SocialNetworksxxx (2012) xxx–xxx
ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirect
Social
Networks
j o u r n al hom ep a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / s o c n e t
Network
social
capital
as
an
outcome
of
social
movement
mobilization:
Using
the
position
generator
as
an
indicator
of
social
network
diversity
夽
D.B.
Tindall
a,∗,
Jeffrey
Cormier
b,
Mario
Diani
caDepartmentofForestResourcesManagement,DepartmentofSociology,UniversityofBritishColumbia,6303N.W.MarineDrive,Vancouver,B.C.,CanadaV6T1Z1 bFormerlyofKing’sCollege,UniversityofWesternOntario,Canada
cICREA-UniversitatPompeuFabra,Barcelona,Spain
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Keywords:Networkdiversity
Outcomesofsocialmovements Environmentalmovement Socialcapital
Positiongenerator Environmentalactivism
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Inthesocialmobilityliterature,thepositiongenerator(PG)hasbeenusedtoexaminetherelationship betweenthestructurallocationofindividuals,andoutcomessuchasobtainingahighstatusjob.Diversity ofoccupationalties(asmeasuredbythePG)isalsoasignificantpredictorofanindividual’sculturalcapital. Agreatdealofworkhasalsobeendoneinthefieldofsocialmovementsexaminingtherelationship betweennetworksandmobilization.However,onlylimitedattentionhasbeengiventotheposition generatorinthisliterature.Also,whilepastresearchhasdemonstratedthatpriornetworktiestoactivists isoneofthemostimportantpredictorsofcurrentactivism,relativelylittleresearchhasbeendevotedto examiningnetworkstructureasanoutcomeofactivism.Thepresentpaperbuildsupontheseinsightsby utilizingdatacollectedwiththepositiongeneratoronasampleofenvironmentalmovementmembers, andexaminingtherelationshipbetweenindividualactivism(asanindependentvariable)anddiversity ofoccupationalties(asadependentvariable).Theresultofkeytheoreticalsignificanceisthatthosewho aremoreactiveintheenvironmentalmovementdevelopagreaterdiversityofoccupationaltiestoother environmentalists.Resultssuggestthatthisprocessoccursovertime.Thesefindingsprovideevidence thatsocialcapital(asindicatedbynetworkdiversity)isoneoutcomeofsocialmovementmobilization.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Severalyearsofanalysisontheoutcomesofsocialmovements nowpermit alargely affirmativeresponse tothequestion: “Do socialmovementsmatter?”However,asupplementaryquestion, namely,“Howdosocialmovementsmatter?”requiresstillgreater theoreticalandempiricalelaboration.Weknowthatmovements matterinavarietyofintendedandunintendedways.Whilethere aremanydifficultiestowhatmaybecalled“outcomestudies”(see
Giugni,1999), itisnow commonlyunderstoodthat movements
canhaveat leastthreemajortypesof changeimpact:political, biographicalandcultural.Theexploratoryresearchpresentedhere is aneffort toextendthe theoreticaland empirical boundaries
夽 ThisresearchwassupportedbyaStandardResearchGrantfromtheSocial Sci-encesandHumanitiesResearchCouncilofCanada(#410-2005-1118).Anearlier versionofthismanuscriptwaspresentedattheAnnualMeetingsofthe Ameri-canSociologicalAssociation,inNewYork,inAugust2007.Wewouldliketothank thefollowingpeoplefortheircontributionstothisresearch:BonnieErickson,Barry Wellman,RobertBrym,JohnHannigan,NanLin,SeanLauer,BethMichaelaSimpson, ToddMalinick,MarkStoddart,AndreaStreilein,andJoannaRobinson.Wededicate thisarticletoJulieMichaud.
∗ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+16048222363;fax:+16048226161. E-mailaddress:tindall@mail.ubc.ca(D.B.Tindall).
ofpossiblesocialmovementoutcomes.Inotherwords,wewish to add to the political and policy successes of a movement, the biographical impacts movements have on individuals, and thelarge-scaleculturalandvalues shiftsthat resultfromsocial movementactivity,afourthcategoryofoutcomes:socialcapital outcomes(Diani,1997).More specifically,weexaminethe rela-tionshipbetweenindividualactivism,andtiestoenvironmental organization members from diverse occupational backgrounds. The lattermeasure, network diversity, hasbeenidentified as a significantformofsocialcapital(Erickson,2003).
We conduct an analysisof previously collectedsurvey data obtainedfrommembersofthreeformalenvironmental organiza-tionsthatmakeuppartoftheWildernessPreservationmovement in BritishColumbia,Canada.Using theposition-generator tech-niquedevelopedbyLinetal.(2001b),weexaminetherelationship betweenlevelofsocialmovementactivismandthediversityofthe occupationalties thatrespondentshavetootherenvironmental organizationmembers.Wearguethathavingagreaternumberof tiestoadiversityofothersproducessocialcapitalbenefitsforthe individualmovementmember,andpotentiallyforthemovement moregenerally.
Theanalysisproceedsinthefollowingmanner.Firstwereview the literatureonthe three commoncategories of social move-ment outcomesthathave emerged todate.Thisis followedby 0378-8733/$–seefrontmatter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 D.B.Tindalletal./SocialNetworksxxx (2012) xxx–xxx adiscussionofapossiblefourthcategory,namelysocial capital
benefitsthatresultfrommovementactivism.Weoutlineaseries ofsixexpectationsabouttherelationshipbetweenactivismand theproductionofsocialcapitaloutcomes.Wethendescribeour measures,focusingonadescriptionoftheposition-generator.We presentourresults,comparethemwitha supplementarystudy, andconcludewithadiscussionoftheindividual,organizational andcommunitylevelsocialbenefitstosocialmovementactivity.
2. Broadeningmovementimpacts
Threedistincttrendsemergefromcurrentworkontheimpact ofsocialmovements.Broadlyspeaking,researchershavefocused eitherontheindividual-levelbiographicalimpactsof participat-inginmovementactivity(McAdam,1989),thechangesandshifts inlarge-scalesociety-wideculturalvalues(Rochon,1998),orthe changesthattakeplacepolitically,usuallyintermsofpublicpolicy (cf.,Giugnietal.,1999;Meyer, 1999).Granted,thisneat tripar-titedivision beliesa much more nuancedand messy empirical reality.Untanglingthecausalthreadsbetweenmovementactions andoutcomesisnoteasy,andarguablyposesthegreatest chal-lengetoresearchintomovementoutcomes(Giugni,1999;Diani, 1997).Yetoutliningtheseresearchfociasiftheycomposed dis-creteoutcomesbringsintoreliefthoseareasthatdeservegreater attention.
Thefirsttwoareas–theimpactonindividualsandtheimpact on cultural values – have received significantly less attention thanhavepoliticalorientatedoutcomes(Giugni,1999).McAdam
(1989)hasbeenforefront inlookingat thebiographicaleffects
that participation hason individuals. He shows that participa-tion in the Civil Rights movement (McAdam, 1988) and the NewLeftmovement (McAdam,1999)had enormousimpactsat both the individual and aggregate level. A second set of out-comes is related to the ways social movements impact broad cultural values. Rochon (1998) argues that new cultural val-ues enter public debate through first the formation of what he calls “critical communities”: groups of thinkers, intellectu-als,etc., who develop innovative ways of looking at otherwise familiarissues. Rochonmaintains thatculturalchanges happen whenmovementslatchonto andsucceed indiffusingtheideas ofacriticalcommunity.Culturalchangeincludesbothachange in mentalities as well as a change in public policy (Rochon,
1998:9).
Muchmoreattentionhasbeendevotedtowhatarecommonly groupedaspoliticalimpacts (Giugni,1999).Whilepolitical out-comesareinmostinstancesbroadlydefined(c.f.,Andrews,1997, 2004)theyusuallyincludeeithersomekindofpushfororlater implementationofpublicpolicy(Burstein,1999).Thesestudies attempttoconnectsomeelementorcombinationofelementsof themovement–organizationalstructure,framingofissues,and politicalopportunities–withaspecificlegislativeorpolicy
out-come(McCammon etal.,2001; Souleand Olzak,2004;Amenta
etal.,1992).
Therearetwofundamentalcritiquesofimpactstudies.Themost oftenexpressedwhichencompassesindividualbiographical, cul-turalorpoliticalchangeisthedifficultyindrawingadirectcausal linkbetweenthemovement’sactionsand a particularoutcome
(Andrews,2004;Giugni,1999;Diani,1997).Itispossible,thatthe
individual,culturalorpoliticalchangeistheresultofsomeother cause–inwhichcasewehaveaspuriousrelationship–orwould havehappenedanyway,despitetheactionsofthemovement.This lattercounterfactualisdifficulttoestablishbecausethemerefact wearelookingatamovementimpactmeansthemovementhas alreadybeenpresent.(Buthistoricaland/orcross-cultural compar-isonsofsimilarcasescansometimesbehelpful.)Second,movement
andorganizationalgoalsareneverhomogeneous.Wellunderstood isthefactthatorganizationstendtospendaninordinateamount oftimeandeffortdiscussingwhatthemovement’sgoalsare. Com-plicatingmattersstillisthefactthatmovementgoalsoftenchange overtime.
Facedwiththis chaosandcomplexity researchershave usu-allytendedtowardsreductionism:freezethemovement’sgoalsat oneparticulartimewhilereadinggoalsbackfromaclearlystated policyachievement.Suchsimplificationeliminatessomeofthe dis-tractingbackgroundcreatedbythemultifariousactivitiesofthe movement,thereby allowingresearcherstofocusonwhat they takeasthedirectlinkbetweenmovementactionandimpact.While initiallyattractivebecauseofitsapparentparsimony,thisstrategy distractsfromgreaterexplorationintothediversityofinfluences andimpactsthatsocialmovementscontributetosociallife.
Anotherstrategy,theonethatwepursuehere,istobroadenthe relationshipbetweenmovementandmovementactivityand out-comes(Andrews,2004;Diani,1997),byincludingamongpossible outcomeswhatwecall“socialbenefits”ofmovementactivity.
3. Socialcapitaloutcomesasasocialbenefit
Thepresentstudyisrootedinaresearchtraditionthattreats social network ties as an“independent variable” that produces activism (the dependent variable). A number of scholars have examinedtheeffectofnetworksonactivism(e.g.,McAdam,1986;
Gould, 1993; Diani,1995; Kitts,1999; Tindall, 2002; Diani and
McAdam,2003).A varietyofargumentshavebeenmadeabout
theeffectofnetwork ties onindividualactivism. It isgenerally arguedthatthegreaterthenumberoftiesonehas,themoreactive s/hewillbe.Asubsetoftheprocessesinvolvedincludeincreased communicationanddiffusionofinformation,socialinfluence,and socialsupport.Whilelinkedtothisapproach,ourstudy intention-allysetsouttodistinguishitselffromthistradition.Inthepresent research,inordertofullyexplorethesocialconsequencesofsocial movementactivity,wearguethatitmightbeusefultoconsidera reversecausallogicbetweensocialnetworksandmovement mobi-lization,andtreatsocialnetworksandnetworktiesasoutcomesof movementmobilization,ratherthanassolelyasfacilitatorsofthe latter(c.f., McAdam, 2003).Diani(1997) in particularpointsto foursuchpossiblesocial networkconsequences for movements andmovementorganizations:increasedmobilizationcapacityfor futureaction,thedevelopmentofsubculturesandcountercultures, increasedpersonalnetworkswiththoseoutsidethemovement, andtheproduction,disseminationanddiffusionofnovelideas.In short,Dianisuggestsweview“networksasaproductaswellas apreconditionofaction”therebyexpandingtherangeofpossible movementoutcomes(Diani,1997:143).
Recent research on networks and social capital (Lin et al.,
2001a;Linand Erickson,2008)and networksandsocial
move-ments(DianiandMcAdam,2003)helporientourpresentanalysis. Keyisthenotionthatsocialcapitalisgeneratedbyandthrough socialnetworks(Bourdieu,1986;Coleman,1988;Lin,2001b;Lin
et al., 2001a).Individuals’ social ties to one another allow for
theexchangeof valuable socialresources. Foursuchassetscan bediscerned(c.f.,Lin,2001b).First,movementinformationoften flowsbetween individuals whohave regular contact witheach otherwithin the context ofactivism (Oliver and Myers,2003). Powerandpoliticalinfluencecanbeobtainedbyhavingkeysocial tiestoagentssuchasmovementleadersorpoliticalelites(Diani, 2003).Legitimacyandcertificationofthemovementorganization asawholeorindividualactivistmaycomethroughnetworkties. Finally,socialcapitalresourcessuchassenseofidentity,solidarity andemotionalsupporthelpactiviststhroughtheoftenexhausting demandsofsocialactivism(Passy,2003).
D.B.Tindalletal./SocialNetworksxxx (2012) xxx–xxx 3
4. Networks,socialcapital,andthepositiongenerator
Ourargumentinthispaperisthatnetworkdiversityservesasa formofsocialcapital,andthatone’slevelofactivismispositively associatedwithnetworkdiversity.Inotherwords,themoreactive youare,themoretiesyoumaketootherpeoplefromdiverse occu-pationalbackgroundswithinyourenvironmentalorganization.
Inthepresentanalysiswedonotsetouttoempiricallyexamine whethernetworkdiversityservesasaformofsocialcapital,rather wefocusonexplainingnetworkdiversityasanoutcome. Neverthe-less,thereissomeevidenceintheliteratureregardingtheformer issue.
ThemostprominentargumentaboutthisisNanLin’s “extensity-of-tiesproposition”(Lin, 1999).Linusestheterm“extensity”to refertonetworkdiversity.Hispropositionstates:“themore exten-sivethenetworks,thebetterthesocialresourcestobeaccessedand mobilized”(Lin,1999:483).
Avarietyofempiricalstudieshaveexaminedthecorrelatesof personalnetworkdiversity(foranoverviewofsomeofthesesee
LinandErickson,2008).Forexample,Erickson(1996)foundthat
peoplewithmorediversenetworks(intermsoftiestopeoplefrom differentoccupations) hadgreaterculturalcapital.Harshawand
Tindall(2005)foundthatpeoplewithmorediverseties(to
occu-pations)hadgreateridentitydiversity,andindirectly,morediverse values.
Moregenerally,Erickson(2003)haselaboratedthepayoffof networkdiversity.Sheelegantlystates:
Varietyisthekey.Knowingmanykindsofpeopleinmanysocial contextsimprovesone’schancesofgettingagoodjob, develop-ingarangeofculturalinterests,feelingincontrolofone’slife andbeinghealthy.Sometimesknowingmanykindsofpeople ishelpfulbecauseitimprovesthechancesofhavingtheright contactforsomepurpose:hearingofanattractivejobopening, borrowingalawnmower,gettingthehomecleaned.
Networkvarietycanalsobeusefulinitself,forexampleinjobs thatcallfordiversecontacts.Eitherway,thecriticalmatteristhe varietyofacquaintancesandnotthemerenumber.(Erickson,
2003:25)
5. Hypotheses
Astartingpointforourtheoreticalargumentistheclaimthat socialmovementactivitiesserveasatypeof“foci”(Feld,1981). Fociareorganizationsoreventsthatcoordinatesocialinteraction inplaceandtime.Theycanbesmallorlarge,servingasorganizing structuresforonlyafewpeople(asinafamily),orformanypeople (asinalargecorporation).Focialsovaryinthedegreeofconstraint andlevelofcommitmenttheydemandofparticipants.Whilesocial networktiesmaybeformedthroughrandominteractionamong individuals,tiesaremorelikelytoformwhereindividualshavea sharedorientationtooneofthesefoci.Inotherwords,AandBare morelikelytobelongtothesamesocialnetworkiftheygotothe sameschoolorbelongtothesameclubthaniftheydonothave asharedfoci.Forenvironmentalists,importantfocimayinclude environmentalgroupmeetingsandprotests.Thesearesiteswhere individualscanformandstrengthensocialnetworkrelationswith peoplewhohavesimilarinterests(seeTindalletal.,2009aswell as,onpeaceactivists,Diani,2009).An“unintended”by-productof activism(orparticipationinsocialmovementevents),weargue, isexposuretopeoplefromawidervarietyofbackgrounds(e.g.,in termsofoccupations)andthusdevelopmentofamorediverse per-sonalnetwork(andthusahigherlevelofpersonalnetworksocial capital).
Theresearchstrategydevelopedherederivesfromthese obser-vationsabouttheproductionofsocialcapitalthroughnetworks.
Morespecifically,weareinterestedinhowtheproductionofsocial capital relates to the possible social benefits that accrue from socialmovements,asanoutcomeofsocialmovementactivity.Our overarchingresearchquestionreflectsthisconcern:Whatisthe relationshipbetweenlevelofmovementparticipation,lengthof timeofthatparticipation,andthegenerationofsocialcapitalas embeddedinthediversityofone’snetworkties?Wewouldexpect toseethatlongermoreintenseparticipationinamovementwould leadtoincreasedproductionofsocialcapital.Severalhypotheses guideouranalysisofsocialcapitaloutcomes.First,weexpectthat:
H1a. Levelofactivismwillbepositivelyassociatedwithdiversity ofoccupationaltiestootherenvironmentalists.
Thereasoningbehindthishypothesisistheideathatthemore activeapersonis,thegreatertheopportunitiess/hewillhaveto meetotherindividualsandinteractwiththem.Thiswilllead,we believe,toanincreaseinthediversityoftiesonehas.Oursecond hypothesisisrelatedtotime:
H2a. Lengthoftimeinthemovementwillbepositivelyassociated withdiversityofoccupationaltiestootherenvironmentalists.
Thelongeronespendsinthemovement,thegreaterthe oppor-tunitiestomeet withothers, which willleadtomore ties toa diversityofothers.Finally,itispossiblethatbothlevelofactivism anddiversityoftiesarerelatedtolengthoftimeinthemovement. Thelongersomeonebelongstothemovementthemore opportu-nitiestheyhavetoincreasetheir(aggregate)levelofactivism.In addition,thelongersomeonebelongstothemovementthemore opportunitiestheyhavetodevelopties.Hence,weneedtocontrol fortimeinouranalyses.Wecontrolfortimeinourthirdhypothesis:
H3a. Levelofactivismwillbepositivelyassociatedwithdiversity ofoccupationaltiestootherenvironmentalists,netoflengthoftime inthemovement.
Inshort,ourfirstsetofhypothesesallowsustoexaminewhether ornottheproductionofnetworksocialcapitalisafunctionoflevel ofactivism. Thegreaterthedegreeofactivism, themoresocial capitalonegeneratesthroughincreasinglydiversenetworkties.It maybesuggested,however,thatthislogicisreversed:namely,that ratherthannetworktiesbeingformedafterjoiningthemovement peoplewithlargermorediversenetworksaresimplymorelikelyto bedrawnintothemovementinthefirstplace.Indeed,thekeyrole thatnetworktiesplayinbringingpeopleintoasocialmovement andactivismisbynowwellunderstood(seeMcAdam,2003fora review).Herewedevelopasecondsetofhypothesesthatallowsus tocontrolforthispossibility.Ingeneralwemaintainthatwhileitis possiblethatmovementmembersmayknowanumberofpeople priortojoiningthemovement,itislikelythattheydevelopmostof theirtiestootherenvironmentalmovementorganizationmembers afterandasaresultofparticipationinenvironmentalmovement activities.
Toexaminethisweformulatethreehypothesesthatare iden-ticaltotheprevioushypotheseswiththeadditionofthecontrol variable“diversityofoccupationaltiesingeneral”;e.g.,toothers regardlessoftheirEnvironmentalSocialMovementOrganization (ESMOhereafter)membershipstatus.Thisallowsustoexaminethe relationshipbetweenlevelofactivismanddiversityoftiestothose withintheirmovementorganization,controllingforthediversity ofoccupationaltiestheyhaveingeneral.First,weexpectthat
H1b. Levelofactivismwillbepositivelyassociatedwithdiversity ofoccupationaltiestootherenvironmentalists,netofdiversityof occupationaltiesingeneral.
4 D.B.Tindalletal./SocialNetworksxxx (2012) xxx–xxx
H2b. Lengthoftimeinthemovementwillbepositivelyassociated withdiversityofoccupationaltiestootherenvironmentalists,net ofdiversityofoccupationaltiesingeneral.
Finally,wecontrolforbothlengthoftimeinthemovementand diversityofoccupationaltiesingeneralinordertofocusonthenet associationbetweenlevelofactivismanddiversityoftiestoother environmentalists;weexpectthat
H3b. Levelofactivismwillbepositivelyassociatedwithdiversity ofoccupationalties tootherenvironmentalists,netoflengthof timeinthemovement,andnetofdiversityofoccupationaltiesin general.
Takingdiversityofoccupationaltiestootherenvironmentalists asourmajorindicatorofsocialcapitalthroughnetworks,weexpect tofindthatregardlessofthelengthoftimeoneisamemberofan ESMO,orthediversityofoccupationaltiesonehasingeneral,one’s levelofactivismwillbeasignificantpredictorofthediversityof socialtiesonehastoESMOmembers.Greateractivism,wepredict, leadstogreaterdiversityofsocialtiestootherenvironmentalists andtherebyisanetpositivesocialoutcomebenefit.Ifour hypothe-sesaresupported,theproductionofsocialcapitalasembeddedin networkswillneedtobeincludedasyetafourthpossiblebenefit –a“socialbenefit”–ofsocialmovementactivity.
6. Dataandmeasures
SeveralSupplementarytables,availableontheweb, provide detailsonthemeasurementofvariables,theoriginalquestionnaire itemforcollectingthetiedata,aswellasresultsfromseveral sup-plementaryanalyses.Dataforthefollowinganalysiscomesfrom astudy oftheBritish ColumbiaWildernessPreservation move-ment(onthemovement,seeTindallandBegoray,1993;Wilson,
1998;Shaw,2002; Tindall,2002;Tindall and Cormier,2008).A
self-administeredmailquestionnairewasdistributedtomembers of three formal Environmental Social Movement Organizations (ESMOs)livingingreaterVictoria,thecapitalofBritishColumbia, Canada.Theserespondentsweredrawnfromorganizationsthat arecomponentpartsoftheWildernessPreservationmovement: theSierraClubofWesternCanada(SCWC),theWesternCanada WildernessCommittee(WCWC),andtheCarmanahForestry Soci-ety(CFS).
Fortwoofthegroupsasystematicrandomsamplingprocedure wasemployed.Forathird,whichisasmallerorganization,acensus ofmemberswasconducted.Theresponseratesforthethreegroups were:GroupA35%(N=146),GroupB35%(N=64),GroupC11% (N=187).Theresponseratesforthesurveyswererelativelylowin absoluteterms,thoughnotnecessarilyincomparativeterms(see
MullerandOpp,1986;Opp,1986).
Thecurrent samplevariesfromthegeneralpublicinseveral regards.Membersofoursampletendtohavehigherlevelsofformal education,tohavehigherlevelsofincome,andtobemorelikelyto befromupper-middle-classandmiddle-classwhite-collar occu-pations.Intermsoftheageandgenderdistribution,thesample reflectsthegeneralpopulationquiteclosely.Becausethe charac-teristicsofthesamplegenerallyreflectthecharacteristicsofthe populationwhoparticipateinnewsocialmovements(e.g.,those withhigherlevelsofincomeandeducation,andthosefrom middle-andupper-classlocationsaremorelikelytoparticipate),wedonot feelthatthesedifferencesfromthegeneralpublicpresenta sub-stantialproblemfortheresearchquestionsbeingexaminedhere. Itshouldalsobenotedthatthedistributionofscoresforlevelof activismamongtherespondentsisapproximatelynormally dis-tributed.Thussomepeoplehavelowlevelsofactivism,somehave highlevelsofactivism,buttheaveragerespondentismoderately active.
To further assess the possibility of sampling bias related to non-response (regarding issues related to non-response see
MooreandTarnai,2002;Groves,2006)weconductedan
analy-sisoflateresponders.Thisanalysisrevealednoobvioussampling biases.1
Insum, whiletheresponse rateis somewhatlow,itis com-parabletosimilarstudies.Further,aswearetestingtheoretical correlationsratherthantryingtoestablishpreciseparameter esti-mates and there is substantial variation for the key variables, somesamplingbiasshouldnotpresentasubstantialproblem(see
Opp,1986).Finally,thereisnoevidenceofsubstantialsampling bias.
6.1. Thepositiongenerator
NanLin’s(2001a,b)definitionofsocialcapitalprovidesthe
con-ceptualbackdropfortheoperationalizationandmeasurementof theindependentvariable(i.e.,diversityofsocialties)usedinthis analysis.ForLin, social capitalconsistsof“resources embedded ina social structurethat areaccessedand/ormobilized in pur-posiveactions”(Linetal.,2001b:58).Unhappywiththepopular “name-generator”strategy(c.f.,Laumann,1973;Wellman,1979) tomeasureaccesstosocialcapital,LinandDumin(1986) devel-opedthe“position-generator”method(Linetal.,2001b;Linand
Erickson,2008).Thetechniquerequires respondentstoindicate
contact(e.g.,withafamilymember,afriend,anacquaintance,etc.), ifany,withasampleoforderedhierarchical,usually occupation-basedpositions(e.g.,lawyer,highschoolteacher,carpenter,etc.). The major strength of this technique over thename-generator strategyisthatitbetterreflectsaccessindividualshaveto struc-turallyembeddedresources(Lin etal.,2001b;LinandErickson,
2008).2
The position-generatorhasalready demonstrated its useful-nessinmeasuringsocialcapitaloutcomesinavarietyofsettings.
Erickson (1996), for instance, has used it in combination with
Wright’s(1985)classrankingstostudytherelationshipbetween
classandcultureintheprivatesecurityindustryinToronto,Canada. Research into how people usecultural and/or social capital in instrumentalwaysforsocialmobility,statusandprestige,infact, hastodatebeenthemostcommonuseofthepositiongenerator. Theresearchquestionthatiscommonlyaskedis:howis differen-tialaccesstosocialcapitalassociatedwithdifferentialoutcomes intermsofjobprestige,income,status,andsocialclass(Linand
Dumin,1986;Lin,2001a;Linetal.,2001b;LinandErickson,2008).
This work with the position-generator has effectively demon-stratedtheimportanceofaccessingsocialandculturalcapitalfor thepurposeofsocialmobility.
Until recently the position-generator has been used almost exclusivelyforsocial mobilitystudies(forsomeexceptions,see
CôtéandErickson,2009;Bekkersetal.,2008;Miyataetal.,2008;
HsungandLin,2008;Ennsetal.,2008;TindallandCormier,2008;
Magee,2008).Hereweapplyittotheproductionofsocialcapital
withinthefieldofsocialmovementsandcollectiveaction.
1Contactthefirstauthorformoreinformation.
2Theseresponsesallowfortheconstructionofatleastthreemeasuresofaccess
tosocialnetworkcapital(Linetal.,2001b:63).Therangeofaccessibilityto occupa-tions(e.g.,thedistancebetweenthehighest(e.g.,doctor)andthelowest(e.g.,truck driver),theupperreachability(e.g.,theprestigeofthehighestpositionaccessed), ortheextensitytodifferentoccupations(e.g.,thenumberofpositionsaccessed). Ourmeasurecomesclosesttothislastmeasure,althoughweusetheterms“range ofties”(Burt,1980)and“diversityofties”interchangeablytocaptureLinetal.’s (2001b)notionofextensity.Burt(1980)usedtheterm“range”slightlydifferently fromLin.InBurt’susagerangereferstothenumberofdifferentsociallocations (orgroups)thatoneistiedto.Thisisconsistentwithwhatwemeanby“range”or “diversityofties”.
D.B.Tindalletal./SocialNetworksxxx (2012) xxx–xxx 5 6.2. Dependentvariable:diversityoftiestoESMOmembers
The position generator instrument used in this study was adaptedfromErickson(seeErickson,1996;forarelatedstudyusing anexpandedversionofthismeasureseeErickson,2004).Erickson’s originalinstrumentutilizedtheformatofLinandDumin(1986), butwasmorestructurallyorientedintermsoffocussingona vari-etyofclasslocations,andthusdrewupontheworkofWrightin identifyingcategoriesandoccupations(Wright,1985).
Erickson (1996) included a category for control of property
(businessownersoutside yourcompany)andtwoforcontrolof organizations(businessowners whorunanestablishmentother than your own company, and supervisor). Erickson’s original instrument also included a number of professions and semi-professions,severalbluecollartrades,andseveralpoliceranks(as herstudyfocussedspecificallyonthesecurityindustry).Erickson’s instrumentincludedatotalof21occupationalcategories(including threefordifferenttypesofpoliceofficersthatwerelatercollapsed intoasinglecategory)thatvariesintermsoftheseclasslocations. Thecurrent workborrows from,and elaboratesupon Erick-son’sversion of theposition generator. The present version of themeasureincludeagreaternumberofcategories(40intotal), and also providesa minor focus on ties to those employed in naturalresourceoccupations(suchasloggers,millworkers, fish-ermen/fisherwomen),andtiestopoliticians(asthecurrentstudy focussedonsocialmovementmobilizationregarding environmen-tal issues related to forestry). The occupations in the current instrumentrangedfromhigherprestige (suchasbusiness man-agers,doctors,universityprofessors)tomid-level(nurses,social workers,primaryschoolorsecondaryschoolteachers),tolower status(truckdrivers,waiters/waitresses,loggers)(forinformation onthemeasurementofoccupationalprestigeandsocio-economic status in CanadaseeBlishen et al., 1987;Boyd, 2008; also,for aninternationallycomparablescaleseeGanzeboomandTreiman,
1996).
Respondentswereaskedwhethertheyknewofany acquain-tances,closefriends,orrelativesinaseriesof40occupations,and thenforeachoccupationtheywereaskediftheyknewsomeone intheoccupationwhowasamemberoftheirESMO (environmen-talsocialmovementorganization).Responseswerecodedatthe binarylevelforeachoccupation:therespondentknewsomeone in that occupation who belongedto theESMO=1;the respon-dentdidnotknowanyoneinthatoccupationwhobelongedtothe ESMO=0.Theresponsestotheindividualoccupationalitemswere thensummedtocreateanindex.Thehigherthevaluefortheindex, thegreaterthenetworkrangeornetworkdiversity.Thesurveyitem isprovidedinSupplementaryTable2initsentirety.(SeeTindall
andCormier,2008formoredetails.)Percentagesforthisitemare
providedinSupplementaryTable3.
6.3. Keyindependentvariables
SupplementaryTable1listsandprovidesbriefdescriptionsof
allofthevariables usedintheanalysis,andTableA.1 provides descriptivestatistics foreach variable.Thecontrol variablesare socio-demographicinnature.Ourthreeindependentvariablesof centralinterest–levelofactivism,lengthoftimeanddiversityof generalties–needgreaterexplanation,andthuswillbedescribed below.Wewillalsoaddsomecommentaryaboutourclass mea-sures.
6.4. Levelofactivism
Ourmainindependentvariable,levelofactivism,isan aggre-gatemeasurecombiningseventeentypesofparticipationinthe environmentalmovement(Tindall,2002).Oneeitherparticipated
(codedas1)ordidnotparticipate(codedas0)inthefollowing activities:(1)donatemoneytoawildernesspreservationorother environmentalorganization;(2)writealettertoagovernment offi-cialregardingawildernesspreservationissue;(3)writealettertoa newspaperregardingwildernesspreservation(orforestryrelated issues);(4)writealettertoaloggingcompanyaboutaforestry (orwilderness)issue; (5)writea lettertoanotherorganization regardinga wildernesspreservationissue;(6) signapetition to preservea wilderness area;(7) participatein trailbuilding;(8) attendacommunitymeetingaboutwildernesspreservationand/or forestry;(9)attendarallyorprotestdemonstrationonthelawns of thelegislature tosupportwilderness preservation;(10) par-ticipateinaninformationcampaignforthegeneralpublicabout wildernesspreservation;(11)advertiseinthemediatopromote wildernesspreservation;(12)makeapresentationtoapublicbody aboutwildernesspreservationand/orforestryrelatedissues;(13) give a lecture on wilderness preservation and/or logging prac-ticestoaschoolgrouporvoluntaryorganization;(14)participate inapressrelease/conference(regardingwildernesspreservation andforestry-relatedissues);(15)serveasarepresentativeonan advisoryboardformedaroundwildernesspreservationorforestry relatedissues;(16)purchaseabook,t-shirt,poster,mugorother merchandisefromanenvironmentalorganization;and(17)other activities.
Itisassumedthatthegreaterthenumberofactivitiesa move-mentmember hasparticipated in,themore activesheorheis. Factorandreliabilityanalysisstronglysupportedthecreationofa generalindexmeasureofactivismbasedontheseseventeenitems
(seeTindall,2002).
6.5. Lengthofmembership
Thevariable“lengthofmembership”isthelengthoftime(in years)sincetherespondenthadjoinedtheenvironmentalsocial movementorganization.
6.6. Diversityofoccupationaltiesingeneral
Thevariable“diversityofoccupationaltiesingeneral”isbased onthe followingprocedures. Respondents wereasked whether theyknewofanyacquaintances,closefriends,orrelativesinaseries of40occupations.Ifapersonknewsomeoneinanoccupationthey receivedascoreof1.Iftheydidnotknowanyoneinthatoccupation theyreceivedascoreof0.Theresponsestotheindividual occupa-tionalitemswerethensummedtocreateanindex.Thus,thisisa measureofdiversityofoccupationaltiesingeneral(regardlessof thealters’ESMOmembershipstatus).
6.7. Classmeasures
Asoccupationalstatus/classhasbeencentraltotheliterature thathasutilizedthepositiongenerator,wewillsayafewwords aboutclassandoccupationalstatushere.Wehaveincludedthis materialinthemethodsratherthanintheliteraturesectionasit islessgermanetoourtheoreticalarguments,butisrelevanttoour selectionof“controlvariables”.
Asetofargumentslooselydrawntogetherundertherubricof newsocialmovementtheoryhasbeendevelopedtoexplainthe risetoprominenceofcontemporarysocial movementsover the pastseveraldecades.Thosewhohaveexaminedthecomposition ofcontemporarymovementshaveputforth theclaim thatnew socialmovements(NSMs)arecomprisedofmembersofthe“new middle class”(oratleast partsof thenewmiddle class).Some writersequatethe“newclass”withaconglomerationof occupa-tionsdescribedas“socialandculturalspecialists”(e.g.,professors, writers,andartists;seeBrint,1984;Kriesi,1989).
6 D.B.Tindalletal./SocialNetworksxxx (2012) xxx–xxx
Table1
Multipleregressionmodelsexplainingnetworksocialcapital(diversityofoccupationaltiestootherenvironmentalists).a
Socio-economicanddemographic controlvariables
Model1 Model2 Model3 Model3 (unstandardized)
Model4 Model5 Model5 (unstandardized)
Unst.coeff Stderror Unst.coeff. Std.error
Education .084 .088 .048 .044 .055 .072 .035 .032 .055
Gender(male=1) .021 .023 .000 −.001 .224 .023 .001 .003 .221
Age −.094 −.175* −.042 −.005 .010 −.152 −.026 −.003 .010
FullEmployment(employedft=1) −.058 −.048 −.013 −.050 .260 −.075 −.037 −.147 .258
Retired(retired=1) −.157 −.100 −.120 −.638 .448 −.082 −.104 −.552 .443
BusinessOwners −.039 −.009 −.019 −.140 .435 −.018 −.027 −.198 .429
Managers .072 .090 .071 −.555 .456 .091 .072 .563 .449
Newmiddleclass −.033 −.008 −.051 −.209 .294 −.008 −.050 −.203 .290
Personalincome(log) −.003 −.006 −.031 −.058 .114 −.012 −.035 −.066 .112
Time:lengthofmembership — .195**** .056 −.027 .028 .195**** .060 .028 .028
Mobilization:levelofindividualactivism — — .404**** .240**** .034 — .392**** .233**** .034
Totaldiversityoftiestooccupations — — — — — .191**** .165**** .038*** .013
Constant −.683 .859
R2 .056 .090*** .226**** .226**** .123**** .251**** .251****
AdjustedR2 .026 .058*** .196**** .196**** .089**** .219**** .219****
N 294 294 294 294 294 294 294
aStandardizedcoefficientsarepresentedexceptwherestated. * p≤.05.
**p≤.01. ***p≤.005. ****p≤.001.
Thissocialmovement literaturedovestails withsomeofthe workonsocialnetworksandsocialcapital,andinparticular,with researchusingthepositiongenerator.Lin(1999)hasprovidedthe “strengthofpositionproposition”:socialresourcesareaffectedby the original position of ego (as represented by parental resources orpreviousresources).Andvarious studieshavefoundthat net-workdiversityis,indeed,associatedwithclass,occupationalstatus, and/orincome(Erickson,1996;VanderGaagetal.,2008;Moren
CrossandLin,2008).Forexample,inarecentrepresentative
sur-vey of the British population, Li et al. found that people with higheroccupationalstatus,aswellasthosewhowereupwardly mobile,had ties toa greater diversity of occupations(Liet al.,
2008).
Thusnewsocialmovementtheoristsarguethatthenewmiddle classingeneral,andsocialandculturalspecialistsinparticular,will bemoreinvolvedinnewsocialmovements.Extrapolatingfromthis andsynthesizingtheseinsightswiththesocialcapitalliterature wewouldexpectthenewmiddleclasstohavegreaternetwork diversity(intermsoftheirtiestopeoplefromdifferentoccupations withinthemovement).Similarly,socialcapital theoristspredict thatthosewithhigheroccupationalstatusand/orthosefromhigher classpositions,willhavegreaternetworkdiversity.
Asoccupationalstatusisamajorcomponentoftheoretical mod-elsthatlinkthepositiongeneratortosocialcapital,wehavegiven someemphasistothisliterature.Nevertheless,inthepresentstudy, occupation/classistreatedasa“control”variableratherthana cen-tralexplanatoryvariableasourfocusisupontheeffectsofactivism. Ourclassificationofoccupation/classwasinformedpartlybyBrint
(1984),andpartlybyWright(1985).Forthesakeofparsimonywe
havecollapsedseveralnewmiddleclasscategoriesintoasingle aggregatecategorywhichweuseinthepresentanalyses.Wehave alsodoneadditionalanalysesthatarenotreportedherewiththe morefinegrainedcategories(socialandculturalspecialistsin par-ticular)buttheseresultswereundistinguishablefromthepresent results,andthuswepresentthesimplifiedcategorizationscheme here.
Basedonthetwosetsofliteraturesnotedabove,theimplicit hypothesis is that Business Owners, Managers, and occupants ofNewMiddle Classpositions willhavegreaternetwork diver-sity than occupants of lower class positions in the reference categories.
7. Results
Table1providesaseriesofmultiplesregressionmodelsthat
weusetotestthehypotheses.Thedependentvariableforthese analysesisdiversityofoccupationaltiestootherenvironmentalists (TOE).(WewillusetheabbreviationTOEfor“toother environmen-talists”hereafter.)
Model1ofTable1providesamodelforeducation,gender,age, employmentstatus,retirementstatus,severaldummyvariablesfor classlocation(businessowners,managers,newmiddleclass),and personalincome(log).Thevariablesincludedinthismodelwere selectedfor“control”purposes.Noneofthesecontrolvariableshas asignificanteffect.
Inmodel2weaddourfirstvariableofsubstantialtheoretical interest,lengthofmembershipwiththeESMO.Herewefinda pos-itiveandsignificantassociationbetweenlengthofmembershipand diversityoftiesTOE.Asexpected(andstatedinH2a)thelonger peo-plehavebelongedtoanESMO,thegreaterthenumberoftiesthey havemadetodifferentoccupationsTOE.Ofminornote,ageisnow significantlynegativelyassociatedwithdiversityofoccupational tiesTOE.(YoungerpeoplehadmorediverseoccupationaltiesTOE.) InModel3weaddthevariableofcentraltheoreticalinterestto thispaper,levelofactivism.Asexpected(andstatedinH1a)the moreactiveindividualsare,thegreatertheirdiversityof occupa-tionaltiesTOE.Itshouldalsobenotedthatinthismodel,when levelofactivismisadded,thecoefficientforlengthof member-shipdeclinesinmagnitudeandbecomesnon-significant.(Agealso becomesnon-significant.)Thissuggeststhattheeffectoflength ofmembershipisindirectvialevelofactivism.Thatis,thelonger people belong to an ESMO, the greater their opportunities for participating in movement activities, and the more movement activitiestheyparticipatein,thegreaterthediversityoftiesthey makeTOE.ThisalsosupportsH3a.
InModel4,levelofactivismisremovedfromthemodel,and total diversityof occupationalties is addedtothemodel. (This includestiestodifferentoccupationsregardlessofwhetherornot thealterisamemberoftheESMO.)Herewefindthatlengthof membershipispositiveandsignificant,andtotaldiversityof occu-pationtiesisalsopositiveandsignificant.Thefactthattheeffectfor lengthofmembershipissignificant(andpositive)netofdiversity ofoccupationaltiesingeneralsupportsH2b.
D.B.Tindalletal./SocialNetworksxxx (2012) xxx–xxx 7 Finally,inmodel5,levelofactivismisreintroduced intothe
model.Herelevelofactivismissignificantlyandpositively asso-ciated withdiversity of occupational ties TOE net of length of membership,diversityofoccupationaltiesingeneral,andnetof thecontrolvariables.3ThissupportsH3B.4Indeed,levelofactivism isthestrongestpredictorofdiversityofoccupationaltiesTOE.It shouldalsobenotedthatlengthof membershipagainbecomes non-significantwhenlevelofactivismisincludedinthemodel(as inmodel3),buttotaldiversityofoccupationaltiesispositivelyand significantlyassociatedwithdiversityofoccupationaltiesTOE.5In models1,2and4onlystandardizedcoefficientsareprovided.In the“fullmodels”3,and5bothstandardizedandunstandardized coefficientsareprovided.6
Insum,allofourhypothesesaresupportedbythefindings.The resultofkeytheoreticalsignificanceisthatthosewhoaremore activeintheenvironmentalmovementdevelopagreaterdiversity oftiesTOE.Thisappearstohappenovertime(inresultsnotshown here,levelofactivismispositivelyandsignificantlyassociatedwith lengthofmembership;r=.27,p<.001).
8. Discussion
Theevidence that social movementsmatteris building. The primarygoalofthisanalysishasbeentocontributetothis evi-dence while at the same time expanding the ways in which social movement outcomes are studied and analyzed. Along with the political, biographical and culturalbenefits of collec-tiveaction, we encourage greater emphasis onwhat we think are the social benefits of social movement participation. Our studyoftheBritishColumbiaWildernessPreservationmovement hasdemonstrated how an individual’s “network social capital” is increased throughactivism in a social movement. The more active a person is in a movement – for instance, by attending ralliesandothermovementevents–themorediversethe occu-pationalties one developswithothers withinthose movement contexts.
Thisstudyhasprovidedsubstantialevidenceofanempirical correlationbetweenthelevelofactivismofindividuals,andthe diversityofoccupationaltiesthatpeoplehavetomovement par-ticipants.Ourtheoreticalclaimisthatthemoreactiveoneis,the greaterthediversityofaltersonemeets,andthusthemore occu-pationallydiverseone’snetworkis(atleastregardingtiestoother movementparticipants).
Oneweaknessofthepresentanalysisisthatwecannotbesure whethertheproductionofdiverseoccupationaltiesoccursbefore orafteractivism.Thatis,istheobservedeffecta“socialinfluence effect”,ora“socialselectioneffect”(Snijdersetal.,2010).
Inouranalysis,weprovideamodel(Table1,Model5)where diversityofties ingeneraliscontrolledfor.Thisprovidessome evidencethatthecorrelationbetweenactivismand diversityof
3Twocaseswithsubstantialoutliershavebeenremovedfromtheanalysesfor
thesemodels.Thereisnosubstantivedifferenceand/ordifferenceinwhich vari-ablesaresignificantbetweenmodelsthatincludetheoutliers,andthosewhichdo not.However,includingtheoutliersinflatesthemagnitudeofseveralofthekey regressioncoefficientssomewhat.Thusbyexcludingtheoutliersweoffermore conservativeresults.
4ThisalsoimplicitlysupportsH1B.Aseparateregressionwasalsorun,andthe
resultsprovidesupportforH1Bbutarenotshownhereduetospaceconsiderations.
5Asoneofthereviewershasnoted,becauseofthewaythevariablesare
mea-suredsomeoftheeffectfordiversityoftiesingeneralmaybeduetoautocorrelation. However,wewouldmaintainthatasthisisacontrolvariableinthepresent analy-sis,itdoesnotaffectourtheoreticalclaim.Thiswillbecomefurtherevidentinthe discussionwhenwedescribeasupplementaryanalysis.
6Wehavetestedforthepossibilityofacurvilineareffectforageinresultsnot
shownhere.Astherewasnocurvilineareffectinthefinalmodel,weonlypresent theeffectforthelineareffect–whichisalsonon-significantinthefullmodels.
occupationaltiestoaltersinthemovementisnotsimplyafunction ofdiversityofoccupationaltiesingeneral.Nevertheless,some questionsremainaboutthecausaldirectionunderlyingthemain effectofinterestinthisstudy.
Toremedythis,wehaveconductedasupplementaryanalysisof anotherdatasetthatwecollected.Thissupplementarydatasetwas obtainedfromanation-wideprobabilitysampleof environmen-talorganizationmembersinCanada.Themeasuresweresimilar tothosereportedearlierinthispaper,withonekeydifference.In thissupplementarystudyweaskedaboutthediversityof occupa-tionaltiestopeoplewhowere“metasaresultofenvironmental movementactivities”.Theanalysisfromthissupplementarystudy revealsastrongnetpositiveeffectfordiversityofoccupationalties topeoplewhoweremetasaresultofenvironmentalmovement activities.Thestandardizedregressioncoefficientisb=.56,p<.001 controllingforsocio-economic-demographicvariables,andlength ofenvironmentalorganizationmembership.Aftertheseother vari-ableshavebeencontrolled,addinglevelofindividualactivismto themodel explainsanadditional 28%ofthevariation in diver-sity ofoccupational ties topeople metthrough themovement (theresultsofthisregressionareavailableinSupplementaryTable 4.MoredetailsonthisstudycanbeobtainedfromTindall etal.
(2010),andbycontactingthefirstauthor).Inourview,this
pro-videsquitestrongevidencethatthemoreactiveoneis,thegreater thediversity of occupational ties one makes toothers through movementactivities.Thiseffectisnottautological.Norisit triv-ial. As social capital scholars have pointed out, having diverse ties can havebeneficial consequences for individuals (Erickson,
2003).
We havenotedthatthe“traditionalapproach”tostudy net-works and activism has been to treat network ties as the independentvariable,andactivismasthedependentvariable.In this paper,we have turnedthis relationshiparound, tolookat activism as the independent variable, and network ties as the dependentvariable.Thisisbecausewebelievewehaveidentified anempiricalphenomenon–theproductionofnetworksocial cap-italasaresultofactivism–thathasnotbeenpreviouslystudiedby socialmovementscholars.
Nevertheless,webelievethatitisalmostcertainlythecasethat reciprocalinfluenceisatworkthroughtheseprocesses.Wehave evidence from the supplementary analysis(see Supplementary
Table 5)that activism is positivelyassociated withdiversity of
occupationalties ingeneral.It islikelyinmostcasesthatsome ties pre-exist an individual’s participation in a movement, and furtherties are made as a resultof his or her activism. In the supplementary analysis we have evidence that activism does leadtoanincrease in thediversity ofcertainoccupational ties. Whatwedon’tknowiswhatproportionofthesenewlyformed ties are inside versus outside of the movement. Diani (1997)
emphasizesthattiestothoseoutsideofthemovementthatare createdasaresultofsocialmovementmobilizationtheoretically constituteaparticulartypeofsocialmovementcapitalthatarises asaresultofmobilization.Furtherresearchonthistopicshould look at the distinction between ties within and outside of the movement.
Whatisthenetsocialbenefitproduced bysocialmovement participation? In this case, we argue that one benefit is social capital.Previousworkonthebenefitsofsocialcapitalhas,witha fewexceptions,focusedonhowresourcesaccessedthroughsocial networktieshaveenabledindividualstobenefitintermsofsocial mobility; it hashelped people obtain financial power,prestige andstatus(seeLinetal.,2001a).AccordingtoLin(2001b), indi-vidualsusesocialcapitalresourcesininstrumentalandpurposive ways.Theresourcestheyaccessthroughtiesandconnectionsto thebroader social structure (i.e.,measuredby theirties to the occupationalstructure),helpthemtofindajobandgetpromoted.
8 D.B.Tindalletal./SocialNetworksxxx (2012) xxx–xxx Theseindividualsocialcapitalbenefitscanbetranslatedintothe
languageofcollectiveaction.Bybeingactiveinamovementora movementorganization,individuals increasetheirsocial capital resources.Thisresultsinfourindividualsocialbenefits.First, indi-vidualmembersbecomemoreinformedaboutissuesthatinterest them.Second, gaining social capitalresources throughcontacts withpoliticiansmeansthatanindividual’sinfluenceandimpact inthepolitical sphereincreases.Third,the“socialcertification” that comesfrom contactswith influentialand powerful others meansthatactivistscan,iftheywish,speaklegitimatelyonbehalf ofthemovement.Afourthsocial capitalbenefit isthesenseof identity,recognition and solidarity that developsas a result of interactingwitha diversegroupofothers withinthecontextof socialmovementactivity.
Thislastpointaboutsocialcapitalandsolidaritypointstoan importantdivisionoflaborthathasdevelopedwithinthe litera-tureonsocialcapitaloutcomes.Lin(1999,2001b)maintainsthat socialcapitalisbeststudiedasaresourceaccessedandusedby individuals(for otherexamplessee,Burt,1992,1997; Marsden
andHurlbert,1988;Portes,1998;PortesandSensenbrenner,1993).
Thisanalyticalstrategyfocusesonhowindividualsinvestinsocial relationsandextractsocialcapitalbenefitsfromthesesocial rela-tionsusuallyforpurposesofgreatersocialmobility(Lin,2001b:8). Howeverasecondanalyticalstrategyhasbeentopullbackfrom theindividuallevelofanalysisandexaminethelargercommunity andsociety-basedbenefitsthatresultfromtheproductionofsocial capital.WhileBourdieu(1986)andColeman(1988)havediscussed social capitalat this broadercommunity level,Putnam’s (1993,
1995,2000) workexemplifiesthis trend.Thegeneralargument
isthatthedevelopmentofdensesocialtieswithinacommunity leadstoincreased networksoftrust (Tilly, 2005)and solidarity betweenmembersofthatcommunity.Fromthisperspectivethe productionofsocialcapitalisnotnecessarilyanindividual bene-fit–althoughindividualsmightbenefitbythemerefactofliving insuchacommunityorsociety–butratheritisanetcollective benefit.
Thisstudyoftheconsequencesofmovementactivismhastaken usastepfurthertowardsgreaterelucidationofthesocialbenefit outcomesofmovementactivity.Movementshaveeffectsbeyond theintendedpoliticalandpolicygoalsstatedbythemovement’s leaders.Individuals,organizationsandwholecommunitiescanalso benefitfromtheincreasedparticipationofpeopleinsocial move-mentactivity.
AppendixA.
TableA.1
Descriptivestatistics.
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean S.D. % N
Education 7.00 18.00 15.64 2.14 294 Gender(male=1) 48.6 294 Age 15.00 88.00 45.80 15.90 294 Fullemployment 54.2 294 Retired 16.7 294 Managers 6.8 294 Businessowners 8.2 294
Newmiddleclass 38.4 294
Personalincome(log) −2.00 5.13 4.30 1.05 294
Lengthof membership 0.17 40.00 3.82 4.16 294 Levelofactivism 0.00 17.00 5.00 3.33 294 Totaldiversityof occupationalties 0.00 40.00 17.30 8.62 294 Diversityof occupationaltiesto ESMOmembers 0.00 10.00 1.10 1.98 294
AppendixB. Supplementarydata
Supplementarydataassociatedwiththisarticlecanbefound,in theonlineversion,atdoi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.12.007.
References
Amenta,E.,Carruthers,B.,Zylan,Y.,1992.Aherofortheaged?TheTownsend Move-ment,thePoliticalMediationModel,andU.S.Old-AgePolicy,1934–1950.The AmericanJournalofSociology98,308–339.
Andrews,K.T.,1997.Theimpactsofsocialmovementsonthepoliticalprocess: TheCivilRightsMovementAndBlackElectoralPoliticsinMississippi.American SociologicalReview62,800–819.
Andrews,K.T.,2004.FreedomIsaConstantStruggle.UniversityofChicagoPress, Chicago.
Bekkers,R.,Völker,B.,vanderGaag,M.,Flap,H.,2008.SocialNetworksof Partic-ipationinVoluntaryAssociations.In:Lin,N.,Erickson,B.(Eds.),SocialCapital: AnInternationalResearchProgram.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,UK,pp. 185–205.
Blishen,B.R.,Carroll,W.K.,Moore,C.,1987.The1981SocioeconomicIndexfor Occu-pationsinCanada.CanadianReviewofSociologyandAnthropology24(4), 465–488.
Bourdieu,P.,1986.TheFormsofCapital.In:Richardson,J.G.(Ed.),Handbookof The-oryandResearchfortheSociologyofEducation.GreenwoodPress,Westport, pp.241–258.
Boyd,M.,2008.ASocioeconomicScaleforCanada:MeasuringOccupationalStatus fromtheCensus.CanadianReviewofSociology45(1),51–91.
Brint,S.,1984.‘New-class’andcumulativetrendexplanationsoftheliberalpolitical attitudesofprofessionals.AmericanJournalofSociology90,30–71.
Burstein,P.,1999.SocialMovementsandPublicPolicy.In:Giugni,M.G.,McAdam, D.,Tilly,C.(Eds.),HowSocialMovementsMatter.UniversityofMinnesotaPress, Minneapolis,pp.3–21.
Burt,R.,1980.Modelsofnetworkstructure.AnnualReviewofSociology6,79–141. Burt,R.S.,1992.StructuralHoles:TheSocialStructureofCompetition.Harvard
Uni-versityPress,Cambridge,MA.
Burt,R.S.,1997.Thecontingentvalueofsocialcapital.AdministrativeScience Quar-terly42,339–365.
Coleman,J.S.,1988.Socialcapitalinthecreationofhumancapital.AmericanJournal ofSociology94,95–120.
Côté,R.R.,Erickson,B.H.,2009.Untanglingtherootsoftolerance:howformsof socialcapitalshapeattitudestowardethnicminoritiesandimmigrants. Ameri-canBehavioralScientist52(12),1664–1689.
Diani,M.,1995.GreenNetworks:AStructuralAnalysisoftheItalianEnvironmental Movement.EdinburghUniversityPress.
Diani,M.,1997.Socialmovementsandsocialcapital:anetworkperspectiveon movementoutcomes.Mobilization:AnInternationalJournal2,129–147. Diani,M.,2003.Leaders’or‘brokers’?Positionsandinfluenceinsocialmovement
networks.In:Diani,M.,McAdam,D.(Eds.),SocialMovementsandNetworks: RelationalApproachestoCollectiveAction.UniversityofOxfordPress,Oxford, pp.105–122.
Diani,M.,2009.Thestructuralbasesofprotestevents,multiplemembershipsand networksintheFebruary15th2003anti-wardemonstrations.ActaSociologica 52,63–83.
Diani,M.,McAdam,D.(Eds.),2003.SocialMovementsandNetworks:Relational ApproachestoCollectiveAction.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.
Enns,S.,Malinick,T.,Matthews,R.,2008.It’snotonlywhoyouknow,it’salsowhere theyare:usingthepositiongeneratortoinvestigatethestructureofaccessto embeddedresources.In:Lin,N.,Erickson,B.(Eds.),SocialCapital:An Interna-tionalResearchProgram.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,UK,pp.255–281. Erickson,B.,1996.Culture,classandconnections.AmericanJournalofSociology102,
217–251.
Erickson,B.,2003.Socialnetworks:thevalueofvariety.Contexts2(1),25–31. Erickson,B.,2004.ThedistributionofgenderedsocialcapitalinCanada.In:Flap,B.,
Volker(Eds.),CreationandReturnsofSocialCapital:ANewResearchProgram. Routledge,London/NewYork,pp.27–50.
Feld,S.L.,1981.Thefocusedorganizationofsocialties.AmericanJournalofSociology 86(5),1015–1035.
Ganzeboom,H.B.,Treiman,D.J.,1996.Internationallycomparablemeasuresof occu-pationalstatusforthe1988InternationalStandardClassificationofOccupations. SocialScienceResearch25,201–239.
Giugni,M.G.,1999.Howsocialmovementsmatter:pastresearch,presentproblems, futuredevelopments.In:Giugni,M.G.,McAdam,D.,Tilly,C.(Eds.),HowSocial MovementsMatter.UniversityofMinnesotaPress,Minneapolis,pp.xiii–xxxiii. Giugni,M.G.,McAdam,D.,Tilly,C.(Eds.),1999.HowSocialMovementsMatter.
UniversityofMinnesotaPress,Minneapolis.
Gould,R.V.,1993.Collectiveactionandnetworkstructure.AmericanSociological Review58,82–196.
Groves,R.M.,2006.Nonresponseratesandnonresponsebiasinhouseholdsurveys. PublicOpinionQuarterly70(5),646–675.
Harshaw,H.W.,Tindall,D.B.,2005.Socialstructure,identities,andvalues:anetwork approachtounderstandingpeople’srelationshipstoforests.JournalofLeisure Research37(4),426–449.
Hsung,R.-M.,Lin,Y.-J.,2008.Socialcapitalofpersonnelmanagers:causesandreturn ofposition-generatednetworksandparticipationinvoluntaryassociations.In:
D.B.Tindalletal./SocialNetworksxxx (2012) xxx–xxx 9 Lin,N.,Erickson,B.(Eds.),SocialCapital:AnInternationalResearchProgram.
OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,UK,pp.234–254.
Kitts,J.A.,1999.Notinourbackyard:solidarity,socialnetworks,andtheecologyof environmentalmobilization.SociologicalInquiry69(4),551–574.
Kriesi,H.,1989.NewsocialmovementsandthenewclassintheNetherlands. Amer-icanJournalofSociology94,1078–1116.
Laumann,E.,1973.BondsofPluralism:TheFormsandSubstanceofUrbanSocial Networks.Wiley,NewYork.
Li,Y.,Savage,M.,Warde,A.,2008.Socialmobilityandsocialcapitalincontemporary Britain.BritishJournalofSociology59(3),391–411.
Lin,N.,1999.Socialnetworksandstatusattainment.AnnualReviewofSociology25, 467–487.
Lin,N.,2001a.SocialCapital:ATheoryofSocialStructureandAction.Universityof CambridgePress,NewYork.
Lin,N.,2001b.Buildinganetworktheoryofsocialcapital.In:Lin,N.,Cook,K.,Burt, R.(Eds.),SocialCapital:TheoryandResearch.AldineDeGruyter,NewYork,pp. 3–29.
Lin,N.,Cook,K.,Burt,R.,2001a.SocialCapital:TheoryandResearch.AldineDe Gruyter,NewYork.
Lin,N.,Dumin,M.,1986.Accesstooccupationsthroughsocialties.SocialNetworks 8,365–385.
Lin,N.,Erickson,B.(Eds.),2008.SocialCapital:AnInternationalResearchProgram. OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,UK.
Lin,N.,Fu,Y.,Hsung,R.,2001b.Positiongenerator:measurementtechniquesfor investigationsofsocialcapital.In:Lin,N.,Cook,K.,Burt,R.(Eds.),SocialCapital: TheoryandResearch.AldineDeGruyter,NewYork,NY,pp.57–81.
Magee,M.P.,2008.Civicparticipationandsocialcapital:asocialnetwork anal-ysisintwoAmericanCounties.In:Lin,N.,Erickson,B.(Eds.),SocialCapital: AnInternationalResearchProgram.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,UK,pp. 308–327.
Marsden,P.,Hurlbert,J.,1988.Socialresourcesandmobilityoutcomes:areplication andextension.SocialForces52,122–131.
McAdam,D.,1986.Recruitmenttohigh-riskactivism:thecaseoffreedomsummer. AmericanJournalofSociology92,64–90.
McAdam,D.,1988.FreedomSummer.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork. McAdam,D.,1989.Thebiographicalconsequencesofactivity.AmericanSociological
Review54,744–760.
McAdam,D.,1999.TheBiographicalImpactofActivism.In:Giugni,M.G.,McAdam, D.,Tilly,C.(Eds.),HowSocialMovementsMatter.UniversityofMinnesotaPress, Minneapolis,pp.117–146.
McAdam,D.,2003.Beyondstructuralanalysis:towardamoredynamic understand-ingofsocialmovements.In:Diani,M.,McAdam,D.(Eds.),SocialMovementsand Networks:RelationalApproachestoCollectiveAction.OxfordUniversityPress, Oxford,pp.281–298.
McCammon,K.C.,Granberg,E.,Mowery,C.,2001.Howmovementswin:gendered opportunitystructuresandU.S.Women’sSuffrageMovements,1866to1919. AmericanSociologicalReview66,49–70.
Meyer,D.S.,1999.HowtheColdWarWasReallyWon:TheEffectsoftheAntinuclear Movementsofthe1980.In:Giugni,M.G.,McAdam,D.,Tilly,C.(Eds.),HowSocial MovementsMatter.UniversityofMinnesotaPress,Minneapolis,pp.182–203. Miyata,K.,Ikeda,K.,Kobayshi,T.,2008.TheInternet,SocialCapital,Civic
Engage-ment,andGender inJapan. In:Lin,N., Erickson,B. (Eds.), SocialCapital: AnInternationalResearchProgram.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,UK,pp. 206–233.
MorenCross,J.L.,Lin,N.,2008.AccesstoSocialCapitalandStatusAttainmentin theUnitedStates:Racial/EthnicandGenderDifferences.In:Lin,N.,Erickson, B.(Eds.),SocialCapital:AnInternationalResearchProgram.OxfordUniversity Press,Oxford,UK,pp.364–379.
Moore,D.L.,Tarnai,J.,2002.EvaluatingNonresponseErrorinMailSurveys.In: Groves,R.M.,Dillman,D.A.,Eltinge,J.L.,Little,R.J.A.(Eds.),SurveyNonresponse. JohnWileyandSonsInc.,NewYork,pp.213–228.
Muller,E.N.,Opp,K.,1986.Rationalchoiceandrebelliouscollectiveaction.American PoliticalScienceReview80,471–487.
Oliver,P.E.,Myers,D.J.,2003.Networks,diffusion,andcyclesofcollectiveaction. In:Diani,M.,McAdam,D.(Eds.),SocialMovementsandNetworks:Relational ApproachestoCollectiveAction.UniversityofOxfordPress,Oxford,pp.173–203. Opp,K.,1986.SoftIncentivesandcollectiveaction.Participationintheanti-nuclear
movement.BritishJournalofPoliticalScience16,87–112.
Passy,F.,2003.Socialmovementsmatter.ButHow?In:Diani,M.,McAdam,D.(Eds.), SocialMovementsandNetworks:RelationalApproachestoCollectiveAction. UniversityofOxfordPress,Oxford,pp.21–48.
Portes,A.,1998.Socialcapital:itsoriginsandapplicationsinmodernsociology. AnnualReviewofSociology24,1–24.
Portes,A.,Sensenbrenner,J.,1993.Embeddednessandimmigration:notesonthe socialdeterminantsofeconomic action.AmericanJournalofSociology98, 1320–1350.
Putnam,R.D.,1993.MakingDemocracyWork:CivicTraditionsinModernItaly. PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,NJ.
Putnam,R.,1995.BowlingAlone:America’sDeclineSocialCapital.Journalof Democ-racy6(1).
Putnam,R.D.,2000.BowlingAlone:TheCollapseandRevivalofAmerican Commu-nity.SimonandSchuster,NewYork.
Rochon,T.R.1998.CultureMoves:Ideas,ActivismandChangingValues.Princeton, NJ.
Shaw,K.,2002.EncounteringClayoquot.In:Magnusson,W.,Shaw,K.(Eds.),A PoliticalSpace:ReadingtheGlobalthroughClayoquotSound.McGill-Queen’s UniversityPress,Montreal,pp.25–66.
Snijders,T.A.B.,VandeBunt,G.G.,Steglich,C.E.G.,2010.Introductiontostochastic actor-basedmodelsfornetworkdynamics.SocialNetworks32,44–60. Soule,S.,Olzak,S.,2004.Whendomovementsmatter?Thepoliticsofcontingency
andtheequalrightsamendment.AmericanSociologicalReview69,347–497. Tilly,C.,2005.TrustandRule.CambridgeUniversityPress.
Tindall,D.B.,2002.Socialnetworks,identificationandparticipationinan envi-ronmentalmovement:low-mediumcostactivismwithintheBritishColumbia WildernessPreservationMovement.CanadianReviewofSociologyand Anthro-pology39(4),413–452.
Tindall,D.B.,Begoray,N.,1993. Oldgrowthdefenders:thebattleforthe Car-manahValley.In:Lerner,S.(Ed.),EnvironmentalStewardship:StudiesinActive Earthkeeping.UniversityofWaterlooGeographySeries,Waterloo,Ontario,pp. 269–322.
Tindall,D.B.,Cormier,J.J.,2008.Gender,networkcapital,socialcapitalandpolitical capital: the consequencesof personal network diversity for environmen-talists in British Columbia. In:Lin, N., Erickson, B. (Eds.), Social Capital: An International Research Program. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, UK, pp.282–307.
Tindall,D.B.,Robinson,J.L.,Diani,M.,2010.Theconceptofsocialmovement revis-ited:anempiricalinvestigation.PaperpresentedattheInternationalSunbelt SocialNetworkConferenceinRivadelGarda,Italy,July3,2010.
Tindall,D.B.,Stoddart,M.C.J.,Diani,M.,2009.Theintensityofprotest,lifecourse stage,socialnetworks,andtheparticipationofindividualsinsocialmovement activismovertime.PaperPresentedattheInternationalSunbeltSocialNetwork ConferenceinSanDiego,California,March15,2009.
VanderGaag,M.,Snijders,T.A.B.,Flap,H.,2008.Positiongeneratormeasuresandthe relationshiptoothersocialcapitalmeasures.In:Lin,N.,Erickson,B.(Eds.),Social Capital:AnInternationalResearchProgram.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,UK, pp.27–48.
Wellman,B.,1979.Thecommunityquestion.AmericanJournalofSociology84, 1201–1231.
Wilson,J.,1998.TalkandLog:WildernessPoliticsinBritishColumbia,1965–96.UBC Press,Vancouver,BC.