Category Archives: Uncategorized

Predicting Protest Policing (Research)

I was recently asked by a journalist in North Dakota to comment upon the ongoing protests at Standing Rock, and to predict how it all would end. Like a good social scientist, I hedged a lot, but like a naive one, I obliged his request. Perhaps luckily for me, my words were never printed. Two days after our interview, the Army Corps of Engineers declared that the Energy Transfer Partners Corporation would not be granted an easement, the news editor demanded a different version of the story, and my predictions (right or wrong, I may never tell!) remain in a newsman’s notebook.

But I have been turning over the journalist’s question wondering how soon will come the day when we can predict within a narrow credibility interval, the actions of police or protesters engaged in some contentious struggle.

The capacity to predict, of course, is the sine qua non of mature, policy-applicable scientific theory. But I don’t think many of us would say that we are quite there yet. We have many excellent small-N studies cataloguing mechanisms of contentious politics and repertoires of protest policing (too many to cite in a blogpost). And we have large-N studies giving us some understanding of general patterns or trends in protest activity distributed across various political regimes. But we haven’t brought granular, nuanced, rich, big, and comparable data to questions asking who does what to whom, when, and under what (often dynamic) circumstances. I predict that will change very soon.

The Dynamics of Collective Action (DCA) database represents the closest we have lately come to big, rich, comparable data on protest and the policing thereof. Analyzing 22 variables describing over 24,000 events spanning three decades in New York state, the DCA database has launched a number of articles and careers. By comparing across so many (stand-alone) events motivated by different claims and using a range of tactics, authors have advanced our knowledge of how protests unfold differently against different targets and how movements’ activities depend on their contextualization in SMO fields, markets, and broader national policy processes. (For a listing of all publications based upon the DCA database, click here.)

A few articles using DCA data have also attempted to explain police behavior during who have collected and reported findings from DCA explain, the dataset is somewhat limited in its utility for understanding protest policing. DCA only collects very impressionistic data about police activity: whether police were present or not and whether they engaged in violence or arrest. Thus Soule and Davenport (2009) counsel future researchers to “move away from [police] presence/absence formulations of repression and toward more theoretically and methodologically sensitive conceptualizations of police action.”

The authors suggest, too, that to better understand protest policing behavior – well enough, perhaps, to make public predictions about what police will do during some ongoing movement – we will also need to build models of protest policing that take into account police (and protester) activities at events occurring throughout a protest ‘campaign.’ DCA, however, provides no accounting of campaigns (defined as a series of thematically and operationally linked protest events), instead conceptualizing each event in its dataset as a one-off.

Finally, Soule and Davenport (2009) counsel researchers to “examine the effects of various exogenous factors, such as the overall structure of political opportunities on police use of force and/or violence and arrests.” Here, again, the DCA comes up short even as it provides arguably the best quantitative data available on protest and its policing.

There are a number of reasons, though, to predict a brighter future for protest policing studies. First, the small-N studies of protest policing – while they are fundamentally incapable of marshaling enough data for comparative analyses – have been discovering, elucidating, and confirming the importance of a number of “control performances” (my riff off of Tilly’s contentious performances) in the protest policing repertoire. We have a better idea than ever about what we should be looking for as we take the advice to move beyond “police absence/presence formulations” of protest policing. Second, since the DCA was compiled, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (of the Department of Justice) has released powerful survey results describing the capacities and cultures of police departments across the United States. These data, especially when combined with data on US city political opportunities (housed in census databases and on city government websites describing upcoming elections, government types, and the political bent of their populations) will allow us to understand the “various exogenous factors” affecting protest policing.

Third, the Occupy movement provides us with excellent comparative campaign data. Nearly 200 US cities and towns had an Occupy campaign. Moreover, each of these campaigns was motivated by similar claims, drew on a similar protest performance repertoire, and occurred at the same time. The comparative leverage afforded by such data could hardly be better if social movements scholars had planned and organized the Occupy movement for their own selfish research purposes! Fourth, and finally, our capacity to extract nuanced data about events from news reports – a necessary and painstaking aspect of almost all quantitative protest event analysis research – is improving rapidly. With citizen science (crowdsourcing) approaches, the clever use of natural language processing algorithms, and hybrids between the two, we will soon find that we can parse thousands of news accounts by hundreds of variables of interest. And instead of requiring a decade of effort, a data-gathering and processing project comparable in size/scope to DCA might only take a year or two.

Improved by these four factors, next generation social movements databases will support complex analyses explaining how interactions between police and protesters at multiple levels – within and across events – not only result from political opportunities and police capacities and culture, but also feed back into later interactions. We know, based on our qualitative experience, that an on-the-ground clash fueled by adrenaline can shift the mood and outcome of an entire protest event, an entire campaign, and even (sometimes) the course of history. And we know that police strategies, often based on contextual political opportunities, can increase or decrease the likelihood of on-the-ground clashes and other behaviors. Soon, finally, we will be able to house fine-grained data on all these behaviors and factors in a single place, linking all these levels of analysis through dynamic probabilistic models allowing us to measure the flow of causality through such complex systems.

With such complete, well-operationalized data, we will be able to identify sequences of interaction leading to violent escalations, negotiations, and other outcomes, and the contextual factors influencing them. And then, I predict, we will be able to respond confidently and competently when reporters call asking us to divine what will happen next.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Informing Activists: How can I protect myself legally when I am active online?

Derek Bambauer

How can I protect myself legally when I am active online?

Professor Bambauer mentions several resources that you can use to protect yourself online. We have compiled links to these sources below.

The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation)’s Surveillance Self-Defense offers overviews, tutorials, and briefings for how to keep your identity and your information safe online.

Fire (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education)

The Tor software protects you by bouncing your communications around a distributed network of relays run by volunteers all around the world: it prevents somebody watching your Internet connection from learning what sites you visit, it prevents the sites you visit from learning your physical location, and it lets you access sites which are blocked.

The Tails system is a live operating system that you can start on almost any computer from a DVD, USB stick, or SD card. It aims at preserving your privacy and anonymity, and helps you to: use the Internet anonymously and circumvent censorship; all connections to the Internet are forced to go through the Tor network; leave no trace on the computer you are using unless you ask it explicitly; use state-of-the-art cryptographic tools to encrypt your files, emails and instant messaging.

 

Further Reading

Classic:

Marx, Gary T. 1988. Undercover: police surveillance in America. Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Press,

Review:

Lyon D. 2007. Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Malden, MA: Polity

Contemporary:

Rafail, Patrick. 2014. “What Makes Protest Dangerous? Ideology, Contentious Tactics, and Covert Surveillance.” Intersectionality and Social Change. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 235-263.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Digital Media in Activism, Informing Activists, Uncategorized

Looking Back on Five Years of Mobilizing Ideas

To celebrate the five year anniversary for Mobilizing Ideas, we are inviting contributors to revisit our first topic. In 2011, we invited a number of scholars to reflect on the recently published Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age (MIT Press, 2011) by Jennifer Earl and Katrina Kimport. The dialogue considered the emergence of social media and how it might affect movements. Now, with more hindsight, we ask activists and scholars what has changed in our thinking about the ways in which movements use social media, and to what effect.

Many thanks to our fantastic group of contributors.

Jennifer Earl, University of Arizona, (essay)
Deana Rohlinger, Florida State University (essay)
Paul-Brian McInerney, University of Illinois at Chicago (essay)

Editors in Chief,
Grace Yukich, David Ortiz, Rory McVeigh, Guillermo Trejo

Leave a comment

Filed under 5 Year Anniversary, Uncategorized

Digital Change-making: New Sources of Power and Hybrid Realities

By Jennifer Earl

I began researching digital protest during the 2000 Presidential Election by studying the strategic voting movement with Alan Schussman. Despite the invention and popularity of new platforms (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) and the expansion of mobile computing, most of what my collaborators and I have learned over the last decade and half reinforces the odd and unexpected findings that motivated Alan and I to push on sixteen years ago. Thus, instead of remarking on something that has changed in the last five years, as I was invited to do, I want to reinforce and amplify two shifts that have become ever more apparent over the last five years but have be applicable all along: (1) the importance of recognizing that flash activism is built on a different model of influence and power than traditional activism, and (2) the importance of recognizing the hybridity between online and offline life.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under 5 Year Anniversary, Uncategorized

@ctivism 2.0: An Attempt at Making Sense of the New Social Media Landscape #DigitallyEnabledSocialChange

By Paul-Brian McInerney

Donald Trump is our president-elect. Riding a wave of so-called alt-right (read: white supremacist and nativist) popularity, the reality show star and real estate mogul has landed the role of a lifetime. Trump and his supporters on the far-right have cultivated adherents by taking advantage of media echo chambers and subverting traditional news outlets (which have themselves been transformed in the age of social media). Using the web, Facebook, and (most important for Trump) Twitter, his campaign and he communicate directly to sympathetic audiences, unhampered by the “politically correct” cultural intermediaries that prevents so many of them from doing the same. The low cost of these technologies allows Trump and his far-right supporters to reach much broader audiences than they otherwise could. They also afford the ability to communicate in ways that were previously unthinkable for a presidential candidate, e.g., directly with sympathetic audiences without facing pesky fact-checkers and other intermediaries that may distort or contradict the message. Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under 5 Year Anniversary, Uncategorized

Mainstream Media and Oppositional Memes in the Digital Age

By Deana Rohlinger

It is an exciting and challenging time for social movements. Internet Communication Technologies (ICTs) have altered the media landscape, turning some of what we know about media-movement interactions on its head.

depic1

From The Daily Beast

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under 5 Year Anniversary, Uncategorized

Application Deadline for Young Scholars Conference, January 10!

Event hosted by the Center for the Study of Social Movements, University of Notre Dame March 31, 2017.

In conjunction with the presentation of the John D. McCarthy Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Scholarship in Social Movements, The Center for the Study of Social Movements at Notre Dame will be hosting the eighth annual “Young Scholars” Conference the day before the McCarthy Award events. The recipient of the McCarthy Award, David Meyer, will be in attendance and other senior scholars visiting Notre Dame for the award presentation will serve as discussants for the conference.

We would like to invite 12 advanced graduate students and early-career faculty to present a work solidly in-progress at the conference, enjoy an opportunity to discuss their work with some of the leading scholars in the field, and meet others in the new cohort of social movement scholars. Conference attendees will also be invited to the McCarthy Award Lecture and the award banquet on April 1, 2017.

The Center will pay for meals, up to three nights lodging, and contribute up to $500 toward travel expenses for each of the conference attendees. The Center will select invitees from all nominations received by January 10, 2017. Nominations will be accepted for ABD graduate students and those who have held their Ph.D.s less than two years. Nominations must be written by the nominee’s faculty dissertation advisor (or a suitable substitute intimately familiar with the nominee’s research, if the advisor is unavailable).

Nominations should include:

1. A letter of nomination.
2. The CV of the nominee.
3. A one-page abstract of the work to be presented.

Nominations should be sent via email to Rory McVeigh, Director of the Center for the Study of Social Movements, rmcveigh@nd.edu.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized