Advertisement

Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 22–43 | Cite as

Opening up the black box: citizen group strategies for engaging grassroots activism in the twenty-first century

  • Hahrie Han
  • Aaron C. Sparks
  • Nate Deshmukh Towery
Original Article

Abstract

Trajectories of activism within citizen groups are a function not only of whether people are willing and able to get involved, but also whether the structure of opportunities offered by a group is appealing to the people the group seeks to engage. A full understanding of activism over time within citizen groups thus depends on knowing not only whether and how people participate, but also what opportunities were offered to them and how those opportunities were nested in a broader strategy. This multifaceted view is particularly important given changing modes of engagement in the twenty-first century, yet obtaining the appropriate data is challenging. This paper draws on unique, mixed-method organizational data that simultaneously provide a longitudinal view of trajectories of activism of over 3000 activists within one major environmental organization in the USA and of the kinds of strategies the organization was using to cultivate that activism. We find that most people do not participate in more than one activity over the time in which we have data. Among those that do, more people persist in offline activism than online activism, despite ongoing attempts by the organization to cultivate both.

Keywords

interest groups grassroots activism social movements organizational strategy digital activism (or, online and offline activism) environmental activism 

References

  1. Agnone, J. (2007) Amplifying public opinion: The policy impact of the U.S. environmental movement. Social Forces 85: 1593–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, K.T. (1997) The impact of social movements on the political process: The civil rights movement and black election politics in Mississippi. American Sociological Review 62: 800–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, K.T. and Edwards, B. (2004) Advocacy organizations in the U.S. political process. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 479–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews, K., Ganz, M., Baggetta, M., Han, H. and Lim, C. (2010) Leadership, membership, and voice: Civic associations that work. American Journal of Sociology 115: 1191–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baggetta, M., Han, H. and Andrews, K.T. (2013) Leading associations: How individual characteristics and team dynamics generate committed leaders. American Sociological Review 78: 544–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey, M., Mummolo, J. and Noel, H. (2012) Tea party influence, a story of activists and elites. American Politics Research 40: 769–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumgartner, F., Berry, J.M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D.C. and Leech, B.L. (2009) Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, L. and Segerberg, A. (2013) The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berry, J.M. (1999) The new liberalism: The rising power of citizen groups. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bimber, B. (2003) Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bimber, B., Andrew, F. and Cynthia, S. (2012) Collective action in organizations: Interaction and engagement in an era of technological change. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bosso, C.J. (2003) Rethinking the concept of membership in nature advocacy organizations. Policy Studies Journal 31(3): 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brady, H.E. (1999) Political participation. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, and L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes, measures of social psychological attitudes (pp. 737–800). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, H. (2015) Does globalization drive interest group strategy? A cross-national study of outside lobbying and social media. Journal of Public Affairs. doi: 10.1002/pa.1590.Google Scholar
  15. Burns, N., Schlozman, K.L. and Verba, S. (2001) The private roots of public actionn: Gender, equality, and political participation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, D. (2013) Social networks and political participation. Annual Review of Political Science 16: 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christens, B.D. and Speer, P.W. (2011) Contextual influences on participation in community organizing: A multilevel longitudinal study. American Journal of Community Psychology 47(3–4): 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christens, B., Speer, P. and Andrew Peterson, N. (2011) Social class as moderator of the relationship between (Dis) empowering processes and psychological empowerment. Journal of Community Psychology 39: 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dalton, R. (1996) Citizen politics. Chatham: Chatham House Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Dalton, R. (2009) The good citizen: How the young are transforming American politics (Revised Ed.). Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fung, A. (2003) Associations and democracy: Between theories, hopes, and realities. Annual Review of Sociology 29: 515–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fung, A. and Shkabatur, J. (2012) Viral engagement: Fast, cheap, and broad, but good for democracy? In D. Allen and J.S. Light (Eds.), From voice to influence: Understanding citizenship in a digital age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gerber, A., Green, D. and Larimer, C. (2008) Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review 102: 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerber, A.S., Green, D.P. and Shachar, R. (2003) Voting may be habit forming: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science 47: 540–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green, D.P. and Shachar, R. (2000) Habit-formation and political behavior: Evidence of consuetude in voter turnout. British Journal of Political Science 30: 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Han, H. (2009) Moved to action: Motivation, participation, and inequality in American politics. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Han, H. (2014) How organizations develop activists: Civic associations and leadership in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Han, H. (2016) The organizational roots of political activism: Field experiments on creating a relational context. American Political Science Review 110(02): 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hansen, J.M. (1991) Gaining access, congress and the farm lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hestress, L.E. (2015) Climate change advocacy online: Theories of change, target audiences, and online strategy. Environmental Politics 24: 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jennings, M.K. (2004) American political participation viewed through the lens of the political socialization project. In M.G. Hermann (Ed.), Advances in political psychology (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Elsevier, Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. Karpf, D. (2010) Online political mobilization from the advocacy group’s perspective. Policy and Internet, 2, Article 2.Google Scholar
  33. Karpf, D. (2012) The moveon effect: The unexpected transformation of American political advocacy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karpf, D. (2016) Analytic activism: The organizational logics of social petitions. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Klandermans, B. (2007) The demand and supply of participation: Social-psychological correlates of participation in social movements. In D.A. Snow, S.A. Soule, and H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 360–379). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klandermans, B. and Oegema, D. (1987) Potentials, networks, motivations, and barriers: Steps towards participation in social movements. American Sociological Review 52: 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis, K., Gray, K. and Meierhenrich, J. (2014) The structure of online activism. Sociological Science 1: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loader, B.D., Vromen, A. and Xenos, M. (Eds.). (2014) The networked young citizen: Social media, political participation and civic engagement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Madestam, A., Shoag, D., Veuger, S. and Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2013) Do political protests matter? Evidence from the tea party movement. Quarterly Journal of Economics 128: 1633–1685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Margetts, H., John, P., Hale, S. and Yasseri, T. (2015) Political turbulence: How social media shape collective action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. McDonnell, M.H., King, B. and Soule, S. (2016) A dynamic process model of private politics: Activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. American Sociological Review 80: 654–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mercea, D. and Bastos, M.T. (2016) Being a serial transnational activist. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21: 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Munson, Z. (2009) The making of pro-life activists: How social movement mobilization works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Musick, M.A. and Wilson, J. (2008) Volunteers, a social profile. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Neville, K.J. and Weinthal, E. (2016) Scaling up site disputes: Strategies to redefine ‘Local’ in the fight against fracking. Environmental Politics 25: 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oser, J. (2014) It’s not the acts, it’s how participants combine them: A latent class analysis of engaged and duty-based political participants in the United States. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  47. Oser, J., Leighley, J.E. and Winneg, K.M. (2014) Participation, online and otherwise: What’s the difference for policy preferences. Social Science Quarterly 95: 1259–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oser, J., Hooghe, M. and Marien, S. (2013) Is online participation distinct from offline participation? A latent class analysis of participation types and their stratification. Political Research Quarterly 66(1): 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Plutzer, E. (2002) Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review 96: 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Putnam, R. (2001) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American democracy. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  51. Rogers, T., Gerber, A.S. and Fox, C.R. (2012) Rethinking why people vote: Voting as dynamic social expression. In E. Shafir (Ed.), Behavioral foundations of policy (pp. 91–107). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rolfe, M. (2012) Voter turnout: A social theory of political participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schlozman, K.L. (2003) Citizen participation in America: What do we know? Why do we care? In I. Katznelson and H. Milner (Eds.), Political science, state of the discipline (pp. 433–461). New York, WW: Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  54. Schlozman, K.L., Jones, P.E., You, H.Y., Burch, T., Verba, S. and Brady, H.E. (2015) Organizations and the democratic representation of interests: What does it mean when those organizations have no members? Perspectives on Politics 13: 1017–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sinclair, B. (2012) The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skocpol, T. (2003) Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  57. Skocpol, T., Ganz, M. and Munson, Z. (2000) A nation of organizers: The institutional origins of civic voluntarism in the United States. American Political Science Review 94: 527–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Skocpol, T. and Hertel-Fernandez, A. (2016) The Koch effect: The impact of a cadre-led network on American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  59. Snow, D.A., Soule, S.A. and Kriesi, H. (2007) The Blackwell companion to social movements. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. Speer, P. and Christens, B. (2011) Contextual influences on participation in community organizing. American Journal of Community Psychology 47: 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Teske, N. (1997) Political activists in America: The identity construction model of political participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Tocqueville, A.D. [1835–1940]. (1969) Democracy in America. New York City: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  63. Tufekci, Z. (2014) Capabilities of movements and affordances of digital media: Paradoxes of empowerment. dmlcentral.net: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.Google Scholar
  64. Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. and Brady, H. (1995) Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Warren, M. (2001) Dry bones rattling: Community building to revitalize American democracy, Princeton studies in American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zúñiga, H.G., Copeland, L. and Bimber, B. (2014) Political consumerism: Civic engagement and the social media connection. New Media & Society 16(3): 488–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hahrie Han
    • 1
  • Aaron C. Sparks
    • 1
  • Nate Deshmukh Towery
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Innovative Research Program OfficeVolpe, The National Transportation Systems CenterCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations