Social Movement Structures in Relation to Goals and Forms of Action: An Exploratory Model

Abstract

This article describes a theoretical taxonomy of the structural features of social movements. We begin by using two classification criteria to analyze the types of relations that characterize the structure of social movements. From there, we look at how differences in structure relate to different goals and forms of action. We then derive a four-fold classification system based on formalization and hierarchy of relationships. For each classification we provide case descriptions of social movements (or parts thereof) using literature on how different movement structures support different types of goals and forms of action. Furthermore, we discuss the dynamics of social movements (or parts thereof) and how their classification may evolve. By doing so, we illustrate how changes in structure, goals, and forms of action mutually influence each other. RÉSUMÉ Cet article dresse une taxonomie théorique des caractéristiques structurelles des mouvements sociaux. Nous utilisons d’abord deux critères de classification pour analyser les types de relation propres à la structure des mouvements sociaux. Par la suite, nous observons comment des différences de structure coïncident avec des buts et des formes d’action différents. Nous développons ensuite un système de classification quadruple fondé sur la formalisation et l’hiérarchisation des relations. Pour chacune des classifications, nous fournissons des descriptions de cas de mouvements sociaux (ou de parties de ceux-ci) en recourant à des écrits sur la manière dont des structures de mouvement différentes entraînent des buts et des formes d’action différents. En outre, nous discutons des dynamiques des mouvements sociaux (ou de parties de ceux-ci) et comment leur classification pourrait évoluer. Par ce moyen, nous illustrons comment des changements de structure, de but et de forme d’action s’influencent réciproquement.

Exploring Board Interlocking Behaviour Between Nonprofit Organizations

“…However, a too strong clustering, or ‘oligarchic’ situations where few directors have large impact on decisions in many different organizations, could undermine the democratic nature of the nonprofit sector (Davis and Mizruchi , Non and Franses ). In such cases, too strong clustering in a group of similar organizations could centralize power, which reduces a network of multiple partner organizations to a single hierarchy around one or few organizations and/or individuals (Willems and Jegers ). In such a hierarchically structured network the organizations involved are induced to implement incremental but marginal changes (Voss and Sherman ), and therefore, such a situation could substantially hamper innovation within these clusters (Newman and Dale ).…”

“…Given the growing attention in the nonprofit literature for similar topics, the formation and configuration of nonprofit board‐of‐director networks deserve more attention, and could offer insights for important contemporary nonprofit research challenges. Some of these challenges are (1) how governance practices in nonprofit boards are influenced by other organizations (Paarlberg and Varda , Paarlberg and Meinhold 2011); (2) how strategic partnerships between organizations can be managed and what their effectiveness is (Provan et al , Koliba et al ); (3) how networked organizations can adjust their own goals and tactics to the broader cause in which they are active (Willems and Jegers ); and (4) how networks can be beneficial for gaining access to resources (Eng et al ).…”

A Comparative Analysis of Nonprofit Policy Network Governance in Canada

“…Nine of Canada's ten provinces have been engaged in some form of deliberate, sustained engagement in nonprofit sector-government relations policy (Campbell & Speevak Sladowski, 2009;Carter & Speevak Sladowski, 2008;Elson, 2010). Willems and Jegers (2012), it is important to examine the reinforced expectations of behaviour or performance in provincial-nonprofit sector relations. Trust is critical for network performance and sustainability, particularly its distribution and reciprocation among network members (Provan & Kenis, 2008).…”

Third wave, third sector: A comparative provincial analysis of the governance of third sector relations

“…The content of the relationship is based on culture, habits and beliefs (for example, internal patterns that emerge with a sustained party in power). In an informal, centralized structure (Type IV), the relationship may be based on an particular ideology or sense of “community” (for example, community consultation) (Willems and Jegers ). Willems and Jegers clearly note that while this framework is divided into quadrants, the reality is much more of a continuum.…”

“…So once the papers have been signed and the cameras have been put away, how do provincial governments manage this cross‐cutting third sector policy file? Network governance (Willems and Jegers ) is introduced as a framework to examine the degree of centrality and formality associated with the administration of third sector issues by provincial governments.…”