Methods, movements, and outcomes. Methodological difficulties in the study of extra-movement outcomes

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

56 Scopus citations

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationResearch in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change
Pages3-25
Number of pages23
StatePublished - Dec 1 2000
Externally publishedYes

Publication series

NameResearch in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change
Volume22
ISSN (Print)0163-786X

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Methods, movements, and outcomes. Methodological difficulties in the study of extra-movement outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

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