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.