The Use of Newspaper Data in the Study of Collective Action

Earl, Jennifer; Martin, Andrew; McCarthy, John; Soule, Sarah A.

doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110603

Cited by 795 publications

(553 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

522

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, many previous studies examined media framing in the context of, for examples, such as "gender" (Billings & Angelini, 2007;Billings, Angelini, & Duke, 2010;Billings & Eastman, 2003;Greer, Hardin, & Homan, 2009;Wensing & Bruce, 2003), "ethnicity" (Davis & Harris, 1998;Hardin, Dodd, Chance, & Walsdorf, 2004;Sabo, Jansen, Tate, Duncan, & Leggett, 1996;Van Sterkenburg & Knoppers, 2004), and "nationalism" (Billings, Angelini, & Wu, 2011;Bishop & Jaworski, 2003;Elder, Pratt, & Ellis, 2006;Lee & Maguire, 2009). Newspapers were chosen as the medium for examination in the current study because they have been widely utilized as a data resource for content analysis to study social and collective issues and are still regarded as a high level of credibility compared to television or online resources (Armstrong, 2009;Earl, Martin, McCarthy, & Soule, 2004;Kiousis, 2001). Specifically, the current study conducted a content analysis regarding the 17th Incheon Asian Games 2014 using Korean nationwide and local newspapers published between April 7, 2005 (the date when the Korean Olympic Committee (KOC) made a decision the city of Incheon would be the candidate city to participate the bidding process for the 17th Asian Games) and September 18, 2014 (the date just before the opening ceremony of the 17th Incheon Asian Games 2014) (Chung, 2005).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework: Media Framingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2016

JPES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The study examined how newspaper articles have framed the 17th Incheon Asian Games 2014, in regard to the different issues covered, sources cited, positive and/or negative externalities frames, and the relationship between issues and sources. A total of 625 Korean nationwide and local newspaper articles covering the Asian Games during the 9-year period between April 7, 2005 and September 18, 2014 was analyzed in terms of three aspects of framing: (1) the types of issues highlighted, (2) the sources of information cited, and (3) the ways in which either possibilities of positive or negative externalities depiction were used. The results of the current study reveal that "political issues" (e.g., administrative and/or political conflict among central government, host city, and local residents, participation of North Korea national team) except "factual information of the event" (e.g., schedules, results, athlete performance, history) were the most commonly highlighted, "administrators" who are the government agencies preparing the Asian Games were the most frequently cited sources of information and the frame of "negative externalities" was more employed than the frame of "positive externalities" in newspapers of the Asian Games. This study regarding media coverage of the mega sporting event identifies how mass media agencies influence their target audience using framing theory and especially provide extensive analysis of media coverage of the Asian Games to date, which could serve as a groundwork for further studies of media framing theory.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Framework: Media Framingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2016

JPES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our approach continues an established tradition in social movement scholarship of using archival newspaper data to identify instances of social movement tactics (e.g., McAdam & Su, 2002;Earl, Soule, & McCarthy, 2003;Earl, Martin, Soule, & McCarthy, 2004;Van Dyke, Soule, & Taylor, 2004;King, 2008;McDonnell & King, 2013;McDonnell, King, & Soule, 2014).…”

Section: Boycott Sample Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blacklisted Benefactors: The Political Contestation of Non-Market Strategy

McDonnell

Werner

2015

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores whether and how contentious stakeholders can disrupt a firm's non-market strategy. We offer the first systematic study of the effect of public protest on corporate political activity, using a unique database that allows us to empirically analyze the impact of social movement boycotts on targeted firms' campaign contributions. We show that boycotts lead to significant reductions in the amount of targets' campaign contributions and increase the proportion of contributions that politicians refund. These results highlight the importance of considering how a firm's socio-political environment shapes its non-market strategy. We supplement this primary analysis by drawing from social movement theory to extrapolate and test a number of mechanisms that moderate the extent to which movement challenges effectively disrupt corporate political activity. ABSTRACTThis paper explores whether and how contentious stakeholders can disrupt a firm's non-market strategy. We offer the first systematic study of the effect of public protest on corporate political activity, using a unique database that allows us to empirically analyze the impact of social movement boycotts on targeted firms' campaign contributions. We show that boycotts lead to significant reductions in the amount of targets' campaign contributions and increase the proportion of contributions that politicians refund. These results highlight the importance of considering how a firm's socio-political environment shapes its non-market strategy. We supplement this primary analysis by drawing from social movement theory to extrapolate and test a number of mechanisms that moderate the extent to which movement challenges effectively disrupt corporate political activity.* We would like to thank Caroline Flammer, Olga Hawn, Shon Hiatt, Brayden King, Jiao Luo, Jeff Macher, Michael Malbin, and Ed Walker, as well as seminar participants at Wharton, Yale University, Columbia University, the University of Michigan, Chicago Booth, the University of Texas, the University of Maryland, Rice University, Boston University, and Ohio State University for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. This paper was previously presented at the 2014 annual meetings of the American Political Science Association and the Strategic Management Society. Blacklisted Benefactors 2 Blacklisted Benefactors: The Political Contestation of Non-Market StrategyFirms exist in multiple institutional environments, requiring interaction with myriad audiences who often have conflicting expectations and demands (Scott, 1987;Greenwood, 2011). One of the most critical of these audiences is the state, which crafts the rules of the game that define market competition and creates the system of laws and punishments that comprise the formal, regulatory pillar of firms' institutional environments (Scott, 2001). Though legal rules certainly constrain corporate behavior, firms do not passively acquiesce to the iron cage of their regulatory institutions. Rather, work at the inte...

show abstract

“…A sizeable literature confirms that news coverage provides a highly selective account of reality (e.g., Danzger 1975;Jackman and Boyd 1979;Dixon and Linz 2000;Dearing and Rogers 1996;Franzosi 1987; for recent reviews, see Earl et al 2004;Gilliam et al 1996;Myers and Caniglia 2004;Ortiz et al 2005;Woolley 2000). Yet many research literatures in political science still proceed as if the news media provide a sort of ''magic mirror'' service for the mass public that is not in itself worthy of attention or concern.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%