Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coordinating Action: NGOs and Grassroots Groups Challenging Canadian Resource Extraction Abroad

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in collective action predicts they will not interact with grassroots groups, citing partnerships with corporations and states, the apolitical delivery of social services and accountability towards donors as disconnecting professionalized actors from volunteer-based grassroots groups. Using interviews with core activists in the movement confronting Canadian resource extraction abroad, I depart from this approach by investigating the mechanisms, or threads, that bind organizations into coordinated action. I find that NGOs and grassroots groups coordinate as a result of: shared values and environmental justice frames; the allocation of resources; and engagement in complimentary forms of advocacy driven by a division of labour and a diversity of tactics. My research develops existing approaches to theorizing coordinated action and invites scholarship on NGOization to include the conceptual toolkit provided by social movement theories to better account for NGO–grassroots dynamics.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This research has an explicit focus on NGOs emerging from, or with some historic connection to, social movements. Therefore, I preclude an analysis of NGOs that occupy a position in civil society disconnected from movements entirely (including NGOs serving purely technical or economic functions).

  2. My use of mechanisms follows the approach formulated by Hedström (2005: 14), which defines mechanisms as “…the real empirical entities and activities that bring about a phenomena”. The three threads I identify in this research (common values and frames, resource pooling and complimentary forms of advocacy) are all activities that participants engage into coordinate actions. I use threads as a synonym for mechanisms because of its symbolic function in illustrating movement webs.

  3. On one hand, coordinated action occurs when two or more organizations engage in “mutual signaling and [the] parallel making of claims on the same object” (Tilly and Tarrow 2015: 31). Brokerage (connecting previously unconnected sites) and diffusion (spreading tactics, issues and frames) are said to contribute to coordinated action (Tilly and Tarrow 2015). My use of coordinated action departs from this approach, considering how (for example), the diversity of tactics and division of labour—rather than diffusion—drives coordination. On the other hand, modes of coordination refer “…to the relational processes through which resources are allocated within a certain collectivity, decisions are taken, collective representations elaborated, and feelings of solidarity and mutual obligation forged” (Diani 2015a: 13, 14). Diani (2015a: 17–24) identifies and describes four modes of coordination: organizational, social movement, coalitional and subcultural or communitarian modes of coordination. I adopt coordinated action over modes of coordination (Diani 2015a) because this research is concerned with coordination is general, as opposed to distinguishing between different types of coordination. My qualitative research design is also not suitable for this endeavour, since the modes of coordination approach takes a structural and quantitative approach.

  4. For additional information on the heterogeneity of NGOs, including issues regarding accountability, funding and activities, see Brown (2014: 49, 50) and Chahim and Prakash (2014: 490, 491).

  5. Foundations provide grants for specific campaigns initiated by non-profits/NGOs. Non-profits and NGOs are used interchangeably in the USA, but non-profit is preferred (for more on this, see Lang 2013: 11). The primary foundation examined in Kohl-Arenas’ (2014: 483) research is the Max L. Rosenberg Foundation, which channelled resources into “regional non-profit organizations” such as the American Friend’s Service Committee (AFSC) to fund educational projects in the movement. One such project is PSYCON, which was designed to reduce tensions between “Anglo grower and Latino worker children” (Kohl-Arenas 2014: 491).

  6. A SMO is a formal organization “which identifies its goals with the preferences of a social movement or a countermovement and attempts to implement those goals” (McCarthy and Zald 1977: 1218). Although most SMOs are NGOs, not every NGO is or may be considered a SMO (Jalali 2013). Social movements may contain both SMOs and NGOs.

  7. Collective action frames refer to “action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a SMO” (Benford and Snow 2000: 614).

  8. Contentious politics refer to coordinated efforts of claim making by one group (typically actors within civil society) against the interests of another group (Tilly and Tarrow 2015). The contentious politics model proposes that movements first emerge when political “…threats are experienced and opportunities are perceived” and crystallize when opponents tap into networks and organizations to construct collective action frames, collective identities and adopt familiar tactics to make claims (see Tarrow 2011: 33).

References

  • Achilov, D. (2016). Revisiting political Islam: Explaining the Nexus between political Islam and contentious politics in the Arab world. Social Science Quarterly, 97(2), 252–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, S. (1997). Reweaving the fabric of collective action: Social movements and challenges to actually existing democracy in Brazil. In R. G. Fox & O. Starn (Eds.), Between resistance and revolution: Cultural politics and social protest. New Brunswick: Rutgers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, S. (2009). Beyond NGOization? Reflections from Latin America. Development, 52, 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R., & Snow, D. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloemraad, I., Fabiana, S., & Voss, K. (2016). Rights, economics, or family? Frame resonance, political ideology, and the immigrant rights movement. Social Forces, 94(4), 1647–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2014). Negotiating the NGO/social movement dichotomy: Evidence from Punjab, India. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 46–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods and Research, 00, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chahim, D., & Prakash, A. (2014). NGOization, foreign funding, and the Nicaraguan Civil Society. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 487–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudry, A. (2013). Saving biodiversity, for whom and for what? Conservation NGOs, complicity, colonialism and conquest in an era of capitalist globalization. In A. Choudry & D. Kapoor (Eds.), NGOization: Complicity, contradictions and prospects. New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudry, A. (2014). Examining the disconnect between mass mobilization and International Trade Union/NGO Networks in struggles over bilateral free trade and investment agreements. Globalizations, 11(1), 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudry, A., & Kapoor, D. (2013). Introduction. In A. Choudry & D. Kapoor (Eds.), NGOization: Complicity, contradictions and prospects. New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claps, M. M., Catherine, C., Cuadra, X., Fornari, A., Lowrey, N., Marleau, M. E., Orellana, I., Saunders, S., & Serrano, F. (2013). Debunking Barrick. Retrieved July 2, 2017 from http://protestbarrick.net/article.php@id=889.html.

  • Coe, A. B. (2011). Pushing back and stretching: Frame adjustments among reproductive rights advocates in Peru. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 16(4), 495–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cress, D., & Snow, D. (1996). Mobilization at the margins: Resource, benefactors, and the viability of homeless social movement organizations. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 1089–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Fazio, G. (2015). Cement without heat? Partecipazione e Conflitto, 8(3), 919–925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social movements: An introduction (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diani, M. (2003). Introduction: Social movements, contentious action, and social networks: ‘From metaphor to substance?’. In M. Diani & D. McAdam (Eds.), Social movement and networks: Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Diani, M. (2015a). The cement of civil society: Studying networks in localities. New York: Cambridge Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Diani, M. (2015b). Promises and limits of the modes of coordination perspective. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 8(3), 932–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, B., & McCarthy, J. (2004). Resources and social movement mobilization. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engels, B. (2015). Contentious politics of scale: The global food price crisis and local protest in Burkina Faso. Social Movement Studies, 14(2), 180–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fetner, T. (2001). Working Anita Bryant: The impact of Christian anti-gay activism on lesbian and gay movement claims. Social Problems, 48(3), 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furuyama, K., & Meyer, D. S. (2011). Sources of certification and civil rights advocacy organizations: The JACL, the NAACP and crises of legitimacy. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 16(1), 101–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gautney, H. (2010). Protest and organization in the alternative globalization era: NGOs, social movements and political parties. New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghaziani, A. (2014). There goes the gayborhood?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, S. K. (2004). Being mentored: The experience of women faculty. Journal of Career Development, 30(3), 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, L. (1997). Power lines: The political context of Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) activity in El Alto, Bolivia. Journal of Latin American Anthropology, 2(2), 144–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M. J. (2014). The possibilities of phenomenology for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 118–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S. (2014). From demanding to delivering development: Challenges of NGO-led development in rural Rajasthan, India. Journal of South Asian Development, 9(2), 121–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedström, P. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, H. (2008). Re/visioning the women’s movement in Israel. Citizenship Studies, 12(3), 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, R. (1999). Analyzing documentary accounts. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jalali, R. (2013). Financing empowerment? How foreign aid to southern NGOs and social movements undermines grass-roots mobilization. Sociology Compass, 7(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamal, M. (2015). Western donor assistance and gender empowerment in the Palestinian territories and beyond. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 17(2), 232–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. C. (1998). Channeling social protest: Foundation patronage of contemporary social movements. In W. W. Powell & E. S. Clemens (Eds.), Private action and the public good. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, D. (2013). Social action and NGOization in contexts of development dispossession in rural India: Explorations into the un-civility of civil society. In A. Choudry & D. Kapoor (Eds.), NGOization: Complicity, contradictions and prospects. New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketelaars, P. (2016). What strikes the responsive chord? The effects of framing qualities on frame resonance among protest participants. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 21(3), 341–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohl-Arenas, E. (2014). Will the revolution be funded? Resource mobilization and the California farm worker movement. Social Movement Studies, 13(4), 482–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, S. (2013). NGOs, civil society, and the public sphere. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavalle, A. G., & Bueno, N. S. (2011). Waves of change within civil society in Latin America: Mexico City and Sāo Paulo. Politics & Society, 39(3), 415–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller-Hirth, N. (2009). South African NGOs and the public sphere: between popular movements and partnerships for development. Social Dynamics, 35(2), 423–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nazneen, S., & Sultan, M. (2009). Struggling for survival and autonomy: Impact of NGO-ization on women’s organizations in Bangladesh. Development, 52(2), 193–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petras, J. (1997). Imperialism and NGOs in Latin America. Monthly Review, 49(7), 10–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pithouse, R. (2013). NGOs and urban movements: Notes from South Africa. City, 17(2), 253–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullum, A. (2014). Social movement theory and the ‘Modern Day Tea Party’. Sociology Compass, 8(12), 1377–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, S. (2006). Development, democracy, and the NGO sector: Theory and evidence from Bangladesh. Journal of Developing Societies, 22(4), 451–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, P. (1982). Phenomenology: A new way of viewing organizational research. The Academy of Management Review, 7(3), 353–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, S. (2013). In pictures: Protesters mock Peter Munk as Barrick Gold share price plummets. Retrieved July 3, 2017 from http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/fr/photo/protesters-mock-peter-munk-barrick-gold-share-pric/17281.

  • Schlosberg, D. (2013). Theorising environmental justice: The expanding sphere of a discourse. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, A., & Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The philosophy, the methodologies, and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers’ experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quantity, 48, 1291–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D. A., Benford, R., McCammon, H., Hewitt, L., & Fitzegerald, S. (2014). The emergence, development, and future of the framing perspective: 25 + Years since ‘Frame Alignment’. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 19(1), 23–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stavrianakis, A. (2012). Missing the target: NGOs, global civil society and the arms trade. Journal of International Relations and Development, 15, 224–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2015). Contentious politics (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsikata, D. (2009). Women’s Organizing in Ghana since the 1990s: From individual organization to three coalitions. Development, 52(2), 185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdez, S. (2011). Subsidizing the cost of collective action: International organizations and protest among polish farmers during democratic transition. Social Forces, 90(2), 475–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant No. 766-2013-0199). An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the 2017 Annual Conference of the American Sociological Association (ASA) in Montreal, Canada, and the 2016 Annual Conference of the Canadian Sociological Association (CSA) in Calgary, Canada. I would like to thank Jacqueline Kennelly for her guidance during the research process and feedback on initial drafts of this article. I would also like to thank Amin Ghaziani for providing extensive feedback. Finally, I would like to thank the reviewers whose insights and commentary benefitted the final article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of British Columbia, 6303 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z1, Canada

    Max Chewinski

Authors
  1. Max Chewinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Max Chewinski.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chewinski, M. Coordinating Action: NGOs and Grassroots Groups Challenging Canadian Resource Extraction Abroad. Voluntas 30, 356–368 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-0023-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-0023-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation