organization even in adverse times were considered. Using three organizational control structures—purposive incentives, decision participation, and formal legitimacy of leadership—as independent variables and five levels of membership commitment—goal salience, loyalty, personal salience, member perception, and commitment index—as dependent variables, Knoke and Wood (1981) found that the membership’s ability to influence decision-making has the highest correlation with organizational social control, while legitimated formal leadership was less important, and incentives ranked as insignificant.

The ability to mobilize resources was measured by the amount of funds the group attracted from internal (member participation, time, and money) and external sources (e.g. corporate grants, public donations, etc.) as well as member disposition to continue involvement under adverse conditions.

To test resource mobilization and its relationship to organizational social control, Knoke and Wood (1981) used three types of resources—member commitment, budget, and tolerance of leadership decisions—and five levels of membership commitment—goal salience, loyalty, personal salience, member perception, and commitment index. Knoke and Wood (1981) found that the commitment index and the membership contribution index had the highest correlation, while member perception had the least correlation with member contribution, and total dollar had insignificant correlations to membership commitment. In addition, Knoke and Wood (1981) found that among the three systems of control—purposive incentive, decision participation, and formal leadership legitimacy—there was a significantly positive impact on member contributions among the decision participation system memberships, while purposive and legitimacy had no direct effect on member contributions.

The ability to attain external goals was determined by the organization’s success in influencing social values and legislation. Knoke and Wood (1981) used two distinct measures of goal attainment including member ratings and key informant (i.e. 24 persons that were knowledgeable about community affairs) determinations of the organization’s ability to reach goals. On a scale of one to 10, the average score assigned by members was .79, while key informants using a scale of one to seven, assigned scores ranging between 3.0 and 4.0.

The environmental conditions that might affect goal attainment were operationalized as environmental uncertainty (e.g. unstable conditions and internal organizational complexity) and the rise of issue controversies that provide opportunities to mobilize. Environmental uncertainty was measured by member ratings, while issue controversy was measured by the number of opportunities for social influence attempts. Greater uncertainty correlated negatively with goal effectiveness on both indicators of member and key informant ratings, while issue controversy correlates positively with both. Knoke and Wood (1981) note that absence of issues around which to mobilize may cause an organization to be rated ineffectual both by members and observers even if the group is effective.

Using bivariate correlations and multiple regression equations, Knoke and Wood (1981) were able to determine whether and to what extent the social control, member commitment, resource mobilization, goal attainment, and management of external conditions variables influence one another. The study employed a good design to answer the research question. Using both member ratings and key informant evaluations, Knoke and Wood (1981) were able to delve into the organizational culture, membership ideology, and community perceptions of 32 social movement organizations producing information that could be generalized back to the entire sample population.

Carty (2002) utilizes case study techniques to reveal how technology was used to trigger global grassroots action against a corporate behemoth. Highlighting the value and convenience of the internet as a vehicle of communication to both suppliers and consumers of Nike products, Carty (2002) shows how small grassroots groups can challenge transnational corporation by mobilizing insurgents around the world.

This exploratory study draws on modern and postmodern perspectives to understand and examine the relationship between systems of resistance in the realm of production and among the product consumers that desire to protest against hegemonic forces. Globalization has enhanced mutual interdependence, and the internet has proved to be an effective vehicle for the cultural and political solidarity of the new social movement organizer. Carty (2002) reviewed the tactics of production and consumption resisters as they struggle to force Nike to do justly by its employees in various countries.

Carty (2002) did not explain how she selected a sample for this study nor does she outline a methodology. However, she does show how technological advances provided the means for several globally-conscious social movement organizers and organizations to launch effective transnational mobilization strategies against Nike. In addition, she lists a number of capacity-building groups that provide trainings for those interested in bridging the macro/micro divide by launching such actions. The research illustrates how a transnational public discourse that engages labor and end-users of products would be literally impossible without the internet or some other form of alternative communication. Carty’s (2002) analysis concludes that “resistance to capitalism is organizationally and ideologically manageable” (p. 144) and that several organizing groups have found that the internet is a viable platform for global discussion.

It would have been useful to learn how and why Carty (2002) located the case study participants. However, she did provide a clear description of tactics and outcomes for a number of organizing groups that used the internet to trigger insurgency. The study is useful because Carty (2002) provided a thick description of the anti-Nike campaign. In her field review, Carty (2002) included artifacts that the groups utilized to gain support for the campaigns, including images downloaded from the internet and pictures of billboards from around the country.

Chronicling the Anti-Nike campaign activities of organizing groups, such as San Francisco-based NGO ‘Global Exchange’, Campaign for Labor Rights, the United Students Against Sweatshops, Culture Jammers, Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, and others, Carty (2002) illustrates how the use of the internet has enhanced political struggle in modern society. Listing data gathered from various research reports, cataloging activists work; incorporating internet downloads, and highlighting reproductions of billboards used to promote the campaign, Carty (2002) provides a rich description of the anti-Nike campaign that helps the reader understand how use of the internet is in fact changing the nature of political struggle on multiple levels in first and third world countries.

The case study method is a non-experimental, descriptive type of research that is useful when researchers want to get a rich, detailed description of a particular phenomenon. The limitations inherent in case studies are that the model cannot explain behavior, show causal relationships, or generalize results. In addition, the researcher is limited to studying very few cases which may not be representative of the general population. With such a small sample, it is likely that the case study method will fail to unearth important details about the subject matter. Nevertheless, Carty’s (2002) use of the case study method is a good match for this exploratory subject of study.

Collective Interpretations

One of the most visible signs of insurgency is collective action. To explain what spurs collective action, Ajzen and Fishbein put forth the theory of reasoned action, which asserts that there must be a collective motive and a heightened possibility of a collective reward for participants to mobilize (Simon et al., 1998). The theory of reasoned action (Simon et al.,1998) asserts that the individual must come to believe that there are continuous contradictions in society impacting him and others and that he can overcome the unfavorable conditions by participating in a mass movement strategy. In essence, the theory of reasoned action is based on a level of discontentment.

McAdams (1982) and Kottak (2005) agree that there is always some level of discontent in society, but conditions do not always produce the level of social action needed to effect change. The prerequisite of successful collective action is collective interpretation (Kottak, 2005; McAdams, 1982; McAdams et al., 1996; Piven & Cloward, 1977). Kottak (2005) notes that when people begin to see that others interpret circumstances as they have, even though they have not been in direct contact, an affirmation emerges and hidden transcripts can become public transcripts. This shared knowledge can propel collective action. Without the social capital forged by collective interpretation, movements wane. Collective interpretations are best promoted among those that know each other. Piven and Cloward (1979) note the value of having existing formal and informal mobilizing structures in place from which to promote a new dialogue about an issue of concern. Jung (2003) used a case study model to add to the knowledge base concerning collective action, collective interpretation, and building social capital by showing that social capital can be created in a rapid manner even if none previously existed.

By studying an uprising in a small neighborhood in Cape Town, South Africa, Jung (2003) found that residents could build the social capital and collective interpretation needed to open political opportunities and reverse the decision that negatively impacted their neighborhood. As the country began the arduous process of school integration, Ruyterwacht, a small neighborhood, was selected as a receiving community for new students. Though Ruyterwacht’s local school had a capacity of 500, over 3000 students were sent to the community each day. With nothing to do, the youth restlessly roamed the community until the bus came to pick them up.

The community had no formal institutions with which to draw support and provide space for collective interpretation or decision-making, the residents came together and decided to block the school buses from entering the tiny community and demanded that school officials resolve the dilemma. Using in-depth interviews, observations, and content analysis, Jung (2003) successfully captured a clear example of how social capital can be built even in the absence of mobilizing structures, previous relationship-building activities, and historical collective activities.

Jung (2003) interviewed residents over a three week period in order to unearth the experiences of the residents in the small neighborhood. Residents that were interviewed did not know their neighbors. In addition, they were not active in political activities, as was verified by random sampling. Moreover, they did not participate in community activities or attend church services. Out of all of the residents interviewed, only one had ever volunteered to help at the local school. Jung (2003) stated, “Ruyterwacht was characterized by a complete absence of such norms, networks, and trust as might comprise social capital” (p.152). Yet in the face of trouble, the residents were able to rise up to combat the threat to their community life by forging immediate partnerships and demanding that the government be accountable to their needs. After three days, the students were withdrawn from the community. With the win sure, the residents demobilized.

When the students were once again sent back to the school—albeit, in more manageable numbers—few residents mobilized to sign a complaint. Jung (2003) uses the data from the interviews to disclose the fluidity of social capital. Historically, social capital had been described as requiring a deep level of trust. Jung’s (2003) findings refute this theory. Based on results from the study, social capital and collective interpretation can be here today and gone tomorrow. None of the traditional prerequisites of trust, strong institutions, long-term relationship-building, and such appear to be required. Presented with a threat, residents in the small neighborhood produced social capital spontaneously. Mobilization was simply predicated by a threat of disruption of normal community life.

Jung’s study is a narrative account of one episode in a small community in Cape Town, South Africa. The findings, though interesting, cannot be generalized to the broader society. Inherent in case study methodology, the findings are limited and can only be applied to the particular people that were sampled. The results cannot establish causal relationships. In case study research, many details may be overlooked.

According to McAdams et al. (1996), cognitive liberation is a prerequisite of collective action. Unless the masses are liberated in their thinking about the situations in which they live, they cannot operate collectively. Social movement leaders often grapple with how to bring about cognitive liberation among constituents.

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) studied inducements to behavior change. They questioned what would happen if a person that holds one opinion is forced to act or speak in a manner that is contrary to the held opinion. This experiment was designed to introduce cognitive dissonance in an experimental setting to see how participants would manage the dilemma. Previous studies had shown that when a person was forced to say or act in a manner that was contrary to his genuine beliefs, he would move his private opinion toward the one he was forced to support (Janis & King, 1954, in Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). The Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study tested this theory.

Using an experimental model, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) selected 71 male students that were enrolled in an introductory psychology course at Stanford University as a sampling frame. They divided the participants into three groups including a control, a small reward group ($1.00), and a larger reward group ($20.00). Though they did not know the purpose of the experiment, all of the students knew they were participating in the experiment as a part of their course work. The $20.00 and $1.00 rewards were used to induce behavior change.

As part of the experiment, all three groups participated in two tests: a one-hour-long monotonous, boring test and a subsequent four-question test that asked how enjoyable was the experiment? After the first boring test, the individuals in the two experiment groups were given either $1.00 or $20.00 to convince the next waiting participant that the tasks performed during the test were extremely enjoyable, to which most (68 participants) agreed. After working to convince the waiting participant that the test was extremely fulfilling, the individuals took the second test that was designed to measure whether and to what extent the participant enjoyed the experiment.

Based on a 11-point scale, with -5 meaning extremely boring and +5 meaning extremely enjoyable, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) found that the control group described the experiment as being mostly boring (-.45).The large reward ($20) group also agreed that it was mostly boring (-.05), but, surprisingly, the small reward ($1.00) group found the experiment indeed interesting and enjoyable (+1.35). Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) concluded that the small reward had a greater impact on inducing behavior change than a large reward. This implies that behavior change is best induced when only the smallest amount incentive needed to induce the behavior is provided. Any inducement above the amount needed fails to make any difference.

Similar behavior is found among those dominated by hegemonic forces. Hegemony, a concept developed by Antonio Gramsci, explains why subordinates submit humbly to elites (Kottak, 2005). By internalizing the values and beliefs of the elites, subordinates comply and even endorse the views of the dominating elites even though the thoughts directly impact the subordinates in a negative manner. This domination is not supported by military force; it is embraced and perpetuated by the oppressed (Kottak, 2005). Based on the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study, subordinates would internalize the views and beliefs of their captors in order to reduce cognitive dissonance as did the experiment groups in the study. Reconciling competing thoughts reduces dissonance and provides a higher level of tranquility.

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) used an experiment to test the theory of cognitive dissonance. The design was a good fit for the research question, problem, and methodology. Several weaknesses that prevent generalization to the general population include (a) the fact that all of the participants were male; (b) the participants were all college students that self-selected to be in the study; (c) the person that was to be convinced that the study was enjoyable was always female, and, most importantly, (d) the subjects were paid to make statements that were contrary to their private opinion. Nevertheless, the study did produce reliable results that can be generalized back to the sample population, but not to broader society.

Communicating the frame is of utmost importance to social movement organizers. Successfully accomplishing this step creates the fertile ground from which collective interpretation takes root. Though the internet has grown to become an important communication platform (Carty, 2003), mass media outlets continue to play a large role in shaping public opinion about movement activities. False portrayals of movement issues can certainly staunch a movements’ expansion.

Smith, McCarthy, McPhail, and Augustyn (2001) took up the issue of analyzing the relationship between mass media and social movement in Washington, D.C., by analyzing media response to protests held in Washington, D.C. during 1982 and 1991. Smith et al. (2001) sought to verify whether and to what extent the media adopted the frame that the protesters developed or if the media presented a different frame, and the focus of the news stories.

By analyzing newspaper articles and local television news stories during the eighties and early nineties, Smith et al. (2001) found that mass media outlets tend to report very few protests stories and when they do, the protests may be reported in a manner that undermines the social movement’s goals.

Smith et al. (2003) identified every protest covered by each of the daily New York Times and Washington Post newspapers from 1982 through 1991 and all of the transcripts of the major television broadcasting stations—ABC, CBS, and NBC. The unit of analysis for this study is the media story about a protest. Smith et al. (2001) tested five hypotheses. They are as follows

Hypothesis 1: Television news, with more limited “temporal space,” is more selective in the range of social movement events it reports, but the coverage of these events is more thematic than print coverage. Based on content analysis, this hypothesis proved to be true as the daily New York Times and Washington Post newspapers covered the majority of the protests (over 80%) and the transcripts of the major television broadcasting stations—ABC, CBS, and NBC showed less than 20% coverage.

Hypothesis 2: Controversy, such as the presence of counter-demonstration, arrests, dramaturgy, or violence, generate more episodic than thematic coverage of a protest event. This hypothesis proved true also, with those events that had counterdemonstration receiving less than high media coverage on their issues than groups that did not have counterdemonstrations.

Hypothesis 3: Issues that are related to ongoing media issue agendas will attract more thematic coverage than episodic coverage. This proved true as well. The veteran and Gulf War demonstrations received twice and five times the media coverage, respectively, in comparison to their counterparts.

Hypothesis 4: Media coverage of social movements will tend to favor the status quo; the “spin” of news stories will, in general, tend to favor government and other authorities. The results contradicted this hypothesis. The media stories did not support the status quo, and the media did get their information from the demonstrators the majority of the time.

Hypothesis 5: Protest event stories that spin in favor of the status quo will rely principally on the government and authorities for information. This research statistics did not produce evidence to support this hypothesis (Smith et al., 2001, pp. 1405-1407).

Smith et al. (2001) analyzed the content of the media accounts with a focus on three points including “(a) the extent to which the coverage reflected a thematic or episodic frame, (b) the extent to which the issues raised by protesters were described in the coverage, and (c) the ‘spin’ of the coverage toward either the demonstrators or their targets” (p. 1407).

Smith et al. (2003) found that the media tends to cover protests that are aligned with an issue of their concern. The size, issue, or event commemorated by the protesters does little to attract media support. Largely, media coverage was driven by the themes already on the media group’s radar. These findings imply that social movement organizers should be prepared to match their protests to ongoing media cycles and routine productions. The number of protesters, the issue of concern, and use of new protests vehicles did not prove to draw media attention. If the issue did not match what the media outlet was working on, the protest was much less likely to receive coverage.

The research question, problem, and methodology fit well together to produce reliable results. Smith et al. (2003) analyzed major media outlet productions over an eleven year period to unearth how and to what extent the media reports adopted the frame that the protesters presented. Producing results that can be generalized to the larger population of the media outlets and protests, Smith et al. (2003) addresses a major concern of social movement activists across the nation.

Evaluation of Viable Research Designs

This study employs a 2-phase sequential mixed method research design. Phase 1 consisted of a cross-sectional correlation survey to provide quantitative statistical results to address the research question. Phase 2 included a series of semi-structured, face-to-face interviews to explore more depth. The research designs utilized in the review of the literature include case studies, in-depth interviews, comparative studies, experiments, and surveys. Though some of the studies used a longitudinal design, the studies were largely cross-sectional, examining phenomena at a specific period in time. In light of the research topic, the best research design for this study was both the quantitative survey design, which is the most commonly used design in social science research, and the qualitative interview model. Using survey techniques to explore the beliefs, attitudes, and behavior of social movement activists in regard to the utilization of social movement theory, aligns with the methodological practices of previous social movement research studies (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002; Knoke & Wood, 1981; Neuman, 2006). The semi-structured interview provides detailed information, but results are limited because the sample size is so small.

A comparative study of the social movement organizers of the 1960s through 2000 would also be interesting, but it would not highlight the current needs of the field of social movement as it pertains to the Midwest. An experiment would be useful, if conditions were optimal. However, in light of the research topic, questions, and problem, the cross-sectional correlation quantitative survey design along with the qualitative interview model are the best fit.

Chapter 2 Summary

This chapter provides an overview of previous studies on social movement theory. As evidenced by the literature, major social movement theorists have embraced the definition and main components of the social movement theory espoused by McAdams (1996) including extant political opportunities, indigenous-led mobilizing organizations, and the cognitive liberation evidenced by collective interpretation framings (Benford & Snow, 2000). Though much rich literature exists, this study was executed because it was not known how and to what extent social change organizers in the Midwest used these concepts and applied theory when planning mobilization. This study contributes to the accumulation of knowledge, as it determined the functional use social movement organizers accredit to these theories when addressing real life situations.

Chapter 3. Methodology

Introduction

Chapter 3 outlines the purpose of the study, the researcher’s philosophy, the research design, and the strategy of the study. It also identifies sampling methods, data collection, and analysis procedures. In addition, there is an exploration of internal and external validity concerns and limitations, a catalogue of expected findings, and an acknowledgement of potential ethical concerns.

The purpose of this study is to determine how social movement organizers access, use, and value research and social movement theory and whether there is any significant statistical relationship between the use of research and social movement theory to inform mobilizing efforts and the educational attainment levels of social movement organizers in the Midwest. A 2-phase sequential mixed method research design to determine whether and to what extent 34 social movement organizers used research and social movement theory to inform a course of action was employed.

Researcher's Philosophy

This study rests on the foundation of pragmatic assumptions employing a 2-phase sequential mixed method research design. Using a quantitative survey design, Phase 1 was a systematic process of measurement that was verifiable and consistent with scientific exploration (Creswell, 2003). Phase 2 employed a semi-structured interview process producing detailed information that captures the participants’ understanding of the research problem.

From the perspective of the pragmatist, utilizing diverse forms of data collection, including post-positivist and constructivist’s methods, produces knowledge claims that are not limited to a single viewpoint, rather they are multi-layered and pluralistic in nature (Creswell, 2003; Mertens, 2005). Post-positivists assert the aim of science is to make claims and predict reality by testing theory using experiments or other systems of measure (Creswell, 2003). The constructivist seeks to collaborate with research participants to unearth the meaning of the phenomenon based on the contributors’ understanding (Mertens, 2005). This mixed method study uses both strategies of inquiry, building scientific knowledge that can help predict outcomes in society in a reliable, consistent manner using an approach that embraces the gathering of knowledge from many different perspectives (Letourneau, 1999), thereby, producing a thick description of the research results (Creswell, 2003). Using this systematic approach, this study is very advantageous in that it produced measurable and perhaps, comparable cross-discipline outcomes based on a multiplicity of sources of knowledge.

Research Design Model

Consistent with social scientific research (Borden & Abbott, 2005; Neuman, 2006) and social movement research (Staggenborg & Klandermans, 2002), this 2-phase sequential mixed method study employed survey research methods and semi-structured interviews with key informants to determine how and to what extent social movement activists use social movement theory and research to inform a course of action.

To complete Phase 1, survey techniques were used to explore the beliefs, attitudes, and behavior of social movement activists in regard to the utilization of social movement theory, aligning with the methodological practices of previous social movement research studies (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002; Knoke & Wood, 1981; Neuman, 2006). Since this study used the established research design of surveys in Phase 1 which is commonly employed in social movement research, the steps listed in Klandermans and Staggenborg (2002) were followed.

After developing the hypotheses, Klandermans and Staggenborg (2002) stated that the first decision the researcher makes should be “what unit of analysis is most appropriate to the questions being asked” (p.13). Commonly, the individual is the chosen unit of analysis; however, using the organization as the unit of analysis provides a richer description of the phenomena (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002). The next step is to identify the sampling frame, which are those that fit within the parameters of the population the researcher seeks to study.

Thirdly, one should decide what type of study technique is to be used to gather the information (e.g. phone, mailing, face-to face, or internet). Considerations of costs, response rates, and subject matter of the questions should be taken into account (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002). Time frame is the fourth consideration. The researcher must decide whether he or she wants to perform a cross-sectional survey, which will study a single point in time in history, or longitudinal, various points in time. When determining time frame, Klandermans and Staggenborg (2002) suggest that the researcher pay close attention to response rates because nonresponse bias threatens reliability and validity significantly.

Questionnaire design is the next consideration cited by Klandermans and Staggenborg (2002). Levels of specificity in the questions, ordering of questions, and sensitivity to informant’s sentiments are all considerations when determining survey design. Final considerations are data analysis using common statistical techniques, reviewing and rechecking data, presentation, and dissemination (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002). Attaining sufficient levels of reliability and validity should be a primary objective. Thus, special diligence in recouping survey results from a significant number and wide variety of the participants in the sampling frame was instituted (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002).

Phase 2 employed a series of semi-structured interviews with 12 key organization representatives including directors, board members, staff, and members. Blee and Taylor, as cited by Klandermans and Staggenborg (2002), stated the use of semi-structured interviews to uncover meaning and experience of interviewees is a common method used in social movement and conflict research. The voice of the social actor is captured in the process, allowing for the incorporation of the participant’s lived experiences in the data construction (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002).

Blee and Taylor (as cited in Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002) stated that the researcher should first develop an interview guide that outlines the research goals, the demographic characteristics, and social attributes of the participants. The order of questions, the level of language, and the research space should be conformed to the population so as to create a natural dialogue atmosphere (Creswell, 2003; Blee & Taylor as cited in Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002). The researcher has the liberty to probe to obtain additional details when necessary and is not constrained to following the guide in its entirety (Creswell, 2003; Blee & Taylor as cited in Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002). The ultimate goal was to unearth detailed information based on the understanding and interpretation of social actors in order to describe the actions and activities of participants as they related to the research problem (Creswell, 2003; Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002; Mertens, 2005).

Blee and Taylor (as cited in Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002) identified four types of semi-structured interviews including key informant interviews, focus group interviews, oral histories, and life histories. For the purposes of this study, the key informant interview model was used, as key informants are well-positioned to provide insider information about the internal workings of social movement activities, providing the level of detail thus sought.

Research Design Strategy

This 2-phase sequential mixed method study employed survey research methods and semi-structured interviews with key informants to determine whether and to what extent social movement activists use research and social movement theory to inform a course of action.

An existing survey tool developed by Renee (2006) was used for the Phase 1 quantitative survey component to determine how and to what extent social movement actors use research and theory to inform a course of action. The 35-question survey instrument is in Appendix A. Questions 20 and 28 from the survey are two of the inquiries that capture the level of importance of a variety of components of social movement theory and the importance of research. The variable measured in this proposed study is in parentheses. The questions are as follows:

“ 20. From the list below, select the 5 resources that are the most important to your organization for running a successful campaign or project. Select the resources in the order of importance (i.e. place a 1 next to the most important resource, a 2 next to the second most important resource, and a 3 next to the third most important resource, etc.).” (Renee, 2006, p.268).

Access to the media (Social movement theory – developing collective interpretation)

Large membership base (Social movement theory – Mobilizing structures)

Strong leadership (Social movement theory – Resource mobilization)

Research (Research Utilization)

Funding (Social movement theory - Resource mobilization)

Strong support from decision-makers (Social movement theory - Political opportunities)

Ally organizations/coalitions (Social movement theory – Mobilizing structures)

Good timing (Social movement theory - Political opportunities)

This above mentioned question clarifies the importance the social movement actor assigns to research and various components of social movement theory (Renee, 2006, p.268). The question that follows (Question 28 on the survey) inquires about the top reasons for which the group uses research.

“ 28. Check the TOP FIVE reasons why your organization may use research or experts.

Develop a new policy proposal

Gaining support for a policy or the campaign

Educating the public

Developing a new campaign

Adding legitimacy to an argument

Educating policymakers

Evaluating existing policies

Convincing policymakers that the organization is trustworthy

Confronting racist or classist beliefs

Evaluating the success and failures of a campaign

Countering an opponent’s information or position

Changing the way people think about an issue

Improving a policy

Getting media attention

Framing a debate, discussion, or agenda

Developing campaign materials like reports, letters, pamphlets, or speeches

Getting attention from policy makers

Developing a key term or concept to guide a campaign”(Renee, 2006, p.271).

The two questions above represent a sampling of the survey questions. The complete survey is in Appendix A. The Renee (2006) survey was used to capture the quantitative data required in this research study.

From a sampling frame of 43 self-reported social change agents that are funded by the Woods Fund of Chicago, the Chicago Community Organizing Capacity Building Initiative (CCBI), or the Marguerite Casey Foundation, 34 directors or leaders of small to medium social change organizations with budgets less than $4 million that ascribe to Saul Alinsky-style organizing in the Midwest agreed to participate in the study. The participants were approached multiple times to secure a sufficient number of participants for the study.

The coded survey tool, survey instructions, two copies of the consent form, and an envelope for the survey retrieval were personally distributed to participants in order to secure a firm commitment for the survey’s return within 10 days. Survey instruments were coded and delivered in a sealed envelope in order to protect the participants’ identity. In addition, a time was set to retrieve the sealed survey within 10 days. After 15 days, all of the envelopes were opened and data were entered into the computer.

The organization was the unit of analysis for this study. By using the organization as the unit of analysis, a richer description of the phenomena was assembled (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002) by surveying and interviewing several participants that represent the organization in various capacities. The results of the survey along with educational attainment level data collected from respondents were constructed to provide correlational statistics to answer the research question. A correlational study provides a description of how two or more variables are associated with one another when observed at the same time within a sample population. The research question for this component is as follows: Is there a statistically significant relationship between the education levels of leaders of social movement organizations and the incorporation of research and social movement theory in organizational planning and mobilizing efforts?

The null hypothesis is as follows:

H0. There is no significant relationship between the educational level of the social movement organizer and the incorporation of research and social movement theory in organizational mobilization efforts.

The alternative hypothesis is as follows:

H1. There is a significant relationship between the educational level of the social movement organizer and the incorporation of research and social movement theory in organizational mobilization efforts.

The two study variables included the education level of the social movement organizational leaders (independent) and the levels of incorporation of social movement theory in mobilizing efforts (dependent).

The survey instrument was designed to produce rank-ordered data regarding the level of incorporation of research and theory in social movement activities. The ranked ordinal level data were used to measure the study variables. This approach allowed for the description of a relationship between the variables and to what extent the variables influenced each other. It does not provide information to explain why one variable affects another, but rather that there is a relationship between the two.

The education variable was operationalized as the highest level of educational achievement of the movement leader. This ordinal level data are ranked in eight categories including (a) 0 – Eighth grade; (b) Some High School-Ninth through Eleventh; (c) High School graduate or GED; (d) Some College, but no degree; (e) Associate’s Degree; (f) Bachelor’s degree; (g) Master’s degree; and (h) Doctoral degree. Values are assigned as (a) = 1 point, (b) = 2 points, (c) = 3 points, and so forth.

The components of social movement theory examined for this study included resource mobilization, political opportunities, collective interpretation, and existence of mobilizing structures. The survey tool requires the respondents to assign a value to describe how important each component is when initially strategizing, and subsequently planning, implementing, and assessing progress of a mobilization effort. The components of social movement theory are operationalized as (a) the presence of funding for the subject of interest (resource mobilization), (b) the openness of the political system (political opportunities), (c) the issue has been framed in an easily communicated manner that is accepted by constituents (collective interpretation), and (d) the existence of other groups that can help (mobilizing structures).

Values are assigned using a ranking system to generate numerical data. Selection categories and value assignments were (a) Most important = 10 points, (b) Second most important = 8 points, (c) Third Most important = 6 points, (d) Fourth Most important = 4 points, and (e) Fifth Most important = 2 points. Additional selections and value assignments for answers concerning how much time the organization spent doing research in the past year include (a) None = 0 points, (b) A little = 2 points, (c) Some = 3 points, (d) A lot = 4 points, and (e) More than anything else = 5 points.

Additional items in the questionnaire include network membership, if any (e.g. ACORN, Industrial Area Foundation/United Power, National Training and Information Center/ National People’s Action, Metropolitan Alliance of Churches, Gamaliel, Pacific Institute and Community Organizing, Center for Third World Organizing, and Community Organizing and Family Issues), frequency of mobilizing activities, and approximate number of participants in each mobilizing action led by the organization.

Since the instrument was developed for social movement actors in California, all references to California were replaced with Illinois. In addition, to increase validity and reliability and to ensure that the questions were conceptually and operationally definitive and consistent throughout, a field test was performed with participants that could be members of the sampling frame but are not included in the sampling process (Neuman, 2006). Simultaneously, follow-up interviews were scheduled with 12 organizations that completed the survey.

The SPSS statistical software was used to measure and rank the results from all of the 34 participants that completed the survey. After completing the statistical analysis, a preliminary report was generated and shared with study participants, research assistants, and the dissertation committee members.

Phase 2 consisted of a series of face-to-face interviews with 12 social movement actors on various levels of the organizations that participated in the survey. The preliminary results from the quantitative survey were reviewed, and a quota sampling strategy was used to determine which groups would be invited to participate in Phase 2 of the study. Interviewees included directors, staff, board members, and other organizational members. The director or senior staff was asked to identify other representatives from the organization that could participate in the interview process. Each participant completed a consent form and received a consent letter. A formal approval letter was not required because only those referred by the director or senior staff were interviewed. An interview guide was assembled to direct the face-to-face interview process.

The research questions for the Phase 2 portion are:

How do social movement organizers access social movement research to inform mobilization activities?

How do social movement organizers use social movement research to inform mobilization activities?

How do social movement organizers value social movement research in mobilization activities?

The interview data were coded, analyzed, and categorized to identify themes and concepts that helped provide depth to the data collected through the Phase 1 quantitative survey. After feedback is attained and incorporated as necessary, an effort to have the study published in peer reviewed journals focusing on social change and social action will be employed.

Sampling Design

In order to produce results that could be generalized to the larger population of the sampling element, the quantitative portion of the study employed probability sampling to produce a representative sample of the beliefs, activities, and commitment of leaders of social movement organizations as related to the employment of social change theory and research in planning and mobilizing activities. An attempt was made to contact all 43 members of the study population; 34 completed the survey. The survey results were complemented with rich data retrieved during face-to-face interviews with twelve social movement actors representing organizations in the study.

The population for the study is organizations established for the purpose of grassroots organizing, local leadership and community development, and mobilization around social justice issues. The survey participants were 34 social movement organizations that were funded by the Chicago Community Organizing Capacity Building Initiative (CCBI), the Marguerite Casey Foundation, and/or the Woods Fund of Chicago during the study period of 2005 through 2008. The Woods Fund of Chicago, the Marguerite Casey Foundation, and CCBI grantee base provided a rich source of contacts that are representative of the target population—movement-building organizational leaders.

The Woods Fund and the Marguerite Casey Foundation are progressive funders of grassroots organizing groups in the Chicago area. CCBI was a six-year national and local funding initiative aimed at building capacity of a diverse population of Chicago grassroots organizing groups. Between these funders, there are 43 grantees that fit the criteria for this study. An attempt was made to contact all 43 grantees to notify them about the study. The rate of response for organizational surveys is 30 to 50% (Staggenborg & Klandermans, 2002). However, using aggressive delivery and retrieval tactics to overcome nonresponse bias, the study had an 80% response rate.

Measures

The education level of the social movement organizational leaders (independent) and the levels of incorporation of social movement theory in mobilizing efforts (dependent) were the study variables. Additional variables included network membership, if any (e.g. ACORN, Industrial Area Foundation/United Power, National Training and Information Center/ National People’s Action, Metropolitan Alliance of Churches, Gamaliel, Pacific Institute and Community Organizing, Center for Third World Organizing, and Community Organizing and Family Issues), and approximate number of participants in mobilizing actions led by the organization.

The survey tool for this study was created for social movement actors in California. Therefore, a field test was performed with three social movement actors not included in the study to ensure that the questions were conceptually correct, operationally definitive, and consistent throughout (Neuman, 2006). The instrument was designed to produce ordinal level data regarding the level of incorporation of social movement theory and research. Additional information about educational attainment levels was ranked as well. Thus, ordinal level data were used to measure the study variables. The data were used to describe a relationship between the variables and to what extent the variables influenced each other. Employing a field test with members of the target population will increase validity and reliability.

For Phase 2, a series of questions from the Renee (2006) study were utilized for the face-to-face interview process. Following each interview, the data were analyzed, identifying themes, sub-themes, and concepts. The data were coded, categorized, and compared to previous interview data. Clarification was sought for inconsistencies or incomplete data. To increase dependability and authenticity of the results, themes and concepts contrived were shared with respondents periodically. Respondents confirmed the reliability of the data analysis.

Data Collection Procedures

The directors in the sampling frame were directly contacted to set a time to meet and deliver the coded survey, survey instructions, two copies of the consent form (one of which was retrieved), and an envelope for the completed survey. The major purpose for personal delivery was to secure a firm commitment for completion of the survey within 10 days and to set a date and time for retrieval of the survey instrument. Several calls were made to participants in an attempt to ensure an adequate level of response.

To increase the confidentiality of respondents, all of the envelopes were opened on the same day rather than when they were returned. The original documents are kept in a secure place in case references to data are required. The data were entered into survey monkey, creating an Excel format download for conversion into numerical data. The numerical data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical software program. The data entries were checked to be sure the data were correctly entered into the computer.

Before starting Phase 2, an interview guide that outlined the research goals, the demographic characteristics, and social attributes of the participants was developed. The order of questions, the level of language, and the research space was conformed to the population so as to create a natural dialogue atmosphere (Blee & Taylor in Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002; Creswell, 2003). Permission to tape the interview with the respondents was secured. Immediately after each interview was completed, the information was clarified and analyzed. In some cases, additional information was sought to elucidate the respondents’ intentions and answers. Follow-up conversations helped to ensure validity of the emerging concepts and themes.

Field Testing

To identify any inherent problems with the survey tool, a field test of the preliminary survey instrument was performed with three participants. All testers completed the entire process of receiving an introduction to the survey, instructions, consent form, and debriefing. After the explanations, the testers completed the survey and debriefed.

Special attention was paid to the length of time needed to complete the survey; any ambiguities in the directions, consent form, or survey questions noted by testers; and general questions about the research. After receiving feedback from the testers, no adjustments were needed. This process pre-dated the actual surveying of the study participants.

Data Analysis Procedures

A data analysis procedure was employed that followed the same sequential order as the study. A written coding procedure was developed for the study data and an identification number assigned to each survey (Neuman, 2006). After carefully coding the data collected in the research survey, the data were entered into SPSS statistical software program. A second review of 20 % of the hard copies of the survey was checked to ensure no errors were present in data entry (Neuman, 2006).

Using bivariate statistical analysis, data were generated that showed the level of covariation or statistical independence between the level of the participants’ educational attainment and the use of research and social movement theory to inform mobilizing efforts. Several descriptive examples of the condensed study variable data were provided in the study including plotting the data on scattergrams and charts for a visual of the results and measuring association using a correlation coefficient (Neuman, 2006).

Because the two variables were at the ordinal level, Spearman rank order coefficient of correlation was used to determine whether the educational attainment and the use of research and social movement theory among movement leaders covary or are statistically independent (Mertens, 2005). The correlation coefficient provided quantitative data that showed the strength of the relationships between the study variables, providing insight as to whether there is a statistically relevant relationship between the educational attainment level of social movement actors and the likelihood that social movement theory was employed in mobilization efforts.

For Phase 2, a series of questions developed by Renee (2006) were utilized for the face-to-face interview process. Following each interview, the data were analyzed to identify themes, sub-themes, and concepts. The data was coded, categorized, and compared to previous interview data. Clarification was sought for any inconsistencies or incomplete data. The data was categorized, and themes were identified. To increase dependability and authenticity of the results, themes and concepts contrived were shared with respondents periodically.

Limitations of the Research Design

The 2-phase sequential mixed method research design employed quantitative correlational and qualitative interview components. A correlational study provided a description of how two or more variables are associated with one another when observed at the same time within a sample population. This approach allowed for the description of a relationship between the variables and to what extent the variables influence each other. However, it does not provide information to explain why one variable affects another.

The disadvantage of this type of study is that causality is not determined, only correlation or association. Thus, a causal link was not established. Also, though the groups were all invited to participate, each organization had the right to finish the survey and return it or not. It is likely that the groups that did not return the survey may have had a higher instance of not using social movement theory. This creates nonresponse bias in the results.

However, since over 80% of the grantees completed the survey, nonresponse bias should be overcome. In addition, the sampling strategies employed helped the study overcome these limitations by providing data that shows relationships between the variables as they may relate to the larger population of social movement organizations in the Midwest (Glicken, 2003; Leedy & Ormrod, 2005; Mertens, 2005).

An advantage of the correlational portion of the study was that it provided data that predicted how one variable is associated with another. This made it possible to hypothesize about what the cause may be, laying the groundwork for an experimental or quasi-experimental study (Neuman, 2006).

The qualitative face-to-face key informant interviews provided insider information that could not be captured using quantitative measures (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002). Access to key informants’ interpretations unearthed the culture of the organization adding rich description of the research data (Mertens, 2005). Gathering this depth of information assisted in extending theory, defining phenomenon, and describing organizational characteristics on many levels.

The disadvantages of using the interview process was that the information gathered may be true to the respondent but not accurate in reality (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002). In addition, the possibilities of generalizing is severely limited. The work is time consuming, and, therefore, cost prohibitive and systematic comparisons may be restricted due to the diverse experiences of each social movement actor (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002).

Time Line

After IRB approval, completion of the study will transpire over a 120-day period, with data collection in the first 30 days, and analysis, assessment, and verification of results to be completed over the following 90 days.

Internal Validity

An existing tool developed by Renee (2006) was utilized to measure the quantitative portion of this study. Neuman (2006) notes, “Reliability and validity are central issues in all measurement” (p. 188). Accordingly, Renee (2006) employed an extensive survey development process to ensure validity and reliability of the survey tool.

Using a questionnaire, Renee (2006) initially polled seven social movement practitioners to determine what survey data would be of greatest benefit to them. The questionnaire provided Renee (2006) opportunity to test content and style of questions. Using the feedback, Renee developed the questions and pretested the instrument with a panel of experts including movement practitioners, statisticians, survey designers, and UCLA professors. Resultantly, significant changes in content and layout were recommended and subsequently incorporated. In addition, to increase validity and reliability, a field test was performed with a social movement education actor that fit the sampling frame but was not chosen in the sampling process. After the pretesting, feedback, and re-drafting processes were completed, having successfully achieved face and construct validity and reliability, the survey instrument was finalized.

To ensure that the questions are definitely conceptual and operational to Midwest respondents, feedback was attained from a panel of field testers. The feedback was positive. No changes were incorporated into the study tool (Neuman, 2006).

External Validity

External validity was strengthened through the process of pretesting the instrument during the field test. Because the entire population is the sample, the findings produced important information for scholars, donors, social movement actors, and nonprofit managers.

Expected Findings

It was expected that the research would suggest that though the movement leaders are highly educated, few, if any, incorporate social movement research in informing, planning, or implementing mobilization efforts. In addition, it was expected that education has no bearing on these results. Thus, there was an independent relationship between the variables of education level and employment of research and social movement theory.

Ethical Issues

Researcher's Position Statement

The researcher is a social movement organizer. Prior to her studies at Capella, the researcher did not employ the concepts of social movement theory in her work. The researcher works with many of the proposed study participants in various coalitions. However, she does not know whether the other organizers employ social movement theory nor does she know the level of education of the other organizers. The researcher does not foresee any conflict of interest.

The researcher believes the work of social movement organizers would be enhanced with the employment of social movement theory. However, the researcher does not know whether the organizers currently use social movement theory. The researcher will not be present when the participants complete the survey. Therefore, she will not be in a position to impose her bias on the proposed study and findings.

Ethical Issues in the Proposed Study

Due to the design of the research, which supports confidentiality adamantly, the ethical issues associated with this study were considered minimal. According to Neuman (2006), four major ethical issues must be addressed when employing survey research including (a) invasion of privacy by asking questions about private or personal matters, (b) not informing respondents that their participation is always voluntary and that they can refuse to continue at anytime, (c) using the survey to exploit or mislead respondents, and (d) the misuse of survey results. Further, Neuman (2006) catalogs ethical issues raised about naturalistic research including (a) deception of respondents, (b) failure to keep information confidential, (c) inappropriate engagement with the powerless (e.g., children, poor people, and those holding low-status positions in society), (d) being aware of deviant activity and failure to respond appropriately, and (e) the struggle between the right to privacy and the right to know. Mertens (2005) asserts ethics should be an early consideration, not an afterthought in research design.

Therefore, all of these ethical issues were considered. Further, there was a firm commitment to protecting all participants from physical, psychological, and/or legal harm and securing any identifiable information from public disclosure, except where disclosure is otherwise required by law or a court of competent jurisdiction. As reflected in the Institutional Review Board application for this study, all participants signed a written Informed Consent document that clearly outlined the scope, depth, and purpose of the study. In addition, participants were made to understand clearly that they could terminate their involvement at anytime with no repercussions. Further, pseudonyms were used for all participating informants to ensure confidentiality. All of the data from the surveys and interviews, including the original documents and tapes will be kept in a secure cabinet that will remain locked, only being retrieved in case references to data are required. Generating accurate data to colleagues in the scientific community is a primary goal. However, after five years the information will be destroyed. No protected classes of people were participants in this study.

Chapter 3 Summary

Chapter 3 outlined the purpose of the study, the researcher’s philosophy, research design, and the strategy of the research study. Additionally, it identified sampling methods, data collection, and analysis procedures. Issues of internal and external validity, limitations, expected findings, and potential ethical concerns were acknowledged. The purpose of the study was to determine whether and to what extent social movement leaders use, value, and access research and social movement theory when planning, implementing, or assessing mobilizing efforts. Consistent with previous social movement studies, a two-phase sequential mixed method study was employed using quantitative and qualitative methods including an organizational survey and face-to-face interviews with key informants to capture the necessary data to address the research questions.

Chapter 4.  Data Collection and Analysis

Research Findings

Chapter 4 is a detailed presentation of the findings obtained through this 2-phase sequential mixed method study including an organizational survey of 34 participants and 12 face-to-face interviews with key informants. The purpose of this study is to better understand how and to what extent social change organizers in the Midwest access, use, and value research and social movement theory to inform a course of action. In an effort to develop a rich detailed description of the operations of social movement organizations in the Midwest, both quantitative and qualitative measures were used.

This chapter includes a thorough step-by-step investigation of the data and a presentation of the research results obtained through the survey and interview processes employed to determine how and to what extent social change organizers in the Midwest use research and theory to inform a course of action. What follows is a detailed description of the sample, a summary of the results, an in-depth analysis of the findings, and a set of conclusions drawn from the analysis.

Description of the Sample

The unit of analysis for this study is the organization. The original sample population included 76 organizations listed as grantees on the websites of the Woods Fund of Chicago, the Chicago Community Organizing Capacity Building Initiative (CCBI), and/or the Marguerite Casey Foundation. The final unduplicated sample population was 67 groups. The list was pared down because some groups were listed on multiple funders’ websites. Each of the grantee organizations was funded by at least one of the foundations to support grassroots organizing, local leadership, and mobilization around social justice issues during the years of 2005 through 2009.

In the process of review, 17 of the 67 groups were eliminated because they did not fit the selection criteria requiring a focus on mobilizing activities, a key component of Saul-Alinsky-style organizing. Of the 17, seven were worker-support entities or other service groups, four were low-income housing developers, four were policy groups, one was an arts entity, and one was no longer in commission. An additional seven were removed after multiple attempts to make contact by phone and email over a two week period were unsuccessful. The final sampling list contained 43 groups led by self-reported social change agents located in the Midwest region of the United States.

The original plan was to use probability sampling to identify leaders of social movement organizations to participate in the survey. However, in lieu of using probability sampling, all 43 groups were called and invited to participate. Ultimately, nine groups did not participate in the study for reasons such as (a) three received the recruitment letter, but did not reply; and (b) six accepted the survey, but did not return it. The final sample for this study included 34 leaders of social movement organizations located in the Midwest; twelve of which participated in Phases 1 and 2.

The study was explained to the organizational leaders that agreed to participate. As reflected in Table 1, at the option of the organizational leadership, most participants were executive directors. In completing the survey, these directors provided extensive information about the current activities of their organizations. A series of tables captured the outcome of their reporting. Figure 1 is a diagram of the study process.

 

Figure 1. Study Phases and Theoretical Framework

Research Questions

Is there a statistically significant relationship between the educational levels of leaders of social movement organizations and the incorporation of social movement theory in organizational planning and mobilizing efforts?
down arrow
Key Components of Social Movement Theory
Acknowledging Expansion & Contraction of Political Opportunities (McAdams, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996) Identifying & Engaging Mobilizing Structures (McAdams, 1982) Developing & Utilizing Collective Interpretation & Attribution (Benford & Snow, 2000) Assessing  the  Existence of Resource Mobilization (Robnett, 1997)
down arrow down arrow
Independent Variable
The educational attainment level of respondents
  Dependent Variables
1. The level of research use
2. The level of theory use
down arrow down arrow

Quantitative Survey Steps

  1. Reviewed websites of three foundations that fund social change and advocacy activities to identify participants for the study
  2. Cataloged all 67 grantees from the three lists, removing duplicated grantees
  3. Reviewed, as needed, 67 grantee’s websites for evidence of insurgency activity.
  4. Eliminated 17 groups that did not fit the sampling criteria
  5. Sent recruitment letters and called 50 potential participants assigning a code to each one.
  6. Sent surveys to the 40 groups that responded to the recruitment letter
  7. Collected 34 surveys and entered the data into Survey Monkey and downloaded the results in an Excel format.
  8. Assigned numerical values to each possible answer related to the use, access, or value of theory and research in insurgent actions.
  9. Analyzed survey results using Spearman Rho statistic to test the null hypothesis.
down arrow

Qualitative Interviews

  1. Identified 12 organizations that participated in the survey using quota sampling methods, based on organizational age, ethnicity of director, and geographic location.
  2. Conducted one interview per organization
  3. Recorded interview data on an audio recorder and/or in written format
  4. and analyzed interviews
down arrow
Data Integration

Analyzed surveys and interview data together to identify major themes and findings

Summary of Results

This 2-phase sequential mixed method study was designed to address two questions (a) Is there a statistically significant relationship between the educational attainment levels of leaders of social movement organizations and the incorporation of research and social movement theory in planning and mobilizing efforts; and (b) How do social movement organizers access, use, and value research to inform a course of action?

During Phase 1, a quantitative organizational survey was administered to 34 respondents. The independent variable was the level of educational attainment. The dependent variables were (a) the level of research use, and (b) the level of theory use. Using Spearman Rho statistical analysis for assessment, results showed a correlation of .087 and .027 between educational attainment levels and the use of social movement theory and the use of research, respectively.

The qualitative phase included 12 interviews with social change leaders. To gain a broad understanding and a thick description of the experiences of a diverse cadre of social movement leaders of various ethnicities leading organizations located in a variety of geographic locations in the Midwest, a quota sampling strategy was utilized instead of random sampling. Twelve groups were identified: Five were led by African Americans; three were Caucasian-led; and one each of Asian, Indian, Arab, and Latino descent. Reportedly, the organizations had been in existence from four years to 44 years, and their locations spanned the city. The interview and survey results revealed how social movement leaders value, use, and access research and theory to inform insurgency.

As stated by one social change leader, “Research validates our claims and helps us change policy….without research we are easily discredited and dismissed” (Key Informant 3). This sentiment was profoundly echoed in each of the 12 interviews.

All the interviewees reported they use quantitative research, and 75% use qualitative measures as well. The majority of the interviewees produced their own research, which mainly consisted of resident interviews and community assessments employed in the process of developing organizational priorities. All respondents cited the membership of their organizations deemed research credible based on the source of the data. Additionally, 75 % mentioned that the messenger was important too, noting where the research originates or who brings it to the table matters to their constituencies as well.

Eleven of the groups regularly work with university researchers. In spite of having access to that resource, the social movement leaders reportedly spend an average of 25% of their time doing research. One change agent stated, “Our targets are pretty savvy. They try to come across as benevolent, when in reality, the research paints a different picture” (Key Informant 3). Movement leaders, explain, “Research verifies what we know in our gut” (key Informant 5).

Only two of the informants had professional research training. Five have at least some staff with academic training, and eight do in-house training. Only one has research staff. When asked what they needed most to be able to use research more effectively, most stated that they needed dedicated staff, skill development, or access to a third party clearing housing on relevant subjects. Two were satisfied with their access to research and their skill level. However, 85% of the respondents were not satisfied with their level of access to research, citing occasions when they tried to locate research data to help solve a problem, but could not find the information they needed or was denied access to it by the government. One movement leader noted how research was used in a recent campaign, “the research was critical….we weren’t just speculating. With the research, we were able to make our case” (Key Informant 3).

Detailed Analysis

This 2-phase sequential mixed method study employed an existing survey tool and a set of interview questions developed by Dr. Michelle Renee for social movement actors in California (Renee, 2006). Renee sought to understand how education organizers accessed, used, and valued research when working on education campaigns in California. Renee’s research questions were based on the tenets of social movement theory, educational equity, and research utilization theory. The study’s research questions were used for the development of the survey questions and interview topics. Employing an extensive process to ensure validity and reliability, Dr. Renee pretested the survey questions with local practitioners and her colleagues at University of California in Los Angeles, redrafting as needed to address misconceptions or confusion regarding the questions and ensuring practical relevance to the work of the proposed respondents.

The original survey asked a question about the importance of the State of California’s Department of Education, which would not be relevant for residents in the Midwest. Thus, all references to California were replaced in this study with a Midwestern state. As with this study, the organization was the unit of analysis for Renee’s research.

To increase validity and reliability and to ensure that the questions were conceptually and operationally definitive and consistent throughout, a field test was performed with leaders of three Midwest-based social movement organizations (Neuman, 2006). No inconsistencies or conceptual problems were discovered.

In order to protect the participants’ identity, the survey tool was coded and distributed in a sealed envelope along with survey instructions, two copies of the consent form, and an envelope for the survey retrieval, requesting a firm commitment to return the survey within 10 days. After two weeks, the 34 surveys retrieved were entered into Survey Monkey and downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet format. The results of the survey were constructed in Excel and values were assigned to provide numerical data that was used in a correlational statistics analysis aimed at answering the research question: Is there a statistically significant relationship between the education levels of leaders of social movement organizations and the incorporation of social movement theory in organizational planning and mobilizing efforts?

The two study variables included the educational attainment level of the social movement organizational leaders (independent) and the levels of incorporation of research and social movement theory in mobilizing efforts (dependent).

The null hypothesis was

H0. There is no significant relationship between the educational level of the social movement organizer and the incorporation of research and social movement theory in mobilization efforts.

The Renee (2006) instrument was designed to produce ordinal level data to measure the evidence of incorporation of research and theory in social movement activities. There were nine questions regarding how groups used research and eight inquiries about the use of social movement theory. To facilitate the correlation analysis, rank ordered numerical values of zero to 10 points were assigned to every possible response to the questions regarding the use of theory or research and to each of the eight levels of educational attainment. The final score value of each respondent was compared to the total possible score, resulting in each score being a fraction of the achievable whole. These scores were used to assess the level of incorporation of theory and research in mobilizing efforts in comparison to educational attainment levels, making it possible to complete the Spearman Rho correlation analysis.

Phase 2 included 12 face-to-face interviews with key informants in leadership roles in social movement organizations in the Midwest. The interviews and surveys were used to collect basic information about the day-to-day campaign decision-making process of social movement organizations, providing rich details about how research and theory are valued, accessed, and used in insurgency efforts.

Tables 2 and 3 catalog how social movement organizations describe their organizations, revealing the breadth of organizations that reportedly adhere to Saul Alinsky style organizing. Of note, 74% considered the organization as community-based and 62% included the title of advocacy group to their description. Other selections include faith-based, informal organization, membership organization, union, and/or service provider. Having collected responses from a wide array of the organizations working for social change gives deep insight on how multiple social change groups in the Midwest approach their work.

 

Table 1. Study Participants’ Organizational Position

Current Role at Organization n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

Executive Directors

28

82%

Paid Staff Organizers

4

12%

Paid Staff Research Analyst

1

3%

Executive/Advisory Board Member

1

3%

Volunteer Director

Member

Volunteer Leader

Total Respondents

34

100%

Table 2. Organizational Self-Description

Best Description of Organization (select all that apply)

Number of Orgs

% of Response

Advocacy Organization

21

62%

Community Based Organization

25

74%

Faith Based Organization

11

32%

Informal Organization/Group of People Who Care

2

6%

Membership Organization

13

38%

Research Organization

5

15%

Service Provider

7

21%

Union

1

3%

Total Respondents

34

Table 3. Composite Description of Organization Types

Description of Organization Types n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

National Organization

1

3%

Statewide Organization

5

15%

Local Chapter of a National Organization

0%

Local Chapter of a Statewide Organization

0%

Independent Local Organization

28

82%

Total Respondents

34

100%

When asked about the leading problems the organization strives to address, 43% were working to build power in low-income communities so they can create better educational outcomes. Respondents repeatedly chose inequities, racism, and classism as major perceived reasons why the educational system operates as it does; only four said the failure is a result of parent or student indifference. Table 4 and Table 5 capture these responses. All the groups work with low-income populations and to a varying degree, as reflected in Table 6, with other populations.

 

Table 4. Leading Problem Addressed by Organization

Which Statement Below Most Closely Describes the Biggest Problem Your Organization is Addressing?               n=30

Number of Orgs

% of Response

 

 

 

We are trying to improve our local schools

2

7%

 

We are trying to counter the racism that creates an unequal education system.

2

7%

We want to help our students do better in school.

5

17%

We want all schools to have adequate resources.

5

17%

 

We want to build power of low-income communities so they can change the education system.

13

43%

 

We want to create an authentic and powerful role for low income parents and parents of color at schools.

3

10%

 

Total Respondents

 

30

 

100%

Table 5. Perceptions of Education System

Rate How Well Each Description Below Fits Your Organization's Perspective.   n=34

Disagree

Neither Disagree nor Agree

Agree

 

 

 

 

Inefficient school management

2

12

18

Parents and students who do not care

16

13

4

Social inequities like racism and classism

0

4

30

Shortages of caring and competent teachers

3

12

19

Inadequate funding from the state

1

4

29

Inequalities in the opportunities students have to learn

1

3

30

Lack of basic resources like textbooks, credentialed teachers, and clean facilities

1

7

25

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Income Status of Population Served

My Organization Focuses on _______ Income People (select all that apply). n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

 

 

 

Low

34

100%

Middle

20

59%

High

6

18%

 

Total Respondents

 

34

 

Though the organizations are located across a wide span of geographic areas, 76% reported that they work largely with Latinos and African Americans. Additionally, 35% work with Caucasians. According to respondents, 82% asserted that their constituencies are parents and students, while 26% noted that their service populations were teachers and administrators (Table 8). Approximately, two-thirds of the respondents lead membership-based organizations (Table 9). Yet, 100 % of respondents stated that they did have leaders or an active participant base (Table 10), a necessary component of mobilizing efforts.

 

Table 7. Ethnicity of Population Served

My organization focuses on ___________communities (select all that apply). n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Responses

African American

26

76%

Asian American

11

32%

Latino/a

26

76%

Native Americans

5

15%

Caucasian

12

35%

No specific race/ethnic

4

12%

Religious

9

26%

Total Respondents

34

 

Table 8. Constituency’s Role in the Education System

My Organization Represents ___________ (select all the apply)   n=33

Number of Orgs

% of Response

 

Youth/Students

27

82%

Parents

27

82%

Teachers

10

30%

Administrators

8

24%

School Staff

8

24%

Others

12

36%

Total Respondents

33

 

 

Table 9. Organizational Type

Are You a Membership Based Organization   n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

 

Yes

23

68%

No

11

32%

Total Respondents

34

100%

Nearly one-half of the respondents reportedly have over 75 very active participants at their organizations. As highlighted in Table 11, two-thirds of the respondents reported having six or more paid staff members. Approximately 15 percent of respondents had more than 25 paid staff members.

 

Table 10. Number of Organizational Leaders

How Many People in Your Organization Would be Considered Leaders and/or Very Active Participants in the Organization's Activities?  n=33

Number of Orgs

% of Response


0

 

 

1-5

 

 

6-10

1

3%

11-15

 

0%

16-25

7

21%

26-75

10

30%

Over 75

15

45%

Total Respondents

33

100%

 

Table 11. Number of Paid Staff

How Many Paid Staff Members Does Your Organization Have?  n=33

Number of Orgs

% of Response


0

 

 

1-5

11

33%

6-10

4

12%

11-15

5

15%

16-25

8

24%

Over 25

5

15%

Total Respondents

33

100%

For each recorded use of research, one point was assigned to each affirmative answer to survey questions about when research was used, from which venues the organization obtained research, and how the organization used research for capacity building. The same value assignment was used for answers regarding the components of social movement theory including resource mobilization, political opportunities, collective interpretation, and existence of mobilizing structures. In addition, the survey tool required the respondents to choose an answer to describe how important each component is when initially strategizing and subsequently planning, implementing, and assessing progress of a mobilization effort.

Answers to questions concerning how important access and use of research were during a campaign and whether research or components of movement theory were one of the top five resources needed to run a successful campaign were assigned values using a ranking system to generate numerical data. Selection categories and value assignments were (a) Most important = 10 points, (b) Second most important = 8 points, (c) Third most important = 6 points, (d) Fourth most important = 4 points, and (e) Fifth most important = two points. Additional selections and value assignments for answers concerning how much time the organization spent doing research in the past year included (a) None = 0 points, (b) A little = 2 points, (c) Some = 3 points, (d) A lot = 4 points, and (e) More than anything else = 5 points.

All of the points acquired by each group were added up individually and divided by the total possible points available, producing a numerical reference of use of each of the two dependent variables: the level of use of research and the level of use of theory in mobilizing efforts. The educational attainment level of the social change organizer ranged from high school to doctoral level. Ninety-one percent of respondents had at least a bachelor’s degree. To complete the correlation analysis, the independent variable, the educational attainment level, was converted to numerical value.

The education variable was operationalized as the highest level of educational achievement of the movement leader. This ordinal level data were ranked in eight categories and values were assigned as (a) Zero – Eighth grade = 1 point; (b) Some High School-Ninth through Eleventh = 2 points; (c) High School graduate or GED = 3 points; (d) Some College, but no degree = 4 points; (e) Associate’s Degree = 5 points; (f) Bachelor’s degree = 6 points; (g) Master’s degree = 7 points; and (h) Doctoral degree = 8 points. The respondents’ educational attainment levels are charted below in Table 12.

 

Table 12. Educational Attainment Levels of Social Movement Leaders.

Please select your highest grade or degree completed. n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

0-8th grade

 

 

Some High School-9th through 11th

 

 

High School Graduate or GED

1

3% 

Some College, but no degree

1

3%

Associates Degree

1

3%

Bachelors Degree

18

53%

Master's Degree

11

32%

Doctoral Degree

2

6%

Total Respondents

34

100%

To measure the use of theory in mobilizing decisions, values were assigned to each possible answer that questions the use of theory in mobilizing activities. This process resulted in a score for each time the group reportedly acknowledged political opportunities, worked to identify and engage mobilizing structures, worked to develop or utilize a collective interpretation frame, or considered the existence or lack of resources available for insurgency efforts. Based on respondents’ answers, possible scores were of 0.000 to 3.034.

These data were entered into SPSS statistical software to test for mean, standard deviation, and correlational assessment. The majority of the organizers use research and theory to inform their work. As reflected in Table 13, the mean score for theory use is 1.9887, and the standard deviation is .20593.

 

Table 13. Use of Theory Mean Score and Standard Deviation

 

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Level of Theory Use

34

1.56

2.35

1.9887

.20593

Valid N (listwise)

34

To measure the use of research in mobilizing decisions, the values were assigned to each possible answer that questioned how social movement leaders use research when planning a course of action. Based on respondents’ answers, possible scores were of 0.000 to 1.00. As reflected in Table 14, the average score is .5761, and the standard deviation is .15946.

 

Table 14. Use of Research Mean Score and Standard Deviation

 

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Level of Research Use

34

.24

.87

.5761

.15946

Valid N (listwise)

34

Using Spearman Rho correlation statistics, the findings showed that educational attainment levels of social change actors in the Midwest and the reported use of theory and research to inform a course of action had very low correlation. The correlation results are listed in Tables 15 and 16. The correlation between educational attainment levels and the use of social movement theory and the use of research is .087 and .027, respectively.

 

Table 15. Correlations Between Educational Attainment levels and the Use of Social Movement theory

 

 

 

Respondent's Education Level

Level of Theory Use

Spearman's rho

Respondent's Education Level

Correlation Coefficient

1.000

.087

 

 

Sig. (2-tailed)

.

.624

 

 

N

34

34

 

Level of Theory Use

Correlation Coefficient

.087

1.000

 

 

Sig. (2-tailed)

.624

.

 

 

N

34

34

 

Table 16. Correlations Between Educational Attainment levels and the Use of Research

 

 

 

Respondent's Education Level

Level of Research Use


Spearman's rho


Respondent's Education Level


Correlation Coefficient


1.000


.027

 

 

Sig. (2-tailed)

.

.879

 

 

N

34

34

 

Level of Research Use

Correlation Coefficient

.027

1.000

 

 

Sig. (2-tailed)

.879

.

 

 

N

34

34

The results are also illustrated plainly in the scattergrams in Figures 2 and 3.

The scattergram in Figure 2 shows the distribution of scores for theory use in comparison to educational attainment levels.

 

Figure 2. Comparison of Use of Theory and Educational Attainment Levels

 

Figure 3. Comparison of Use of Research and Educational Attainment Levels

The social movement organizers’ responses operationalized for statistical analysis are delineated in Tables 13 through 33. The key components of social movement theory and research are listed in Table 17 and Table 18, respectively.

Table 17. The Theoretical Framework

Key Components of Social Movement Theory

Acknowledging Expansion & Contraction of Political Opportunities

(McAdams, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996)

Identifying & Engaging mobilizing structures

(McAdams, 1982)

Developing & Utilizing collective interpretation & attribution

(Benford & Snow, 2000)

Assessing the Existence of Resource Mobilization

(Robnett, 1997)

 

Table 18. The Use of Research in Insurgent Activities

How Social Change Agents Use Research in Social Movement Activities

To Inquire about Expansion & Contraction of Political Opportunities

To identify and/or             engage mobilizing structures

To develop and/or inquire about the existence of collective interpretation & attribution

To assess  the level or existence of resource mobilization

Respondents’ engagement with the use of research and theory are delineated in Table 19 and Table 21, highlighting the top resources insurgents value when running campaigns or executing a course of action. These resource choices are directly related to the use of social movement theory and research data. Table 20 connects those resources to the four components of social movement theory.

 

Table 19. Top Resources Used for Mobilizing Campaigns

The top Five Resources Reportedly Needed to Run a Successful Campaign

Strong  Leadership

94%

Large Membership Base

68%

Ally Organizations/coalitions  

68%

Strong support from key decision-makers    

62%

Funding

56%

 

Table 20. Top Campaign Resources Categorized by Components of Theory

The Top Five Resources Reportedly Needed to Run a Successful Campaign Categorized by the Four Components of Social Movement Theory

Use of Social Movement Theory to inform a course of action

Acknowledging Expansion & Contraction of Political Opportunities

Identifying & Engaging mobilizing structures

Developing & Utilizing collective interpretation & attribution

Assessing the Existence of Resource Mobilization

Strong support from key decision-makers
 (62%)

Large Membership Base (68%)

Strong Leadership (94%)

Ally Organizations/coalitions (68%)

Funding (56%)

 

Research can be used in various segments of a mobilization campaign. Table 21 outlines the top five reasons insurgents use research when running a campaign. Table 22 connects the reported research use to the four components of social movement theory.

 

Table 21. Top Reasons for Research Use

The top Five Reasons for Using Research in Mobilizing Campaigns

n=34

Activity

% of Organizations

Framing  the issue                                       

62%

Developing a new policy proposal

56%

Educating   the  public

53%

Educating Policy-makers             

53%

Changing the way people think      

38%

Gaining Support for a Policy Campaign                          

38%

 

Table 22. Top Reasons Organizers Use Research Based on Theory

The top five reasons for using research in Movement Campaigns categorized by the four components of social movement theory

Use of Social Movement Theory & Research to inform a course of action

To Inquire about Expansion & Contraction of Political Opportunities

To identify and/or engage mobilizing structures

To develop and/or inquire about the existence of collective interpretation & attribution

To assess the level or existence of resource mobilization


Educating Policy-makers  (53%)


Framing the issue (62%)


Framing the issue (62%)

     

Develop a new policy proposal (56%)

Educating the public (53%)

Gaining Support for a Policy Campaign (38%)

Develop a new campaign ( 38%)

Changing the way people think (38%)

Changing the way people think (38%)

The Saul Alinsky model requires that a campaign have a clear target of insurgencies activities. As shown in Table 23, the most represented sector targeted is state government followed closely by city officials at 91% and 85%, respectively.

 

Table 23. Organizational Targets

Who Does Your Organization Try to Influence?             n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

Teachers

16

47%

Principals/district administrators

21

62%

Local school board members

20

59%

City or county officials

29

85%

State elected officials

31

91%

Illinois State Board of Education

17

50%

Federal elected officials

18

53%

United States Department of Education

8

24%

When asked what activities claimed more of the social movement leaders’ time than anything else, as shown in Table 24, the number one answer was being “engaged in a campaign,” followed closely by leadership training. In addition, as shown in Table 25, when asked about the five top resources needed to run a campaign, strong leadership topped the chart, being selected by 94% of the groups. Movement leaders listed mobilizing voters as the most effective tactic they use, followed closely by releasing research reports, holding press conferences, and rallies (Table 26). All of these activities are aimed at building successful insurgency.

 

Table 24. Major Focus of the Organization

Thinking Back on the Last Year, How Much of the Organization's Time and Effort Would You Say Was Spent on Each of the Following Types of Activities?            n=34

None

A Little

Some

A Lot

More on This Than Anything Else

N/A

Number of Orgs

               

 Fund raising

 

1

13

20

 

 

34

Leadership training

 

1

12

17

4

 

34

Member education

3

1

12

15

 

3

34

Long term planning

 

6

20

8

 

 

34

Building strategic alliances with decision makers

 

1

13

19

1

 

34

Conducting Research

1

8

13

12

 

 

34

Planning campaigns

1

1

10

21

1

 

34

Engaged in Campaign activities

1

3

4

19

7

 

34

Working with the media

1

9

18

6

 

 

34

 

Total Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

 

Table 25. Lead Resources Need to Run Campaigns

In the Order of Importance, Select the 5 Resources That Are the Most Important to Your Organization for Running a Successful Campaign.            n=34

Most Impor-tant

2nd Most Import.

3rd Most Import.

4th Most Import.

5th Most Import.

Num-ber  of Orgs

% of Re-sponse

Access to the media

0

0

3

7

6

16

47%

Large Membership Base

7

12

2

0

2

23

68%

Strong Leadership

22

7

1

1

1

32

94%

Research

 

3

4

5

7

19

56%

Funding

2

4

12

5

6

29

85%

Strong support from key decision-makers

2

4

5

8

2

21

62%

Ally organizations/coalitions

1

4

4

7

7

23

68%

Good timing

 

 

3

1

3

7

21%

Total Respondents

34

34

34

34

34


Table 26. Most Effective Campaign Tactics

Check All the Types of Actions That Your Organization Has Been Involved In. In the Second Column, Check the Actions you Feel Have Been the Most Effective in Education Campaigns.   n=34

Has been involved with this action

Most effective action in education campaigns

Number of Orgs

% of Response

Marches

28

7

28

82%

Rallies

30

13

30

88%

Bus tours

18

2

19

56%

Petitions

29

5

29

85%

Letter writing

33

6

33

97%

Mobilizing voters

26

16

26

76%

Boycotts

0

1

1

3%

Strikes

4

2

5

15%

Blocking traffic

4

2

5

15%

Disrupting business

7

1

7

21%

Hunger strikes

5

5

7

21%

Publishing reports on specific issues

24

13

24

71%

State or national conferences to educate organizers and the public

20

6

21

62%

Writing opinion pieces or letters to the editor

23

5

23

68%

Holding a press conference/sending out press releases

31

13

32

94%

Total Respondents

 

 

34

Table 27 lists the types of research movement organizers use, with 88% weighing heavily on newspaper articles, 79% using story telling by resident constituents or using graphs and charts, and 76% using reports written by other community-based organizations.

Table 27. Types of Research Used

Select All the Kinds of Research Your Organization Has Used. n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

Numbers that show education trends across  schools

19

56%

Numbers that track problems in our schools

21

62%

Descriptions of the experiences of people in our communities

27

79%

Descriptions of the impact of a policy on a group of students

20

59%

Graphs and charts

27

79%

Maps

20

59%

Reports written by community organizations

26

76%

Reports written by government agencies or universities

19

56%

Books

15

44%

Newspaper articles

30

88%

Studies of effective practices

25

74%

Studies that show root causes of problems

24

71%

Power mapping

18

53%

One page pamphlets that give bullet points about an issue

20

59%

Articles published in academic journals

20

59%

Different kinds of data found on websites

23

68%

Quick answers from a researcher to specific questions we have

15

44%

Success stories from other similar campaigns

22

65%

Total Respondents

34

When outside sources are utilized, social movement organizers access research mostly from advocacy organizations or the internet at 88% and 79%, respectively. Many (74%) of the respondents had built relationships with university professors as well.

Table 28. Research Access

Many Organizations Use Research Produced by Someone Else. Where Does Your Organization Find Published Research?    n=34   

Number of Orgs

% of Response

Local public library

4

12%

College or University Library

12

35%

Government Agencies

21

62%

Internet/Website

27

79%

Research Advocacy Organizations

30

88%

University Researchers

25

74%

Media

19

56%

Total Respondents

34

 

Moreover, as shown in Table 29 through Table 33, nearly all social change actors reportedly conduct research, train and build capacity of staff and members, and inform insurgency efforts using research. Most have informal training or in-house training on how to conduct research, but use research from outside sources as well (see Table 30).

When presented with an opportunity to choose a list of resources an organization would need to build research capacity, nearly 90% of the respondents noted access to the internet, long-term relationships with researchers who study what we care about, alliances with other organizations that conduct research, and a person in our organization who knows a lot about conducting research (Table 31).

Table 29. Groups Producing Research

Does Your Organization Conduct Its Own Research?   n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

Yes

30

88%

No

4

12%

Total Respondents

34

100%

Table 30. Organizational Research Experience

What Kind of Research Experience do the Researchers in Your Organization Have? (select all that apply)   n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

Informal training/learning by doing

22

65%

Some research training in college

15

44%

Training workshops/In-service as an organizer

16

47%

Advanced research experience while earning a MA or PhD

15

44%

Not applicable

4

12%

Total Respondents

34

 

Table 31. Access to Resources Needed to Conduct Research

For Each Resource Below, Indicate if it's Important to Organizations Who Want to Conduct Research. In Addition Indicate if Your Organization Has Access to This Resource. n=32

Yes Important

No Not Important

Yes Has Access

No Does Not Have Access

A person in the organization has research contacts at a university they went to

19

11

22

3

A person in our organization who knows  a lot about conducting research

28

3

18

3

Education data download from the internet

22

7

14

4

Workshops and training about how to conduct research

20

7

16

7

Long-term relationships with researchers who study what we care about

29

2

16

6

Alliances with other organizations that conduct research

28

3

20

5

External funding to hire a researcher

17

8

10

16

Computers and Internet access

30

2

23

0

Software for analyzing statistics or making maps

20

6

9

18

Social movement leaders reported that the top uses of research were media engagement activities, publishing reports, state conference presentations, letter writing campaigns, mobilizing voters, and petitioning (Table 32).

Table 32. Research Use in Campaigns

Select All of the Activities From the List Below for Which Your Organization Used Research. n=33

Number of Orgs

% of Response

     

Marches

15

45%

Rallies

14

42%

Bus tours

8

24%

Petitions

16

48%

Letter writing

21

64%

Mobilizing voters

18

55%

Boycotts

0

0%

Strikes

1

3%

Blocking traffic

0

0%

Disrupting business

1

3%

Hunger strikes

1

3%

Publishing reports on specific issues

22

67%

State or national conferences to educate organizers and the public

21

64%

Writing opinion pieces or letters to the editor

24

73%

Holding a press conference/sending out press releases

29

88%

Total Respondents

33

 


Table 33. Research Use for Capacity Building

Research Can Also be Used as Part of Building an Organization's Capacity. In which of the Following Capacity Building Activities Has Your Organization Used Research? (Select All That Apply)          n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

     

To train leaders

31

91%

To inform our membership

31

91%

For long-term strategic planning

26

76%

To investigate possible campaign issues

20

59%

To support grant proposals

25

74%

To convince a potential ally to support our organization

21

62%

To plan the logistics of a campaign

15

44%

To change the way we frame an issue

26

76%

To develop a political map of key players and potential opponents for a new campaign

17

50%

Total Respondents

34

 

Effective media outreach was important to social movement organizers seeking to gain support for campaigns. Media attention assists with developing collective interpretation and attribution and in attracting ally organizations that have the capacity to mobilize (See Tables 34 through Table 37). One hundred percent of the movement leaders reportedly have made media connections during campaigns. Television is the major media target they try to access. All of the respondents expressed the importance of gaining media attention. However, 50 % of the respondents reported they either lack skill or time to engage with the media effectively.

            Over half of the respondents have built media engagement skills through workshops or other trainings developed for organizers (Table 37). The major spokespersons for social movement organizations during media-attended events are the board members, followed closely by volunteer leaders and the executive director at 85 percent and 82 percent, respectively (Table 38).

Table 34. Media Use

Select All of the Media Activities That Your Organization has been Involved With.      n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

     

Responded to inquiries from reporters

32

94%

Sent out a press release prior to an event

34

100%

Invited press to a community meeting

33

97%

Held a press conference

29

85%

Drafted opinion pieces or editorials for a newspaper

27

79%

Appeared on a television news program

31

91%

Met with editorial boards to help develop a feature for a long-term story

17

50%

Total Respondents

34

100%

Table 35. Media Targets

Who are Your Primary Media Targets? (Select All That Apply)   n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

     

Local newspapers

30

88%

Ethnic media

20

59%

Larger newspapers

29

85%

Magazines

7

21%

TV news media

33

97%

Radio

29

85%

Not Applicable

1

3%

Total Respondents

34

 

Table 36. Media Goals

Select the Statement that Best Describes Your Organization's Media Goals.     n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

Media is not a focus of our work.

0

0%

Gaining media attention for the issues we care about is important but we lack the time to do it.

12

35%

We would like to get more involved with the media but lack the expertise

5

15%

Working with the media is central to our organizing goals.

17

50%

Total Respondents

34

100%


Table 37. Media Skill Level

Describe the Level of Training the Media People in Your Organization Have. n=33

Number of Orgs

% of Response

Informal training/learning by doing

8

24%

Training workshops/in-service provided to organizers

19

58%

Formal training in media and communications

6

18%

Total Respondents

33

100%

Table 38. Media Spokespersons

Who in Your Organization has been a Spokesperson for an Event, or Issue?                                            (Select All That Apply) n=34

Number of Orgs

% of Response

Students

16

47%

Parents

24

71%

Teachers

12

35%

Volunteer leaders

28

82%

Paid staff members

25

74%

Executive director

28

82%

Board members

29

85%

Someone fluent in Spanish

17

50%

Total Respondents

34

 

 

Phase 2 provided more depth to the data collected through the Phase 1 quantitative survey. Interview data were recorded with an audio recorder and/or in written format. The collected data were coded, analyzed, and categorized to identify themes and concepts from the research results.

Though the original plan was to use random sampling for the qualitative component of the study, to ensure a broad understanding of the organizing and mobilizing efforts of multiple groups, quota sampling based on ethnicity, location, and years in operation was used. The planned sample size was six to 12 organizations. Twelve interviews were completed with leaders of social movement organizations. Five were led by African Americans; three by Caucasians; and one each of Asian, Indian, Arab, and Latino. Reportedly, the organizations had been in existence from four years to 44 years and their locations spanned the city.

All twelve groups reported that they organize and mobilize people around issues that impact the lives of marginalized people, a major tenet in Saul Alinsky style organizing. Leadership development of members was also a uniform practice for all of the groups, except one. Reportedly, only two of the 12 provided services other than organizing for social justice. The use of research was high on the list of priorities. As stated by one movement leader, “Through research, we are able to move beyond anecdotes to more objective data that helps us define the problem and identify the perpetrators clearly” (Key Informant 5). Another social change leader notes, “It’s important to get good research. The right research can make or break your campaign” (Key Informant 7). Still another declares, “the more informed you are, the more likely you will succeed….we can only make good recommendation when we have good information” (Key Informant 6). Three-fourths of the groups reported using qualitative research, such as lived experience narratives, as authentic research. All twelve use quantitative research. As noted by one organizer, “Without research, we are easily discredited and dismissed” (Key Informant 3). As listed in Table 39, social movement actors access research from multiple sources.

Table 39. Sources of Research

Where Social Change Agents Find Research

Percent

Data found on websites

100%

Reports written by community organizations

100%

Reports written by government agencies or universities

100%

Newspaper articles

100%

One page pamphlets that give bullet points about an issue

100%

Articles published in academic journals

100%

Quick answers from a researcher to a specific question we have

75%

Books

100%

Research advocacy groups

100%

Internet/websites

100%

University researchers

100%

Government agencies

100%

Media

 92%

College or university library

100%

Local public library

75%

All respondents noted that the membership of their organizations deems research credible because of the source, and 75 % mentioned that the messenger was important too, noting that where the research originates matters to their constituencies as well. Eleven of the groups work with university researchers regularly. In spite of having access to that resource, the social movement leaders reportedly spend an average of 25% of their time doing research. One change agent stated, “Our targets are pretty savvy, they try to come across as benevolent, when in reality, the research paints a different picture” (Key Informant 3). Movement leaders, explain, “Research verifies what we know in our gut,” and “Research validates our claims and helps us change policy” (Key Informant 5)

Only two of the informants have professional research training; five have at least some staff with academic training, and eight do in-house training. Only one has research staff. When asked what the organization needed most to be able to use research more effectively, most stated they needed dedicated staff, skill development, or access to a third-party clearing housing on relevant subjects. Two were satisfied with their access to research and their skill level. Six of the organizations provide in-house research training sessions. Most of the organizational leaders believe research is more important now than it has ever been. Eighty-five percent of the respondents noted that on at least one occasion they tried to locate research data to help solve a problem, but could not find the research that they needed or was denied access to it by the government.

Both quantitative and qualitative results were integrated to identify several themes, norms, and beliefs of social change agents regarding the use, value, and accessibility of social movement theory and research to inform mobilization activities. Several themes emerged from the data. They include

  1. All of the social change agents that did not have professional researchers on staff spent an average of 25% of their time doing research, and yet found it frustrating and time consuming to find research that addressed the topics of their concern. All reported they needed research information that was either not available or off limits to them.
  2. Though the components of social movement theory were extremely important to the social change agents, none said the absence of one or all of the components would stop them from launching a campaign. Howbeit, the general sense was that there would be less impact when the components are not present.
  3. The stories told by social movement organizations detailing the use of research and acknowledging social movement theory were largely applied during coalition activities with ally groups.

Research and social movement theory hold a prominent role in the decision-making process when social change agents plan action campaigns for several reasons including

  1. Social change agents believe they would not be effective in convincing their targets to make significant societal change without research data produced outside of their organizations. As stated by one director of a social movement organization,” There are too many myths out here; we need research to debunk these myths.”
  2. The stories of those most affected by societal problems are left out of the discussion. Thus, the social change agents see it as their role to gather those voices and bring them to the table as authentic research.
  3.  When building a coalition or attracting other organizations to a campaign, social change agents attest that they require sound data that has been gathered from trusted sources. Trusted sources include community voices, but those voices alone are not enough.
  4. Social change agents acquire research from government agencies, academic journals, other community-based organizations, websites, university researchers, advocacy organizations, libraries, newspapers and other media, and people that live in the communities they serve.

One change agent noted, “As systems begin to fail, we find that our passion is not enough….we need research to help us tell our stories” (Key Informant 8). Another interviewee stated, “We don’t want to reinvent the wheel. Research provides an outside objective voice that validates what the community already knows they need” (Key Informant 4). Nevertheless, “when making an argument to funders or policy people, you need research because passion is not enough” (key Informant 8).

Conclusion

The use of research and theory is prevalent throughout the organizing and mobilizing field in the Midwest. In spite of the commitment expressed, more than half of the organizers expressed that they do not have access to major research resources that could inform their work. Yet, there are many opportunities when organizers could use research, but failed to report that they did so. Chapter 5 includes an exhaustive interpretation of these findings.

Chapter 5.  Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

This chapter is a discussion of significant findings of this 2-phase sequential mixed method study. The purpose of Chapter 5 is to present a thorough explanation as to whether the findings agree with previous literature written on the subject and if the results support the hypothesis. What follows is a brief summary of the results, an interpretation of the findings, a discussion of the results in relation to current literature, an examination of the impact of limitations, recommendations for further research, and a final conclusion.

Summary of the Results

This study answers the following two main research questions:

1. Is there a statistically significant relationship between the educational attainment levels of leaders of social movement organizations and the incorporation of research and social movement theory in organizational planning and mobilizing efforts?

2. How do social change organizers access, use, and value research to inform a course of action?

Based on the four components of contemporary social movement theory, insurgencies arise and progress under certain conditions including (a) the expansion of political opportunities, (b) the engagement of extant social movement structures, (c) the presence of collective interpretation and attribution, and (d) the mobilization of resources.

The educational attainment level of the social movement leader was the independent variable. The dependent variables were (a) the use of research and (b) the use of theory.

To produce a rich source of data and a thick description of how insurgents in the Midwest access, use, and value research and theory to inform a course of action, this mixed method study included a quantitative survey of 34 leaders of social movement organizations and 12 in-depth interviews with key informants.

A Spearman Rho statistical analysis of the responses of the 34 respondents showed negligible correlation between the study variables. The findings support the null hypotheses. There is no statistically significant relationship between the educational attainment levels of leaders of social movement organizations and the incorporation of research and social movement theory in organizational planning and mobilizing efforts.

The qualitative interviews revealed that the social change actors were very committed to research and theory use as they engaged in insurgency activities, stating, “Research validates our claims and helps us change policy…without research we are easily discredited and dismissed” (key informant 3). This sentiment was profoundly echoed among all 12 of the interviewees.

Nevertheless, study findings suggest, though social movement actors in the Midwest place a high value on the use of research and theory to inform a course of action, they lack the necessary skills and time to use these resources effectively. Further, Backer et al. (2006) reported that nearly a fourth of the funders that traditionally fund research and evaluation training for nonprofit organizations would no longer fund capacity building at the same level during the years 2005 through 2008, leaving a gaping hole between the supply and support needs of nonprofit social movement organizations at this critical juncture in history.

This study is timely and significant as it informs the fields of grassroots organizing, nonprofit management, sociology, and philanthropy about the degree to which social change agents use research and theory to guide social movement work, and unearths an emergent need in the field of social movement organizing.

Discussion of the Results

This mixed method study provided rich details about how research and theory is reportedly valued, accessed, and used among insurgents in the Midwest. The research questions were addressed using correlation analysis and in-depth interview data. Thirty-four leaders of social movement organizations participated in this study. Twelve contributed in the survey and interview phases, providing a wealth of details about how social movement organizers plan insurgent actions, unveiling both espoused theories and theories-in-use.

A correlation analysis was used to answer the primary research question: Is there a statistically significant relationship between the educational attainment levels of leaders of social movement organizations and the incorporation of research and theory in mobilizing efforts? Responses revealed that all of the insurgents reportedly used research and theory at varying levels to inform their mobilization efforts. Further, 53% of movement actors hold bachelor’s degrees, a third hold master’s degrees, 6% have doctoral level education, and one had an associate’s degree. Only two respondents did not have a college degree.

Findings generated using Spearman Rho correlation analysis revealed the educational attainment levels of social change actors in the Midwest and the reported use of theory and research to inform a course of action had no or very low correlation at .087 and .027, respectively. The results support the null hypothesis. There is no statistically significant relationship between educational attainment levels of social movement organizers and the use of research and theory in mobilizing efforts. This is also illustrated plainly in Figures 2 and 3.

Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used to answer the second research question: How and to what extent do social movement organizers value, use, and access research and theory to inform a course of action? Though, both survey and interview results suggest social movement actors value and use quantitative and qualitative research regularly, key informants espoused a much greater use of research than survey results suggested.

The majority of these Saul Alinsky style organizers described their organization as independent, community-based advocacy groups, meaning they represent a base of people residing in a specific bounded locale, for the purpose of advocating with and on behalf of their constituents. Alternatively, one-third specified their organizations as faith-based, a long tradition among insurgents (Robnett, 1997). Only five groups reported they are connected to a national or international network.

Unsurprisingly, 100% of respondents cited they did have members or an active participant base, a necessary component of mobilizing efforts. Moreover, nearly half noted they had over 75 members or active participants. Further, all of the groups work with low-income residents, from which they build leadership teams. Seventy-six percent work with African American and Latino constituents, and 82% reported that their education organizing constituent bases are parents and students. With the support of social movement organizers, these constituents participate in identifying inequities and developing solutions. This reinforces the common theme among organizers; the voices of the people most impacted are authentic research sources that should be utilized when developing equitable solutions to societal problems.

Predictably, when asked about the leading problems the organization strives to address, 43% were working to build power in low-income communities so they can change the education system. Building power and creating change were common expressions raised in all of the key informant interviews. Only 17% selected, “we want to help our students do better in school,” or “we want our schools to have adequate resources.”

Social movement organizers report the essence of their work is geared toward tackling systemic issues such inequities, racism, and classism in the education system. Unsurprisingly, only four said the failure of the school system is a result of parent or student indifference. Table 4 and Table 5 capture these responses. The Saul Alinsky model requires that a campaign has a clear target for insurgency activities.

Based on social movement leaders’ responses, the most represented sector targeted for insurgent efforts was state government legislators followed closely by city officials. Insurgents’ efforts are centered on issues and targets that are believed to be responsible for inequitable conditions. Organizers stated they used research and theory to help guide their decisions. However, during the analyses, it was clear that both espoused theory and theory-in-use were presented. Notably, responses during face-to-face interviews contradicted quantitative survey answers multiple times in regard to the level and magnitude of research use. Examples of this phenomenon are raised and reviewed throughout this section. In addition, possible reasons for these incidents are presented.

During Phase 2 of this study, when social movement organizers were questioned about how they identify issues, targets, and remedies, they reportedly placed a high value on the use of research and theory as they plan, launch, and assess campaigns. Moreover, all 12 respondents cited research as a primary and effective weapon for waging insurgency campaigns. As stated by one social change leader, “Research validates our claims and helps us change policy…without research we are easily discredited and dismissed” (Key Informant 3) and “Through research, we are able to move beyond anecdotes to more objective data that helps us define the problem and identify the perpetrators clearly” (Key Informant 5).

When asked how important the four components of social movement theory were to their ability to launch a campaign, interviewees reported the components were important considerations, but far from necessary when choosing whether or not to launch a campaign. However, the quantitative survey results painted a different picture, revealing social movement organizers’ weighty adherence to social movement theory and limited focus on the use of research when leading an insurgency.

When questioned in the quantitative survey about the top resources needed to run a successful campaign, research was not the number one pick among any of the respondents. Moreover, only 6% of respondents listed research as second or third most important. Overall, nearly two-thirds of the respondents left research off the list altogether. However, the responses they chose as top resources reveal an important point.

Research did not ascend as a top pick. However, organizers chose the major components of social movement theory: strong leadership, a large membership base, funding (resource mobilization), strong support from decision-makers (political opportunity), and ally organizations (collective interpretation) as more important.

When asked how research is used in a campaign, the top five reasons noted were to (a) frame an issue, 62%; (b) develop a new policy proposal, 56%; (c) educate the public, 53%; (d) educate policy-makers, 53%; and (e) change the way people think, 38%. Using research in these campaign actions, shed light on social movement leaders’ goal of building collective interpretation and attribution, a major component of social movement theory.

When asked about what they spent a lot of time doing in the previous year, 67% listed fundraising (mobilizing resources), followed closely by planning campaigns (building collective interpretation and attribution) or building alliances (attracting mobilizing structures) at 62%. Again, research did not make the top five list; only 37% of the groups stated that they spent a lot of time conducting research last year. During face-to-face interviews, key informants reported they spent between 10% and 70% of their time doing research, with the average being 25%.

Interestingly, when asked about activities for which the organization used research, the top answer was holding a press conference, followed by publishing reports, letter-writing, and mobilizing voters. When surveyed about the most effective action they employed in campaigns, the top answer was mobilizing voters, followed by publishing reports, and holding press conferences. Respondents noted the most effective actions employed in campaigns required research. Further, nearly all social change actors reportedly conduct research, train and build capacity of staff and members, and inform insurgency efforts using research. Yet when choosing the most important resource, research was not included on the organizations’ priorities list. The reason why social movement organizers may not include research as a top priority or resource may be directly related to capacity and access issues.

Most have only informal training or in-house training on how to conduct research; one had research staff, and only two of the informants had professional research training. When asked what was needed most to assist the organizer in using research more effectively, most stated they needed dedicated staff, skill development, or access to a third party clearing housing on relevant subjects. Only two were satisfied with their access to research and their skill level. Moreover, 85% of the respondents recalled an occasion when they tried to locate research data to help solve a problem, but could not find research that they needed or was denied access to it by the government.

Predictably, when presented with an opportunity to choose a list of resources an organization would need to build research capacity, nearly 90% of the respondents noted access to the internet, long-term relationships with researchers who study what we care about, alliances with other organizations that conduct research, and a person in our organization who knows a lot about conducting research (Table 31). Though all had access to the internet, more than a third of respondents did not have long-term relationships with researchers who study what the organizations cares about, alliances with other organizations that conduct research, and/or a person at the organization who knows a lot about conducting research. Only eight of the groups reportedly had external funding to hire a researcher at one time.

Social movement organizers reportedly use research in all levels of campaign planning and execution. From quantitative data such as numbers that track student progress to qualitative data culled from lived experiences of their constituencies, movement organizers value, use, and access research from multiple sources. When outside sources are utilized, social movement organizers access research mostly from advocacy organizations. Yet, over one-third did not have access to this resource.

When questioned about activities for which research data were used, 92% listed holding a press conference, a media engagement activity. Clearly, effective media outreach plays an important role in gaining support for campaigns including developing collective interpretation and attribution; and in attracting ally organizations that have the capacity to mobilize (See Table 34 through Table 37).

Moreover, 100 % of the movement leaders reportedly have made media connections during campaigns. Television is the major media target they try to access. All of the respondents expressed the importance of gaining media attention. However, 50 % of the respondents reported they either lack skill or time to engage with the media effectively. Though all of these efforts are centered on building insurgency in relation to issues the organizers’ constituents care about, clearly capacity issues, such as time and skill, are hindrances to their success.

Limitations

Though this study produced a rich description of the operations of social movement actors in the Midwest, several limitations exists. These limitations are acknowledged as (a) the characteristics of the participants willing to complete the survey may have been different than those who chose not to participate; (b) the number of participants that did not complete the survey may have had language barriers or lack of understanding as to how to use research and theory to plan insurgent activities; (c) the interview process was filtered through the interviewer’s perspective, resulting in subjective interpretation of the respondents’ experiences (Creswell, 2003); (d) the study was designed to produce correlational results, but causality was not determined (Neuman, 2006); and e) the groups that did not return the survey may have a higher instance of not using research and social movement theory, creating non-response bias in the results.

Conclusions

This mixed method study harvested a rich detailed description of how social movement organizations operate in the Midwest. Ultimately, the study reveals that educational attainment levels do not show statistical significance in whether social movement organizers use research and theory to inform a course of action.

Movement leaders reportedly adhere to social movement theory and count the presence of its components as major resources needed in a successful campaign. Though interview responses regarding the use of research differed substantially from survey results, the use of research is highly treasured throughout the organizing field in the Midwest. Moreover, insurgents value research as a major component for developing collective interpretation and attribution in insurgency efforts.

These organizers work to build power among marginalized populations through leadership development, organizing, and mobilization around issues that impact their lives. To create the best possible chance for success, the social movement organizers reportedly use social movement theory and research when they are available to them. In spite of the commitment expressed, more than half of the organizers articulated (a) they do not have access to major research resources that could inform their work, (b) they lack skills to use research effectively, and (c) they cannot find the research data when they need it. There were many opportunities when organizers could use research, but reportedly did not. Findings suggest this lack of research use may be less about assigned value and use, but rather could be largely attributed to lack of skill, competing priorities, time constraints, and limited access to research entities.

Discussion of the Conclusions

Though correlation between educational attainment levels and the use of research and theory in mobilizing campaigns was insignificant, study results support the literature on contemporary social movement theory yet refute most of the previous literature on research use among insurgents.

Social movement organizers use the components of social movement theory to support their work. The study examined four themes that were particularly salient in most contemporary movement theory literature including timing that acknowledges political opportunities and challenges; the existence of organization from which to launch a movement; the mobilization of critical resources; and the collective processes of interpretation, attribution, and social construction that mediate between opportunity and action (Benford & Snow, 2000; Brockett, 1991; Kriesi et al.,1995; McAdams, 1982; McAdams et al., 1996; Robnett, 1997; Tarrow, 1994).

When building a campaign, social movement organizers in the Midwest acknowledge the expansion and contraction of political opportunities; search for mobilizing structures with which to ally; work to access and mobilize resources to support insurgency; and build collective interpretation through the use of media, conferences, and editorial opinion letters. Findings suggest social movement organizers highly value and adhere to social movement theory when planning a course of action. The results are aligned with current theory on social movements.

However, regarding the questions that were raised about research use among insurgents, this study’s findings were dissimilar to most literature (Connell et al., 1995; Croteau et al., 2005; Dobson, 2001; Miller, 2000; Perlman, 1995; Rothman, 2000), but supports results obtained in Renee (2006). Insurgents in the Midwest place a high value on research, regularly engaging in and developing research to inform their insurgency efforts.

Concerns about research use among social movement actors have been raised repeatedly throughout the literature (Renee, 2007; Tichy, 1974), with many lamenting the lack of utilization among this important population (Connell et al., 1995; Croteau et al., 2005; Dobson, 2001; Miller, 2000; Perlman, 1995; Rothman, 2000). However, Renee (2007) found a very nascent, but active sect of organizations on the West Coast that were developing and assembling quality research to validate their claims for education equity. This trend was also supported by the findings in this study.

Renee’s (2007) research of contentious actors in the Southwest coupled with findings from this study of social movement leaders in the Midwest suggest a new trend may be mounting across the nation regarding research use among insurgents. This study reveals useful findings that may add to the knowledge base of those that desire to bridge scholarship and practice in the social movement field as well as those that fund the nonprofit arena.

Study findings suggest that social movement organizers access and use research and theory to inform contentious action. Moreover, the use of research is highly treasured throughout the organizing field in the Midwest. The majority (85%) of the interviewees reported, they believe the use of research is more important than ever. Insurgents value research as a major component for developing collective interpretation and attribution in insurgency efforts. However, they lack the necessary skills, time, and relationships to engage in research use as frequently as they would like. Of note, the interviewees in Phase 2 of this study espoused much greater value and ascribed a more robust use of research than reported in the Phase 1 quantitative written survey, suggesting they understand the need to use research and understand when they need it, but lack the capacity or time to do so in the heat of a campaign. This evident need for skill and capacity-building among social movement organizers comes at a time when foundations have reduced budgets and are trending away from providing this type of necessary support.

According to a recent survey by the Council on Foundations, a sample consisting of 127 foundations in the United States reportedly had a decrease in assets on average of 28 % (Torres, 2009). As the foundation community struggles to address its mission goals with reduced funding, these findings should be of significant use to philanthropic leaders. This trend comes at a critical time when social movement actors need to build new skills to effectively use research and guide insurgent campaigns.

Limitations

This study produced a thick description of how social movement leaders use research and theory. However, it is important to note that this study is limited by several factors. They include (a) the number and characteristics of the participants who were able and willing to complete the survey; (b) the research design; and (c) the subjective interpretation of interview results.

Those that did complete the survey may be different than those who chose not to due to language barriers or lack of understanding of how to use research and theory to plan insurgent activities. Mainly, the executive directors chose to participate in the survey and interviews. However, in one case, a staff organizer also participated in the survey and interview. When comparing responses, it was clear that the organizer that was closest to the campaign assigned a much greater value and use of research than the executive director.

Further, the research was designed to produce correlational results, providing a description of how two or more of the variables are associated with one another when observed at the same time within the sample population (Neuman, 2006). A correlation describes a relationship between the variables and to what extent the variables influence each other, but causality is not determined.

In addition, 43 groups were eligible for this study. The design called for recruitment of all of the social movement leaders to complete the survey within 15 days. However, only 34 completed the survey. Though an 80% return rate is high, it may have been higher had the survey turnaround period been longer than the two weeks allotted. Each organization had the right to finish the survey and return it or not. There were six social movement leaders that accepted the survey and agreed to complete it, but did not return the survey. It is likely that the groups that did not return the survey could have a higher instance of not using research and social movement theory, creating non-response bias in the results.

Finally, the information retrieved in the interview process was filtered through the interviewer’s perspective, resulting in subjective interpretation of the respondents’ experiences (Creswell, 2003). In addition, as shown in the comparison of the interview and survey results, the information gathered may be espoused as true to the respondent, but not accurate in reality (Klandermans & Staggenborg, 2002).

Recommendations for Further Study

Bevington and Dixon (2005) assert, “If one’s goal is to produce useful information for movements, but the movements are not using this research, it is incumbent upon the researcher to ask why” (p.199). To take this statement a step further, scholarship should not only ask why, but also develop a remedy to bridge the chasm. With that goal as a guide, several recommendations drawn from this study are presented including suggestions for further study, critical intervention, and research sampling expansion. These suggestions can help guide and inform philanthropic, scholarship, and management decision-makers on how they might provide more robust support to social movement organizers striving to use research more effectively.

As reported, foundations have reduced support for programs aimed at building organizational capacity to utilize research and evaluation (Backer et al., 2006). Yet, Renee (2007) found an emergent movement of education organizers on the West Coast employing and developing research to build support for policy changes. Further, this study found a strong commitment among social movement actors in the Midwest to use and access research and theory. It would be of interest to develop a national study that examines what is fueling this nascent movement among organizers to utilize research and theory. The new research might explore (a) how and to what extent social movement actors across the nation use research and theory to inform insurgency and whether the espoused theory and theory-in-use are consistent, (b) what additional supports are needed for these groups to be more effective, (c) how do social movement organizers describe the added value they receive by using research and theory, and (d) is there a direct correlation between advanced research use and alliance building. Generating answers to these questions may inform funders and donors about how they might best support social movement leaders as they work to address societal inequities.

These donors can use the information to develop critical intervention models to empower insurgents. Interventions might include the creation of a third party research entity to provide current research on a multiplicity of subjects. Having ready access to research would build capacity of social movement operators, making them better informed advocates for positive change. This level of access to timely, accurate, and relevant data would raise the field of organizing, creating a platform or venue for the pooling of resources, ideas, and talents.

Finally, it is recommended that future research designers change the sampling frame. As reported, mainly the executive directors completed the surveys and interviews. However, in one case, a staff organizer also participated in the survey and was interviewed. When comparing responses, it was clear that organizer being closer to campaign, reported much greater value and use of research than the executive director. Thus, new research should differentiate between staff organizers working directly with the campaign and the leaders of organizations, such as board leaders and executive directors who may be more distant. Having information from multiple actors within the same organization can provide insight and clarity on organizational goals, theories, and actions.

Summary

This mixed method study provided an important analysis of the access, use, and value of research among social movement organizers in the Midwest in comparison to educational attainment levels, providing a thick description of how insurgent organizations use research and theory to build power among marginalized populations. Ultimately, the study reveals that there is a very low correlation between educational attainment levels and social movement organizers’ use of research and theory in insurgent activities. Moreover, social movement actors of every level of education believe the four components of contemporary social movement theory are critical to their success.

Social movement leaders identify possible mobilizing partners, work to create a collective interpretation, and recognize the expansion of political opportunities as processes in which they must engage regularly when establishing a successful campaign. Moreover, insurgents placed a high value on current research, labeling it as one of the most effective weapons available to movement builders striving to unearth and address the roots of unrest.

However, research findings revealed a distinct lack of capacity and skill among organizers to use research effectively. There were countless opportunities when organizers could have used research, but failed to report that they did so. To create the best possible chance for success, movement leaders in the Midwest need greater capacity, skill, and access to research.

As insurgents strive to build a broad-based, multi-ethnic movement that graduates from simple protests based on lived experiences to lending an informed voice to governance based on a lucid understanding of the greater needs of all of their constituencies, adequate research skills will be paramount. It is through the dissemination of accurate information, shared knowledge, and collective ideas of justice and equity that movements thrive. However, these ideas will only be realized as supporters join the ranks and build capacity of social movement groups, raising the field of organizing to achieve new heights of success.

References

Alschuler, A. W. (2003). The changing purposes of criminal punishment: A retrospective on the past century and some thoughts about the next. The University of Chicago Law Review. 70(1), 1-22. Retrieved from the ProQuest database.

Andrews, K. T. (97). The impacts of social movements on the political process: The civil rights movement and Black electoral politics in Mississippi. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 800-819. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global Database.

Backer, T. E., Bleeg, J.E. & Groves, K. (2006). Exploring foundation financial investments in nonprofit capacity building. Encino, CA: Human Interaction Research Institute.

Branham, L. S.(2002).The law of sentencing, corrections, and prisoners’ rights in a nutshell. Minneapolis: West Group.

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movement: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639. Retrieved May 19, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global Database.

Bevington, D., & Dixon, C. (2005). Movement-relevant theory: Rethinking social movement scholarship and activism. Social Movement Studies, 4(2), 185-208.

Borden, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2005). Research design and measures: A process approach (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Brewster, D. R., & Sharp, S. F. (2002). Educational programs and recidivism in Oklahoma: Another look. The Prison Journal, 82(3), 314-334. Retrieved from Criminology: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.

Cardno, C. (2007). Leadership learning: The praxis of dilemma management. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 35(2), 33-50. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from Academic Search Premier Database.

Carty, V. (2002). Technology and counter-hegemonic movement: The case of Nike Corporation. Social Movement Studies, 1(2), 129-146. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global Database.

Connell, J. P., Schorr, A. C., Kubisch, A. C., & Weiss, C. H. (1995). New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts. Washington DC: Aspen Institute.

Cooper, T. (1998). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the administrative role (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Cotton, M. (2000) ‘Back with a vengeance: The resilience of retribution as an articulated response of criminal punishment’, American Criminal Law Review 37(4), 1313–62. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database.

Creswell, J. M. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Ryan, C. (2005). Rhyming hope and history: Activists, academics, and social movement scholarship. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Dobson, C. (2001). Evaluating. The Citizen's Handbook. Retrieved September 7, 2009 from http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/1_05_evaluate.html

Douglass, Frederick. [1849] (1991) Letter to an abolitionist associate. Retrieved on May 8, 2007 from http://www.buildingequality.us/Quotes/Frederick_Douglass.htm

Druckman, J.N. & Parkin, M. (2005) The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects voters. The Journal of Politics 67(4), 1030–1049. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database.

Farabee, D. (2002). Reexamining martinson's critique: A cautionary note for evaluators. Crime & Delinquency, 48(1), 189-192. Retrieved from Criminology: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-211. Retrieved May 20, 2007, from EBSCO Research Database.

Flacks, R. (2004). Knowledge for what? Thoughts on the state of social movement studies. In J. Goodwin and J. Jasper (Eds.), Rethinking social movements: Structure, culture, and emotions (pp. 135-153). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Glicken, M.D. (2003). Social research: A simple guide. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

Gray, H. (2005, January). A matter of life and death: Misconceptions about King’s methods for change. Counter Punch Newsletter, Retrieved September 7, 2009, from http://www.counterpunch.org/gray01172005.html

Harmon, M. (2005). Five good reasons not to act on principle (or, Why you probably can't act on principle, anyway). Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(2), 238-276. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from Academic Search Premier Database.

Harris, F. C. (2006). It takes a tragedy to arouse them: Collective memory and collective action during the civil rights movement. Social Movement Studies, 5(1), 19-43. Retrieved May 20, 2007, from EBSCO Research Database.

Harrison, P., & Beck, A. (2002) Prisoners in 2001. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Retrieved on September 7, 2009 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ pdf/p01.pdf

Johnson, J. (2002). Nonprofit advocacy. Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Retrieved September 7, 2009 from http://www.learningtogive.org /papers/index. asp?bpid=40.

Jung, C. (2003). Breaking the cycle: Producing trust out of thin air and resentment. Social Movement Studies, 2(2), 147-175. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Sociology: A Sage Full-Text Collective Database.

Kasher, S. (2000). The civil rights movement: A photographic history, 1954-68. New York: Abbeville Press.

Klandersmans, B., & Staggenborg, S. (Eds.). (2002). Methods of social movement research. MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Knoke, D., & Wood, J. R. (1981). Organized for action: Commitment in voluntary associations. Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Kottak, C. P. (2005). Windows on humanity: A concise introduction to anthropology. New York: McGraw Hill.

Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak, J.W., & Giugni, M. (1995). New Social Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

La Vigne N. G., Mamalian, C. A., Travis, J., Visher, C. (2003). A portrait of prisoner reentry in Illinois. Retrieved on September 7, 2009, from The Urban Institute Website:http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=8350

La Vigne N. G., Visher, C., Castro, J. (2004). Chicago prisoners’ experiences returning home. Retrieved on September 7, 2009, from The Urban Institute Website: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311115

Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Letourneau, M., & Allen, M. (1999). Post-positivistic critical multiplism: A beginning dialogue. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(3), 623-631.

Mattson, K. (1999, Winter). Martin Luther King, Jr. Social Policy 30(2), 29-32 Retrieved on May 8, 2008 from Ebscohost database.

Mauer, M. and Kansal, T. (2005). Barred for life: Voting rights restoration in permanent disenfranchisement states. Retrieved on September 7, 2009, from The Sentencing Project Website: http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/barredforlife.pdf

McAdams, D. (1982). Political process and the development of Black insurgency 1930-1970 (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McAdams, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meyer, M. (2004). Organizational identity, political contexts, and SMO action: Explaining the tactical choices made by peace organizations in Israel, Northern Ireland, and South Africa. Social Movement Studies, 3(1). Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Sociology: A SAGE Full-Text Collection Database.

Miller, M. (2000). Organizing for social change: What we did right, what went wrong, how we can overcome. Social Policy, 31(2), 4-12. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from Academic Search Premier Database.

Nelson, T.E & Kinder, D.R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. The Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1055-1078. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database.

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Nepstad, S. E. (1997). The process of cognitive liberation: Cultural synapses, links, and frame contradictions in the U.S.: Central America peace movement. Sociological Inquiry, 67(4), 470-487.

Perlman. J.E. (1995). 25 years of social policy: Grassrooting the system. Social Policy, 25(4). Retrieved May 8, 2007, from Academic Search Premier Database.

Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1979). Poor people's movement: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York: Random House.

Posavac & Carey (2003). Program evaluation methods and case studies (6th ed). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Powell, W. E. (2004). The play is the thing: From the interpersonal to advocacy. Families in Society, 85(1), 3-4. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from ProQuest Database.

Reentry policy council report: Charting the safe and successful return of prisoners to the community. (2004). Retrieved on September 7, 2009, from the Reentry Policy Website: http://www.reentrypolicy.org/Report/About

Renee, M. (2006). Knowledge, power and education justice: How social movement organizations use research to influence education policy. Retrieved on September 7, 2009 from ProQuest Digital Dissertations.

Robnett, B. (1997.). How long? how long? African-American women in the struggle for human rights. New York: Oxford University.

Rothman, J. (2000, Summer). Countering fragmentation on the left. Social Policy 30(4), 42-46. Retrieved May 8, 2008 from Ebscohost database.

Second Chance for Ex-Offenders (2007, Nov 7). (Editorial). New York Times. Retrieved on September 8, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/opinion/07wed3.html?pagewanted=print

Selke, W. L., & Andersson, S. A. (2003). A test of social stress theory as applied to the study of imprisonment rates. The Prison Journal, 83(4), 426-441. Retrieved from Criminology: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.

Simon, B., Loewy, M., Stürmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., Kampmeier, C., & Spahlinger, P., (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74(3). Retrieved Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Sociology: A Sage Full-Text Collective Database.

Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge MA: MIT. Retrieved May 20, 2007.

Smith, McCarthy, McPhail, & Augustyn. (2001). From protest to agenda building: Description bias in media coverage of protest events in Washington D.C. Social Forces, 79(4), 1397-1423. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Sociology: A Sage Full-Text Collective Database.

Soule, S. A., & Olzak, S. (2004). When do movements matter? The politics of contingency and the Equal Rights Amendments. American Sociological Review, 69(4), 473-497. Retrieved May 19, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global Database.

Tichy, N. M. (1974). Agents of planned social change: Congruence of values, cognitions and actions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(2), 164-182.

Tichy, N. M. (1975). How different types of change agents diagnose organizations. Human Relations, 28(9), 771-779. In Ottaway, R.N. (1983). The change agent: A taxonomy in relation to the change process", Human Relations 36(4), 361-92. Retrieved on May 15, 2007 from MITS.

Tichy, N. M., Hornstein, H., & Nisberg, J. N. (1976). Participative organization diagnosis and intervention strategies: Developing emergent pragmatic theories of change. The Academy of Management Review, 1(2), 109-120.

Torres, J. (2009). Bear necessities. Philanthropy Magazine, 23 (2). Retrieved on July 28, 2009 from http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/article.asp?article=1580&paper= 1&cat=139.

United States punishment and prejudice: Racial disparities in the war on drugs. (2000). Retrieved on March 25, 2005, from the Human Rights Watch Web site: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/index.htm#TopOfPage.html

Useem, B., Liedka, R. V., & Piehl, A. M. (2003). Popular support for the prison build-up. Punishment & Society, 5(1), 5-32. Retrieved from Criminology: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.

Vigorita, M. S. (2001). Prior offense type and the probability of incarceration: The importance of current offense type and sentencing jurisdiction. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17(2), 167-193. Retrieved from Criminology: A SAGE Full-Text Collection database.


Appendix A:  Survey Instrument


Used with permission of author, Dr. Michelle Renee


The first questions asked about the organization where you currently

1. First name, Last name

Note: Entering your name is Voluntary.

2. What is the name of your organization?

3. My current role in the organization is a:(select one from the drop down menu)

Member
Volunteer leader
Volunteer Director
Executive or advisory Board member
Paid Staff organizer
Paid staff research analyst
Paid executive director
Other (please specify)

The next few questions asked about the focus of your organization.

4. My organization is BEST described as a/an:(select all that apply)

Advocacy organization
Community-based organization
Faith-based organization
Informal organization /group of people who care
Membership organization
Research organization
Service provider
Union

5. My organization can BEST be described as a/an:

National organization
Statewide organization
Local Chapter of a National organization
Local of a statewide organization
Independent local organizational
Other (Please specify)

Note: If you work at a local chapter of a national or a state organization answer all of the following questions based on the work and perspectives of your local chapter.

6. Indicate the relevance of each of the following statements to the goals of your organization. (Not relevant, somewhat relevant, very relevant)

We are trying to improve our local schools.
We are trying to counter the racism that creates an unequal education system.
We want to help our student to better in schools.
We want all schools to have adequate resources.
We want to empower low-income communities so they can change the education system.
We want to create authentic and powerful role for low-income parents and parents of color at schools.


7. Of the choices from question 6, which one most closely describes the biggest problem your organization is addressing?

We are trying to improve our local schools.
We are trying to counter the racism that creates an unequal education system.
We want to help our student to better in schools.
We want all schools to have adequate resources.
We want to empower low-income communities so they can change the education system.
We want to create authentic and powerful role for low-income parents and parents of colour at schools.


8. Rate each of the descriptions for how well it fits your organization’s perspective (Disagree, Neither Disagree nor Agree, Agree)

The problems of the education system are the result of___:
Inefficient school managements.
Parents and student who do not care.
Social inequalities like racism and classism.
Shortages of caring and competent teaches.
Inadequate finding from the state.
Inequalities in the opportunities students have to learn.
Lack of basic resources like textbooks, credentialed teachers and clean facilities.


9. Of the choices of Question 8, which one best describes your organization’s understanding of the main problem of the education system

Inefficient school managements.
Parents and students who do not care.
Social inequalities like racism, classism and sexism.
Shortages of caring and competent teachers.
Inadequate finding from the state.
Inequalities in the opportunities students have to learn.
Lack of basic resources like textbooks, credentialed teachers and clean facilities

The next questions ask about the communities your organization represents.

10. My organization focuses on ______ income people. (Select all that apply)

Low
Middle
High

11. My organization focuses on _____ communities. (Select all that apply)

African American
Asian American
Latino\a
Native American
Caucasian
Not specific race/ ethnic
Religious (please specify:)


12. My organization represents ______. (Select all that apply)

Youth/ student
Parents
Teachers
Administrators
School staff
Other (Please specify)

The next few questions ask about your organization’s membership and staff.

13. Are you a membership based organization?

Yes
No

14. How many people in your organization would you consider leaders and / or very active participants in the organization’s activities?

0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-25
26-75
Over 75

15. How many paid staff members does your organization have?

0
1-5
5-10
11-15
16-25
Over 25

The next question asked about your organization’s campaign.

16. Who does your organization try to influence? (Select all that apply)

Teaches
Principals/ district administratives
Local school board members
City or county officials
State elected officials
California Department of Education
Federal Elected officials
United States Department of Education
Other (Please specify)

17. Thinking back of the last year, how much of the organizations time and effect would you say was spent on each of the following types of activates? (None , A little, Some, A lot, More On This Anything Else)

Fund raising
Leadership training
Member education
Long-term planning
Building strategic alliances with decision makers
Conducting research
Planning campaigns
Engaged in campaigns
Working with the media

18. List the major issues your organization is currently working on.

Issue 1
Issue2
Issue3
Issue4
Issue5
Issue6
Issue7
Issue8
Issue9
Issue10

19. Using the issues from questions 18 in the same order, indicate whether or not each issue is an education issue. In the second column indicate if the issue was focused on local, state, or national politics.

Focused on Education? Local, State, or National?

Issue1
Issue2
Issue3
Issue4
Issue5
Issue6
Issue7
Issue8
Issue9
Issue10


The following questions asked about the resources and strategies used in your organization’s campaigns

20. From the list below, select the 5 resources that are the most important to your organization for running a successful campaign or project. Select the resources in the order of importance (i.e. place a 1 next to the most important resource, a 2 next to the second most important resource, and a 3 next to the third most important resource, etc.).

Access to the media
Large membership base
Strong leadership
Research
Funding
Strong support from key decision makers
Ally organizations/coalitions
Good timing

Note: You are more than half-way through the survey- only 16 questions left to answer.

21. Check all the types of actions that your organization has been involved in. In the second column, check the actions you feel have the most effective in education campaigns.

Have been involved with this action/ Feel this is one of most effective actions

Marches
Rallies
Bus tours
Petitions
Letter writing
Mobilizing voters
Boycotts
Strikes
Blocking traffic
Disrupting business
Hunger strikes
Publishing reports on specific issues
State or national conferences to educate organizations and the public
Writing opinion pieces or letters to the editor
Holding a press conference/sending out press releases
Other (please specify)


22. Select all of the kinds of research your organization has used.

Numbers that show education trends across school
Numbers that track problems in our schools
Descriptions of the experiences of people in our community
Descriptions of the impact of a policy on a group of students
Graphs and charts
Maps
Reports written by community organizations
Reports written by government agencies or universities
Books
Newspaper articles
Studies of effective practices
Studies that show root causes of problems
Power mapping
One page pamphlets that give bullet points about an issue
Articles published in academic journals
Different kinds of data found on websites
Quick answers from a researcher to specific questions we have
Success stories from other similar campaigns
Other (Specify)


23. Many organizations use research that is produced by someone else. Where does your organization find published research? (select all that apply)

Local Public Library
College or University Library
Government Agencies
Internet/Website
Research advocacy organizations
University researchers
Media

24. Does your organization conduct its own research?

Yes
No

25. What kind of research experience do the researchers in your organization have? (select all that apply)

Informal training/learning by doing
Some research training in college
Training workshops/in-service as an organizer
Advanced research experience while earning MA or PhD
Not applicable


26. For each resource below, please indicate if it is important to organizations who want to conduct research. In the second column indicate if your organization has access to this resource. (select your responses from the drop down boxes)

A person in the organization who has research contacts at a university they went to
A person in our organization who knows a lot about conducting research
Education data downloaded from the internet
Workshops and training about how to conduct research
Long-term relationships with researchers who study the issues we care about
Alliances with other organizations that conduct research
External funding to hire a researcher
Computer and Internet access
Software for analyzing statistics or making maps

27. Select all of the activities from the list below for which your organization used research.

Marches
Rallies
Bus tours
Petitions
Letter writing
Mobilizing voters
Boycotts
Strikes
Blocking traffic
Disrupting business
Hunger strikes
Publishing reports on specific issues
State or national conferences to educate organizations and the public
Writing opinion pieces or letters to the editor
Holding a press conference/sending out press releases
Other (please specify)

28. Check the TOP FIVE reasons why your organization may use research or experts.

Develop a new policy proposal
Gaining support for a policy or the campaign
Educating the public
Developing a new campaign
Adding legitimacy to an argument
Educating policymakers
Evaluating existing policies
Convincing policymakers that the organization is trustworthy
Confronting racist or classist beliefs
Evaluating the success and failures of a campaign
Countering an opponent’s information or position
Changing the way people think about an issue
Improving a policy
Getting media attention
Framing a debate, discussion, or agenda
Developing campaign materials like reports, letters, pamphlets, or speeches
Getting attention from policy makers
Developing a key term or concept to guide a campaign

Note: Only 8 questions left to answer.

29. Research can also be used as part of building an organization’s capacity. In which of the following capacity building activities has your organization used research? (select all that apply)

To train leaders
To inform our membership
For long-term strategic planning
To investigate possible campaign issues
To support grant proposals
To convince a potential ally to support our organization
To develop a political map of key players and potential opponents for a new campaign
To plan the logistics of a campaign
To change the way we frame an issue

30. How often has your organization used research or experts_____:(Never, One Time, Sometimes, Often, Always)

For internal capacity building (training, fundraising, planning)?
To develop new education policies or make recommendations about existing education programs?
To build credibility with government decision makers?
To mobilize support for or against a campaign?
To change the way people think about an issue?
These questions ask specifically about using the media.

31. Select all of the media activities that your organization has been involved with.

Responded to inquiries from reporters
Sent out a press releases prior to an event
Invited press to a community meeting
Held a press conference
Drafted opinion pieces or editorials for a newspaper
Appeared on a television news program
Met with editorial boards to help develop a feature or long-term story
Not applicable
Other (please specify)

32. Who are your primary media targets? (select all that apply)

Local newspapers
Ethnic media
Larger newspaper
Magazines
TV news media
Radio
Not applicable
Other (please specify)

33. Select the statement that best describes your organization’s media goals.

Media is not a focus of our work
Gaining media attention for the issues we care about is important but we lack the time to do it.
We would like to get more involved with but lack the expertise
Working with the media is central to our organizing goals
Other (please specify)

34. Describe the level of training the media people in your organization have.

Informal training/ learning by doing
Training workshops/in-service provided to organizers
Formal training media and communications

35. Who in your organization has been a spokesperson for an event, or issue? (select all that apply)

Students
Parents
Teachers
Volunteer leaders
Paid staff members
Executive director
Board members
Someone fluent in Spanish
Other (please specify)


Appendix B:  Interview Questions

The research questions for the Phase 2 portion are: (a) How do social movement organizers access social movement research to inform mobilization activities, (b) How do social movement organizers use social movement research to inform mobilization activities, and c) How do social movement organizers value social movement research in mobilization activities?


1. Please describe the primary goal of your organization.

2. Briefly describe the current campaigns or issues your organization is working on.

3. Are they happening on the local, state, or federal level, or all?

4. Who are the targets of your campaigns (governor, mayor, State Board of Education, principals, legislators, etc)?

5. This study is looking at how advocacy and community organizations use research. From your perspective, describe the type of information you consider research.

6. What counts as research?

7. What kinds of research have you used in your work?

8. Why do you use this type of research?

9. People acquire research from a number of places. Where do you find research?

10. Looking at the table of research sources, which of the following are the places where you find research?

Sources of Research:

Data found on websites
Reports written by community organizations
Reports written by government agencies or universities
Newspaper articles
One page pamphlets that give bullet points about an issue
Articles published in academic journals
Quick answers from a researcher to a specific question we have
Books
Research advocacy groups
Internet/websites
University researchers
Government agencies
Media
College or university library
Local public library

11. Please pick a particular campaign for which you used research.
12. What was the main message of the campaign?
13. How did you use research in planning or running the campaign?
14. What kinds of research (doing their own big studies or internet searches)?
15. Where did you get the research you used?
16. How did the research help you achieve your goal?
17. What made the research credible to your members?
18. What made the research credible to the people you try to influence?
19. Are the ways research was used in the campaign you just described typical of your work?
20. Has your organization worked with university researchers? What was the nature of the collaboration? What made it useful?
21. Does your organization produce its own research?
22. What kind of research do you do?
23. Who is responsible for conducting research in your organization?
24. What level of training does the person (people) have?
25. Do you have funding to pay someone to conduct research?
26. How much time do you spend doing research versus other activities?
27. What would you need to use research more, or just more effectively?
28. Some organizations run trainings on how to conduct research. Does your organization do this?
29. What did the training focus on?
30. How many people went through the training?
31. What was the impact of the trainings?
32. Do you think research has become more or less important in the past few years, or remained equally as important in the past?


Dedication

This dissertation study is dedicated to my dearly beloved mother, Delores Van Pelt, a giant in her own right. No matter how hard or dark it got, you never gave up on me, always believing that somehow I would overcome the many challenges with which I struggled. You proved with your own life that nothing is impossible to us. You made the impossible seem easy. For being there for me all of the time, thank you. Mom, you are—and have always been—my hero.

Acknowledgments

During my doctoral studies, I received many great blessings of support for which I am extremely grateful. Here, I share a few lines to acknowledge some of the many supporters that helped me bring this work into fruition. To Apostle Joseph L. Stanford, my pastor and my friend, you must be acknowledged for all of the inspiration you provided for me over the last 30 years. Your faith in me has made me soar to heights to which I never dreamed. Thank you and may God continue to honor and reward you for the great service you provide for so many of us. To Debra, my friend that never stopped encouraging me as I worked to complete this important effort, and to my church family, Ambassadors For Christ World Outreach Ministries, your prayers are still lifting me, thank you. To the social movement organizers, I sincerely appreciate each of you for putting up with all my call-backs for a little more data and a little more clarity. Your unselfish contributions of time and expertise made this work possible. To my Board of Directors at TARGET Area Development Corporation, your commitment to my growth and development is unparalleled; I am eternally grateful for your support. To my senior staff, Autry, Efua, Marianna, Mecole, Angelique, Veronica, Tahesha, and Murphy, I commend you all for carrying more than your share of the load while I completed this work, thank you. To my chair, Dr. Nita Stika and committee members, Drs. Delores Cauthen and Mary Bemker, your coaching and guidance brought me through what seemed to be a never-ending journey. Thank you for providing extensive support throughout this process. To Tamera Stanford-Purnell, my editor and Teresa Greene, my research assistant, how can I thank you both for putting in such long hours? Your loyalty, dedication, and professionalism are clearly reflected in this final product. You took months off this project, for which I express my sincere gratitude. To my son, Kenwahn Van Pelt, who always believed I could complete this work; and to Patricia, my niece, for staying up late at night with me as I toiled through this process; and finally, to Bettina, my sister, for being my sounding board as I went through countless iterations of my presentation of the data, I am grateful to you all and extremely blessed to have had you join me on this amazing journey of hope and enlightenment. May God forever remember you.

About the Author

Reverend Patricia Watkins, CPA, Ph.D. Founding Director of TARGET Area Development Corporation Since its inception in 1995, Reverend Watkins has served as the Executive Director of TARGET Area Development Corporation, a regional grassroots social justice organization headquartered in Chicago.  Dr. Watkins, founder and convener of several statewide coalitions, is the recipient of the “LISC Community Hero Award”, the “Susan F. Berkowitz Award for Outstanding Service to Children”, the “Outstanding Community Activist Award” from the Sally Brewster Foundation, and the “Peace in Action” Award for the Strongest Achievement and Implementation of the Cease-Fire Covenant in Chicago. This study was originally completed as a dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree Doctor of Philosophy at Capella University.