What drives international news coverage of contentious events? While research on news media has predominantly focused on local and national coverage, we know less about how their coverage differs from international newswires. The authors compare event reporting for protests, strikes, and disruption across two contentious events datasets The World Handbook of Political Indicators Iv (WxIv) and the Documentation and Analysis of Protest Events in the Federal Republic of Germany (PRODAT) that cover Germany 1991-2002 to understand how international media make these choices. They were more likely to cover contentious events when these received front-page national newspaper coverage or were tied to prominent events (e.g., national elections). International media covered contentious events more often when it was simultaneously reporting about more routine politics events. Further, Granger-causality models show that increased international coverage led to future international newswire attention, pointing to a news cascade. The findings suggest that domestic and international news routines overlap, but international news media routines focus more on prominence. This supports three different ideas about the relationship between national and international news: a "mirroring" process informed by signals of prominence; distinctive news markets; and contentiousness that gains media access via size, disruptiveness, or arrests.

Social movement theory holds that disrupting social and political processes is among the most effective tools social movement organizations (SMOs) use to motivate recognition for themselves and their constituents. Yet, recent research suggests that the political reception of disruption is not racially neutral. Black SMOs face a dilemma in that, although disruption is a powerful tool for change, the public often perceives nonviolent Black disruptive protest as violent. We investigate this bind by analyzing how nondisruptive protest, nonviolent disruption, or violence helps or hinders both Black and non-Black SMOs to gain state "acceptance" as legitimate spokes-organizations for their issues. We combine data on newspaper-reported protest events with data covering 41,545 SMO Congressional testimonies from 1462 SMOs from 35 movement families. In panel regressions, we find that Congress is generally more accepting of nondisruptive protest but that nondisruptive protest is only roughly one-tenth as effective for Black SMOs compared with non-Black SMOs. Furthermore, whereas non-Black SMOs are significantly more likely to testify after using nonviolent disruption, Black SMOs using nonviolent disruption are significantly less likely to testify before Congress. Regardless of race, violence was associated with fewer congressional testimonies. Collectively, these findings suggest that Black SMOs face a tactical bind: Black SMOs can use nondisruptive tactics that are resource-intensive and slow, or they can use nonviolent disruption that gets media attention but hinders congressional acceptance. These findings contribute to a growing literature on how racial inequality and prejudice impact the outcomes of social movements.

For the past fifteen years, when I tell someone that I study social movements, one of the most common responses is, ‘‘Well, you sure have a lot to write about.’’ With its substantive breadth, Anthony DiMaggio’s book Rebellion in America: Citizen Uprisings, the News Media, and the Politics of Plutocracy is an excellent reminder of the truth behind this sentiment. Covering a wide range of movements loosely related to the persistence of plutocracy in American society, DiMaggio argues that these contemporary social movements are motivated by a sense of economic injustice and social identity and that progressive change is driven by social movements rather than politicians or political parties. DiMaggio’s book is organized around five ‘‘movements’’: The Tea Party, The Economic Justice movement (including the Wisconsin uprising, Occupy, and the Fight for 15), pre2020 Black Lives Matter (BLM, with the responses to the murders of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray treated as separate campaigns), the Populist Party campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, and the Anti-Trump uprising (including the Women’s March, #MeToo, and several eventspecific campaigns) that followed his election. Each campaign gets a well-organized chapter that typically starts with a brief description of the social problem, followed by a history of the campaign, an analysis of the media coverage and public opinion, and a summary of the policy or social outcomes. The author takes a mixed-method approach, triangulating across participant observation of the Tea Party, Wisconsin protests, and anti-Trump protests, content analysis of media coverage, and regression analysis of public opinion (pp. 11–12). The content analysis focuses on the relative positivity of media coverage for the campaigns and the issues they care about. The author identifies issues that are nominally positive or negative for the movement and reports the portion of local and national articles that discuss those issues. For example, if a paper reported that Scott Walker was attacking collective bargaining, it would be coded as positive; but if the article stated that Walker was concerned about budget deficits, it would be coded as negative. These are not mutually exclusive (and not treated as such), and some categories lack variability, but they do offer subtle insights into the difference in the scale of coverage as well as how media coverage was largely positive for some movements (Madison) while more ‘‘balanced’’ in its coverage of others (BLM and Occupy). DiMaggio also conducts binomial and ordered logit regression analyses of demographic differences in public opinion (largely from Pew Research Center) on the movements or campaignrelated issues. While these models often seem overfitted (with 201 variables and separate indicators for Blacks, Black men, and poor Black men, for example), the results largely operate predictably (White conservatives support the Tea Party, Black people support BLM, etc.). There are some interesting points of variability where poor people of color supported unions, higher wages, and the ACA, but not the Economic Justice movements in Wisconsin and Occupy. This book succeeds in several areas. It draws on an incredible number of newspapers, blogs, and online news articles to holistically recount the campaigns of at least ten movements across six chapters. While the sheer number of movements and issues means that none of these chapters offers much depth, the succinct summaries for such a breadth of movements will be useful for scholars interested in refreshing their knowledge of the major movements of the early twenty-first century. The book’s theoretical focus on the role social movements play as moral entrepreneurs highlights how vital a healthy social movement sector is for generating new ideas and pushing our political system in more progressive directions. Yet the book has several limitations as well. First, there does not seem to be a cohesive 334 Reviews

Scholarship on social movements, conflict, and change employs an array of methods and poses multiple methodological challenges.Bearing this in mind, when we wrote the call for papers for this special issue of Research in Social Movements, Conflict & Change (RSMCC), we identified a variety of potential topics that might fit the theme and included an open invitation to look beyond the topics we identified.The papers we received reflect the openness of the call, covering an exciting range of topics that engage qualitative and quantitative data, speak to issues related to data collection, coding, and analysis, and employ archival research, interviews, ethnography, and computational methods.We believe that these contributions reflect the breadth and diversity of scholarship in this field.The research in this volume, however, also consistently speaks to one particular methodological challenge that scholars of social movements, conflict, and change grapple with regardless of our methodological, theoretical, or substantive orientation-namely, the interests represented by our data sources.This thematic coherence was not expected, but, in retrospect, it is also not surprising.The questions of who generated data, how data were generated, the nature of sources' orientation toward the topic at hand, and the interests that sources represent are present to some degree in all research on social movements, conflict, and change.As reflected in the papers in this volume, most data sources on social movements, conflict, or other forms of contentious politics have some stake in, or take on, the issues they are used to explore.Whether our data come from news outlets, activists' social media posts, or individual ethnographers, researchers must account for the positionalities and perspectives embedded in their data as they

The authors ask descriptive questions concerning the relationship between social movement organizations (SMOs) and the state. Which movement’s SMOs are consulted the most by the state? Do only a few “spokes-organizations” speak for the whole of movements? Has the state increasingly consulted SMOs over time? Do the movements consulted most by the state advise only a few state venues? The authors present and describe a new publicly available data set covering 2,593 SMOs testifying at any of the 87,249 public congressional hearings held during the twentieth century. Testimony is highly concentrated across movements, with just four movements giving 64 percent of the testimony before Congress. A very few “spokes-organizations” testify far more often than typical SMOs. The SMO congressional testimony diversified over the twentieth century from primarily “old” movements such as Labor to include “new” movements such as the Environmental movement. The movements that testified most often did so before a broader range of congressional committees.

Repression research examines the causes and consequences of actions or policies that are meant to, or actually do, raise the costs of activism, protest, and/or social movement activity. The rise of digital and social media has brought substantial increases in attention to the repression of digital activists and movements and/or to the use of digital tools in repression, which is spread across many disciplines and areas of study. We organize and review this growing welter of research under the concept of digital repression by expanding a typology that distinguishes actions based on actor type, whether actions are overt or covert, and whether behaviors are shaped by coercion or channeling. This delineation between broadly different forms of digital repression allows researchers to develop expectations about digital repression, better understand what is "new" about digital repression in terms of explanatory factors, and better understand the consequences of digital repression.

Protest policing is central to research on social movement repression and of great practical importance. Here, we examine competing explanations for observed changes in the likelihood that police will attend any given protest event and make arrests, use violence, or both in NewYork State from 1960 to 1995. While many researchers point to changes within law enforcement as the primary cause for "softer policing" over this period, we show, using a modified Kitagawa-Oaxaca-Blinder (KOB) decomposition, that the institutionalization of the protest sectorwas more responsible for changes over time in observed protest policing. This implies that too much credit has been given in the literature to law enforcement for softening responses to protest and that too little investigation has been undertaken of the softening of protest itself. Furthermore, our expansion of KOB decomposition has broad potential utility for researchers interested in understanding the confluence of social forces driving behavior.

Fan communities have been actively celebrating popular culture like the Harry Potter books and films, the music and fashion of Beyoncé, Korean pop sensation BTS, and the Star Wars media empire, as well as nearly every professional sports team for decades; and research on fans and fan communities has grown alongside them. The proliferation of internet and social media access has made fandom even more prominent. This chapter summarizes and synthesizes existing fandom research while highlighting how digital media have influenced fandom. First, it argues that fandom is best conceptualized as an ideal type organized around consumption, knowledge, engagement, community, identity, and emotional connection and that the internet has made each element more accessible. It then describes how fandom research has demonstrated that—as subcultures—fan communities can replicate and enact many of the same class, gender, and race inequities seen in broader society, although not identically. These inequities are evident in how society responds to different fandoms as well as fans’ experiences within their communities. Finally, it summarizes the growing literature on how fan communities have been mobilized for pro-social and activist behavior. These fan activists are adept at such behavior because they have tapped into the skills and knowledge they developed through their fandom, their proximity to mass cultural events like book and movie releases, and their communities’ potential as a source of bloc recruitment. In sum, fan communities are an important site of community and identity and an important subject of analysis in an increasingly digitized world.

Prior social movement research has focused on the role that axes of inequality – particularly race, class, gender, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) status – play for who participates and how they do so. Age is another important axis of inequality. The pervasiveness of a youth deficit model, which casts young people as deficient and requiring benevolent adult tutelage, is of particular concern for youth. This chapter assesses whether the internalization of the deficit model influences young people's activism and how they perceive their engagement. Drawing on interviews with 40 high school and college students from a southwestern US city, we find that many young people have internalized deficit-model assumptions, affecting when and how they participated. This was most evident among high school students, who limited their participation because they were “not old enough” or gravitated toward more “age-appropriate” forms of activism. Interestingly, we found college students were more willing to engage in online activism but also felt compelled to do significant research on issues before participating, thereby distancing themselves from the deficit model's assumptions of their political naivety. Finally, some participants felt discouraged by the perceived ineffectiveness of protest, which resonated with deficit model narratives of the futility of youth engagement. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the impacts of an internalized deficit model as well as considering age as an axis of inequality in activism. Youth engagement is best supported by seeing young people as capable actors with unique interests, capacities, and points of view.

Congressional hearings are a venue in which social scientists present their views and analyses before lawmakers in the United States, however quantitative data on their representation has been lacking. We present new, publicly available, data on the rates at which anthropologists, economists, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists appeared before United States congressional hearings from 1946 through 2016. We show that social scientists were present at some 10,347 hearings and testified 15,506 times. Economists testify before the US Congress far more often than other social scientists, and constitute a larger proportion of the social scientists testifying in industry and government positions. We find that social scientists' testimony is increasingly on behalf of think tanks; political scientists, in particular, have gained much more representation through think tanks. Sociology, and psychology's representation before Congress has declined considerably beginning in the 1980s. Anthropologists were the least represented. These findings show that academics are representing a more diverse set of organizations, but economists continue to be far more represented than other disciplines before the US Congress.

Identity is crucial to social movement participation. Existing research examines why active people "avoid" activist identities but has less to say about how active people adopt such identities as if they automatically follow participation. We draw on interviews with high school and college students from a midsize southwestern city to examine how young people make sense of what it means to be an activist, who identifies as such, and why youth are willing-or unwilling-to adopt this label. We find that respondents' conceptualizations of "activists" are critical to (non)identification. Those who see activism as a broad category are more likely to identify, holding constant their level of activity. Those who see activism as a greedy institution, requiring significant substantive fluency, making the issue their primary focus, and willingness to sacrifice, do not, despite their level of engagement. Our findings have implications for identity formation and movement participation more broadly.

Research on young people’s protest participation has focused on how the family, peers, and institutions support activism and micromobilization. But digital and social media usage has arguably altered how we interact and how individuals participate in politics and activism, especially among youth. This sets up an important question: Do the institutional supports (e.g., schools) and network ties (e.g., friends and family) that have historically driven micromobilization still matter in a world of pervasive digital and social media usage, particularly for youth? In this article, we analyze this question using interviews with 40 high school and university students. Rather than acting as a disruptive force, we find that digital media has become an integral part of youth micromobilization, facilitating traditional paths to activism and offering pathways to activism for those with no other options. As has been true historically, participation may also be dampened when supportive network ties are absent. We conclude with a discussion of the broader implications for micromobilization and political participation.

Social movements are constantly evolving. Protest activity waxes and wanes as movements suffer through prolonged periods of frustration, win occasional gains, and turn to new goals and issues. While theoretical models of protest activity are often sensitive to this reality, empirical models typically treat these explanations as time-invariant, rather than situated in specific moments in movements' histories. Quite simply, we suspect that the effect of important predictors of movement activity, notably access to resources, political opportunities, repression, and competition, varies depending on the specific moment in the movement's life course. We explore this possibility through a detailed analysis of three main periods of the American Civil Rights movement: (1) the movement's initial success (1960-1968), its subsequent demobilization (1968-1977), and its institutionalization (1978-1995). Our analysis builds on limited work arguing for greater sensitivity to a movement's life course when explaining protest activity. We find that the type of organizational resources that shape mobilization varies across periods, and support for prior work showing that the concurrent push and pull of institutionalization and radicalization led to demobilization. Finally, we find that coalition work motivated protest during its period of institutionalization. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and empirical implications of these findings.

The World Handbook of Political Indicators IV (WHIV) provides global cross-national daily coverage of contentious politics events – protest, violence, sanctions and relaxations – conducted by governments, insurgents, and civilians. Using auto-coding of Reuters international newswire based on KnowledgeManager,™ the dataset covers 231 countries and territories from January 1, 1990 through December 31, 2004 and includes 40 distinct event forms and a set of standard actors and targets resulting in 264,289 events. WHIV’s breadth of geographic coverage, detailed atomic level event forms, and temporal specificity provides unique opportunities for studying contentious conflict globally and in specific countries. We discuss the uses of these data and the global distribution and trends in protest, political violence and governmental sanctions and relaxations.

Growing interest in the use of digital technologies and a Putnam-inspired debate about youth engagement has drawn researchers from outside of the study of social movements into research on the topic. This interest in youth protest participation has, in turn, developed into a substantial area of research of its own. While offering important research contributions, we argue that these areas of scholarship are often not well grounded in classic social movement theory and research, instead focusing on new media and/or the relationship between activism and other forms of youth engagement. This chapter seeks to correct this by drawing on interviews with 40 high school and college students from a moderately sized southwestern city to examine whether traditional paths to youth activism (i.e., family, friends, and institutions) have changed or eroded as online technology use and extra-institutional engagement among youth has risen. We find that youth continue to be mobilized by supportive family, friends, and institutional opportunities, and that the students who were least engaged are missing these vital support networks. Thus, it is not so much that the process driving youth activism has changed, but that some youth are not receiving support that has been traditionally necessary to spur activism. This offers an important reminder for scholars studying youth and digital activism and youth participation more broadly that existing theory and research about traditional pathways to activism needs to be evaluated in contemporary research.

This course provides an undergraduate level introduction to the study of youth political socialization and political activism. Young people are the backbone of most social movements from the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements to more contemporary examples like Black Lives Matter, #Occupy, and the anti-gun violence movement. The first half of the course presents an overview of theories of youth political socialization, political participation, and their role in social movements. The course specifically explores concerns about the state of youth political participation and the realities of participation, theories regarding how youth are socialized to participate in politics (and the impediments to participation), the history of youth in social movements (specifically why youth and college campuses are so important). The second half builds on this structure to review areas where youth are bringing new energy to political participation. The syllabus includes discussion in how youth have updated tactics, continue to redefine what counts as political, and incorporate new (intersectionality) and old (economic inequality) concerns into movements. The course is built around a midterm and final exam, as well as a research paper on a youth-oriented social movement that is broken up into several smaller proposals throughout the semester. Students are also assessed on their participation in class discussion over the substantive issues. The course serves as a point of connection between courses on youth and society, political sociology, political communication, and social movements.

There has been considerable debate over the extent and role of young people's political participation. Whether considering popular hand-wringing over concerns about declines in young people's institutional political participation or dismissals of young people's use of online activism, many frame youth engagement through a "youth deficit" model that assumes that adults need to politically socialize young people. However, others argue that young people are politically active and actively involved in their own political socialization, which is evident when examining youth participation in protest, participatory politics, and other forms of noninstitutionalized political participation. Moreover, social movement scholars have long documented the importance of youth to major social movements. In this article, we bring far flung literatures about youth activism together to review work on campus activism; young people's political socialization, their involvement in social movement organizations, their choice of tactics; and the context in which youth activism takes place. This context includes the growth of movement societies, the rise of fan activism, and pervasive Internet use. We argue that social movement scholars have already created important concepts (e.g., biographical availability) and questions (e.g., biographical consequences of activism) from studying young people and urge additional future research.