Organizations, Media, and Institutional Change

ORGANIZATIONS, MEDIA, AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE:

THE CASE OF THE ACADEMIC FREEDOM MOVEMENT***

Deana A. Rohlinger Associate Professor Department of Sociology Florida State University

Jordan Brown Graduate Student Department of Sociology Florida State University

*** Please do not cite without the permission of the first author. Please direct all correspondence to Deana Rohlinger at [email protected].

1 Organizations drive institutional change. Organizations make coordinated action possible and facilitate activists’ efforts to aggregate and deploy human, financial, and symbolic resources in ways that challenge authorities (Cress and Snow 1996; Gamson 1990; McCarthy and Zald 1977). It is not surprising, then, that scholars focus on the characteristics of social movement organizations and try to parse out when and how activist groups affect change in a range of institutional settings, including political, educational, and religious institutions (Amenta, Carruthers, and Zylan 1992; Binder 2002; Burstein 1985; Gusfield 1963; Katzenstein 1999; Rochon 1998; Soule and Olzak 2004). This line of research has yielded important insights regarding the ways in which organizational characteristics can shape the relative effectiveness of an activist group. Scholars, for example, have convincingly demonstrated that organizational structure and goals affect the ability of movement groups to access political institutions, take advantage of emerging political opportunities, and gain acceptance and new advantages (Gamson 1990; McCarthy and Zald 1973; McCarthy and Zald 1977; Staggenborg 1988; Tilly 1978). Over the last two decades, however, some social movement scholars have advocated (sometimes implicitly) for a focus on organizational identity rather than organizational characteristics alone (Clemens 1996; Clemens 1997; Minkoff 1999; Rohlinger 2002; Woehrle, Coy, and Maney 2008). Organizational identity refers to a group’s self definition project, which is, in part, a result of field dynamics (Whetten and Mackey 2002). Social movement groups are embedded in a larger multiorganizational field that consists of opponents and allies who work to advance their particularistic agendas in a common institutional setting (Curtis and Zurcher 1973; Klandermans 1992). When a group organizes, it does so relative to other actors in the field (Whetten 2006) and with an awareness of a movement’s history of success and failure. Organizational identity, which has structural and ideational components,1 establishes how a group is similar to and different from other actors in the field and tries to account for history in ways that give it a strategic advantage with its target (Deephouse 1999; Whetten 2006).2

Organizational identity, which is observable through actions and statements taken on behalf of a group (Whetten 2006), serves three core functions.3 First, it communicates the purpose and goals of an organization to the broader public which includes institutional authorities, bystander audiences, and opponents. Second, and related, organizational identity provides a template for relationships within an organization as well as a set of “scripts” that outline the boundaries for acceptable action as a group works towards its goals (Clemens 1997;

1 The choice of organizational identity and structure are “parallel if not identical” projects (Whetten 2006).

2 Organizations, in other words, are social actors (Clemens and Minkoff 2004; Whetten and Mackey 2002) and social artifacts, or tools founded for a specific purpose (Scott 2003).

3 Whetten (2006) argues that organizational identity and collective identity are different. The former refers to the identity of a collective actor and the latter to the identity of a collection of actors. Whetten 2006; Whetten and Mackey 2002). Finally, organizational identity provides a common language that leaders and members employ when they act or speak on behalf of a group (Whetten 2006; Whetten and Mackey 2002).

A focus on organizational identity (instead of organizational characteristics alone) highlights how organizational arrangements, within and among groups, shape movement dynamics, including (de)mobilization of a population (Clemens 1993; Eliasoph 1998), shifts in a movement’s tactical repertoire (McCammon 2003), and coalition work and conflict (Lo 1990; Polletta 2002), movement outcomes (Clemens 1996; Clemens 1997), and the trajectories of activist groups. The consequences of social movements are notoriously difficult to assess (Giugni 1998) in part because activist groups operate in several institutional settings simultaneously (Armstrong and Bernstein 2008). While each setting has its own logic or “rules of the game” by which power is won, maintained, and lost (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Meyer and Rowan 1977; Thornton and Ocasio 2008), institutional fields overlap (Bourdieu 1998b), which can enhance (or diminish) the leverage of a movement actor against its target. A movement group that is regarded as legitimate in one institutional setting may find that it has additional leverage with its targets. In contrast, an activist organization that is deemed illegitimate may find it more difficult to influence the policies and practices of its target. Organizational identity, in short, constrains how an activist group navigates a given institutional setting and shapes its outcomes in it. Here, we examine how organizational identity shapes the ways in which movement groups use mass media to affect institutional change. Mass media play an important role in institutional change. Specifically, mass media aid in the mobilization of consensus and action and help a social movement group create opportunities to alter institutional policies and practices (Gamson and Meyer 1996; Raeburn 2004; Walgrave and Manssens 2000). 4 Drawing on a qualitative analysis of two organizations mobilizing around academic freedom, Students for Academic Freedom (SAF) and Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), as well as a comprehensive examination of media coverage, we show that how a group does so varies according to who a group seeks to mobilize (and to what end) as well as its organizational reputation with mainstream media.

Organizational Identity and the Mobilization of Consensus and Action

Social movement organizations must generate support for its ideas and goals and move people to action if they are to challenge authorities effectively (Klandermans 1984; Klandermans 1992). Mass media play an integral role in this regard. Media coverage, particularly in mainstream news outlets, can validate movement ideas and organizations, help grow the membership, coffers, and legitimacy of a social movement group and provide an opportunity for activists to shape public debate (Gamson and Meyer 1996; Gamson and Wolfsfeld 1993;

4 Social movement organizations challenge or defend “institutional authorities,” which may be located in the political, corporate, religious, or educational arena (Snow, Soule and Kriesi 2004). Institutional opportunities, then, refer to a social movement group’s increased access to the decision-making processes of target institutions (Raeburn 2004).

3 Raeburn 2004; Vliegenthart, Oegema, and Klandermans 2005). Social movement organizations also can use Internet Communication Technology (ICT) to communicate directly with a broader public, including constituents, targets, bystanders and journalists. Activist groups, for instance, can use organizational websites as a “brochure” to advertise their organization, cause, campaigns and successes as well as issue action alerts and solicit funds (Earl 2006; Earl, Kimport, Prieto, Rush, and Reynoso 2010). Additionally, movement groups can use ICT to mobilize supporters around an issue or campaign through blogs, alternative media venues, and email (Almeida and Lichbach 2003; Earl and Kimport 2008). However, organizational identity affects who an activist group seeks to mobilize and to what end; both of which influence the ways in which a group uses mass media. While some social movement organizations seek to garner the support of and mobilize broad swaths of the population, other activist groups orient themselves to relatively narrow audiences. White supremacist groups, for instance, seek to build support among and mobilize a small swath of the population around goals that are abhorred by mainstream society. Not surprisingly, these groups make limited efforts to advertise their cause in mainstream news venues, where their organizations and cause are vilified. Instead, they use music, concerts, and online forums to selectively attract and mobilize adherents (Blee 2002; Futrell and Simi 2004; Futrell, Simi, and Gottschalk 2006). In contrast, the National Organization for Women (NOW), a feminist group, seeks to push women’s interests into the mainstream and, consequently, works to educate and mobilize a broad swath of the American public around women’s issues. For NOW, then, mainstream news media is an optimal target; it enables NOW to sell its issues to a broad public (although it may not always have luck doing so). However, NOW does not rely on the mainstream alone. It also targets alternative outlets (e.g., Ms. Magazine and The Nation) and specialized media outlets (e.g., Telemundo) in its efforts to build consensus and spur collective action (Barker-Plummer 1997; Barker-Plummer 2002; Rohlinger 2002; Rohlinger 2004). In short, organizational identity influences the media venues a group targets as it pushes forward its goals. Similarly, organizational identity affects how an activist group “leverages the affordances” (Earl and Kimport 2011) of ICT in its consensus and action mobilization efforts.5 Social movement groups that are regarded as legitimate by a target have a better opportunity to influence institutional decision-making than those that are not (Gamson 1990). Activist organizations that lack institutional standing, then, will try to use ICT in ways that spread awareness about an issue, move people to action, and buttress their claims with their targets. For instance, a social movement group with limited institutional standing may use its organizational website both to educate and collect information from the aggrieved population it represents. Such efforts would dovetail complementary mobilization processes (consensus and action) and enable the activist organization to use the “data” it collects to legitimate its claims. Social movement organizations with institutional legitimacy and access to their targets, in contrast, might primarily use their websites for educational and promotional purposes rather than action.

5 As Earl and Kimport (2011) note, technological skill also circumscribes how a given social movement organization uses ICT in its efforts to affect institutional change. Organizational Identity, Reputation, and Media Coverage as Leverage

Social movement organizations also use mass media to create institutional opportunities to affect change (Gamson and Meyer 1996; Raeburn 2004). For example, activists can use news media to draw public attention to institutional contradictions or egregious practices and pressure authorities to enact change. Activist groups that target corporate actors routinely use media attention to “name” and “shame” businesses for their bad policies and practices (Bandy and Smith 2005; King and Soule 2007 ; Raeburn 2004). Social movement organizations can also use e-mail, websites, and e-newsletters to sell their issues to journalists and, once they are covered, alter how authorities respond to organizational claims (Cardoso and Neto 2004; Schulz 1998). In a well documented example, Subcommander Marcos, the leader of the Zapatista national Liberation Army, used ICT to bring the plight of indigenous people in Chiapas to a broader public, which included journalists. The outpouring of international support that resulted from the media coverage ultimately prevented a violent repression against the Zapatistas by the Mexican government (Cleaver 2007; Johnston and Laxer 2003; Knudson 1998; Rich 1997; Schulz 1998). Movement claims can “crossover” (Bennett 2003) into the mainstream in other ways as well. Bloggers, for instance, can stir up a media frenzy, which brings issues to a broader public and influences the decision-making of institutional actors (Atton 2007; Kahn and Kellner 2004; Macdougall 2005).

How an activist group uses news media to create institutional opportunities is circumscribed by its organizational identity. Specifically, organizational identity affects the legitimacy of a movement group in an institutional setting (Clemens 1996). The “journalistic field,” which is comprised of news venues, is driven simultaneously by concerns over profitability and occupational norms that emphasize the journalistic obligation to keep the public

5 informed (Benson 2006; Bourdieu 1998a).6 In an effort to balance these pressures, journalists routinize how they collect and report the news of the day. Journalistic routines and conventions favor known and institutional sources of information and, more often than not, exclude movement voices from news stories (Gamson 1990; Gans 1979; Tuchman 1978). While movement actors generally are disadvantaged in the journalistic field, some activist groups have more legitimacy than others with media professionals. Typically, social movement scholars talk about this legitimacy as “standing” and identify why some organizations are accorded credibility by mainstream media professionals (Gamson and Wolfsfeld 1993). For example, movement organizations that have mainstream goals, draw on institutionally or culturally resonant discourse, and mimic institutional sources (e.g., have a professional spokesperson and a staffed communication department that issues reports, press releases, and holds press conferences) have more standing with mainstream journalists and, consequently, a better opportunity to get media coverage (Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards, and Rucht 2002; Ryan, Anastario, and Jeffreys 2005). While the concept of media standing has yielded important insights in terms of understanding what kinds of movement groups media professionals deem credible and when, we argue that scholars should focus on organizational reputation to understand how overlapping institutional settings affect organizational outcomes. This is particularly important to consider institutional overlap when considering mass media because the journalistic field wields influence over virtually every other institution, including political, economic, cultural, and religious institutions (Bourdieu 1984; Bourdieu 1998a; Bourdieu 1998b; Bourdieu 2005). Like identity, reputation is part of an organization’s self-management project. Unlike identity, reputation is

6 Not all outlets are equally oriented to profit and informational concerns. Differences among actors in a field are the result relational dynamics and power. Bourdieu argues that the social world is structured around two opposing forms of power, or economic and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1998a, 1998b, 2005). While the forms of economic and cultural capital vary by institution, economic capital is represented by circulation/ratings and advertising dollars and cultural capital by professional honors that result from peer recognition such as the Pulitzer Prize in the journalistic field (Benson 2006; Bourdieu 1998a). The journalistic field is structured around two poles: the “heteronomous pole,” which represents forces that are external to the field (in this case, the market), and the “autonomous pole,” which represents the specific form of capital valued within the field (in this case, intellectual reporting). Because a field is a structured space between these two poles, an actor’s location within a field indicates the kinds of internal and external pressures that come to bear on an actor as well as the amount of cultural capital it wields (Bourdieu 1998a). Commercial media outlets are located near the heteronomous pole, meaning they are disproportionately influenced by economic considerations, while “serious” (or political) media are situated near the autonomous pole. Outlets, at either extreme or located anywhere in between, strive to build legitimacy in the field through the accumulation of economic or cultural capital. At the same time, outlets espouse the superiority of their particular form of capital relative to the other. This, Benson (2006:190) argues, “helps account for the ongoing tension between culturally rich, but often economically starved, alternative or literary journalism (The Nation, Mother Jones, etc.), and culturally poor but economically rich market journalism (commercial television news).” For a thorough discussion of field theory and media studies and the implications for the coverage of movement ideas see Benson (2006) and Rohlinger (2007) respectively. based on an external assessment of an organization regarding what it stands for, what it hopes to accomplish, and how it will behave in order to achieve its goals. Organizational reputation is not static. External audiences evaluate organizations relative to one another and the overall assessment of an organization can vary over time and according to who is doing the evaluating (Rindova, Williamson, and Petkova 2005; Whetten and Mackey 2002). A movement group’s reputation, then, can vary tremendously across the journalistic field as media professionals in different kinds of news venues (e.g., alternative political outlets) evaluate organizations using different metrics (Rohlinger 2007). In short, a focus on organizational reputation embeds a movement group within a larger institutional field and explains how differential evaluations by actors within a given setting can affect the trajectory and outcomes of an activist organization. Likewise, the focus on reputation (rather than standing) draws attention to overlaps among institutions and illuminates the potential for movement actors to use their reputation in one setting as leverage in another setting. For example, a social movement organization that has standing with mainstream media outlets can potentially use the threat of media attention alone as a way to create an opportunity to affect institutional change. Organizational identity and reputation also set up patterns of cooperation (Clemens 1997; Whetten 2006), which circumscribes who an organization can work with in its efforts to attract and leverage media attention against its target. A movement group that can work with a broad range of actors, including those that have different interests (Clemens and Minkoff 2004), may find it easier to attract media attention because such collaborations facilitate the ability of organizations to dramatize contradictions within an institution (Clemens 1997) in potentially newsworthy ways. Activist groups that have an identity and reputation which limits its collaborators, in contrast, will have fewer ways to make themselves newsworthy and, as a result, may be more reliant on conflict in order to move their claims from the margins to the mainstream. Table 1. Comparison of Students for Academic Freedom and Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Students for Academic Freedom Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Founded 2003 1999

Founder David Horowitz Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silvergate

Founder Credentials Lawyer and founder of SPC Lawyers and Professors

Orientation to the issue Conservative Non-partisan

Who it seeks to mobilize Conservative students and faculty Students, faculty, and lawyers

Goals Expose/counter the Left's influence in higher education Ensure campus policies are in line with the U.S. Constitution

7 Organizational Get an Academic Bill of Rights in strategy all 50 states Identify/change policies not in line with the Constitution

Organizational Centralized with minimal structure bureaucracy Centralized and bureaucratic

Number of employees 1 10 employees and several unpaid interns

Location of national office St. Lois, Missouri Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Number of chapters 182 347

Table 2. Mainstream Coverage of SAF, Its Opponents, and Its Supporters

Mentioned, not quoted 1 or 2 quotes 3 or more quotes

Students for Academic Freedom 25.6% 54.6% 19.8%

1 Opponent 5.8% 59.0% 5.7% 2 Opponents 0.6% 40.4% 1.2% 3 Opponents 0.0% 22.4% 3.2% 4 Opponents 0.0% 10.9% 0.0% 5 Opponents 0.6% 3.8% 0.0% 6 Opponents 0.0% 1.2% 0.6%

1 Supporter 1.3% 43.6% 6.4% 2 Supporters 0.0% 27.0% 1.2% 3 Supporters 0.0% 7.1% 1.2% 4 Supporters 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 5 Supporters 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

Table 3. Mainstream Coverage of FIRE, Its Opponents, and Its Supporters Mentioned, not 1 or 2 quotes 3 or more quotes quoted

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education 33.2% 56.3% 10.5%

1 Opponent 7.4% 37.6% 3.1% 2 Opponents 0.0% 11.7% 0.4% 3 Opponents 0.2% 3.1% 0.2% 4 Opponents 0.0% 1.4% 0.2% 5 Opponents 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 6 Opponents 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

1 Supporter 2.1% 33.3% 1.4% 2 Supporters 0.8% 12.7% 0.8% 3 Supporters 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 4 Supporters 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 5 Supporters 0.0% 3.3% 0.0%

9 Table 4. Summary of How Organizational Identity Shapes Group Use Mass Media to Affect Institutional Change

SAF FIRE Reputation in the journalistic field Illegitimate Legitimate

Potential for collaboration Low High

Mobilization of consensus and Use Horowitz publications and conservative news Use scholarly publications to legitimate the action venues to build support and mobilize parents. problem. Use organizational website to collect information and Use media coverage and the organizational legitimate the problem. website for education and promotion.

Use of media to create institutional opportunities Conflict to create newsworthy events Threat of coverage (build conflict over time to move the issue into Collaborate with a broad range of actors to create mainstream venues) newsworthy events (does not engage in conflict)

10 WORK CITED

Almeida, Paul and Mark Irving Lichbach. 2003. "To The Internet, From The Internet: Comparative Media Coverage Of Transnational Protests." Mobilization 8:249-272. Amenta, Edwin, Bruce Carruthers, and Yvonne Zylan. 1992. "A Hero for the Aged? The Townsend Movement, The Political Mediation Model, and Old Age Policy, 1934-1959." The American Journal of Sociology 98:308-339. Armstrong, Elzabeth and Mary Bernstein. 2008. "Culture, Power, and Institutions: A Multi- Institutional Politics Approach to Social Movements." Sociological Theory 26:74-99. Atton, Chris. 2007. "Current Issues in Alternative Media Research." Sociology Compass 1:17-27. Bandy, Joe and Jackie Smith. 2005. Coalitions Across Borders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal Order. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Barker-Plummer, Bernadette. 1997. "News as a Political Resource? A Case Study of the Media Strategies and Media Representation of the National Organization for Women, 1966- 1980." Dissertation Thesis, Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. —. 2002. "Producing Public Voice: Resource Mobilization and Media Access in the Nation." Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 79:188-205. Bennett, Lance. 2003. "Communicating Global Activism." Information, Communication & Society 6:143-168. Benson, Rodney. 2006. "News Media as a "Journalistic Field": What Bourdieu Adds to New Institutionalism, and Vice Versa." Political Communication 23:187-202. Binder, Amy. 2002. Contentious Curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism in American Public Schools. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Blee, Kathleen. 2002. Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by R. Nice. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. —. 1998a. On Television. Translated by P. P. Ferguson. New York: New Press. —. 1998b. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Translated by R. Johnson. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. —. 2005. "The Political Field, the Social Science Field, and the Journalistic Field." Pp. 29-47 in Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, edited by R. Benson and E. Neveu. Malden, MA: Polity. Burstein, Paul. 1985. Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Opportunity in the United States Since the New Deal. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Cardoso, Gustavo and Pedro Pereira Neto. 2004. "Mass Media Driven Mobilization and Online Protest." Pp. 147-163 in Cyberprotest: New Media, Citizens and Social Movements, edited by W. van de Donk, B. Loader, P. Nixon, and D. Rucht. London: Routledge. Cleaver, Harry. 2007. "Computer-Linked Social Movements and the Global Threat to Capitalism." Website is the Global Solidarity Dialogue:http://www.antenna.nl/~waterman/cleaver2.html. Clemens, Elisabeth and Debra Minkoff. 2004. "Beyond the Iron Law: Rethinking the Place of Organizations in Social Movement Research." Pp. 155-170 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by D. Snow, S. Soule, and H. Kriesi. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

11 Clemens, Elizabeth. 1993. "Organization Repertoires and Institutional Change: Women's Groups and the Transformation of U.S. Politics, 1890-1920." American Journal of Sociology 98:755-798. —. 1996. "Organizational Form as Frame: Collective Identity and Political Strategy in the American Labor Movement, 1880-1920." Pp. 205-226 in Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, edited by D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, and M. Zald. New York: Cambridge University Press. —. 1997. The People's Lobby: Organizational Innovation and the Rise of Interest Group Politics in the United States, 1890-1925. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cress, Daniel and David Snow. 1996. "Mobilization at the Margins: Resources, Benefactors, and the Viability of Homeless Social Movement Organizations." American Sociological Review 61:1089-1109. Curtis, Russell and Louis Zurcher. 1973. "Stable Resources of Protest Movements: The Multi- Organizational Field." Social Forces 52:53-61. Deephouse, David. 1999. "To Be Different, or to Be the Same? It's a Question (And Theory) of Strategic Balance." Strategic Management Journal 20:147-166. DiMaggio, Paul and Walter Powell. 1983. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Instutitonal Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Feilds." American Sociological Review 48:147-160. Earl, Jennifer. 2006. "Pursuing Social Change Online: The Use of Four Protest Tactics on the Internet." Social Science Computer Review 20:1-16. Earl, Jennifer and Katrina Kimport. 2008. "The Targets of Online Protest." Information, Communication & Society 11:449-472. —. 2011. Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. New York: MIT Press. Earl, Jennifer, Katrina Kimport, Greg Prieto, Carly Rush, and Kimberly Reynoso. 2010. "Changing the World One Webpage at a Time: Conceptualizing and Explaining 'Internet Activism." Mobilization 15:425-446. Eliasoph, Nina. 1998. Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferree, Myra, William Gamson, Jurgen Gerhards, and Dieter Rucht. 2002. Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press. Futrell, Robert and Pete Simi. 2004. "Free Spaces, Collective Identity, and the Persistence of U.S. White Power Activism." Social Problems 51:16-42. Futrell, Robert, Pete Simi, and Simon Gottschalk. 2006. "Understanding Music in Movements: The White Power Music Scene." Sociological Quarterly 47:275-304. Gamson, William. 1990. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Gamson, William and David Meyer. 1996. "Framing Political Opportunity." Pp. 275-290 in Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, edited by D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, and M. Zald. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gamson, William and Gadi Wolfsfeld. 1993. "Movement and Media as Interacting Systems." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578:104-125. Gans, Herbert. 1979. Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon Books.

12 Giugni, Marco. 1998. "Was it Worth the Effort? Outcomes and Consequences of Social Movements." Annual Review of Sociology 98:371-393. Gusfield, Joesph. 1963. Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Johnston, Josee and Gordan Laxer. 2003. "Solidarity in the age of globalization: Lessons from the anti-MAI and Zapatista struggles." Theory and Society 32:39-91. Kahn, Richard and Douglas Kellner. 2004. "New Media and Internet Activism: From the 'Battle of Seattle' to Blogging." New Media & Society 6:87-95. Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. 1999. Faithful and Fearless: Moving Feminist Protest Inside the Church and Military. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. King, Brayden and Sarah Soule. 2007 "Social Movements as Extra-institutional Entrepreneurs: The Effect of Protest on Stock Price Returns." Administrative Science Quarterly 52:413- 442. Klandermans, Bert. 1984. "Mobilization and Participation: Social-Psychological Expansions of Resource Mobilization Theory." American Sociological Review 49:583-600. —. 1992. "The Social Construction of Protest and Multiorganizational Fields." Pp. 77-103 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by A. Morris and C. M. Mueller. New Haven: Yale University Press. Knudson, Jerry. 1998. "Rebellion in Chiapas: Insurrection by Internet and Public Relations." Pp. 507-518 in Media, Culture & Society, vol. 20. Lo, Clarence. 1990. Small Property versus Big Government: Social Origins of the Property Tax Revolt. Berkeley: University of California Press. Macdougall, Robert. 2005. "Identity, Electronic Ethos, and Blogs: A Technologic Analysis of Symbolic Exchange on the New News Medium." American Behavioral Scientist 49:575- 599. McCammon, Holly. 2003. ""Out of the Parlors and into the Streets": The Changing Tactical Repertoire of the U.S. Women's Suffrage Movements." Social Forces 81:787-818. McCarthy, John and Mayer Zald. 1973. The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalization and Resource Mobilization. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. —. 1977. "Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory." American Journal of Sociology 82:1212-1241. Meyer, John and Brian Rowan. 1977. "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Muth and Ceremony." American Journal of Sociology 83:340-363. Minkoff, Debra. 1999. "Bending with the Wind: Strategic Change and Adaptation by Women's and Racial Minority Organizations." American Journal of Sociology 104:1666-1703. Polletta, Francesca. 2002. Freedom is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Raeburn, Nicole. 2004. Changing Corporate America from Inside Out. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rich, Paul. 1997. "NAFTA and Chiapas." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 550:72-84. Rindova, Violina, Ian Williamson, and Antoaneta Petkova. 2005. "Being Good or Being Known: An Empirical Examination of the Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences of Organizational Reputation." Academy of Management Journal 48:1033-1049. Rochon, Thomas. 1998. Culture Moves: Ideas, Activism, and Changing Values. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

13 Rohlinger, Deana. 2002. "Framing the Abortion Debate: Organizational Resources, Media Strategies, and Movement-Countermovement Dynamics." The Sociological Quarterly 43:479-507. —. 2004. "Getting into Mass Media: A Comparative Analysis of Social Movement Organizations and Mass Media Outlets in the Abortion Debate." Dissertation Thesis, Sociology, University of California, Irvine. —. 2007. "American Media and Deliberative Democratic Processes." Sociological Theory 25:122-148. Ryan, Charlotte, Michael Anastario, and Karen Jeffreys. 2005. "Start Small, Build Big: Negotiating Opportunities in Media Markets." Mobilization 10:111-128. Schulz, Markus. 1998. "Collective action across borders: Opportunity structures, network capacities, and communicative praxis in the age of advanced globalization." Sociological Perspectives 41:587-616. Soule, S. A. and S. Olzak. 2004. "When do movements matter? The politics of contingency and the equal rights amendment." American Sociological Review:473-497. Staggenborg, Suzanne. 1988. "The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Pro-Choice Movement." American Sociological Review 53:585-606. Thornton, Patricia and William Ocasio. 2008. "Institutional Logics." Pp. 99-119 in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Instituitonalism, edited by K. Sahlin-Andersson, R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, and R. Suddaby. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tuchman, Gaye. 1978. Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: The Free Press. Vliegenthart, Rens, Dirk Oegema, and Bert Klandermans. 2005. "Media Coverage and Organizational Support in the Dutch Environmental Movement." Mobilization 10:365- 381. Walgrave, Stefaan and Jan Manssens. 2000. "The Making of the White March: The Media as a Mobilizing Alternative to Movement Organizations." Mobilization 5:217-239. Whetten, David. 2006. "Albert and Whetten Revisited: Strengthening the Concept of Organizational Identity." Journal of Management Inquiry 15:219-234. Whetten, David and Alison Mackey. 2002. "A Social Actor Conception of Organizational Identity and Its Implications for the Study of Organizational Reputation." Business & Society 41:393-414. Woehrle, Lynne, Patrick Coy, and Gregory Maney. 2008. Contesting Patriotism: Culture, Power, and Strategy in the Peace Movement. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.