Social Change and Protests July 07, 2023

Project Leads: James Ozden (Social Change Lab), Cathy Rogers (Social Change Lab), Ruud Wouters (Tilburg University) Full questionnaire: .pdf

Social Change and Protests

Social movements ranging from Black Lives Matter to the climate movement are a fixture of political life. But what makes some social movements more successful than others? We surveyed 120 academic experts in Sociology, Political Science and other relevant disciplines to investigate this question.

Primary results

Experts thought the most important tactical and strategic factor for a social movement’s success is “the strategic use of nonviolent disruptive tactics”, ranking it as more important than focusing on gaining media coverage and having ambitious goals.
69% of experts thought that disruptive tactics were effective for issues (like climate change) that have high public awareness and support. For issues with high awareness but low support (like anti-vaccination), only 30% thought disruptive tactics were effective.
The most important governance and organizational factor for a social movement’s success was the ability to “mobilise and scale quickly in response to external events”, whereas experts thought having decentralised decision making was the least important factor.
The most important internal factors that threatened social movement success were “internal conflict or movement infighting” and a “lack of clear political objectives”.
90% of experts thought that non-violent climate protests targeting the government are at least somewhat effective overall.

A list of all academics who were happy to share information about their participation is available at the bottom of this page.

Section 1: Protests in a democratic context

Question 1

The ultimate goal of social movements is often to influence national government policy or legislation. To achieve this, they may focus on a range of intermediate goals. How important are the following intermediate goals in contributing to an ultimate goal of influencing government policy or legislation?

• Increasing issue awareness amongst the general public
• Making public opinion more supportive of the issue
• Winning over elite allies (high-profile experts or celebrities)
• Winning over political allies (local or national policymakers)
• Gaining sympathetic media coverage
• Gaining backing from industry and business

Results

Participant	Response	Confidence
Colin Davis University of Bristol	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Moderately important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Moderately important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Somewhat important
It is important for public opinion to be supportive, but it doesn't follow that social movements should always prioritise the goal of making the public more supportive. Sometimes the weight of public opinion already favours the movement's demands, and the important goal is to draw attention to the mismatch between public opinion and policy. The other goals are all positives for the movement but are not essential, and are often difficult to achieve. There is a danger of softening demands in a (possibly misguided) attempt to win over (e.g.) political allies.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Somewhat important
I want to emphasize the importance of sympathetic media coverage. Through my research on the Black Lives Matter movement, I have come to the conclusion that media coverage has significant power to hijack and contradict the direct efforts of the movement to increase public awareness and sympathy for a movement. I think as sociologists we need to further investigate not only how movements are covered in media, or how they deploy their own media, but how they navigate the power of and relationships with mass media in order to gain sympathetic coverage that impacts other movement outcomes.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Extremely important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Extremely important Gaining backing from industry and business: Extremely important
These are all equally important intermediate goals - maybe if you'd made me rank them it would have been much harder!!! I would actually put them equal with influencing national policy or legislation. Our data indicates that policy outcomes are only the 'end' goal in 50% of campaigns, so it's very debateable as to whether these are intermediate or end goals in themselves.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Moderately important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Not important
This questions very much depends on the aims and goals of a movement, some want to change heart and minds, behaviour, others policy change, again others both. They are also interrelated, if public opinion is very supportive then political elites tend to follow suit (esp. in democratic systems).
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Moderately important Making public opinion more supportive: Moderately important Winning over elite allies: Somewhat important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Somewhat important
It is not the same for left and right movements. Right ones often do not need public opinion or sympathetic media coverage.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Somewhat important
Organizational alliances and frame aglignement
Kevin Gillan University of Manchester	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Moderately important
As you've indicated, such things will be context dependent. They will also be goal dependent - some policy areas might be more influenced by technical (or technocratic) considerations so expertise and perhaps business support could be more important than public opinion. Other policy domains are probably more responsive to the latter.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Somewhat important Making public opinion more supportive: Somewhat important Winning over elite allies: Quite important Winning over political allies: Moderately important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Moderately important
I've been surprised at the sometimes wide gap between public opinion and policy. This suggests to me that changing public opinion is not the cornerstone of change.
Winnifred Louis University of Queensland	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Somewhat important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Somewhat important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Somewhat important Gaining backing from industry and business: Extremely important
This depends enormously on the stance of the government in power (i.e., willing / favourable, neutral or opposed) and the visibility of the policy to the public.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Somewhat important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Somewhat important
Some of the aspects above really depend on the issue on which influence is attempted.
Dieter Rucht Berlin Social Science Center	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Quite important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Somewhat important
It is difficult to provide answers without specifying the issue and the context.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Extremely important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Extremely important Gaining backing from industry and business: Quite important
Include defining policy problems or changing concepts as an other important intermeidate goal.
Cristina Flesher Fominaya Aarhus University	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Somewhat important Winning over political allies: Moderately important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Extremely important Gaining backing from industry and business: Somewhat important
many tactics are double edged swords--for example celebrity endorsement can be powerful but can also derail messages and shift attention away from issues
Louisa Parks University of Trento	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Not important
Most of my work has looked at IOs (not national contexts): I have found that public opinion and being able to 'connect' to grassroots is key because it allows mobilization - and that elite enemies can be one useful element in that as a galvanising force to act. Another element I have found important is what could be called the 'fait accompli': movement organisations present authorities with a fact already in place, which is then easier for them to recognise. Examples: declaring an area 'GMO-free'; occupying a space to fulfil a community need; drafting rules for consultation and consent.
Philipp Altmann Universidad Central del Ecuador	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Somewhat important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Somewhat important Gaining backing from industry and business: Moderately important
At least the indigenous movement in Ecuador aims to conquer and expand spaces of autonomy. Allies are only relevant in this regard (or in bigger collaborations for shared goals).
Jan-Erik Refle University of Geneva & University of Lausanne	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Moderately important Making public opinion more supportive: Moderately important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Somewhat important
coalitions, personal integration of (former) members into policy-making circles, pos as part of policy domain knowledge
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Quite important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Not important
Obviously, the precise importance of these 'intermediate goals' varies with the context and the exact movement actor involved. They can all be important in different combinations of factors within the process of challenging/making claims to governing institutions.
Eric Selbin Southwestern University	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Quite important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Quite important
the more everyday people, the more others will follow. Too much focus on celebrities, politicians, and business people is too often distracting and can be misleading.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Somewhat important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Moderately important
In our polarized world it is a little hard to assess the importance of public opinion and media coverage, since different groups listen to different experts and follow different media
Ivaylo Dinev Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS)	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Moderately important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Not important
To achieve their aims, social movements need to look on these as a long term strategy to intervene in the political arena and the public sphere. This means that they need to establish themselves in the media, to attract support from bystanders, to give a light about invisible issues or unpopular interpretations to the public. They also rely on building a stable and wide network of members and supporters. They need time to bring their speakers and experts in the public sphere through interviews and media articles. The best way to do all of these is to have a sub-goals to the greater goal, and working on this smaller goals, step by step, will bring more coverage, more attention, awareness, members and supporters. This all could be framed as the need to have stable organizational development and resources, and to intervene into the discursive opportunity structure. In a unfavorable conditions, social movements will need more time to do so, while in favorable conditions, specifically in a country where the issue of the social movement is already part of the master frame/the cultural memory or the movement is having many powerful allies, they could achieve their goals much easier.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Moderately important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Somewhat important Gaining backing from industry and business: Moderately important
I think there is an issue with how we focus on target audience, effectiveness and success. It needs to be broadened and for example raising awareness can be perceived as step one in gaining public support, or swaying opposition. Similar, below, various tactics will be effective and important depending on what the target audience is, what the goal of the action/movement is etc.
James F. Hamilton University of Georgia	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Moderately important Making public opinion more supportive: Moderately important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Moderately important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Moderately important
I'm fully sympathetic with the intentions of this study, and of the challenge of discerning an understanding that might span multiple instances/places/situations. I've been studying social movements and media/culture/communication for 35+ years. However, the survey puts the dilemma well--although briefly--that questions that ask for a general claim/position may be less sensitive/aware of the radically contextual nature of social movements. My own position is that they are indeed radically contextual and can only be fully understood in those terms. My uniform responses in item #3 are the only way within the terms provided to convey the point that any/all are potentially valuable, depending on the specific context. I wager that many subsequent responses I'll have will have a similar uniformity. Apologies in advance for the likely unhelpfulness of such a position and lack of variance in responses.
Paul Almeida University of California, Merced	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Somewhat important
Sustaining community level organizing before and during the campaign would also be a critical factor
Mary Bernstein University of Connecticut	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Extremely important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Extremely important Gaining backing from industry and business: Quite important
Culture matters. It is crucial for social movements to be able to proffer their understandings of an issue and to shift the discourse and social norms about an issue in order to make effective and lasting change.
Benjamin Duke University of Leicester	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Extremely important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Quite important
For social movements to succeed over the long term they need to form working alliances within the decision-making process.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Somewhat important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Extremely important Gaining backing from industry and business: Not important
providing some content for mass-media to organize an information tsunami (see social laser theory)
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Quite important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Somewhat important
Answers to Q3 depend on various contextual factors, such as the nature of protests and regime types
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Somewhat important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Extremely important
Increasing awareness is a double-edged sword: it can create backlash and provide mobilizing opportunities for a countermovement or other opponents.
Pamela Oliver University of Wisconsin, Madison	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Not important
I know you said that of course context matters but try to generalize anyway, but the problem is that context always matters. Are you a right-wing movement that businesses support or a left-wing movement businesses oppose? Are you a stigmatized minority advocating extreme positions or a group that already is viewed as reasonable by a broad sector of society? I answered in terms of a general left-wing group in the US context, advocating policies that actually have substantial support but are considered too radical by those in power.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Moderately important Making public opinion more supportive: Moderately important Winning over elite allies: Extremely important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Not important
It's issue dependent, also not uniform - the M4BL received very polarized media coverage. I would argue they never enjoyed positive coverage from mainstream outlets, they did and do receive positive coverage from social media based journalists and smaller news organizations
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Moderately important Making public opinion more supportive: Moderately important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Moderately important
You don't need all of these things, but you do need some combination of them.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Extremely important Winning over political allies: Moderately important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Moderately important
The importance of these different intermediate goals completely depends on the context. I've answered it, based on 2023 Ontario Canada.
Kim Scipes Purdue University Northwest	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Moderately important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Not important
The goal is to build power from below, often to force policymakers to do what your "group" wants in the initial period, but also to change the culture of the country if not the world.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Moderately important Making public opinion more supportive: Somewhat important Winning over elite allies: Quite important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Quite important
Public opinion doesn't really have much of an impact on policy. Public officials know who they are truly accountable to and it is not the public. They also believe that the public can be manipulated which... seems true (e.g. the long history of racism being used to manipulate people in the US; recently 200K+ people dying unnecessarily from covid because of memes). Also, disruptive actions often are unpopular but can be effective (e.g. polling data on Civil Rights Movement actions like Freedom Summer and March on Washington show how unpopular they were, esp. among whites).
Mattias Wahlström University of Gothenburg	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Quite important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Somewhat important
The relative importance of various types of allies is obviously highly contextual and dependent on different movement strategies. A movement focusing on backstage lobbying might not depend on "awareness amongst the general public", but is more dependent on elite allies.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Quite important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Moderately important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Quite important
It really depends on the issue, as these also reflect which kinds of business there are and how strong their help could be (compare fossil fuel industry with the renewable energy ones, at least several years back). For rights-based issues (e.g. same sex marriage) the industry and business play less role than for the environment/ climate/ animal rights.
Michelle Beyeler University of Zurich	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Moderately important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Quite important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Moderately important Gaining backing from industry and business: Moderately important
Media coverage is important - but it not necessarily has to be sympathetic. As an intermediate goal - negative coverage is much better than no coverage at all, especially as a means to mobilize political and elite allies.
Lisa Mueller Macalester College	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Extremely important Winning over elite allies: Quite important Winning over political allies: Extremely important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Extremely important Gaining backing from industry and business: Quite important
Some of these intermediate goals can feed into each other. For example, media coverage can change issue awareness amongst the general public, which can influence voter behavior, which in turn affects who wins office, which in turn determines which political allies need to be won over. A great paper on this is "Agenda Seeding" by Omar Wasow.
Bert Klandermans Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Extremely important Making public opinion more supportive: Quite important Winning over elite allies: Quite important Winning over political allies: Quite important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Quite important Gaining backing from industry and business: Not important
protests are means of communication; citizens want elite and public to know that they are upset

Question 2

We are now going to ask some questions about the factors which affect the likelihood of success of a social movement. By success, we mean a continuum from tangible, measurable success such as policy wins, through to longer-term changes such as public discourse or public opinion which may have second-order effects which are hard to measure. We divide the factors into external factors which are those largely outside of a movement’s control and two types of internal factors: those relating to strategy and those relating to governance, both of which lie more within a movement’s control. How important do you think the following external factors are in contributing to a social movement’s success?
1. • Supportive media coverage
2. • Supportive elite allies (policymakers, high-profile experts or celebrities)
3. • A sympathetic government being in power
4. • The nature of the political system (e.g. level of proportional representation)
5. • The ability to attract funding
6. • The current state of public opinion on the issue
Results
Question 3

How important do you think the following tactical and strategic factors are in contributing to a social movement’s success?
1. • A strict avoidance of violent tactics
2. • Having both more radical and more moderate flanks
3. • The strategic use of nonviolent disruptive tactics
4. • A focus on achievable demands
5. • Having ambitious goals
6. • A focus on gaining media coverage (positive or negative)
Results

Question 4

How important do you think the following governance and organisational factors are in contributing to a social movement’s success?

• Having a high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands)
• Having a broad and diverse constituency
• Organisational capacity (e.g. ability to run large campaigns)
• Having strong leadership with clear decision-making
• Having decentralised decision-making
• Being able to mobilise and scale quickly in response to external events
• Having clear political goals
• Being open to collaboration
• Being willing to accept incremental wins
• Focusing on a narrow issue (e.g. carbon emissions) rather than broader systemic issues (e.g. global climate justice)
• Size (number of supporters)

Results

Participant	Response	Confidence
Colin Davis University of Bristol	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Quite important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Very important
These are difficult questions, and my confidence is quite low for some of them. I don't know whether the chance of success is optimised by having strong leadership rather than decentralised decision making, only that I have a personal preference for the latter (which is a different question). Likewise, it's likely that "success" in narrow terms is optimised by focusing on narrow, concrete demands, rather than system transformation. But I don't think it follows that social movements should not seek the latter.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Very important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Quite important Decentralised decision-making: Somewhat important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Very important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
Success in terms of what? Many of these depend on what the goal is.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Moderately important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Not important Decentralised decision-making: Quite important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
One has to consider each context of each movement. The context matter very much to what strategies and tactics that will be useful and/or suczessful. And regarding question 7, it is important with internal unity, but this will be very hard to achieve in a mass movement. So it depends how the demands are formulated. There could be a internal unity among a very large number of people if the demand is broad: "we want equality", "we are anti-racists" etc.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Moderately important Organisational capacity: Moderately important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Very important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Being open to collaboration: Somewhat important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Very important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Moderately important
It is impossible to answer these questions with regard to an entire social movement. Also there needs to be an option for movement diversity - beyond just radical and moderate flanks. There needs to be diversity identity groups active across a movement (eg rural and city based groups around religious, farming, professional identity based group identities etc), there needs to diverse movement infrastructure groups (eg funding bodies, high level strategic support groups, online resource library groups) and there needs to be far more tactical diversity than just moderate and radical. Radical flanks comprise less than 5% of activist tactics or groups - there also needs to be groups just writing letters, just holding movie nights, just doing flyering etc etc. Diversity in resources (eg resource mobilisation theory) also really matters - having greater access to skilled volunteers, strong networks between groups, funded groups supporting volunteer groups able to do arrestable actions etc, all really matters and can't be reduced with a single movement. So apologies but to me the idea of talking about a movement's 'governance' factors is pretty nonsensical.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Very important Organisational capacity: Moderately important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Quite important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Very important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Moderately important
On question 6, just like I think a mix of more radical and moderate flanks can be beneficial to a movement, so can using a range of tactics (e.g. some more disruptive than others) and having both attainable tangible goals and a more ambitious/lofty vision guiding the movement. In other words, diversity in all these areas can be beneficial to a movement.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Somewhat important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Quite important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Moderately important Being open to collaboration: Quite important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Somewhat important
You only queried on avoiding violence, but whether we like it or not, the history of social change is also a history of political violence and disruption. As that is often the most potent way to receive attention and visibility and to make political elites compromise and change the status quo
Ben Kenward Oxford Brookes University	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Moderately important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Quite important Decentralised decision-making: Somewhat important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Moderately important Being open to collaboration: Quite important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Quite important Size (number of supporters): Very important
A social movement can win by persuading the government or by defeating it. We aren't used to the latter possibility in modern parliamentary democracies but perhaps, with regards to climate and ecology, it's the only way to avoid catastrophe. These two routes work in very different ways and this makes it very hard for me to answer the questions.
Kevin Gillan University of Manchester	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Moderately important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Moderately important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Moderately important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Moderately important Focusing on a narrow issue: Somewhat important Size (number of supporters): Moderately important
I've tried to answer this questions as if we're thinking about the state of play just before a movement wins or loses in respect of its goals for national level policy change, because that's what seem to fit the way the options are presented. Over a longer-term view - and surely all nationally successful movements can be examined over a longer term - many of the 'external factors' are things that a movement can and should seek to influence. Finding elite allies, or gaining supportive public opinion and or getting an issue onto the media agenda are all potentially achievements of movements working, perhaps less visibly, in a less conducive environment. Also, the issue of 'goal dependence' is relevant here too. As the state is not a unitary thing, relevant policy makers in different issue domains will pay attention to different sorts of pressures.
Winnifred Louis University of Queensland	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Somewhat important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Somewhat important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Somewhat important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Very important Focusing on a narrow issue: Not important Size (number of supporters): Somewhat important
I feel like the concept of success in this question needs a lot of unpacking: what is a win to some people in some contexts is a failure to others. Also, are social movements here being equated with protest? What is important for a movement that seeks to raise awareness in the face of apathy is not the same as what is important for a movement that is facing a mobilised counter-movement.
James M. Jasper	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Somewhat important A broad and diverse constituency: Not important Organisational capacity: Moderately important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Moderately important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Moderately important Being open to collaboration: Moderately important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Quite important Size (number of supporters): Moderately important
There are tradeoffs between some of these options, so it is impossible to judge their importance in general, as opposed to in a specific context.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Not important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Not important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Not important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Moderately important Focusing on a narrow issue: Not important Size (number of supporters): Very important
Again, the above is conditional on the nature of the issue.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Moderately important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Moderately important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Very important Focusing on a narrow issue: Quite important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
The answers vary by national or regional context. Provide a reference such as, when thinking about social movements in your country in the last decade... or let the respondent inform about this after the responses - e.g. I was referring to environmental protest in Europe, or signal exceptions - e.g. This is different for labour movements.
Cristina Flesher Fominaya Aarhus University	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Somewhat important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Quite important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Somewhat important Size (number of supporters): Somewhat important
a lot of these really depend! clear goals are important. for some kinds of broader movements a large number of supporters is key, but for catalyst groups targeting specific goals or objectives, a small number is enough (although they draw support from larger movement communities)
Louisa Parks University of Trento	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Somewhat important A broad and diverse constituency: Very important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Quite important Decentralised decision-making: Quite important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Very important Focusing on a narrow issue: Not important Size (number of supporters): Very important
Probably obvious, but I don't see strong leadership and decentralised decision-making as mutually exclusive. Also: the answers are on the basis of an understanding of a social movement in the classical sense: i.e. a network of lots of different kinds of groups and individuals with different strengths, memberships etc.
Philipp Altmann Universidad Central del Ecuador	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Very important A broad and diverse constituency: Very important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Very important Decentralised decision-making: Very important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Moderately important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Somewhat important Size (number of supporters): Very important
The issue is that the movement needs to combine small-scale achievements with larger goals, a centralized decision-making process that connects to more local and decentralized processes, and the ability to unite a wide diversity of actors around some central ideas.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Not important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Very important Decentralised decision-making: Not important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Moderately important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Somewhat important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Moderately important Focusing on a narrow issue: Quite important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
Again, these factors can have varying effects. I indicate typical importance here on the basis of movements with which I am most familiar (i.e., in Europe and the United States).
Eric Selbin Southwestern University	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Somewhat important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Quite important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Moderately important Having clear political goals: Somewhat important Being open to collaboration: Moderately important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Moderately important Focusing on a narrow issue: Somewhat important Size (number of supporters): Somewhat important
vanguardism doesn't work (sorry); finding common and committed ground does.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Very important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Moderately important Focusing on a narrow issue: Somewhat important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
A movement might mobilize on broad systemic issues while also strategically focusing on narrow issues which work towards addressing the effects of systemic characteristics. In my mind, this is how the US-based black rights movement during the 1960s worked. Broadly, it sought to end a racial caste system; to a hypothetical question from a skeptic of that broad transformation, "how do you do that?" -- voter registration reform, desegregate busses, desegregate diners, etc.
Ivaylo Dinev Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS)	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Moderately important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Somewhat important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
From the perspective of social movements in Eastern Europe, the external factors are much more important compared to the internal factors. But I will list as those influential external factors, the long-term historical processes that took place in the specific country, while here most of the factors deal with med to short term conditions (e.g. government, media coverage). I would say that the general discursive opportunity, a term that referred to the long lasting cultural memory, national identity, master frames on specific issues/ideas are much more important for social movement activity and success. E.g. the new-left in Eastern Europe is in a very unfavorable historical conditions being in a context of a post-socialist states, where many ideas and issues, associated with the leftist political ideologies (leftist political identity, collectivism, trade unions, equality, class strugle), are viewed from the public and the influential opinion makers, journalists, politicians, experts very negatively. This simply created unfavorable context for emerging new-left movements.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Somewhat important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Somewhat important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Moderately important Being open to collaboration: Quite important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
See text in box 4.
James F. Hamilton University of Georgia	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Moderately important Organisational capacity: Moderately important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Moderately important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Moderately important Having clear political goals: Moderately important Being open to collaboration: Moderately important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Moderately important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Moderately important
See response to item #4 above.
Paul Almeida University of California, Merced	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Quite important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Moderately important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
The issue at hand will determine which strategic and structural factors would be most relevant
Mary Bernstein University of Connecticut	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Very important Organisational capacity: Moderately important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Quite important Decentralised decision-making: Not important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Moderately important Having clear political goals: Moderately important Being open to collaboration: Quite important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
I think you have your causality backwards in your questions. Your question states, "By success, we mean a continuum from tangible, measurable success such as policy wins, through to longer-term changes such as public discourse or public opinion which may have second-order effects which are hard to measure." While you may get policy wins without cultural shifts in discourse and public opinion, those are unlikely to be long-lasting if you haven't shifted the consensus on an issue.
Benjamin Duke University of Leicester	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Very important A broad and diverse constituency: Very important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Very important Decentralised decision-making: Very important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Very important Focusing on a narrow issue: Somewhat important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
A social movement must appear to be a well-managed organisation, to the uninitiated and outsiders. Issues of public accountability, responsibility and unity, resonate with the wider public, if social movements want to enter the consciousness of the communities they serve.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Very important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Very important Decentralised decision-making: Quite important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Very important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Very important
This depends on the definition of success. I limit my responses to stated movement goals instead of social impacts or value changes in the medium term or long term.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Quite important Decentralised decision-making: Quite important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Quite important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Very important
I feel a really important issue is how disruptive the protest tactics are. Many tactics are simply symbolic getting the message out there. Economically disruptive tactics such as strikes in the private sector in my view are often more effective. Violent tactics are also some times effective eg. the PIRA in the long run was effective in making significant political gains in Northern Ireland. Most so-called 'terrorist movements' have historically gained significant concessions from established elites and sometimes have replaced them.
David S. Meyer University of California, Irvine	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Somewhat important A broad and diverse constituency: Somewhat important Organisational capacity: Somewhat important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Somewhat important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Somewhat important Having clear political goals: Somewhat important Being open to collaboration: Somewhat important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Somewhat important Focusing on a narrow issue: Somewhat important Size (number of supporters): Somewhat important
The importance of any of the factors listed above is going to vary across movements and contexts. A general theory of, say nonviolence, is bound to distort our understanding of what really matters in promoting social change. And defining success????
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Somewhat important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Very important Decentralised decision-making: Not important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Moderately important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Very important Size (number of supporters): Very important
My research shows that having a crisp focus clarifies a movement's identity and increases the likelihood of success. This also holds for social movement organizations.
Pamela Oliver University of Wisconsin, Madison	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Somewhat important A broad and diverse constituency: Somewhat important Organisational capacity: Somewhat important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Somewhat important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Moderately important Having clear political goals: Somewhat important Being open to collaboration: Moderately important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Moderately important Focusing on a narrow issue: Somewhat important Size (number of supporters): Moderately important
Strict avoidance of violence really depends on who you are and relation to the state. Majority groups can often use violence with impunity and stigmatized minorities may not have impact without violence. It is very contextual. Re items in #7 this just seems to vary so much contextually that I marked almost everything "somewhat".
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Not important A broad and diverse constituency: Very important Organisational capacity: Moderately important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Very important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Moderately important Being open to collaboration: Quite important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Somewhat important Focusing on a narrow issue: Somewhat important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
Again this so issue dependent, a relatively small number of ActUP activists made a huge impact; a larger (by numbers) protest like Occupy Wall Street did not achieve policy success but did introduce a generation of trained activists and organizers into the larger movement fields
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Moderately important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Very important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Very important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Somewhat important
I think it really depends on the context.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Somewhat important A broad and diverse constituency: Moderately important Organisational capacity: Somewhat important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Moderately important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Moderately important Being open to collaboration: Quite important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Somewhat important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Moderately important
Again, it depends on the context, and the issue. These things are constantly in flux. It is difficult to evaluate these different elements 'in general'.
Kim Scipes Purdue University Northwest	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Very important Decentralised decision-making: Quite important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Somewhat important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
Researchers here are making a mistake that is quite common in academic research on social movements in this country; and that is that you assume any social movement is a given. The work of the late Alberto Melucci shows that the important part is to understand the process by which a social movement emerges. Creating a social movement is a PROCESS, not just an existing "fact."
Regina Werum University of Nebraska-Lincoln	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Moderately important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Moderately important Decentralised decision-making: Somewhat important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Somewhat important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Very important Focusing on a narrow issue: Somewhat important Size (number of supporters): Moderately important
How to answer these questions depends on whether you are talking about a social movement (SM) in general, a SM largely synonymous with a single SMO, or a SM with multiple SMOs.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Moderately important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Moderately important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Very important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Somewhat important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Somewhat important Focusing on a narrow issue: Not important Size (number of supporters): Moderately important
The subtext of some these questions seems to be whether movements should do what Democratic Party strategists tell them to do which is focus on small, "winnable" issues at the expense of having a bold vision of change. It is my opinion that adherence to this conventional wisdom often touted by experts has contributed to the left losing consistently on pretty much every issue even though public opinion is favorable to most of the left's positions.
Matthew S. Williams Loyola University Chicago	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Moderately important Decentralised decision-making: Quite important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Somewhat important Being open to collaboration: Quite important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Moderately important Focusing on a narrow issue: Not important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
Successful movements both need to think big, envisioning deep social change, while also being able to develop a strategy to get there through a series of significant reforms. Movements need to have a high strategic capacity--the ability to craft innovative, effective strategies. More democratic organizational forms that incorporate diverse constituencies are the most likely to foster high strategic capacity.
Mattias Wahlström University of Gothenburg	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Moderately important A broad and diverse constituency: Moderately important Organisational capacity: Quite important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Somewhat important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Quite important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Quite important
I ranked all movement strategies as "moderately important" since strategy is highly contextual and I do not believe it is possible to point out strategies or tactics that are universally preferable to others. Their effectiveness depends on a combination of resources, the character of the issue, political opportunities, discursive opportunities etc.
Anonymous	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Quite important A broad and diverse constituency: Quite important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Quite important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Quite important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Very important Size (number of supporters): Moderately important
I still think the demands should be formulated in a clear manner, proposing alternative ways to reach the goal, because protests/movements do inform policy makers.
Lisa Mueller Macalester College	A high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands): Very important A broad and diverse constituency: Very important Organisational capacity: Very important Strong leadership with clear decision-making: Quite important Decentralised decision-making: Moderately important Able to mobilise and scale in response to events: Quite important Having clear political goals: Very important Being open to collaboration: Very important Being willing to accept incremental wins: Quite important Focusing on a narrow issue: Moderately important Size (number of supporters): Moderately important
First, I confess my bias toward caring about activist unity/cohesion as someone whose scholarship focuses on that issue. Second, a follow-up regarding collaboration, constituency breadth, and movement/protest size: Signaling is important. The more novel information that a movement or protest can credibly send, the better. This means that coalitions of "strange bedfellows" (e.g., peace activists and labor unionists--see work by Fred Rose) send stronger signals of broad support than more predictable coalitions (e.g., feminists and LGBTQ+ activists). It's especially powerful if defectors from the "ruling coalition" (more relevant in autocracies, but also in democracies) join the activists (see work by Erica Chenoweth). Disadvantaged protesters (racial minorities, low-income people) also send strong signals because they shoulder great risks to protest (see work by LaGina Gause). Movement size intuitively matters, but the evidence on crowd size at protests is mixed in interesting ways. A landmark study on the Tea Party protests in the US (Madestam et al.) showed causal evidence that bigger crowds were more effective, but more recent work on Muslim-majority countries by Butcher and Pinckney shows the opposite. Why? It seems that when huge protests occur on a predictable schedule (e.g., on Fridays at the mosque), this doesn't surprise power-holders. Costly protests (in terms of risk, coordination costs, time, money) are more impressive. Therefore, a big crowd can be advantageous, but the the details matter. Some talk packs a punch; some talk is cheap.

Question 5

Social movements sometimes fail to achieve significant wins, whether on policy, public opinion or other desired outcomes. This is often due to external factors but some factors lie more within a movement’s control. How important are the following internal factors in threatening social movement success?

• Being unwilling to compromise
• Having stated goals that are too broad
• Having stated goals that are too radical
• Being unable to grow
• Being co-opted by other groups or individuals
• Activists not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term
• Internal conflict or movement infighting
• Having a lack of clear political objectives
• Being too dependent on key individuals
• A lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making

Results

Participant	Response	Confidence
Colin Davis University of Bristol	Being unwilling to compromise: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too broad: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too radical: Somewhat important Being unable to grow: Moderately important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Somewhat important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Somewhat important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Somewhat important Lack of clear political objectives: Somewhat important Being too dependent on key individuals: Somewhat important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Somewhat important
All of the factors listed here are obstacles to achieving significant wins. It's hard to say which is more important (and one may often lead to another), but being able to keep growing is clearly critical.
Anonymous	Being unwilling to compromise: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too broad: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too radical: Quite important Being unable to grow: Quite important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Very important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Quite important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Quite important Lack of clear political objectives: Quite important Being too dependent on key individuals: Moderately important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Quite important
I'm finding a lot of these hard to rate because some factors matter for some outcomes but not for others. Mobilization is a movement goal, policy outcomes may be a goal, cultural (e.g., attitude) change is often a goal, etc. Different factors matter for different goals, for example, having broad goals can aid in coalition formation which can be very helpful, but broad goals do not necessarily help with achieving policy goals. Also, messaging is very important but missing from the list.
Anonymous	Being unwilling to compromise: Quite important Stated goals that are too broad: Moderately important Stated goals that are too radical: Moderately important Being unable to grow: Very important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Quite important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Moderately important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Quite important Lack of clear political objectives: Moderately important Being too dependent on key individuals: Moderately important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Moderately important
Again, contextual.
Anonymous	Being unwilling to compromise: Moderately important Stated goals that are too broad: Very important Stated goals that are too radical: Somewhat important Being unable to grow: Very important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Quite important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Somewhat important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Somewhat important Lack of clear political objectives: Somewhat important Being too dependent on key individuals: Very important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making:
As per previous question, I find it really difficult to answer these questions at the movement scale. At an organisation scale lots of these points really matter - eg it really matters for a group if they can't make decisions and have internal conflict. But for the movement as a whole it can be beneficial, as these challenges lead to splinter groups which diversify the movement, potentially increase radical flanks, potentially grow the leadership base etc etc. So one thing can be bad for an organisation but quite good for the movement.
Kevin Gillan University of Manchester	Being unwilling to compromise: Moderately important Stated goals that are too broad: Stated goals that are too radical: Being unable to grow: Quite important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Quite important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Moderately important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Very important Lack of clear political objectives: Quite important Being too dependent on key individuals: Very important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Moderately important
I've not answered on broad or radical goals because whether these can be achieved is really so context dependent as to be unanswerable. The question one would need to answer would be 'are we in a potentially revolutionary moment?'
Winnifred Louis University of Queensland	Being unwilling to compromise: Very important Stated goals that are too broad: Quite important Stated goals that are too radical: Somewhat important Being unable to grow: Moderately important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Quite important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Somewhat important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Moderately important Lack of clear political objectives: Very important Being too dependent on key individuals: Moderately important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Somewhat important
I think that what is important changes in different movements and at different seasons, and with the political opportunity structures available to them.
James M. Jasper	Being unwilling to compromise: Moderately important Stated goals that are too broad: Moderately important Stated goals that are too radical: Moderately important Being unable to grow: Moderately important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Somewhat important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Moderately important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Moderately important Lack of clear political objectives: Quite important Being too dependent on key individuals: Moderately important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Quite important
Again, these are hard to evaluate in the abstract, outside specific contexts.
Cristina Flesher Fominaya Aarhus University	Being unwilling to compromise: Quite important Stated goals that are too broad: Quite important Stated goals that are too radical: Somewhat important Being unable to grow: Somewhat important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Very important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Moderately important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Very important Lack of clear political objectives: Very important Being too dependent on key individuals: Very important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Very important
The implication of individuals long term is not as important as creating a vibrant sustainable movement community and culture.
Louisa Parks University of Trento	Being unwilling to compromise: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too broad: Not important Stated goals that are too radical: Not important Being unable to grow: Quite important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Very important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Quite important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Moderately important Lack of clear political objectives: Somewhat important Being too dependent on key individuals: Quite important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Quite important
As in the answer above: the movement is a loose network, and problems with one group within it won't necessarily affect the whole movement. I would say that another important internal threat is misreading or not coordinating reactions to political/discursive contexts in terms of strategic choices.
Philipp Altmann Universidad Central del Ecuador	Being unwilling to compromise: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too broad: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too radical: Somewhat important Being unable to grow: Very important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Very important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Very important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Very important Lack of clear political objectives: Very important Being too dependent on key individuals: Very important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Very important
The central problem is the inability to maintain a diverse group of actors united around a set of large-scale ideas that include smaller goals.
Eric Selbin Southwestern University	Being unwilling to compromise: Quite important Stated goals that are too broad: Moderately important Stated goals that are too radical: Somewhat important Being unable to grow: Somewhat important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Moderately important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Quite important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Quite important Lack of clear political objectives: Somewhat important Being too dependent on key individuals: Quite important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Somewhat important
slow and steady, getting what you can where you can, organizing, organizing, organizing.
Ivaylo Dinev Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS)	Being unwilling to compromise: Very important Stated goals that are too broad: Not important Stated goals that are too radical: Quite important Being unable to grow: Quite important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Very important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Moderately important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Quite important Lack of clear political objectives: Very important Being too dependent on key individuals: Somewhat important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Very important
Social movements may have broad goals and at the same time not too radical. Broad goals can easier to resonate across different groups of society, while radical goals usually are well to specific groups, but very sensitive to others. Broad goals usually are connected to already established master frame, which movements strategically use for better understanding by the public and the media. In the question about organizational hierarchy, I would say that based on my experience both from activist and research sides, any SMO has leadership and internal hierarchy, the only reason applies to how this is tell to the public - as a traditional leadership with huge distance between members and leaders, or more fluid, sympathetic to current values of the given society. In general, however, I still thing that in terms of organizational development and public sphere intervention, SMO need clear leadership that can provide clear strategic goals to the public, clear political objectives and clear representation of the movement.
James F. Hamilton University of Georgia	Being unwilling to compromise: Moderately important Stated goals that are too broad: Moderately important Stated goals that are too radical: Moderately important Being unable to grow: Moderately important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Moderately important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Moderately important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Moderately important Lack of clear political objectives: Moderately important Being too dependent on key individuals: Moderately important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Moderately important
See response to item #4 above.
Paul Almeida University of California, Merced	Being unwilling to compromise: Moderately important Stated goals that are too broad: Quite important Stated goals that are too radical: Moderately important Being unable to grow: Quite important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Quite important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Very important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Very important Lack of clear political objectives: Very important Being too dependent on key individuals: Quite important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Quite important
The collective experience of even a failed campaign offers lessons that can be used in future rounds of collective action
Benjamin Duke University of Leicester	Being unwilling to compromise: Very important Stated goals that are too broad: Quite important Stated goals that are too radical: Very important Being unable to grow: Very important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Quite important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Quite important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Very important Lack of clear political objectives: Very important Being too dependent on key individuals: Very important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Very important
Social movements often face a number of internal threats. There needs to be a series of subgroups who report back to the decision-making process and the public website on a monthly basis. All minutes should be available on the public website.
Anonymous	Being unwilling to compromise: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too broad: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too radical: Moderately important Being unable to grow: Moderately important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Somewhat important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Somewhat important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Quite important Lack of clear political objectives: Somewhat important Being too dependent on key individuals: Somewhat important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Somewhat important
These are very difficult to generalise about. Generally I feel that external factors are often more important.
Pamela Oliver University of Wisconsin, Madison	Being unwilling to compromise: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too broad: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too radical: Somewhat important Being unable to grow: Somewhat important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Somewhat important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Somewhat important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Somewhat important Lack of clear political objectives: Somewhat important Being too dependent on key individuals: Moderately important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Moderately important
You seem to be confounding a broad social movement like environmentalism or socialism or Black movement (in the US) or LGBTQ movement with a social movement organization (SMO) or a specific issue campaign focused on one piece of legislation. Big social movements with multiple organizations will in general have more impact that small movements centered on one organization and some of the organizations within the broader movement may have different strengths and weaknesses. My own view is probably still with the old Gerlach and Hine arguments about the value of decentralized movements where there is no single cooptable leader, but rather different groups that appeal to different constituencies and promote different specific agendas, even though they are in a loose cooperative alliance. I think I still hold to the general idea that radicals help moderates win, although I recognize that there are some contexts in which the radicals create a backlash instead.
Anonymous	Being unwilling to compromise: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too broad: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too radical: Not important Being unable to grow: Somewhat important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Quite important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Moderately important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Somewhat important Lack of clear political objectives: Somewhat important Being too dependent on key individuals: Moderately important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Quite important
Dissent (or infighting) can be hugely important in creating inclusive movements and achieving intersectional solidarity - while individual organizations may splinter from dissent this can be necessary for marginalized groups within the org to have their concerns heard; infighting as with COINTELPRO infiltration of Black and Latine movement orgs in the 1950-1970s by comparison was incredibly destructive. I think this is a very nuanced conversation as the success/failure binary does not capture what movements really /do/ and how they work
Suzanne Staggenborg University of Pittsburgh	Being unwilling to compromise: Quite important Stated goals that are too broad: Quite important Stated goals that are too radical: Quite important Being unable to grow: Quite important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Somewhat important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Quite important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Quite important Lack of clear political objectives: Quite important Being too dependent on key individuals: Quite important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Quite important
Leadership teams and accountable leaders are important, also structures for ongoing recruitment and strategies and tactics.
Kim Scipes Purdue University Northwest	Being unwilling to compromise: Quite important Stated goals that are too broad: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too radical: Somewhat important Being unable to grow: Quite important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Somewhat important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Quite important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Very important Lack of clear political objectives: Quite important Being too dependent on key individuals: Quite important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Very important
The key issue is the salience of the issue to your audience; the most perfectly organized social movement will not expand past a limited point if the issue they are campaigning on is not salient to those they hope to convince to join. And that means that leaders should always include efforts to change the culture in general, while finding ways to get people to understand the salience of the issue at hand; this cannot be assumed, no matter how important SM leaders think it is.
Regina Werum University of Nebraska-Lincoln	Being unwilling to compromise: Quite important Stated goals that are too broad: Moderately important Stated goals that are too radical: Quite important Being unable to grow: Moderately important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Somewhat important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Quite important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Very important Lack of clear political objectives: Very important Being too dependent on key individuals: Very important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Quite important
Again, it depends on what type of an SM and SMO configuration you have in mind.
Anonymous	Being unwilling to compromise: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too broad: Not important Stated goals that are too radical: Somewhat important Being unable to grow: Very important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Very important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Very important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Quite important Lack of clear political objectives: Moderately important Being too dependent on key individuals: Moderately important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Moderately important
Most social movement organizations on the left have been co-opted by funders and the Democratic Party (both of which are pretty transparently governed by corporate interests). Organizers and leaders are burnt out by running around to meet funders demands (which tend to be separate from what communities actually want) and are also not protected from retaliation from violent police forces and their vigilante allies (multiple "mysterious deaths" of BLM leaders happened in my city as well as across the country, the nonprofit organizations they worked with and for were unable to do what was necessary to protect them).
Matthew S. Williams Loyola University Chicago	Being unwilling to compromise: Quite important Stated goals that are too broad: Somewhat important Stated goals that are too radical: Somewhat important Being unable to grow: Very important Being co-opted by other groups or individuals: Very important Not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term: Very important Internal conflict or movement infighting: Moderately important Lack of clear political objectives: Very important Being too dependent on key individuals: Very important Lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making: Very important
Successful movements need to combine a commitment to certain principles of social change with being adaptable in terms of strategy. To do so, it is important to be well-organized--but have that organization be highly democratic.

Question 6

This question concerns the relative importance of internal and external factors to a social movement’s success in achieving its goals. How important do you think factors inside a movement’s control (e.g. tactics and strategy) are compared to factors outside its control (e.g. political context) in achieving the following goals?

• Increasing issue awareness amongst the general public
• Making public opinion more supportive of the issue
• Winning over political allies (local or national policymakers)
• Winning over other elite allies (high-profile experts or celebrities)
• Gaining sympathetic media coverage of the issue
• Gaining backing from industry and business
• Winning policy or legislative changes

Results

Participant	Response	Confidence
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Slightly more internal factors Making public opinion more supportive: Both equally important Winning over political allies: Slightly more external factors Winning over elite allies: Slightly more external factors Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Mostly external factors Gaining backing from industry and business: Mostly external factors Winning policy or legislative changes: Both equally important
I think external factors tend to hold a lot of weight in this era. Public opinion & cancel culture are powerful, as are the long standing structures of the political and social environment in which the movement exists. Internal factors are important to the movement's functioning in general, but functions are always in response to those external conditions, giving them a lot of weight.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Both equally important Making public opinion more supportive: Both equally important Winning over political allies: Both equally important Winning over elite allies: Both equally important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Both equally important Gaining backing from industry and business: Both equally important Winning policy or legislative changes: Both equally important
The whole point of strategy and tactics is to respond to the particular external conditions in a way that leverages them to achieve the greatest chance of success. So I think that these two factors are so interrelated they are equally dependent on each other (except in the case of dictatorships or repressive regimes - I'm very much responding here as someone in a country that has a reasonably open democratic system where protest rights are largely respected).
Winnifred Louis University of Queensland	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Mostly external factors Making public opinion more supportive: Slightly more internal factors Winning over political allies: Both equally important Winning over elite allies: Mostly internal factors Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Both equally important Gaining backing from industry and business: Mostly internal factors Winning policy or legislative changes: Slightly more external factors
These questions would be better positioned in my mind if written in the form, under what conditions are internal factors important? Under what conditions are external factors important? Speaking in general terms across all contexts is misleading in my view.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Mostly external factors Making public opinion more supportive: Slightly more external factors Winning over political allies: Both equally important Winning over elite allies: Mostly internal factors Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Mostly external factors Gaining backing from industry and business: Both equally important Winning policy or legislative changes: Slightly more internal factors
Difficult to generalize... it is probably better to choose some factors?
Louisa Parks University of Trento	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Both equally important Making public opinion more supportive: Mostly internal factors Winning over political allies: Both equally important Winning over elite allies: Both equally important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Slightly more internal factors Gaining backing from industry and business: Mostly internal factors Winning policy or legislative changes: Both equally important
These seem quite on the fence answers, but I believe wherever there is a relation in question the balance is between both actors/sets of actors. On winning policy/legislative changes I have found that external factors are key, but without internal qualities that allow a movement to create and exploit external factors of different kinds they are never enough (or at least not enough to then attribute the change to a movement).
Philipp Altmann Universidad Central del Ecuador	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Both equally important Making public opinion more supportive: Both equally important Winning over political allies: Both equally important Winning over elite allies: Both equally important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Mostly external factors Gaining backing from industry and business: Mostly external factors Winning policy or legislative changes: Both equally important
That depends on the movement. Relatively open movements, e.g., unions, can connect to external actors through internal factors. Relatively closed movements, e.g., indigenous movements, will have a more precise separation between the inside and the outside.
Jan-Erik Refle University of Geneva & University of Lausanne	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Both equally important Making public opinion more supportive: Slightly more external factors Winning over political allies: All internal factors Winning over elite allies: Mostly internal factors Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Slightly more external factors Gaining backing from industry and business: Mostly external factors Winning policy or legislative changes: Slightly more external factors
I would not put winning policies here, that is the outcome variable. anyway, an option I don't know would have been good
Eric Selbin Southwestern University	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Both equally important Making public opinion more supportive: Slightly more external factors Winning over political allies: Slightly more external factors Winning over elite allies: Slightly more external factors Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Both equally important Gaining backing from industry and business: Slightly more external factors Winning policy or legislative changes: Slightly more external factors
I honestly am less and less clear on external versus internal. What do these terms mean?
James F. Hamilton University of Georgia	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Both equally important Making public opinion more supportive: Both equally important Winning over political allies: Both equally important Winning over elite allies: Both equally important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Both equally important Gaining backing from industry and business: Both equally important Winning policy or legislative changes: Both equally important
See response in items above.
Paul Almeida University of California, Merced	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Both equally important Making public opinion more supportive: Both equally important Winning over political allies: Both equally important Winning over elite allies: Slightly more external factors Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Both equally important Gaining backing from industry and business: Mostly external factors Winning policy or legislative changes: Both equally important
the internal and external conditions are quite interactive in real world campaigns
Mary Bernstein University of Connecticut	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Both equally important Making public opinion more supportive: Both equally important Winning over political allies: Both equally important Winning over elite allies: Both equally important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Slightly more external factors Gaining backing from industry and business: Slightly more external factors Winning policy or legislative changes: All external factors
The biggest impediments to social movement success in the U.S. are restricted voting rights in the form of gerrymandering and voter suppression and the hijacking of the Courts by the Federalist Society as well as fundamental structural issues such as the fact that approximately 30% of the population controls 70% of the Senate seats and winner take all electoral votes which is fundamentally anti-democratic. The result of the electoral college is that presidents are elected with a minority of the popular vote. The most significant recent impact of a president not elected by a majority of the voters, Trump, resulted in the Democrats losing two Supreme Court seats; one that should have been Obama's that was sabotaged by McConnell and then the installation of Amy Coney Barrett at the end of Trump's term have given ultra-conservatives a 6-3 majority on the court. The fact that these are lifetime appointments, that there is no code of ethics, and there are no standards for when justices should recuse themselves has enabled this Court in a very short time to undue a generation of progressive gains. Stay tuned. It only gets worse from here. Structural inequities combined with the issues I just outlined give conservative rightwing activists disproportionate influence. Rightwing media (cable, social media) continues to convince ordinary people to act against their own material interests in favor of their perceived status interests (as Whites, "Americans", men, Christians, etc.). Rightwing media enables continued scapegoating of minoritized populations, immigrants, transgender children, etc., as a deliberate distraction from the rampant destruction of our environment, the increased concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, the destruction of workers' rights, the erosion of what little social safety net is left. Etc.
Benjamin Duke University of Leicester	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Mostly external factors Making public opinion more supportive: Mostly external factors Winning over political allies: Mostly external factors Winning over elite allies: Mostly external factors Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Mostly external factors Gaining backing from industry and business: Mostly external factors Winning policy or legislative changes: Mostly external factors
Social movements are largely controlled by exteranl social factors. Only gaining traction and policy formulation gains, when something happens externally, which broadly aligns with their consistent message in the recent past.
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Both equally important Making public opinion more supportive: Both equally important Winning over political allies: Both equally important Winning over elite allies: Both equally important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Both equally important Gaining backing from industry and business: Both equally important Winning policy or legislative changes: Both equally important
I really struggle with this section because the tactics and strategies are dependent on political context. I do not think of these things as on the same scale/spectrum
Anonymous	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Making public opinion more supportive: Winning over political allies: Winning over elite allies: Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Gaining backing from industry and business: Winning policy or legislative changes:
The question is not clear. I don't see what is being compared with what.
Kim Scipes Purdue University Northwest	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Mostly external factors Making public opinion more supportive: Mostly external factors Winning over political allies: Mostly external factors Winning over elite allies: Slightly more external factors Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Mostly external factors Gaining backing from industry and business: Slightly more external factors Winning policy or legislative changes: Slightly more external factors
I think this set of questions is stupid. IF you can gather people together and get them to commit to working on achieving an agreed-upon goal, and you build a set of internal processes that stimulate them to continue to build, then you have a chance to force outsiders to support you; it's nice if they do so on their own, but you can never count on it. So, this internal/external stuff is stupid.
Matthew S. Williams Loyola University Chicago	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Both equally important Making public opinion more supportive: Both equally important Winning over political allies: Both equally important Winning over elite allies: Both equally important Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Both equally important Gaining backing from industry and business: Both equally important Winning policy or legislative changes: Both equally important
Movements need to play their cards strategically to be successful--but many of the factors that contribute to their success are beyond their control. For this reason, movements need to be committed to struggle for the long haul and be adaptable enough to take advantage of new developments that could benefit them.
Michelle Beyeler University of Zurich	Increasing awareness amongst general public: Both equally important Making public opinion more supportive: Mostly external factors Winning over political allies: Both equally important Winning over elite allies: Slightly more internal factors Gaining sympathetic media coverage: Slightly more external factors Gaining backing from industry and business: Slightly more internal factors Winning policy or legislative changes: Mostly external factors
I responded assuming that issue - resonance in the respective discursive opportunity structure counts as an external factor.

Question 7

The following questions relate to the appropriateness of social movements using disruptive tactics given different levels of public support and awareness of the issue. Please indicate how effective disruptive protest might be in the following contexts. By 'effective', we mean bringing about overall positive outcomes. In the case of the climate movement, this would look like a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, either through direct effects on policy, or indirect effects on policy or individual behaviour via increased public awareness and support for the issue.

• Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement)
• Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety)
• High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination)
• High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change)

Results

Participant	Response	Confidence
Colin Davis University of Bristol	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): No overall effect Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Somewhat effective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Highly ineffective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat effective
In the case of issues where there is high awareness and high support (e.g., climate change) members of the public will often say, "I agree with the cause, but I don't approve of the methods". Here the opportunity to shift the public conversation to the issue is potentially effective. When there is high awareness and low support there is nothing to be gained by having the public discuss the issue, and it may well be counterproductive. In the case of the farmed animal advocacy movement, the resistance of the majority of the public to engage with the realities of factory farming makes it very difficult for the public conversation to take place.
Anonymous	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat ineffective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Highly ineffective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat ineffective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat ineffective
“Disruptive” here is too vaguely defined. Disruptive could mean a protest that blocks traffic or vandalism of historic art or acts of arson.
Anonymous	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Somewhat effective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat effective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat effective
It depends on what the disruptive tactics are and how disruptive they are. Disruptive to who and in what way.
Anonymous	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Highly effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Highly effective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Highly effective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Highly effective
Without disruption nothing changes, so in all instances, I think creating disruption to everyday life and generating protest spectacles is useful and effective.
Kevin Gillan University of Manchester	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat ineffective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Somewhat effective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat ineffective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat effective
Again, there's an issue of timing here that is a bit hidden by an impression of a simple action+context -> outcome rationality in the presentation here. (Sorry, this is obviously the sort of thing you get with 'expert' responses!) Also, I can't think of any real-world effective movement that used disruptive tactics in isolation from others. While some particular groups or organisations may have been committed to full throttle direct action, there have always been others pushing for similar goals at the same time. So separating out the effectiveness of different tactics is impossible. A nice example where disruptive tactics have appeared to have been successful is the moratorium on GMO foods in Europe. That policy decision taken at the EU level was probably a bit more insulated from general 'public opinion' than many national issues would be, but crop trashers meant that the farmers and scientists saw opposition at close hand at the same time that there were technical and legal arguments about it going on at the European level. On balance, I'd say that the direct action had an effect in that case, but probably wouldn't have been sufficient on its own. Similar thinking could be applied to the British suffragettes, the US Civil Rights mvoement, the anti-aparteid movement etc etc.
Winnifred Louis University of Queensland	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Highly effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Highly ineffective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Highly ineffective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat ineffective
It's nice to see a question about contextual moderators. :) You might also ask, given a willing or unwilling government in power....
Louisa Parks University of Trento	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat ineffective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Highly ineffective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat effective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat effective
In the high awareness questions, disruptive action can point towards more radical ideas that are not so prevalent among the general public perhaps: e.g. vaccine refusal / avoidance / faking; or more radial climate action such as becoming vegetarian / vegan, not buying or using a car of travelling by air, mobilizing for more transformative forms of governance.
Jan-Erik Refle University of Geneva & University of Lausanne	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Somewhat ineffective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat ineffective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): No overall effect
I don't really get what you mean here, the matrix behind does not seem approriate to me.
James F. Hamilton University of Georgia	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Somewhat effective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat effective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat effective
Again, above items.
Paul Almeida University of California, Merced	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Highly ineffective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Somewhat ineffective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat ineffective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat effective
These conditions depend on the core group mobilizing and its particular grievances
Benjamin Duke University of Leicester	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): No overall effect Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): No overall effect High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): No overall effect High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat effective
Social movement disruptive tactics that are non-criminally damaging and non-violent are an appropriate way to raise awareness of the cause. Long-term cahnges in behaviour and policy changes arrive by discussion, debate and peaceful protest, not criminality.
David S. Meyer University of California, Irvine	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Somewhat effective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat effective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat effective
You can't really discuss "effectiveness" without thinking of a time frame for influence.
Anonymous	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat ineffective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Highly ineffective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat ineffective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat effective
Recent research suggests that the effect of disruptive tactics is shaped by affective partisanship and or identification as a core supporter versus being an opponent.
Pamela Oliver University of Wisconsin, Madison	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Somewhat effective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat effective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat effective
This is a good question. I am often resistant to telling other movements what they ought to do, because experts are often wrong about groups they are not in. But I decided to work though what I think. I had trouble thinking of traffic safety as a low awareness high public support issue. In fact I had trouble thinking what it would mean to have any issue have high public support but low awareness. You have to imagine that people know they like X but are not aware that policy Y affects X, is that it? Overall, though, I think on balance disruptive tactics help gain public support even as people complain about them.
Anonymous	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Highly effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Highly effective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Highly effective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Highly effective
disruptive tactics are not typically intended to make the public feel more positively about the subject - they are meant to force the public and policy makers to acknowledge the issue - I am always weary of demonizing disruptive tactics
Colin J. Beck Pomona College	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Somewhat ineffective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): No overall effect High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): No overall effect
Disruption brings attention, but it can be positive or negative dependent on a host of external factors. In cases where there is already a sympathetic public, disruption may backfire. When the public is unaware, then disruption can increase attention.
Kim Scipes Purdue University Northwest	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Highly ineffective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Somewhat ineffective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat effective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Highly effective
Again, you are assuming things just "are" when it's never that. You have to create and build your movement, and part of that are the tactics to achieve your goals; again, it is a process.
Regina Werum University of Nebraska-Lincoln	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): No overall effect Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Highly effective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat ineffective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Somewhat effective
Answers informed by keeping Gurr's inverted U Curve in mind and your direction to consider SM in democratic contexts....
Anonymous	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Highly effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Highly effective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Highly effective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Highly effective
I'm honestly not too sure about this one, but I think disruption tends to be more effective than not in most situations.
Matthew S. Williams Loyola University Chicago	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): Highly effective High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat effective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Highly effective
Since movements, by definition, don't have institutional power, they usually need to use tactics that disrupt institutional routines to put pressure on power-holders. Such strategies can easily backfire though and it is also important that movements work to build up their legitimacy among bystander publics.
Michelle Beyeler University of Zurich	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Highly effective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): No overall effect High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): No overall effect High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): Highly ineffective
Disruptive tactics are very effective in raising awareness but they might reduce support for the issue by mobilizing bystanders thereby reducing overall public support.
Lisa Mueller Macalester College	Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement): Somewhat ineffective Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety): No overall effect High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination): Somewhat ineffective High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change): No overall effect
My answers are very tentative, because I'm not sure what you mean by "disruptive."

Question 8

In your view and in your country (or one you are familiar with), what has been the most successful social movement in the last 20 years? On what basis do you consider it to be successful and to what do you attribute its success?

Results

Participant	Response	Confidence
Colin Davis University of Bristol
[UK] Arguably the most successful collective action campaign in the UK in the last 20 years has been the anti-fracking movement. There were several external factors that contributed to their success (not least the regular earthquakes that were associated with fracking) but the movement was very successful in capturing public attention and highlighting local opposition. Extinction Rebellion was relatively successful in making some progress on its initial three demands and in raising public awareness of (and concern about) climate change; however, the movement may have been able to achieve greater progress had it formulated more specific demands during its initial phase. In both cases (anti-fracking and XR) the use of nonviolent direct action was a critical component of the successes achieved.
Anonymous
[United States] Black Lives Matter movement in 2020 following George Floyd's murder drew national and international attention to issues of police violence. Policy effects have been more uneven but lots of reform-minded officials were elected, policing policies changed for the better and shifts in public opinion. Also appears to have produced a significant backlash.
Anonymous
[United States] Black Lives Matter and the Radical Right fairly equally. Both achieved mass mobilization. BLM, largely through the use of videos of racist events and social media dramatically changed public opinion in the US. The radical right, by taking over the Republican Party, got Trump elected and has had many policy successes. They used racist/ethnonationalist rhetoric and had massive financial resources behind them.
Anonymous

Anonymous
[Sweden] This is a difficult question. One movement that I deem successful is the feminist movement (if counting 50 years back in time). I base this on the extremely high levels of gender equality in Sweden, compared to other contexts. We can see gender equality from the local level and peoples every daly lives to the political and representational level and the legislative level. One key example is how Sweden is the first country that criminalize the purchase of sexual services (and not the sale of sex). This law directs the attention in the correct direction: the person responsible for prostitution.
Anonymous
[Australia] Just referring to question 17 - you need to state a timeframe. Compared to covid years protest is much more visible. Compared to pre-covid years it's somewhat less visible. The climate change movement has been the most succcessful in the last 20 years. This is because the speed in which it action on climate change has occurred is unparalleled compared to other movements (although of course, still way to slow). Our data also shows that just under half of climate change campaigns in Australia achieve their stated goal. We also note strong public support for action on climate change, albeit stymied by the very entrenched power of the fossil fuel industry in this country. All things weighed up I think it is really quite incredible how much things have changed within a couple of decades from where Australia was to where it is now. I can't think of another movement that has achieved that rate of change.
Anonymous
[Lithuania] Do not come to supermarkets for 3 days! It was massive, even did not reach the goal.
Anonymous
[United States] The most successful recent movement is probably the Black Lives Matter movement because it has resulted in policy changes (for example to police use of force policies) at the local, state, and national level and caused a shift in public opinion towards greater acknowledgement of police brutality and racism. I think the success of this movement can be attributed to the very high and broad/diverse participation in these protests (especially in 2020), the strong "moral shock" caused by tragic events (such as the killing of George Floyd) and the ease of capturing and spreading video footage of these incidents, and was likely also helped by the "disruption to the quotidian" caused by the pandemic.
Anonymous

Anonymous
[UK] Well, the UK government has just passed new laws to make protesting more difficult and basically outlawing disruptive protest
Luca Bernardi University of Liverpool

Anonymous
[USA] Anti-abortion. Policy change. Well organized, tied to a political party, plus the major advantage of right-wing movements in US politics.
Anonymous

Ben Kenward Oxford Brookes University
[UK] LGBTQ+ rights. I think the movement has been successful primarily because there are few vested economic interests that oppose it. In recent years the right and the left both have common interests in seeing success - the left because of value-alignment, the right because the culture war controversies created by e.g. trans rights are an excellent mobiliser and distractor for them.
Anonymous

Anonymous
[United State] Tea party
Anonymous
[Italy] No global and FFF, because of the number of individuals mobilized but not in terms of goals achieved
Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous
[UK] Environmental movement. Effectiveness in terms of public awareness and policy change.
Kevin Gillan University of Manchester
[UK] Its been a bleak 20 years! The most significant policy change has probably been Brexit, and it should certainly be considered an episode of contentious politics. I'm not sure one could really say that there was a pro-Brexit movement as such because of the top-down characteristics. The episode certainly included questions of tactics, changing public opinion, framing etc so could be analysed with the tools of movement scholarship.
John McCarthy Penn State University
[USA] White Nationalism. Political Opportunity.
Anonymous
[MEXICO] The LGBTQ movement has been the most successful movement. Their demands have been mostly met based on a rights discourse. Most of their actions combined legal and institutional with contention.
Anonymous

Anonymous

Winnifred Louis University of Queensland
[Australia] I don't feel great about any of the social movements of the last 20 years. The biggest mobilisations have been for Black Lives Matter (Deaths in custody), Reconciliation with Indigenous Australians, the environment, and the 2003 anti-Iraq-war protests. None of those movements have seen the transformative positive outcomes hoped for in Australia. Perhaps the environmental movement has been the most important in that over time awareness of and support for the importance of climate change action has built, and many incremental steps have been taken. I attribute the success in part to the impact of disasters here (particularly flooding and fires), and to successful networking on the left side of politics, as well as the new Teal movement (of green-minded, socially-conservative independents) but the scale of change is not at all what is required. I attribute the failure to a determined and astute counter-movement which has poured money into politics, effectively targeted the centre and largely controlled the balance of political power (at least until the last election). Our environmental movement's theory of change through disruption, which certain media have been able cynically to exploit to delegitimise the call for economic transformation required, also has slowed the pace of change, I believe. Here in Australia sometimes our Green party has been able to stop incremental progress, again with a theory of change that this is helpful; I think it is not.
Anonymous
[New Zealand] Public support, media coverage, effective leadership,ideological coherence
James M. Jasper
[USA] LGBTQ rights, which operated strongly through media coverage
Anonymous

Andrew Martin Ohio State University

Anonymous

Anonymous
[Netherlands] I think that right wing social movements have been successful, particularly anti-immigration movements, and recently populist movements (anti-vaxers, anti-woke, farmer's protests). LGBT movement continues to be rather successful.
Viktoria Spaiser University of Leeds

Anonymous
[Spain] Feminist movement and mostly the 8-M demonstrations since 2017 which radically change public opinion about feminism
Anonymous
[France] Difficult to choose one. The Yellow Vest movement has been quite successful. They were able to get the French gov't to back track on the proposed tax. After that, the demands were less specific and judging success becomes trickier.
Anonymous

Dieter Rucht Berlin Social Science Center
[Germany] Anti-nuclear power movement combination of various issues: strength and tenacity of the movements, increasing cost of nuclear power production (partly due to the activities of the movement), nuclear accidents (esp. Fukushima).
Anonymous
[Spain] Indignados - Numbers, Commitment, Diversity.
Cristina Flesher Fominaya Aarhus University
[Spain] The 15-M/Indignados movement (public awareness, policy changes, new parties and governing municipal coalitions); the feminist movement (public awareness, new legislation--this is connected to above 15-M movement); housing movements (awareness, policy), also connected in part to 15-M movement
Anonymous

Louisa Parks University of Trento
[UK] Movement group: XR in terms of raising awareness of the urgency around climate change. Also in terms of prompting debate around climate justice (though not always because of positive links to that group - debates on whiteness etc.)
Anonymous

Katerina Vrablikova University of Bath

Anonymous
[USA] LGBTQ+, Disability Rights
Philipp Altmann Universidad Central del Ecuador
[Ecuador] The indigenous movement made quite a comeback in 2019 after a prolonged crisis of almost 20 years. With the uprisings of 2019 and 2022, it once more became the central political actor in the country. And now, it can build on broad alliances, for instance, with environmental groups or the working classes.
Jan-Erik Refle University of Geneva & University of Lausanne
[Switzerland] Over the last years it was the 14th of June women movement.
Anonymous

Eric Selbin Southwestern University
[USA] I think this is a hard one. I want to sat BLM or similar ones, but it seems like anti-vaxxers, et al have been more short-term successful. Time frame is probably kep, and in a place like the US, local or state or national levels.
Anonymous

Sarah A. Soule Stanford University

Anonymous

Anonymous
[US] The most successful movement in the last 20 years has been either (a) the movement for healthcare and compensation for first responders during the September 11th attacks and/or (b) movement(s) for mental health awareness, policy, etc.
Anonymous

Anonymous
[United States] #metoo: raising awareness, mobilizing support, changing institutions' (corporate, political, educational) attention to the issue Black Lives Matter: raising awareness, mobilizing support
Ivaylo Dinev Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS)
[Bulgaria] Bulgaria is a country where traditional social movement concept is probably not fitting well the context. In broader understanding of social movement, I would say that trade unions movement has continued to be the main actor in the field with huge experts network, organizational resources, and stable trend of protest campaigns. Even though they declined in membership and density of collective bargaining, CITUB and CT Podkrepa are still able to bring issues to the public and to organize workers for demonstrations. CITUB is the largest organization in Bulgaria with about 250-300 thousands members. Other influential social movement is the green movement, which represent both NGOs and political party (the Greens). Since 2007, its considered by scholars and journalists as the main civil society actor in the country (from my perspective is less influential compared to the trade unions, but those scholars are not considered trade unions as a social movements, which is a conceptual difference). The greens were able to achieve some goals, concerning the the natural environment in the mountains, the Black sea, to stop overconstruction of specific tourist sites etc. They also were vital in the large protest wave in 2013 and this one against Borisov's 3 cabinet in 2020. Since, 2021 they were part of the Kiril Petkov's cabinet as a members of the Democratic Bulgaria coalition, together with the liberal-right Yes, Bulgaria and the right-wing Democrats for Strong Bulgaria. Not seen as a specific social movement, but as a cycles with emerging protest groups, are the periods between 2009 and 2014, and 2020-2021. In this two periods, in Bulgaria large protest waves against the system and the governments, political elite, corruption and poverty evolved. The mobilizations were organized by informal protest groups in social media like Facebook and expand across the country, mobilizing thousands of protesters for several months. This type of mobilizations, different to traditional social movement activity, is very specific in Eastern Europe, where many people got involved often in protests without clear links to organizations.
Anonymous
[Australia] LGBTIQ rights in terms of marriage equality. Huge public support. Politicians politically behind electorate. Vibrant national camps.
Anonymous
[France] Notre Dame des Landes ZAD occupation that led to the abandonment of a plan to build a new airport. Factors cnotributing to success: extremely high levels of commitment by some, including the physical occupation of a terrain, supported by a broad and diverse constituency, and a diversity of tactics and strategies
Anonymous

Anonymous
[United Kingdom] Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa - achievement of policy goals, raising awareness, and increasing public support. Clear goals and message, dedicated activist support, clear leaderships, good at gaining elite support.
Anonymous

Anonymous
[Australia] The movement for equality for same sex couples, and marriage rights. Success is indicated in the legalisation of same sex marriage, and in changes to anti-discrimination laws. I would attribute the success to (i) international dynamics with Australia fearful of being left behind, (ii) non-confrontational campaigning tactics emphasising understanding and explanation rather than antagonistic tactics, (iii) elite policy-makers and high profile individuals growing supportive of the campaign, and (iv) high levels of public support and awareness.
Teal Rothschild Roger Williams University

James F. Hamilton University of Georgia
[USA] A sufficient response would require far more space than is available here. So far, I would say LGBTQ rights, although still stridently contested in some quarters and under severe backlash currently in those quarters.
Anonymous

Paul Almeida University of California, Merced

Anonymous

Setsuko Matsuzawa The College of Wooster

Anonymous
[Venezuela] Due to the hybrid and afterwards authoritarian nature of the Venezuelan regime social, movements even though they have been massive and have used powerfull repertoires there has been little success. I can recall the protest cycles of 2014 and that of 2017 severly repressed by Maduro´s Government. Only had some success showing the antidemocratic nature of the Bolivarian regime and it´s severe repression actions against it´s citizens to the world. This did bring awareness in the international democratic comunity. But inside the country little revenues. One was as the emergence of new civil society organizations fighting for the return of democratc institutions.
Mary Bernstein University of Connecticut
[U.S.] The lesbian, gay, and bisexual movement. I leave out the T because trans people are currently the target of terrible transphobic legislation. The LGB movement has shifted public opinion more than any other social movement. This comes from both the activism of the movement, but from the fact that LGB people not only come out of the closet, but they are part of every family. So LGB (and T) people are not segregated from birth as are racial minorities who suffer from histories of redlining, racist oppression, racist stereotyping, macro-and micro-aggressions.
Benjamin Duke University of Leicester
[United Kingdom] Extinction Rebellion are clearly the most sucessful social movement. Helping to sharpen decision-making minds by in the main, disruptive peaceful protests.
Anonymous

Wisnu Adihartono Ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales

Daniel Platek Polish Academy of Science

Anonymous
[SPAIN] 15m/ INDIGNADOS. High legitimacy, broad/big base, sustained in time, highly supported by the audience, well-treated by the media
Anonymous
[Hong Kong SAR] The 2003 Rally, which forced the government to suspect a bill , injecting agency and momentum into the pro-democracy movement and political elites' attention to public opinion.
Anonymous
[United Kingdom] I think in the last 20 years few movements have been effective. In fact I cannot think of a single left-libertarian movement of any significance that can claim to have made a significant impact on policy. Extinction Rebellion has raised the profile of climate change in the public mind, but policy is going in the opposite direction!
David S. Meyer University of California, Irvine

Anonymous
[USA] BLM: successfully creating a link between its moral legitimacy, issues of police violence, and current events of police-involved fatalities. Womens' movement: slow but steady cohort replacement of supporters among youth.
Pamela Oliver University of Wisconsin, Madison
[United States of America] re the questions above, legitimacy of protest is always contingent on whether you agree with it or not; most people in USA think protest by opponents is illegitimate while protest by people you agree with is legitimate. Re your question, past 20 years in US is since 2000, Unambiguously, the movement that has been most successful is the right-wing anti-Black anti-immigration pro-capitalist anti-socialist alliance. This has involved intentional political actions by elites that are often not considered social movements. It has also involved increased White supremacist organizations and White nationalist /supremacist churches that have strengthened and radicalized since the election of Barack Obama (who was their nemesis and energized them in opposition) and especially since the election of Donald Trump (who encouraged them). The capitalist business people are not the same folks as the neo-Nazis and these are not the same people exactly as the White Evangelical Christian Nationalists, so they are not exactly one movement, but they are feeding into each other. They have successfully captured arms of government, have formed strong organizations that are threatening local governments and using violence to intimidate people and governments. They have pulled debate to expand the Overton window in their direction and have put reasonable social policies on the defensive. I attribute the success of the hard-right capitalists to a willingness to play hard ball politics and demand adherence to their line or face penalties. I attribute the rise of overt White supremacist movements and the broader White Christian Nationalist movement to successful attempts to manipulate underlying cultural chauvinism and implicit racism and to both building supportive cultural environments within the movement and a willingness to use violence and intimidation toward others.
Anonymous

Anonymous
[United States] Unfortunately right wing social movements seem most successful in avoiding state repression, securing policy victories and electing officials, and gaining mainstream approval. You can trace right wing organizing from the early internet and "lone wolf" attacks in the 1990s and early 2000s to today's political situation While gender and racial justice movements are active in the 2010s and 2020s, they are not securing representation, policy wins, and reforms to the same degree right wing movements are - although right wing movements have successfully framed justice movements of having too much success
Anonymous
[US] Black Lives Matter
Anonymous

Anonymous
[US] #Metoo/Title IX antisexual assault movement
Anonymous
[USA] BLM
Anonymous

David C. Sorge Bryn Mawr College

Shamsul Arefin University of Massachusetts Amherst
[Bangladesh] Movement against Phul-Bari Mine Project in 2006, Quota Reformation Movement in 2018, and Students Movement at BSMRSTU in 2019 were the most successful movements in Bangladesh during this period. Strong unity amongst the protestors, leadership, collaboration with national and transnational organizations, media coverage, and mass people's participation and support made these movements successful.
Anonymous
[United States] Christian Nationalists in the US, who have successfully coopted large portions of the government and the discourse while continuing to pretend they do not exist. This has been successful because of strategic, multi-decade work behind the scenes to remake public institutions in their image before bringing the real movement forward.
Anonymous
[Canada] Indigenous rights. There has been a recognition of land claims, Canadian history is being rewritten, institutions created and resources redistributed. The reasons for its success are tied to local, national and international dynamics.
Anonymous
[uUSA] Black lives matter. Responses of organizations to EDI goals.
Colin J. Beck Pomona College
[United States] The LGBT+ movement is, for sure, the most successful recent movement winning extensive legal, policy, and public opinion wins (even as those gains are currently under threat). It is a combination of general social change, favorable media depiction, and that potentially any member of the public may already know and love someone who is queer that most contributed to its success. With that basis, legal advocates and activists were able to target policy effectively.
Anonymous

Anonymous
[Australia] Marriage Equality Movement - Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2017; SMOs working with media support were essential in its success.
Anonymous

Anonymous
[US] Same sex marriage by changing public opinion, obtaining elite and celebrity support, and mobilizing around love. However, backlash currently threatens the movements' success.
Suzanne Staggenborg University of Pittsburgh

Johan Gordillo-Garcia Institute for Social Research - National Autonomous University of Mexico
[Mexico] Three social movements have been quite successful in the last 20 years in Mexico: First, the Zapatistas because they managed to institutionalise (although not in a traditional sense) their worldviews by organising independent indigenous territories in Chiapas through the creation of "Caracoles" and "Councils of Good Government". Second, women's movements since they have managed to change how gender violence and reproductive rights are seen in the country. Third, the social movements led by the relatives of the victims of the Mexican "war on drugs". Through various ways of political contention, they have fractured the official narrative around violence (governments would argue that only criminals were being killed and disappeared). Likewise, they have created networks and organisations throughout the country to face official disdain and corruption.
Anonymous

Kim Scipes Purdue University Northwest
[United States] A lot of generality in this survey; why don't you operationalize these terms so we know how you're looking at your questions? If you're looking at numbers, then the movement in response to George Floyd's would clearly win; Occupy Wall Street would also be high on the list. But they did not develop organization to sustain the mobilization, and thus, while important, have had limited overall success.
Maria Inclan Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas
[Mexico] The movement for peace and justice against criminal violence, both in terms of raising awareness as well as achieving incremental change towards more accesible justice. In recent years, the feminist movement currently as democratic resilient motor.
Regina Werum University of Nebraska-Lincoln
[USA] Marriage equality movement. As evidenced by SCOTUS decision, federal laws. Interestingly, in this case public opinion turned before the courts or Congress responded (rather than the courts/congress as leading indicators). Unintended consequence: However, it has led to a backlash and countermovement mobilization (classic dynamics) against LGBTQ+ groups.
Anonymous
[USA] White Christian Nationalism - they have a solid base that they can reliably turn out (see: people screaming at school board meetings about CRT), they control governments and have shaped policy and the public conversation more than most other forces. They are helped by allies like police who suppress protest and the conservatives who own many influential media outlets and social media platforms. Also, Democrats have offered weak opposition and have helped their agenda (perhaps unwittingly) by engaging in significant efforts to suppress the left.
Martín Portos Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
[Spain] In Spain, many movements have achieved important goals: anti-austerity (e.g. the socialdemocratic govt now advocates for countering recession through interventionism, public spending and inequality and was key for party system reconfiguration); LGTB (coming from a recent dictatorial past, Spain became one of the most lgtb-friendly, tolerant, and progressive societies towards minorities-- this would have been impossible without pressure from below of activists); climate justice organizations influenced the 2021 law of climate change and climatic justice; feminists were key at reversing the regressive counter-reform of the abortion law, raising awaraness of gender-based violence,etc. But if I am to identify one single movement that left a deep imprinting in Spanish society in the last years, that would be the anti-evictions movement in terms of social consensus, number of evictions achieved, imapct on promotion on public housing on the side of the govt, etc.
Anonymous

Matthew S. Williams Loyola University Chicago

Anonymous

Stefaan Walgrave University of Antwerp
[belgium] The White Movement was the most successful. (was back in 1998 so not exactly within the 20 year time frame). Massive demonstrations led to a fundamental reform of the police and the justice system.
Cornelia Butler Flora Iowa State University/Kansas State University

Anonymous
[Italy] The movement in 2011 mobilized for the referendum campaign on public water. It was massive, lasted a long time, and grew more and more as it developed, and led to a successful outcome at the referendum.
Anonymous

Mattias Wahlström University of Gothenburg
[Sweden] Different movements are extremely hard to compare, since they have such different scope and radicalness. However, I think that the LGBTQI+ movement stand out in terms its very visible cultural and legislative successes. It is hard to pinpoint single factors, but elite allies have played a very important role, in addition to the very effective way in which the inclusive and celebratory Pride parades have challenged stigmatization. However, it is also a question of linking the struggle to broadly supported masterframes such as human rights. It has also been helpful that the movement does not threaten capital interests and can thereby gain broad support from the (liberal) right to the (liberal/progressive) left.
Anonymous
[Belgium] Trade unions, because belgium is a neocorporatist system. THey have a seat at the table, and they can mobilize large massess, being the giants of civil society. That being said, they are increasingly under attack and are considered very much as part of the political system, no authentic outsiders. The climate strikers had a momentum in terms of media attention and public salience, but this failed to materialize in electoral results (and then the ukraiun war came and energy policies needed to be revisited given this external event/shock). Probably the white march (1996) was the most impressive demonstration in Belgian history; large N, very diverse, lots of attention, no real organizer, eventually 'caused' huge reform in police
Anonymous
[Sweden] Last 20 years means since the early 2000s, so I would consider the radical right movement that has institutionalised to a party that clearly impacts the policies proposed of the Swedish government today (mainly for immigration, but even environment). On the other hand, without constant mobilisation of environmental/climate movement, the things might have been even "worse" i.e. the backward change could have been more radical.
Michelle Beyeler University of Zurich
[Switzerland] - climate movement / FFF - public debate, electoral effects, policy effects - favorable external factors, internal coherence
Lisa Mueller Macalester College
[United States] This is a great question! There are many ways to define "success" and I may be succumbing to proximity bias, but I'd say one of the most successful movements seems to be #MeToo. While I feel obligated to admit that I have not studied rigorous evidence on its impacts, anecdotally this movement has generated numerous concrete changes from major industries all the way down to the grassroots. In the U.S., there are certain sexist behaviors that are simply not acceptable anymore, and we've seen high-profile offenders held accountable (most recently Trump in a civil suit).
Bert Klandermans Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

Oscar Berglund University of Bristol
[UK] Anti-fracking (succeeded on policy), LGBTQ+, BLM (succeeded on changing public attitudes & policy)

Question 9

What is the single most important piece of advice you would give to organisers of protest movements?

Results

Participant	Response	Confidence
Colin Davis University of Bristol
Try to make your demands as clear and simple as possible (recognising that most observers will expend very little cognitive effort to trying to understand these demands, and many people will be subjected to deliberate misinformation about what you are seeking and why).
Anonymous
Much of way modern protests are effective is through their ability to consistently elevate particular concerns in media and get favorable coverage. To that end, organizers should think strategically about what will capture the media's attention (e.g., drama, conflict, celebrity, etc) AND frame the issue positively with, if possible, clear "good guys" and "bad guys."
Anonymous

Anonymous
My biggest piece of advice would be that clarity in objectives and evidence supporting those objectives are key. Based on my research, a lack of these two things contributes to a lack of awareness, understanding, support, longevity, and ultimately success.
Anonymous
That is to try to go beyond ones' own particular analysis of each societal problem, not to be judgmental about how "other activists" organise themselves or their methods employed, and to dare to cooperate with a diverse set of other organisations, activists groups and movements. This in order to grow into a mass movement which is important to achieve positive change on the policy level and public awareness and public opinion level.
Anonymous
Keep doing what they are doing! There are hundreds of thousands of people doing this with years and years of experience, working through all the challenges and barriers put in their way. We should make sure we - as researchers - fully understand everything they do already in terms of designing and implementing their campaigns before criticizing particular tactics or goals. Unfortunately in my experience too many researchers give advice that has no connection to what actually happens in activist groups. On a slightly different note, our research did come up with one clear communication-related recommendation for groups that they may not be aware of - we looked at the publicly available information on around 1000 campaigns (e.g., information available on group websites) and found that a reasonable proportion (~15-20%) didn't clearly state what the goal of the campaign was. Although individual activists knew what the goal was, this wasn't clearly communicated to anybody outside that group by putting the information on a website or on every single flyer and poster etc. This probably happens because 95% of activist groups are fully volunteer and nobody has the time/skills/or remembers to update public facing communication very often. But unfortunately, there are real downsides of not communicating goals clearly: it can make it difficult for potential new recruits to decide whether they want to participate, it can mean that campaign targets don't understand what activists want to them to do, and it can mean that the poor researchers (us :)) can't establish whether these campaigns were successful or not. Given that we know that conveying success builds perceptions of collective efficacy (which is a key psychological driver of intentions to engage in collective action), it is really important to actually be able to say to people that a campaign achieved its goal (or any subgoals). So I guess that would be my top tip from a researcher point of view. From the activists point of view I don't think activists need any more advice - we get heaps of advice in academic jargon from people who never done a day of activism in their life and here in Australia groups are getting really great at refining and improving their actions and campaigns already. Kudos to the activists!
Anonymous
It depends on the goal of the protest movement and its cultural context; The single most important advise - make a good strategy to reach the goal
Anonymous
Diversity of tactics, goals, and targets creates opportunities for participation of varying levels, duration, and risk. This can in turn build larger and more diverse movements and open up more avenues for effecting change. Accepting diversity in these areas can also reduce infighting and schisms within a movement and promote movement longevity and individual activist persistence.
Anonymous
If you want to magnify the effect, combine actions of different types and involve actors at different scales. If you want to learn from other movements, dialogue with their organizers face to face. If you want to endure, create spaces to socialize with others after the battle.
Anonymous
Hasta La Victoria Siempre!
Luca Bernardi University of Liverpool
Make people understand why your cause is important not by damaging culture but by offering research-based evidence.
Anonymous
Organize members and intervene in politics.
Anonymous

Ben Kenward Oxford Brookes University
Listen to very experienced movement organisers with a proven track record more closely than to social scientists. The systems we are dealing with are so complex, and relevant social science so much in its infancy, that it's hard for us social scientists to offer reliable advice.
Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous
Organizing and coordinating through grassroots groups and align over the frames, prognostic mostly, to engage in sustained collecting actions over time
Anonymous
Have a clear theory of change that connects your target, your action, and your specific goal for that action together.
Anonymous

Anonymous

Kevin Gillan University of Manchester
Maintain solidarity with others pushing in the same direction, even when you disagree on the details or the tactics. (Oh, and from experience, don't forget to check the date is on the flyer before you print thousands of them!)
John McCarthy Penn State University

Anonymous
Build alliances with other movements, political parties, political actors, legislators and international organizations.
Anonymous
Not sure
Anonymous
Think strategically about tactics/strategy and be ready to adapt to exigent external circumstances.
Winnifred Louis University of Queensland
I think it's a bit presumptuous to advise people outside their local contexts, but on the assumption that they asked me: It was so striking that there is nothing in the Q about the government as a partner to the change or any planning for long-term changes or sequences of steps that include implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. The government and political system is treated as irrelevant or inimical, but it is a contested, complex family of actors which often includes would-be allies. In my view, where you are at now, and whether or not you have a willing government in power is a focal moderator of what your tactics should be. That is, there are different strategic needs based on whether people have heard of your cause; whether the public supports it; whether the change costs a lot and who pays; and where industries, swing voters, and constituents stand. Within the environment movement, and within climate change, getting policy change for massive investments in renewables is a different strategic situation than policy change to stop new coal mines, and both would also depend on what region of a country you are in. So I guess my advice would be to seek to build a long-term network in which politicians, policy-makers, and advocates/activists who are like-minded can talk quietly and frankly about what is needed to move forward, both in achieving the politically feasible in the present and in shifting the window in the future. Asking the question of the relevant decision-maker, "What do you need to be able to make this change? What would need to change for you to do this?" allows local campaigns to try to pull the relevant levers. Getting to a climate majority in parliament is vital to the change, which often means targeting the centre in my view.
Anonymous
Build solidarity across difference.
James M. Jasper
Identify the villains
Anonymous
Never give up!
Andrew Martin Ohio State University
Be organized!
Anonymous
avoid violence and property destruction (and certainly avoid destruction of property owned by citizens or the public).
Anonymous

Viktoria Spaiser University of Leeds
social movements can ultimately only succeed if they can mobilise broad public support for their demands, so alienating the public is highly counterproductive, at the very least disruption should only target those, whom the social movement sees as their adversary rather than the general public. Learn from past successful social movements, successful social movements combine a large variety of activities and constantly adjust their actions as they progress
Anonymous
Connection with politicians and education of the main problems and issues to the broad public
Anonymous
You need political allies, both within the gov't and the opposition to effect policy change. Cultivate those and cherish them.
Anonymous
Learn from those with power
Dieter Rucht Berlin Social Science Center
Develop a strategy that incorporateds various kinds of tactics, frames and targets.
Anonymous
Persevere
Cristina Flesher Fominaya Aarhus University
Start from where you are, focus on clear achievable goals that can take you to the next goal, understand the power of human resources within groups (lawyers, journalists, someone with a warehouse, a pol comm expert, IT support, etc.), engage in strategic movement building, focus always on what you have in common (not on what divides you), pay attention to people's emotions and sense of belonging, don't waste time talking about things you cannot possibly do right now (unless you are dreaming about possible futures as your objective!), do your homework, don't reinvent the wheel, keep your sense of humour and make sure you have fun together. Live to fight another day.
Anonymous
should consider the deepest need of the local community
Louisa Parks University of Trento
Engage in policy processes (committees, discussions etc.) but not at the cost of grassroots relationships: the power of a protest is in the people that animate it, make the decisions, and often create examples of how we could live.
Anonymous
Organize don't mobilize!
Katerina Vrablikova University of Bath

Anonymous
Focus on long-term organizing and relationship-building rather than short-term actions, even if those actions are large and/or disruptive and gain media attention. Durable organizing requires sustained relationships and thoughtful leadership.
Philipp Altmann Universidad Central del Ecuador
Don't focus on the outside attention. Instead, define clear goals in the short, medium, and long-range, attract motivated members that connect to diverse social issues, and focus on organization-building and local achievements. Everything else will come later.
Jan-Erik Refle University of Geneva & University of Lausanne
alliances alliances alliances
Anonymous

Eric Selbin Southwestern University
Organize, organize, organize and play the long game--hard to do but oh so critical.
Anonymous
Be creative. Disruptive protests with strong logics are most effective in the long run, even if they seem to have negative short term consequences.
Sarah A. Soule Stanford University
Have a very clear and actionable goal. That is, give your targets something to respond to.
Anonymous

Anonymous
Movements - its people, actions, goals, and effects - should be rooted at the human scale - who I am with, what am I doing, what is it achieving, and how can I tell? Too much in movement discourse is fanciful abstraction - idioms with which to market one's career.
Anonymous

Anonymous
Have a clear set of goals supported by a strong narrative with understandable and resonant framing.
Ivaylo Dinev Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS)
To understand beforehand the values and interests of the groups living in their society. Many social movements concentrated on their ideas forget that they are not living alone and to achieve their goals, first step is to better known your neighbor, the people in your district and town, across the state. Second, but more important, is the economic issue - whether the question do material needs influence values, or the question who actually gain financially from this and that public policy (the 1% and the 99%), etc.
Anonymous
Build deep roots in communities for longevity, and strong movement networks. By all means disagree, but ensure you put as much effort into building rapport. Movements can rise quickly but can fall just as fast. It’s easy to be back where you started if you’ve not built solid connections and relationships, to allow people to regroup in downturns.
Anonymous
Be suspicious of advice about the conditions for successful mobilization
Anonymous
Focus on your target audience, your goals (small and big). Communicate appropriately (e.g., 'we' and inclusive) Different campaigns need different framework
Anonymous
Be disruptive!
Anonymous
To avoid violence
Anonymous
Pick your targets carefully, with clear action logic to provide a persuasive narrative for the media and the public.
Teal Rothschild Roger Williams University
Think about longevity of the movement not the individual movement members activism.
James F. Hamilton University of Georgia
Conduct a sufficient contextual/historical strategic analysis of current/relevant conditions, resources and opportunities.
Anonymous

Paul Almeida University of California, Merced
Learn from past struggles and make efforts not to reproduce structures of inequality and subordination
Anonymous
Strategic Action plan with long term non-violent vision.
Setsuko Matsuzawa The College of Wooster
Keep focused and build a coalition.
Anonymous
combine disruptive and non-disruptive protests with a well thought comuncational strategy
Mary Bernstein University of Connecticut
End voter suppression. Pay attention to the courts. This Court is slowly eroding the administrative state and the power of agencies like the EPA to regulate the environment. Climate protest, regardless of whether it is disruptive or not, will simply not matter if regulatory agencies no longer have the power to regulate things such as greenhouse emissions. The same could be said of the FDA and any other state agencies. The U.S. is in a real crisis. If we can't solve the problem of ensuring democracy, we are all in trouble.
Benjamin Duke University of Leicester
Work closely with the Police, inform the Police exactly what you intend to do. Obtain Police permission to carry out a pre-planned pre-agreed non-violent peaceful protest.
Anonymous
those who really stay behind the contemporary political protests have no need in my advises. they are equipped with advanced social technologies and enormous economic resources
Wisnu Adihartono Ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales

Daniel Platek Polish Academy of Science
Wide coalitions, strong public support
Anonymous
Set a clear goal that can be summarized as a motto/slogan, sell it as a valence issue.
Anonymous
Context matters
Anonymous
Disrupt the targets that really matter to the system and avoid targeting individuals.
David S. Meyer University of California, Irvine

Anonymous
keep at it, persistence is a key component of success, as is organization-building.
Pamela Oliver University of Wisconsin, Madison
If you are planning a proactive protest in advance, try to have your media coverage and angle lined up in advance so you will get treated in the news the way you want to be treated.
Anonymous
Don't just mobilize around your issue--organize for long-term political influence. Build relationships. Develop leaders. Build organizational capacity. Get your people into government--and then use the capacity you built to hold them accountable. Realize that, even if it doesn't seem like it at the time, you are always playing the long game--because that's what your opponents are playing, and they know it.
Anonymous
know your rights but be aware of the history of protests in the US (or in your country). Being legally correct does not guarantee you will not be subjected to state repression via the criminal legal system or state violence. Always have a safety plan and consult with a lawyer familiar with protesting (like an ACLU representative). Coalitions and community allies are often more important for on the ground sustained actions than affiliations with large, national orgs. Social movement organizations do not always share the same goals or tactics - they can work together successfully but in my work well-resourced liberal orgs often co-opt and undermine leftist, radical, progressive, and liberation oriented orgs
Anonymous

Anonymous
It is important to have widespread high quality training of core cadre; these cadre need to be diffused geographically and institutionally for action at multiple points.
Anonymous
On the kinds of questions raised here, read Benjamin Case's Street Rebellion regarding violence in movements.
Anonymous
Clear message and non-violent protest!
Anonymous
don't work with cops if you want young people to be involved in your movements
David C. Sorge Bryn Mawr College

Shamsul Arefin University of Massachusetts Amherst
Understanding state and its political culture is essential while making successful strategies for social movements.
Anonymous
You cannot succeed without both an inside game and an outside game. Cultivate support within institutions of power, but ensure that supporters know you will engage in disruptive and challenging actions outside, and keep them far enough out of the loop that they can deny knowledge. Then engage in the disruption to keep your supporters' feet to the fire.
Anonymous
Listen to people.
Anonymous
Build broad coalitions that involve partnerships with government actors wherever possible.
Colin J. Beck Pomona College
Don't confuse your tactics for your strategy. Strategic thinking is always goal-oriented rather than performative or faddish.
Anonymous
Stay united, stay organized, and build trust and bridges within the local. Start there and build up
Anonymous
Disperse your leadership so no single person or leadership team can be targeted by the state or others.
Anonymous
Don't simply go for the low-hanging fruit, which sometimes could be rotten....
Anonymous
Keep fighting the good fight!
Suzanne Staggenborg University of Pittsburgh
Use tactics that build the movement and take advantage of vulnerable targets such as unpopular industry or government policies.
Johan Gordillo-Garcia Institute for Social Research - National Autonomous University of Mexico
Incremental gains are critical. Never underestimate incremental gains.
Anonymous
Be persistent and don't be afraid to be disruptive. Disruption can help change how people think about issues, making them more likely to question their own behaviors and that of others. Make sure the burden of activism/leadership is shared and that you can take care of yourself.
Kim Scipes Purdue University Northwest
Remember that it's a process; choose strategically, start slowly, build carefully (especially delineate early your decision-making process, as well as to set up process to handle internal disagreements--you'll almost certainly have them over time), and create an organizational culture where people are welcomed and encouraged to develop their leadership potential.
Maria Inclan Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas
Have a clear and catchy mobilizing frame. Have a clear negotiating strategy that allows for incremental success towards your ultimate goal. Make alliances around reforming issues and political actors.
Regina Werum University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Build coalitions. Understand that healthy movements have more than on organization; this facilitates a division of labor, tactics/strategies, and goals. Beware of "divide et impera" (divide and conquer) -- but use the strategy on your opponents; this involves finding wedges and creating what we call "split elites".
Anonymous
Focus on building and growing your team and your movement. Don't be afraid to have strong goals and work toward them with confidence and hope. Be extremely wary of funders and consultants.
Martín Portos Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

Anonymous
If you fail, fail better next time. It is a marathon.
Matthew S. Williams Loyola University Chicago
Build a diverse, democratic organization and leadership--this will maximize your strategic capacity and your ability to adapt to changing social conditions.
Anonymous

Stefaan Walgrave University of Antwerp
gather public opinion support and positive media coverage
Cornelia Butler Flora Iowa State University/Kansas State University
Reach out to everyone
Anonymous
- Framing the contentious issue in a strategic, and sometimes tactical, way is relevant, also having in mind that different frames fit different media channels and platforms - Organizing and mobilizing having in mind that the movement should be sustainable - i.e. being able to continue to mobilize - over a long period of time in order to increase the likelihood of success
Anonymous

Mattias Wahlström University of Gothenburg
Try to make broad alliances with other movements and interest groups.
Anonymous

Anonymous
Sustain your mobilisation and try to offer clear alternative proposals to policy makers.
Michelle Beyeler University of Zurich
The effective level of disruption varies strongly with the context. Therefore it is important to "watch the crowd" to use Schattneiders (1960) words...
Lisa Mueller Macalester College
Buy my forthcoming book, "Data-Driven Protest" (the proceeds go to effective charities)! Kidding (OK, only half kidding). In seriousness, I'd advise organisers to question their intuitions and read up on the latest social science about effective protest (whether by me or someone else). Social science, and science in general, exists to correct even our most deeply held beliefs about how the world works. Sometimes, the evidence contradicts our natural inclinations. The stakes of making activism work are too high to just "wing it." Many other realms of life have benefited from harnessing the power of data: medicine, sports, public policy, finance (!). It's high time that progressive change-makers have access to cutting-edge information and strategies.
Bert Klandermans Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
have clear goals; disruptive non-violent tactics; build mobilization potential;
Oscar Berglund University of Bristol
Be political. Discuss politics.

Section 2: The Climate Movement

Question 10

Given your knowledge of the climate movement, we would like your views on the overall effectiveness of different climate protest tactics. By overall effectiveness, we mean a wide range of possible outcomes, including increased media coverage, shifting public opinion, policy change, movement building etc. Assuming all are non-violent and are similar in other respects (e.g. same number of participants), how effective do you think the following tactics are likely to be?
1. • Targeting the public (e.g. blocking roads)
2. • Targeting the fossil fuel industry (e.g. blockades at oil refineries)
3. • Targeting the government (e.g., government department for climate change)
4. • Targeting less related venues (e.g. art galleries or sporting events)
Results
Question 11

We are now going to ask your views about nonviolent, non-disruptive climate actions (such as a legal protest march). What overall effect do you think non-disruptive protests are likely to have on the following outcomes, in relation to the goals of the activists?
1. • Government policy
2. • Public opinion
3. • Corporate behaviour
4. • Supportive media coverage
5. • Support from influential individuals
6. • Movement-building (e.g. growing the number of people interested in joining the movement)
7. • Higher salience in public discourse
8. • People's behaviour and choices
Results
Question 12

We are now going to ask your views about nonviolent, disruptive climate actions. By disruptive we mean actions which, though non-violent, might cause inconvenience to the public or to others (such as a roadblock that disrupts traffic). What overall effect do you think disruptive protests are likely to have on the following outcomes, in relation to the goals of the activists?
1. • Government policy
2. • Public opinion
3. • Corporate behaviour
4. • Supportive media coverage
5. • Support from influential individuals
6. • Movement-building (e.g. growing the number of people interested in joining the movement)
7. • Higher salience in public discourse
8. • People's behaviour and choices
Results
Question 13

Some disruptive protests have a clear ‘action logic’ whereby the reason and goals of the protest is obvious (e.g. climate activists targeting fossil fuel companies). Others have less clear logic (e.g., climate activists throwing soup at paintings). This question concerns your agreement with various statements on the action logic of disruptive protests.
1. • Protests with strong action logic are likely to have overall positive outcomes
2. • Protests with no clear logic are likely to have overall positive outcomes
3. • Substantial media coverage for a logical protest (e.g. blockading oil depots) is likely to be beneficial for the issue of climate change
4. • Substantial media coverage for an illogical protest (e.g. disrupting art galleries) is likely to be beneficial for the issue of climate change
5. • Protests with strong logic are likely to be more effective in achieving the goals of the activists than protests with no logic
Results

Question 14

We are now going to ask your views on some potential negative consequences which can arise from climate protests. By a ‘backfire effect’ we mean an overall negative consequence such as a reduction in public support or lower chance of policy implementation. By ‘polarisation’ we mean an increase in highly contrasting opinions on a cause.

• Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect
• Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect
• Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect
• Polarisation of climate change as an issue is likely to hinder the progress of the climate movement
• Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable

Results

Participant	Response	Confidence
Anonymous	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Strongly agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Strongly disagree
This really depends on the social context in which these events occur. I'm not in the US or Europe so I can't really answer these questions. In Australia we have enough majority support for climate action that most disruptive protests of any type will lead to greater wins across the range of possible activist goals, than losses. That might not be the case in some countries in Europe where there is limited public knowledge or support for climate action. It would also really help to frame these questions in the context of a particular action calling for a particular outcomes rather than goals in general.
Anonymous	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable:
I am not an expert in climate movements.
Ben Kenward Oxford Brookes University	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat disagree
It's hard to answer about polarisation because effects are different on attitudes to the issue (probably not much polarisation) vs. attitudes to the movement (probably some polarisation); see my work https://psyarxiv.com/vs7p9
Kevin Gillan University of Manchester	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Neither disagree nor agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Neither disagree nor agree
Sorry, totally sitting on the fence on Q.23. Its a good question to raise and I just don't have a good answer. Maybe it'd be easier to answer with more specific backfire effects in mind - violence (where deliberately perpetrated by activists) will almost certainly lead to less positive media coverage for instance, in the UK at least. But it'll also likely drive the issue up the policy agenda, with possibly a greater chance of more moderate voices being heard.
Viktoria Spaiser University of Leeds	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Strongly agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Neither disagree nor agree
I think the backfire effect depends strongly whether the disruptive and/or violent climate protest has an action logic (and some other factors)
Anonymous	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Strongly agree
I interpreted anthropogenic climate change in the polarisation questions.
Cristina Flesher Fominaya Aarhus University	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat disagree
Disinformation, noise, and other tactics are effective in reducing belief in climate science--and increasing polarization. Polarization is not unavoidable but has to be actively combatted. Most people still believe in climate science and are worried about the climate but this is not enough. People need to be given truly viable alternatives to current practices (public transportation that is affordable, alternative energy infrastuctures, etc.)
Louisa Parks University of Trento	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Strongly agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat agree
If we are talking about long-term effects rather than immediate reactions there is space to talk about possible cultural change that could be provoked by disruptive climate protests even if they drive some short-term backfire effects. The example of soup is quite a sophisticated comment on what we as a society protect and value, and what we don't. But that might take time to get through the outrage.
Eric Selbin Southwestern University	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Neither disagree nor agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat agree
The USA is a hot mess. I wish I knew what would work or not.
Anonymous	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Strongly disagree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Strongly agree
Movements "work" (are successfully) because they polarize people and an issue(s) (i.e., "you have to make a choice here...do we do "B" or do we keep "A"?).
Anonymous	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable:
I think we overall do not know the answer to these questions. Not even as experts. Or at least not in a way that we can make generalizable claims about this. I'm quite uncomfortable answering these questions, knowing that the results will be presented as "this is what experts say" and knowing that experts don't know (again, at least not in such a generalizable sense). I've therefore refrained from answering the above questions
James F. Hamilton University of Georgia	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat agree
See similar responses above.
Paul Almeida University of California, Merced	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat disagree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat disagree
I think the group mobilizing around climate change and its goals will determine the best mobilizing strategies
Benjamin Duke University of Leicester	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Strongly agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Neither disagree nor agree
The tactics of social movement organisations can be disruptive, but need to be non-violent peaceful protests.
Anonymous	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Strongly agree
In the UK context the climate changes protests have provoked a counter movement on the mainstream right of politics and the media of global warming deniers. In addition the government has introduced more restrictive legislation on protest specifically aimed at the tactics used by groups such as Extinction Rebellion and this legislation was first proposed and promoted by a right wing think tank - Policy Exchange - funded by amongst others Exon-Mobil.
Anonymous	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat disagree
Cohort replacement might be the only option
Pamela Oliver University of Wisconsin, Madison	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat disagree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat agree
Confusing question, as you seem at one point to be asking about the NET effect (positive effect minus backlash) and at another time to just be asking whether there will be a backlash. There is ALWAYS a backlash, but that does not mean the net effect is negative. Backlack is a discursive construction. It isn't a simple cause-effect relation, it is mediated by how the protest is understood and discussed in the mass media and popular discussion. I changed my answers to reflect my opinion about the net effect. But really the net effect isn't due to what people did, but to how it gets discussed in the news media and from there into popular conversations.
Anonymous	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Strongly disagree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Strongly agree
What is labeled violent is highly politicized and I do not agree that violence is never an effective movement tactic (moral and ethic assessments aside, violence has been a used successfully by movement actors throughout history and transnationally) I think polarization is unavoidable in the US, UK (outside of these countries I cannot comment). In the US increasingly harsh criminal legal penalties and the labelling of actions as "violent" regardless of the tactics used are impacting climate activists. I see this getting much worse before it gets better - BUT the general public may sympathize with young environmentalists being given lengthy sentences and the outrage generated could benefit the movement re: public opinion
Anonymous	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Strongly disagree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Strongly disagree
"polarisation" on whether or not we're approaching climate catastrophe is dying out with the older generations. right-wing gen zers are fully aware of impending consequences of climate change and are radicalized by that fact just as other young people are. "polarisation" about climate change's occurrence is no longer about whether it's happening, but rather, whether we use it as an excuse to create a more equitable world or a more brutal and hierarchical world. there are increasingly two "climate movements"
Kim Scipes Purdue University Northwest	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Strongly disagree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat agree
This is real frustrating; the lack of nuance in your questions makes it difficult to comment upon. Social movements emerge locally, and within a local context. So, you should start out recognizing this, and not expecting answers to a "one size fits all" question.
Anonymous	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Strongly agree
The soup on paintings protests were widely lambasted online and I just fundamentally disagree w/ the idea that they are actively harming the movement. I understand the protesters' desperation because going through the "proper channels" that online commentators seem to think is the right path has achieved very little in the big scheme of things, we are still hurtling toward an unliveable future. No one knows what will actually work because nothing has yet (and things that have shown significant promise, like Standing Rock, have been effectively countered by police, anti protest laws, media blackouts, etc) We cannot prevent polarization on this issue when the right has been openly attacking the idea that climate change is happening for years.
Matthew S. Williams Loyola University Chicago	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Neither disagree nor agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat agree
Whether media coverage helps or harms a movement very much depends on the type of media coverage a movement gets. There are things movements can do, in terms of crafting their message, how they protest, building relationships with journalists, etc., to improve the quality of coverage. But there are elements out of their control, such as what editors and journalists think of the movement to begin with.
Mattias Wahlström University of Gothenburg	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat disagree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat agree
I would question whether throwing soup at art is an "illogical protest". There is arguably a logic to it, although clearly less easy to interpret than actions against e.g. oil refineries.
Anonymous	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Neither disagree nor agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Neither disagree nor agree
Must admit that do not get the question about "polarisation", sorry.
Lisa Mueller Macalester College	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat agree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat agree
Manekin and Mitts and others show that the identity of protesters affects how their tactics are received, so I hesitate to answer some of the above questions in general terms. The questions on action logic are really fascinating, and I hadn't considered them much before. This is ripe for a rigorous study!
Oscar Berglund University of Bristol	Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat disagree Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable: Somewhat agree
Climate change become a culture war issue would be bad. Climate justice becoming a class-based issue would be good.

Section 3: The Animal Advocacy Movement

Question 15

We would like your views on the overall effectiveness of different targets for animal advocacy protests. By overall effectiveness, we mean a wide range of possible outcomes including increased media coverage, shifting public opinion, policy change, movement building etc. Assuming all are nonviolent and are similar in other respects (e.g. same number of participants), how effective do you think the following tactics are?
1. • Targeting the public
2. • Targeting the animal agriculture industry (e.g. blockades at meat distribution plants)
3. • Targeting the government (e.g., government department for agriculture)
4. • Targeting less related venues
Results
Question 16

We are now going to ask your views about nonviolent, non-disruptive animal advocacy actions (such as a legal protest march). What overall effect do you think non-disruptive protests are likely to have on the following outcomes, in relation to the goals of the activists?
1. • Government policy
2. • Public opinion
3. • Corporate behaviour
4. • Supportive media coverage
5. • Support from influential individuals
6. • Movement-building (e.g. growing the number of people interested in joining the movement)
7. • Higher salience in public discourse
8. • People's behaviour and choices
Results
Question 17

We are now going to ask your views about nonviolent, disruptive animal advocacy protests. By disruptive we mean actions which, though non-violent, might cause inconvenience to the public or to others (such as a roadblock that disrupts traffic). What overall effect do you think disruptive protests are likely to have on the following outcomes, in relation to the goals of the activists?
1. • Government policy
2. • Public opinion
3. • Corporate behaviour
4. • Supportive media coverage
5. • Support from influential individuals
6. • Movement-building (e.g. growing the number of people interested in joining the movement)
7. • Higher salience in public discourse
8. • People's behaviour and choices
Results
Question 18

Some disruptive protests have a clear ’action logic’ (e.g., animal activists targeting industrial meat producers). Others have less clear logic (e.g., animal activists targeting football games). This question concerns your views on the action logic of disruptive protests.
1. • Protests with strong action logic are likely to have overall positive outcomes
2. • Protests with no clear logic are likely to have overall positive outcomes
3. • Substantial media coverage for an illogical protest (e.g. disrupting football games) is likely to be beneficial for the issue of animal advocacy
4. • Substantial media coverage for a logical protest (e.g. blockading meat distribution facilities) is likely to be beneficial for the issue of animal advocacy
5. • Protests with strong logic are likely to be more effective in achieving the goals of the activists than protests with no logic
Results

Question 19

We are now going to ask your views on some potential negative consequences which can arise from animal advocacy protests. By a ‘backfire effect’ we mean an overall negative consequence e.g. a reduction in public support or lower chance of policy implementation. By ‘polarisation’ we mean an increase in highly contrasting opinions on a cause.

• Non-disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect
• Disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect
• Violent animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect
• Polarisation of animal rights or animal welfare is likely to hinder the progress of the animal advocacy movement
• Polarisation on animal advocacy is unavoidable

Results

Participant	Response	Confidence
Anonymous	Non-disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Strongly agree Polarisation on animal advocacy is unavoidable: Neither disagree nor agree
I tried to answer these questions in the context of Australia where the media and politicians savage animals rights protesters. So I think they are less likely to get support for disruptive protests in general, but I haven't researched animal rights campaigns in depth so I'm not expert on it at all.
Anonymous	Non-disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Neither disagree nor agree Disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Strongly disagree Polarisation on animal advocacy is unavoidable: Somewhat agree
Polarization of animal rights would actually increase support for the movement as people with leftist self-identities come to see humane treatment of animals as part of their self construction.
Anonymous	Non-disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Neither disagree nor agree Polarisation on animal advocacy is unavoidable: Neither disagree nor agree
Breaking/getting into farms and taking (illegally) photos of suffering animals seems to be a functioning disruptive tactic, others (e.g. blockades, damaging property) not. Liberating animals, e.g. at fur farms, leads to high public attention but very strong backlash, also among otherwise sympathetic people (note also minks eating birds etc.).
Benjamin Duke University of Leicester	Non-disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat disagree Disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Violent animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Somewhat agree Polarisation on animal advocacy is unavoidable: Neither disagree nor agree
Violence impedes the progress of social movements. The initial clear progress of Extinction Rebellion has been marred by violence committed in the name of this movement. The criminal damage and violence done in the name of Extinction Rebellion, is in danger sinking this social movement altogether.
Anonymous	Non-disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly disagree Disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Somewhat agree Violent animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect: Strongly agree Polarisation will hinder the progress of the movement: Strongly disagree Polarisation on animal advocacy is unavoidable: Strongly agree
I think the media cycle and social media algorithmic reward systems make polarization somewhat inevitable, the more visible an issue the more entrenched people's opinions will become; however, polarization does not mean the movement cannot achieve policy goals and often public opinion follows policy not the other way around (see same sex marriage opinions in the US)

Participating Experts

Wisnu Adihartono (Ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales), Paul Almeida (University of California, Merced), Philipp Altmann (Universidad Central del Ecuador), Shamsul Arefin (University of Massachusetts Amherst), Elizabeth A. Armstrong (University of Michigan), Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur (Rhode Island College), Matthew Baggetta (Indiana University), Paul Bagguley (University of Leeds), Joshua A. Basseches (Tulane University), Colin J. Beck (Pomona College), Karen Beckwith (Case Western Reserve University), Oscar Berglund (University of Bristol), Luca Bernardi (University of Liverpool), Mary Bernstein (University of Connecticut), Michelle Beyeler (University of Zurich), Elizabeth Borland (The College of New Jersey), Cameron Brick (University of Amsterdam), Jorge Cadena-Roa (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Bart Cammaerts (London School of Economics and Political Science), Alejandro Tirado Castro (Universidad Carlos III Madrid), Camilo Cristancho (Universitat de Barcelona), Colin Davis (University of Bristol), Michaela DeSoucey (North Carolina State University), Ivaylo Dinev (Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS)), Benjamin Duke (University of Leicester), Zackary Dunivin (Indiana University), Simone N. Durham (University of Maryland), Jan Willem Duyvendak (University of Amsterdam; Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study), Nella Van Dyke (University of California, Merced), Jennifer Earl (University of Delaware), Rachel L. Einwohner (Purdue University), Cornelia Butler Flora (Iowa State University/Kansas State University), Cristina Flesher Fominaya (Aarhus University), Carol Galais (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), Kevin Gillan (University of Manchester), Johan Gordillo-Garcia (Institute for Social Research - National Autonomous University of Mexico), Robyn E. Gulliver (University of Queensland), Selin Bengi Gumrukcu (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey), James F. Hamilton (University of Georgia), Christina Hansen (Malmö University), David J. Hess (Vanderbilt University), Elizabeth Humphrys (University of Technology Sydney), Maria Inclan (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas), Larry W. Isaac (Vanderbilt University), Nicole Iturriaga (University of California Irvine), James M. Jasper (), Ben Kenward (Oxford Brookes University), Bert Klandermans (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam), Sarah Lockwood (University of Cambridge), Winnifred Louis (University of Queensland), Andrew Martin (Ohio State University), Setsuko Matsuzawa (The College of Wooster), Alice Mattoni (Mattoni), Margarita López Maya (Universidad Central de Venezuela), Holly McCammon (Vanderbilt University), John McCarthy (Penn State University), Angela G. Mertig (Middle Tennessee State University), David S. Meyer (University of California, Irvine), Bishnu Prasad Mohaptra (MIT World Peace University, Pune, India), Joost de Moor (Sciences Po), Laura Morales (Sciences Po), Lorenzo Mosca (University of Milano), Lisa Mueller (Macalester College), Bariki Gwalugano Mwasaga (Prime Minister's Office), Erin O'Brien (Queensland University of Technology), Catharina O'Donnell (Harvard University), Pamela Oliver (University of Wisconsin, Madison), Susan Olzak (Stanford University), Michelle Oyakawa (Muskingum University), Louisa Parks (University of Trento), Katia Pilati (University of Trento), Daniel Platek (Polish Academy of Science), Martín Portos (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), Jan-Erik Refle (University of Geneva & University of Lausanne), Heidi Reynolds-Stenson (Colorado State University Pueblo), Elle Rochford (University of Delaware), Conny Roggeband (University of Amsterdam), Deana A. Rohlinger (Florida State University), Eduardo Romanos (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Teal Rothschild (Roger Williams University), Dieter Rucht (Berlin Social Science Center), Brent SImpson (University of South Carolina), Kim Scipes (Purdue University Northwest), Eric Selbin (Southwestern University), David C. Sorge (Bryn Mawr College), Sarah A. Soule (Stanford University), Viktoria Spaiser (University of Leeds), Anthony J. Spires (The University of Melbourne), Suzanne Staggenborg (University of Pittsburgh), Verta Taylor (University of California, Santa Barbara), Didem Turkoglu (Kadir Has University), Katrin Uba (Uppsala University), Dr Sara Vestergren (Keele University, UK), Katerina Vrablikova (University of Bath), Mattias Wahlström (University of Gothenburg), Stefaan Walgrave (University of Antwerp), Edward Walker (University of California, Los Angeles), Omar Wasow (University of California, Berkeley), Regina Werum (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), Åsa Wettergren (University of Gothenburg), Dr. Wayne T. Whitmore (Inver Hills Community College), Matthew S. Williams (Loyola University Chicago), Lesley Wood (York University), Michael C. Zeller (Universität Bielefeld)

Social Change and Protests July 07, 2023