社会运动、战略选择与诉诸民意*

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY Mobilization Pub Date : 2016-07-07 DOI:10.17813/1086-671X-21-2-177
Amanda Pullum
{"title":"社会运动、战略选择与诉诸民意*","authors":"Amanda Pullum","doi":"10.17813/1086-671X-21-2-177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2011, twenty-one state legislatures held floor votes on one or more bills seeking to limit teachers' collective bargaining rights, tenure protections, or both. In eighteen states, these bills became law. Teachers' unions took varying approaches to fighting against these pieces of legislation, but only in a few states did they turn to the ballot box, despite widespread availability of electoral tactics. In this study, I use fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to determine why most teachers' unions did not turn to the ballot. I find two causal “pathways”: one in which political opportunity structures and union strength make legislative compromise possible, and another in which these conditions, along with the nature of the legislative threat, make success at the ballot seem unlikely. Social movement scholars must reexamine the role that threat plays in strategic choice processes, and prospect theory can help make sense of these choices.","PeriodicalId":47309,"journal":{"name":"Mobilization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.17813/1086-671X-21-2-177","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social Movements, Strategic Choice, and Recourse to the Polls*\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Pullum\",\"doi\":\"10.17813/1086-671X-21-2-177\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 2011, twenty-one state legislatures held floor votes on one or more bills seeking to limit teachers' collective bargaining rights, tenure protections, or both. In eighteen states, these bills became law. Teachers' unions took varying approaches to fighting against these pieces of legislation, but only in a few states did they turn to the ballot box, despite widespread availability of electoral tactics. In this study, I use fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to determine why most teachers' unions did not turn to the ballot. I find two causal “pathways”: one in which political opportunity structures and union strength make legislative compromise possible, and another in which these conditions, along with the nature of the legislative threat, make success at the ballot seem unlikely. Social movement scholars must reexamine the role that threat plays in strategic choice processes, and prospect theory can help make sense of these choices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mobilization\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.17813/1086-671X-21-2-177\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mobilization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17813/1086-671X-21-2-177\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mobilization","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17813/1086-671X-21-2-177","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

2011年,21个州的立法机构就一项或多项旨在限制教师集体谈判权、终身教职保护或两者兼而有之的法案进行了投票。在18个州,这些法案成为法律。教师工会采取了不同的方法来反对这些立法,但只有在少数几个州,尽管选举策略广泛可用,他们还是转向了投票箱。在本研究中,我使用模糊集定性比较分析(fsQCA)来确定为什么大多数教师工会不转向投票。我发现了两条因果“路径”:一条是政治机会结构和工会力量使立法妥协成为可能,另一条是这些条件,加上立法威胁的性质,使投票成功似乎不太可能。社会运动学者必须重新审视威胁在战略选择过程中所扮演的角色,而前景理论可以帮助理解这些选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Social Movements, Strategic Choice, and Recourse to the Polls*
In 2011, twenty-one state legislatures held floor votes on one or more bills seeking to limit teachers' collective bargaining rights, tenure protections, or both. In eighteen states, these bills became law. Teachers' unions took varying approaches to fighting against these pieces of legislation, but only in a few states did they turn to the ballot box, despite widespread availability of electoral tactics. In this study, I use fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to determine why most teachers' unions did not turn to the ballot. I find two causal “pathways”: one in which political opportunity structures and union strength make legislative compromise possible, and another in which these conditions, along with the nature of the legislative threat, make success at the ballot seem unlikely. Social movement scholars must reexamine the role that threat plays in strategic choice processes, and prospect theory can help make sense of these choices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mobilization
Mobilization SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Mobilization: An International Quarterly is the premier journal of research specializing in social movements, protests, insurgencies, revolutions, and other forms of contentious politics. Mobilization was first published in 1996 to fill the need for a scholarly review of research that focused exclusively with social movements, protest and collective action. Mobilization is fully peer-reviewed and widely indexed. A 2003 study, when Mobilization was published semiannually, showed that its citation index rate was 1.286, which placed it among the top ten sociology journals. Today, Mobilization is published four times a year, in March, June, September, and December. The editorial board is composed of thirty internationally recognized scholars from political science, sociology and social psychology. The goal of Mobilization is to provide a forum for global, scholarly dialogue. It is currently distributed to the top international research libraries and read by the most engaged scholars in the field. We hope that through its wide distribution, different research strategies and theoretical/conceptual approaches will be shared among the global community of social movement scholars, encouraging a collaborative process that will further the development of a cumulative social science.
期刊最新文献
THE INDOCTRINATION DIMENSION OF REPRESSION: TELEVISED CONFESSIONS IN CHINA* CATALOGING PROTEST: NEWSPAPERS, NEXIS UNI, OR TWITTER?* A LONGITUDINAL APPROACH TO ONLINE “COLLECTIVE IDENTITY WORK”: THE CASE OF THE GILETS JAUNES IN THE VAR DEPARTMENT* STRATEGIC ALLIANCES: THE POLITICAL EFFICACY OF RELIGIOUSSECULAR TIES* GAINS AND LOSSES IN THE URBAN POLITICAL FIELD: MULTILAYERED OUTCOMES OF MOBILIZATION IN MOSCOW’S HOUSING CONTROVERSY*
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1