Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Admirable Call to Improve, But Not Fundamentally Change, Our Collective Methodological Practices

  • Symposium on McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly's "Measuring Mechanisms of Contention"
  • Published:
Qualitative Sociology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Earl, J. (2000). Methods, movements, and outcomes: Methodological difficulties in the study of extra-movement outcomes. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts, and Change, 22, 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, R. (2003). A failed revolution—but a worthy cause. Mobilization, 8, 116–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, P. E. (2003). Mechanisms of contention. Mobilization, 8, 119–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rucht, D. (2003). Overcoming the “classical model?” Mobilization, 8, 112–116.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-9430, USA

    Jennifer Earl

Authors
  1. Jennifer Earl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Earl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Earl, J. An Admirable Call to Improve, But Not Fundamentally Change, Our Collective Methodological Practices. Qual Sociol 31, 355–359 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-008-9105-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-008-9105-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation