Authors:Emilio J. Castilla; George J. Lan, Ben A. Rissing Pages: 999 - 1012 Abstract: While substantial progress has recently been made in the literature on social networks and employment, this research has not been accompanied by a larger organizing framework. In this article, we attempt to provide such framework while reviewing the literature that addresses the context of work and employment from a social network perspective – that is, research based on the assumption that actors are embedded in networks of social relations and interactions. In particular, our review focuses on the primary mechanisms that help explain how networks may shape employment outcomes and processes, namely, by conveying resources and providing signals to others. Ties among social actors may transfer better or unique resources such as information, learning, influence, and support, which consequently may affect key employment outcomes. Ties may also provide signals concerning ability, legitimacy/trust, status, and relationship meaning. We conclude by presenting a number of alternative arguments in the literature and discussing future directions for the research on social networks and employment. PubDate: 2013-12-02T07:29:45.948725-05: DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12096
Authors:Emilio J. Castilla; George J. Lan, Ben A. Rissing Pages: 1013 - 1026 Abstract: In this second article, we continue to survey research that addresses work and employment from a social network perspective. Building on a companion article in this volume, which explores in‐depth the main network mechanisms presented in the literature, this article reviews studies addressing how social networks may shape key employment outcomes for both individuals and organizations. Network access and activation may shape individuals' selection into employment opportunities in addition to a variety of post‐hire outcomes including employee performance, promotion, rewards, job satisfaction, and termination. Organizations too may be influenced by their network position and by the activation of certain ties, ultimately affecting key outcomes such as firm performance, innovation, and learning measures. We conclude by discussing promising areas for future research on how social networks interact with employment. PubDate: 2013-12-02T07:29:43.992493-05: DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12095
Authors:Lisa K. Waldner; Betty A. Dobratz Pages: 1027 - 1043 Abstract: The authors develop four exercises to further explore themes that are discussed in the Waldner and Dobratz article “Graffiti as a Form of Contentious Political Participation (Sociology Compass 7: 377–389),” including Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo (Madres de Plaza de Mayo), From Famous Political Speech (“Ich Bin Ein Berliner”) to Graffiti: “Ich bin Berliner”, “Protest, Violence, and Graffiti in Greek Politics,” and “Political Speech or Just Tagging: Billboards and Culture Jamming.” The authors encourage students to explore them such as motivations for graffiti, the difficulty in discerning writer intent, the use of graffiti as a form of political protest, and the historical and geographical context of graffiti. The authors provide links to YouTube videos and supplementary readings. PubDate: 2013-12-02T07:29:43.456674-05: DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12092
Authors:Todd Nicholas Fuist Pages: 1044 - 1052 Abstract: Sociologists of social movements agree that culture matters for studying collective action, and have proposed a variety of theoretical concepts to understand culture and mobilization, including framing, free spaces, and collective identity. Despite this, what we mean when we say “culture matters” remains unclear. In this paper, I draw on 30 years of social movement theory and research to construct a typology of three ways that culture is seen as shaping social movement activity: (i) culture renders particular sites fruitful for social movements to mobilize out of; (ii) culture serves as a resource that assists in movement action; and (iii) culture provides wider contexts that shape movement activity. This typology represents the analytic building blocks of theories about culture and social movements, and is presented towards the end of clarifying and sharpening our theoretical concepts. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research that draw on, refine, and extend these three building blocks. PubDate: 2013-12-02T07:29:46.580671-05: DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12087
Authors:Sandra Rodriguez Pages: 1053 - 1064 Abstract: This article presents an overview of rising trends in the study of networked interactions conveyed by social media technologies and the emergence of new meanings associated with social change. In recent years, a healthy amount of studies has focused on ICT uses within collective action, considering social media tools to have become crucial components of many transnational movements and social change projects. Crossing boundaries between social movements theories, political science, and communication studies, literature suggests that ‘online activism’ and increasingly networked interactions may have transformed the meanings and definitions associated with ‘collective action’ and ‘social change’. To make sense of these meanings, we identify three approaches used by scholars, which focus on (i) the actual networking of actors, (ii) the diffusion of new repertoires and frames through networks, and (iii) making sense of new meanings conveyed within networked cultures. We conclude by suggesting the need for more comprehensive research to better observe and make sense of how's actors define collective action and how they use social media tools when striving to convey social change. PubDate: 2013-12-02T07:29:42.987369-05: DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12088
Authors:Patrick F. Gillham Pages: 1065 - 1073 Abstract: Author's introduction
People participate in social movements and protest events in part to pressure elites and institutions to alter the reward structure within society. When attempting to pressure their targets, activists are often confronted by the state. Whether the state is a target of protest or not, it oftentimes engages those seeking to promote extra‐institutional change. Within democratic societies, police are charged to maintain social order and protect the rights of those expressing dissent. Because of this dual charge and a variety of political, social, and economic factors, police have adopted strategies or repertoires of social control for policing protests. These repertoires can facilitate, channel, or prevent protest from occurring. A growing scholarly consensus suggests that since the 1990s, authorities in the United States and other democratic states have shifted how they react to protests. Until the 1970s, police often utilized what scholars call the ‘escalated force’ protest control repertoire. During this era, police saw protest as an illegitimate form of political expression. They placed a low priority on freedom of speech and assembly and often used excessive force and widespread arrests when dealing with protesters. In the 1970s to 1990s, police developed what is called ‘negotiated management’ to respond less confrontationally to protesters. This repertoire relied on a permitting process to facilitate police and protester efforts to negotiate the time, place, and manner of protest activities in ways satisfactory to both protesters and police. Police placed a premium on protecting freedom of speech and assembly and tolerated community inconveniences related to large rallies, marches, and the occasional staged arrest. They used violence and arrests as a last resort and only for significant violations of the law. However, following the disruptive 1999 Seattle WTO protests and the new cycle of global protests that followed, law enforcement agencies around the United States and in other western democracies began developing and adopting the ‘strategic incapacitation’ repertoire of protest control. With strategic incapacitation, police selectively protect civil liberties and selectively tolerate community disruption, and they seek to incapacitate protests through the use of less‐lethal weapons and preemptive arrests, extensive control of public space, reliance on ‘new surveillance’ technologies, and the elaborate control of information. In the United States, the development and adoption of this new style of policing accelerated after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks as authorities embraced a risk management approach to identify and neutralize potentially disruptive events, such as large demonstrations.
Author recommended books and edited volumes
Jules. 2007. Beyond Bullets: The Suppression of Dissent in the United States. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
Boykoff's book explores how the U.S. government, with assistance from federal, state and local law enforcement regularly disrupted protest movements in the 20th Century. It catalogues various forms of suppression employed by authorities from the use of direct violence, surveillance, and infiltration to the use of less direct means of mass media manipulation and demonization. Chapter 1 includes a good introduction to social movements and dissent/resistance, and the concepts of repression and suppression.
Mueller (eds.) 2005. Repression and Mobilization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
This compilation of essays on repression and resistance provides a broad lens for understanding the various ways that state power is exercised against social movements. Davenport's introductory chapter helpfully evaluates the broader field of repression and recommends ways to advance it.
Reiter (eds.) 1998. Policing Protest: The Control of Mass Demonstrations in Western Democracies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
This collection of essays consolidates some of the best thinking of the time on protest policing. Together, it provides a comparative historical, institutional and cultural analysis of protest policing across a variety of democratic nations. The contributors explore recent trends in the evolution of protest policing, such as whether protest policing has become ‘softer’ and the causes and consequences of such changes. The introductory chapter identifies important variables that define the style of protest policing employed and provides a useful model to explain the different styles. The second chapter by McPhail, Schweingruber and McCarthy introduces ‘negotiated management’ to the scholarly lexicon and has become one of the most influential writings on protest policing. This book should be at the top of your reading list on the topic.
Reiter (eds.) 2006. The Policing of Transnational Protest. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
This collected works is a follow up to della Porta and Reiter's earlier volume described above. It explores changes in protest policing in western democracies that parallel the rise of transnational protests in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Contributors analyzed policing efforts at protests coinciding with various international summits and other large protest events. Collectively, they investigated the question of whether a new era of policing is emerging to replace the softer styles of protest policing identified in the earlier volume. Individually, authors explored a variety of topics including the transnational character of the protests and of the police effort to control these protests, how adoption of a ‘new penology’ paradigm within the U.S. criminal justice influenced police adoption of strategic incapacitation... PubDate: 2013-12-02T07:29:45.088226-05: DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12091
Authors:Jody Clay‐Warner; Elizabeth Culatta, Katie R. James Pages: 1074 - 1084 Abstract: Despite evidence that women and men possess similar workplace values, debate continues regarding gendered preferences for justice in the workplace. In particular, some have argued that women and men have fundamentally different justice orientations, which lead men to value fair outcomes and women to value fair procedures. Recent research finds that such beliefs may influence managers to reward men with greater monetary rewards than those provided to women. Here, we review this literature and argue that men and women do not have fundamentally different justice orientations. Instead, the few findings of gender difference in preferences for procedural vs. distributive justice in the workplace are a function of status differences between men and women. PubDate: 2013-12-02T07:29:44.678384-05: DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12094