Methods, movements, and outcomes

Abstract

This paper surveys the movement outcomes literature and finds that the literature is unevenly developed. “Intra-movement” outcomes have received more attention than “extra-movement” outcomes, and within extra-movement outcomes political outcomes have been studied more often than cultural outcomes. I argue that the differential impact of two major methodological burdens explains these discrepancies in research productivity. Specifically, I examine the difficulties extra-movement outcome researchers face in (1) defining and operationalizing outcomes; and (2) in defending causal claims and non-spuriousness. Further, I analyze and critique current approaches in the literature to handling these two issues. Finally, I offer seven solutions to these problems, each of which is intended to ease the methodological burdens presently slowing the study of movement outcomes.

Citation

Earl, J. (2000), "Methods, movements, and outcomes", Coy, P.G. (Ed.) Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change (Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, Vol. 22), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-786X(00)80033-6