Grassroots Organizations: Recurrent Themes and Research Approaches

Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 52. No. I . 1996, pp. 207-220

Grassroots Organizations: Recurrent Themes and Research Approaches

B. Ann Bettencourt University of Missouri, Columbia

This concluding article outlines the themes related to successful grassroots organizing that were recurrent in the other articles of this journal issue. These themes include group dynamics, characteristics of grassroots activists, intergroup coalitions, leadership and other resources, and the role of technology. In addition, this paper highlights suggestions for methodological approaches to the study of grassroots organizing. Finally, practical implications that can be drawn from studies of grassroots movements are discussed.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughrful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed. it’s the only thing that ever does.

Margaret Mead

Margaret Mead’s words remind us that a collective of people, unified for a common cause, can improve the conditions of the communities in which they live. The research in the current issue emphasizes the positive effects that grassroots organizing can have on community life, while also acknowledging the potential for heightening intergroup bias and balkanization. In an era of “group identity politics,” this dilemma is particularly acute and makes the research presented in this volume all the more timely.

I will first summarize the commonalties and differences among the research presented in this issue’s articles. In doing so, I will suggest how these discrepan- cies might be resolved as well as offer direction for further study. Recurring

1 thank Nancy Dorr and Larissa Zguta for their comments on former drafts of this article. 1 extend my sincerest thanks to Michele Wittig for her advice and support and for her comments on former drafts of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to B. Ann Bettencourt, Department of Psychology, 15 McAlester, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 6521 1. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to PSYANNB@MIZZOU I .Missouri.edu.

207

0022-4537/96/0300-0207503.00/ I 0 1996 The Society for the Rychological Study of Social Issuer

208 Bettencourt

themes in the current collection related to activism initiation and maintenance include group dynamics, characteristics of grassroots activists, intergroup coalitions, leadership and other resources, and the role of technology. Next, I will address research methods in the study of grassroots organizing, including participatory action research, group-level and longitudinal approaches, as well as tech- niques for assessing the dynamic features of grassroots activism. I will conclude by reviewing some implications of the current studies for grassroots organizing.

Activism Initiation and Maintenance

In the present issue, Hinkle et al. (this issue) and Perkins, Brown, and Taylor (this issue) each provide a theoretical model of the determinants of the inception and sustenance of grassroots activism. Although somewhat different from each other, the models are similar in several ways. First, inherent in both models is the recognition that social-structural conditions inspire grassroots activism. In their model, Perkins et al. explicitly specify that involvement in community-based groups is a function of physical, economic, and social conditions. Although social conditions are less explicit in Hinkle et al.’s conceptual- ization, the model does emphasize the importance of perceptions of intergroup conflict, feelings of relative deprivation, and intergroup bias, which all emerge from a larger social context. Next, because grassroots organizing is essentially a group-level phenomenon, intragroup process variables are central in both models. For example, Hinkle et al. and Perkins et al. specify that social ties, both preexisting as well as those that develop between members of grassroots groups, are important predictors and consequences of grassroots involvement. Finally, these theoretical models identify person characteristics associated with activism in grassroots groups. For example, one such characteristic is that activists are often involved in several community groups. In summary, these theoretical models propose that structural, social, and individual variables in combination with one another, compel grassroots activism.

Despite the similarities between these models, each uses a different level of analysis. Perkins et al. emphasize, in particular, the physical, economic, and social environments and, as such, they use the group as the unit of analysis. In contrast, Hinkle et al. adopt an individual level of analysis, focusing on activists’ cognitions and motivations, which arise from group membership and group conflict. These levels of analysis are appropriate to the questions posed by each research endeavor. Whereas Perkins et al. sought to understand why grassroots groups failed or succeeded in sustaining their efforts, Hinkle et al. sought to understand why individuals were or were not active in grassroots efforts. Taken together, these models suggest at least two levels at which social scientists can examine the social-psychological nature of grassroots organizations.

In the first two subsections that follow, the group dynamics and individual

Recurrent Themes and Research Approaches 209

characteristics identified in the present issue as relevant to grassroots organizations are further reviewed. In addition, several other specific variables that appear to contribute to the maintenance and success of grassroots organizations are discussed.

Group Dynamics

As we have seen in this issue, a multitude of group processes (e.g., social identification, intergroup prejudice, group decision making) are inherently related to grassroots organizing. Similar to other social movement theorists (Fried- man & McAdam, 1992; Gamson, 1992; Melucci, 1989; Taylor & Whittier, 1992), several of the authors in this issue have emphasized the importance of group identification for initiating and sustaining activism in grassroots organizations (e.g., Bettencourt et al.; Hinkle et al.; Pilisuk et al.; Pratkanis & Turner; Woliver). Whereas injustices or conflicts may serve as catalysts for participation, the inherently social nature of mobilizing as a collective and the solidarity that members experience with like-minded others stimulates and maintains involvement (Kroeker, this issue; Perkins et al., this issue; Pilisuk et al., this issue; Woliver, this issue).

Although ingroup identification and group cohesion seem similar, their effects on grassroots activism may not be one and the same. Gamson (1992) argues that ingroup identification with a social movement is a process of defining oneself, in part, by the definitions of the group, whereas group cohesion is a feeling of loyalty and commitment toward the members of the group. Grassroots efforts may succeed if they capitalize on initiating grassroots involvement by helping potential volunteers to become identified with the grassroots organization and on maintaining activism by encouraging cohesion and commitment among the members of their group.

In contrast to this argument, several authors (Friedman, this issue; Pratkanis & 'hmer, this issue; Satterfield, this issue; Wittig & Schmitz, this issue) warn of the problems of commitment in regard to strong identification and loyalties with grassroots groups. These negative consequences include prejudicial attitudes toward members of other groups, failure to establish useful intergroup coalitions, and manipulation of group identity by others attempting to forestall social change.

The importance of understanding the effect of prejudicial attitudes on grassroots activism is discussed by several authors in this issue (Hinkle et al.; Prat- kanis & 'hmer; Satterfield; Wittig & Schmitz); however, each does so from a different vantage point. Whereas Wittig and Schmitz examine how cooperative grassroots activism can bring together people of different backgrounds (i.e., different levels of status and power) to reduce prejudicial attitudes, Satterfield discusses how grassroots activism can lead to increased prejudice and to stigma-

210 Bettencourt

tization of others. Hinkle et al. (this issue) show that higher levels of ingroup bias (i.e., more favorable attitudes toward members of the ingroup compared to other groups) are associated with higher levels of grassroots activism. Clearly, some grassroots movements are in part inspired by disgruntled attitudes toward other groups. While not in disagreement, Wittig and Schmitz (this issue) and Pratkanis and Turner (this issue) argue that, ultimately, such attitudes are detrimental to the effectiveness of grassroots efforts. Taking these two arguments into account, it may be that intergroup conflicts might inspire and maintain activism initially, but that bridging cross-group boundaries is important for facilitating social structural change (Wittig & Schmitz, this issue).

Social psychological researchers (see for example, Asch, 1952; Janis, 1982; & Sherif, 1936) have long recognized that memberships in groups can lead to dysfunctional compliance and conformity. Grassroots organizations with strong group identities are susceptible to manipulation by persons or corporations who seek to profit from, but not contribute to, the grassroots cause. For example, a company’s product might cany the label “green,” but in reality include only 10% recycled waste. In a similar vein, social identifications can be manipulated and serve as a vehicle of propaganda used by those with political power (Pilisuk et al., this issue; Pratkanis & Turner, this issue).

By considering these group dynamics of activism, researchers are clearly attempting to understand the ramifications of group membership for grassroots efforts. Future research must grapple with theoretical contradictions and determine which processes are necessary for the achievement of real grassroots change, as well as the specific conditions under which particular processes are necessary for the same.

Characteristics of Grassroots Activists

People of color and women, in general, have played major roles in the success of grassroots activism in the United States (Friedman, this issue; Perkins et al., this issue; Pilisuk et al., this issue). Fortunately, this history is increasingly being acknowledged and documented (Beuchler, 1990; Garrow, 1996; Woliver, 1993). Several of this issue’s authors also focus on the contemporary roles that oppressed people have played, and continue to play, in spearheading grassroots change (Kroeker, this issue; Yeich, this issue; see also Woliver, this issue). It also seems to be that many grassroots activists have middle class and educated backgrounds (e.g., Bettencourt et al., this issue; Friedman, this issue).

This variety of people suggests that many different types of motivations may inspire individuals to work toward grassroots change. One motivational distinc- tion may relate to whether the fruits of the grassroots effort will directly or indirectly affect members of the group. Friedman points out that contemporary consumer boycotts are less concerned with direct economic benefits than they are with higher order values of American society. While this trend may be true for


some grassroots efforts, it is also the case that basic needs are often at the heart of grassroots efforts led by those who are disadvantaged in a society.

Other individual characteristics appear reliably associated with grassroots involvement. An individual’s sense of self-efficacy is among the most often cited in the previous literature (e.g., Edwards & Oskamp, 1992; Zimmerman & Rap- paport, 1988) and in the present issue (e.g., Hinkle et al.; Kroeker; Wittig & Schmitz). For example, Kroeker (this issue) found that community-based groups had difficulty establishing leadership when there were insufficient numbers of members who believed themselves capable of adopting the role. As noted previously, research findings also show that those who are active in grassroots groups are apt to be involved in other community-based or activist groups (Perkins et al., this issue; Hinkle et al., this issue; Wittig & Schmitz, this issue). Perhaps this is because people who have a sense of self-efficacy are more apt to be involved in a number of such groups. For other individuals, feelings of empathy (Hoffman, 1989) or needs for social connection may be a more basic motivation for getting involved. Evidence also suggests that a threshold of tolerance for injustice may play a role in collective action (Taylor, Maghaddam, Gamble, & Zellerer, 1988).

Coalitions Between Groups

As mentioned previously, establishing intergroup coalitions may facilitate the success of grassroots efforts. Two types of coalitions were discussed in the present issue. First Wittig and Schmitz (this issue) as well as Pratkanis and Turner (this issue) argue that to modify social policy authentically, grassroots groups must overcome and bridge traditional group barriers of status and power. By forming cross-category memberships, individuals with different backgrounds can bring to bear their distinct experiences and skills to the grassroots effort potentially.

Second, Bettencourt et al. (this issue), Pilisuk et al. (this issue), and Woliver (this issue) each discuss the potential of forming coalitions between separate grassroots groups that are working either on the same issue (e.g., two peace groups from different parts of the country) or on issues that have a shared superordinate goal (e.g., overpopulation and child abuse). Such coalitions may have more potential to pool and exchange resources as well as plan and orchestrate activities, which may contribute to the sustenance of the respective groups. Future research may seek to determine the types, prevalence, and effectiveness of intergroup coalitions among grassroots activism.

Leadership Within Groups

Supported by the previous literature (e.g., Forsyth, 1985; Kahn, 1991), several of the authors in this issue (Bettencourt et al.; Kroeker; Yeich) argue that effective leadership is central for the success of grassroots efforts. An effective

212 Bettencourt

leader organizes the group to achieve its goals as well as inspires the members of the group to continue their work (Kahn, 1991). In contrast, a lack of effective leadership may have dire effects on grassroots groups’ attempts to achieve change. For example, Kroeker’s study (this issue) shows that those community- based groups that were without leaders tended to fail in their efforts. Kroeker proposes that, to reduce the chances of failure, leadership skills may need to be fostered among the members of grassroots collectives, but she also warns that grassroots leaders must avoid oppressive leadership styles that mimic those in the larger society. In a similar vein, other theorists (Forsyth, 1985; Ludwick, 1985) argue that effective leaders within grassroots organizations are those who foster sharing and inclusive atmospheres. Although leadership seems to be an important variable for grassroots organizing, it appears not to be a key part of the theoretical models of either Hinkle et al. (this issue) or Perkins et al. (this issue). Perhaps this is because these models focus primarily on the external structural, social, and personal factors that contribute to involvement and less on the intragroup resources that support grassroots efforts.

Basic Resources Within Groups

Leadership is only one of the important resources likely to contribute to the success of grassroots organizations. Other resources, such as monetary funds and the time, capacity, and skills of grassroots members, are necessary for the contin- ued operation and effectiveness of grassroots efforts. First, grassroots organizations typically require some funds to underwrite their expenses. Thus, sustaining group efforts may call for the use of effective strategies for generating funds either within or outside the group.

Friedman (this issue), Pratkanis and Turner (this issue), and Woliver (this issue) remind us that the demands and rewards of everyday life compete with those of grassroots involvement. For example, Friedman (this issue) argues that disposable time is necessary to orchestrate particular types of boycott efforts. So that no one member carries too much of the responsibility for implementing the groups’ goals, some grassroots organizations may need a large number of members to achieve shared objectives. Moreover, grassroots leaders might adopt strategies for effective time use so that volunteers perceive that the time they commit “makes a difference” (see Hinkle et al., this issue).

Information is another important resource for most grassroots organizations. Activists need the skills necessary for uncovering information about social and political structures as well as the capacity to understand and apply expert knowledge (Pilisuk et al., this issue). Having access to such information may be fundamental for making authentic changes within the social structure.

Ironically, by virtue of their economic and political situations, particular collectives may lack some, if not all, of these resources and skills. For some


groups, members may need training to fully realize their potential. As Kroeker (this issue) suggests, community-based groups might benefit from adopting ongoing education programs. Such development may not only improve skills, but also induce feelings of self-efficacy, which in turn should contribute to the achievement of grassroots goals.

Technology as a Resource for Groups

Part of the ongoing training of people in grassroots and community-based groups may include familiarization and development of expertise with technology. Several of the issue’s authors (e.g., Friedman; Pilisuk et al.; Wittig & Schmitz) emphasize the importance of utilizing technology to promote the grassroots cause. Technology can be used to communicate information about a grassroots issue, gather information related to the issue, and bring together people who share interest in the issue. Specifically, Friedman (this issue) emphasizes the importance of understanding how the causes of grassroots groups can be pro- moted via the media. Similarly, Pilisuk et al. point out that many contemporary grassroots groups adopt sophisticated, technological approaches for disseminat- ing and acquiring information. Finally, Wittig and Schmitz discuss how technology can be employed to bring like-minded others together for a common cause. But once again, to benefit from technology, grassroots organizations need the funds and skills necessary to utilize technology (Pilisuk et al., this issue; Wittig & Schmitz, this issue).

Theoretical Summary

The theoretical models and predictions presented in this issue can be inte- grated to provide a broad theoretical framework for understanding grassroots initiation, involvement, maintenance, and success. This framework incorporates a dynamic system of societal, group, and personal level variables. First, initiation of grassroots involvement and mobilization is rooted in persons’ reactions to a conflict of interest. Such conflicts might include a social, political, or economic injustice (or a combination of these), or an issue conflict between two or more groups. However, only some persons will react to particular issues or conflict of interests. These persons may include those who become critically aware of their own disempowered situations or those who feel outrage, empathy, or concern about the problems faced by others. Thus, grassroots involvement necessitates a reaction from particular persons who are drawn to a specific issue. However, only those who believe collective action can be effective for achieving positive social change will mobilize such action.

Given this belief in collective efficacy, individuals must also perceive them-

214 Bettencourt

selves as efficacious, and they must believe they have the time to contribute to a collective effort. These perceptions lay the foundation for grassroots initiation; however, they are juxtaposed against forces that discourage activism, including fear of rejection and fear of privacy loss.

Once an issue draws persons to grassroots action, additional structural and individual variables, as well as those mentioned previously, affect the maintenance of grassroots organizations. Ongoing activism of an organization relies on particular group processes that include proper coordination and planning, sufficient leadership, and open acceptance and communication. In addition, social intragroup processes, such as ingroup identification, ingroup cohesion, and a sense of social connection and support, help maintain the group. Of course, resources are necessary to sustain the efforts; among these are monetary funds, sufficient numbers of people with sufficient time, and other skills necessary to negotiate the political-social structure of society.

These organization, social, and resource variables contribute to the “successes” of grassroots organizations. Successes, whether they be “small wins” or large-scale changes, feed back into group morale, personal and group empowerment, and the experience of other personal rewards. In addition, publicized successes may encourage other potential volunteers to join the effort, because these persons now perceive the group to be effective.

Coalitions with like-minded groups as well as those with powerful persons who can help initiate political, social, and economic change may be important for achievement of long-term goals. However, normative pressure against the efforts of a particular grassroots group or failure to achieve specified goals may contribute to the dissolution of an organization. The combination of these intergroup, intragroup, and intrapersonal factors interact dynamically to affect whether or not grassroots organizations will be successful. It is important to recognize that attempts to define grassroots success narrowly may be misguided. For example, to define success only in terms of full-scale social change ignores the many other possible accomplishments of a grassroots group and its members. In fact, a group may never meet its long-term goals fully, but its “small wins” may lead eventually to social and cultural change. Moreover, skill development and personal empowerment are important successes achieved within many grassroots groups, even in the absence of immediate, full-scale social change. Clearly, grassroots success is a multifaceted issue.

Research Approaches to the Study of Grassroots and Community Organizations

In the introduction to this issue, Wittig argued that the “psychological processes accompanying collective identity formation, empowerment, and social change can often be better understood by the researcher who is engaged in the collaborative effort.” Moreover, she suggests that grassroots organizations are


more likely to use the knowledge generated by research, if the research endeavor actively includes the insights of the activists.

Participatory Research

Psychologists have long advocated the use of participatory, action-oriented research methods (Lewin, 1948; Miller, 1969; Wandersman, Chavis, & Stucky, 1983), but as Chavis, Stucky, and Wandersman (1983) point out, the science of psychology has yet to fulfill its potential in accomplishing this goal. Studies of community-based and grassroots organizations seem particularly well suited for the exchange of ideas and experiences between grassroots members and researchers. Both Kroeker’s and Yeich’s contributions outline the methods of participatory research and provide case studies that exemplify this participatory process. Their articles show that this methodology offers rich information about grassroots organizations that otherwise might not have been uncovered by other types of research (e.g., survey methods). The authors also offer some important cautionary advice to participatory researchers. For example, Yeich commented that researchers must relinquish their “expert mentality” so that their involvement does not inadvertently disempower the members of the collectives. Similarly, Kroeker advises that participatory researchers must be careful to promote leadership within the group without taking on the role themselves, even when the members of the group seemingly want the researchers to do so (see also Yeich).

Of course, researchers who do not use these participatory methods may contribute to the grassroots efforts they study by directly informing groups about research findings and other useful information (see, for example Perkins et al., this issue). In addition, community members who have access to a study’s findings can offer the researchers useful feedback, which can in turn, inform future research.

Group-Level Research

Understanding grassroots organizing necessitates not only using group-process theory but also using group-level analyses. Much of the prior empirical research has focused on the individual characteristics that contribute to grassroots activism. In contrast, many of the articles in this issue document the fruits of using intergroup as well as intragroup theory for framing grassroots research (e.g., Bettencourt et al.; Hinkle et al.; Wittig & Schmitz). Where possible, theories that incorporate both levels of variables should be tested.

Perkins et al.’s (this issue) social-ecological approach challenges researchers to understand grassroots organizing by using the group, instead of the individual, as the unit of analysis. A wide range of issues related to grassroots and community-based organizing might be better understood by adopting this level of analysis.

216 Bettencourt

Longitudinal and Dynamic Research

Some of the methodological approaches used in the current issue (Kroeker; Perkins et al.; Wittig & Schmitz; Yeich) allow for an understanding of the ongoing developmental processes that unfold within social-action organizations. For example, external events may elicit intense periods of social action, but at other times, activity may wane (Yeich, this issue). In addition, strategies that will be most effective at one time may not be effective at another (Friedman, this issue). Similarly, efforts that seem to increase participation in the short run either may fail to influence or may decrease participation in the long run (Perkins et al., this issue). Whenever possible, longitudinal methodology should be used to capture the time-sensitive complexity inherent in grassroots organizing (Perkins et al., this issue).

Grassroots organizations also are inherently dynamic (Wittig, this issue; Woliver, this issue). Woliver (this issue) challenges researchers to use methodological approaches that allow for a more direct study of the dynamic nature of grassroots organizations. Examples of the dynamic quality of grassroots organizing include that activism may induce feelings of empowerment, and in turn, these feelings may fuel further grassroots efforts (Perkins et al., this issue; Yeich, this issue). Likewise, grassroots groups may initially organize to solve one problem, but subsequently may use their acquired skills to work toward the achievement of other causes (Pilisuk et al., this issue; Woliver, this issue). Woliver argues that the dynamics of grassroots activism do not only affect social policy but also affect individuals and culture. Research methods that capture the dynamic nature of grassroots organizing may uncover this interactive process.

Paradoxically, some of the social variables that significantly predict initiating and maintaining grassroots organizing also appear to be responsible for inaction. For example, Hinkle et al. (this issue) and Perkins et al. (this issue) show that social attachments and solidarity are likely to be an important compo- nent of grassroots involvement, but Pilisuk et al. (this issue) and Woliver (this issue) argue that needs for social approval and social support may inhibit activism. One key to resolving this paradox may be in understanding whether, prior to their involvement, the grassroots activist either had relationships with those in the movement (Friedman & McAdam, 1992) or lacked relationships with others, in general (Snow, Zurcher, & Ekland-Olson, 1980).

Implications for Grassroots Organizations

Based on the theoretical frameworks and research findings presented in the present issue, some practical suggestions for grassroots organizers can be offered. Although these suggestions are not exhaustive, they were among those most often mentioned in the present issue. As such the following is meant to be a


compilation of the ideas offered by our authors for initiating and maintaining grassroots movements.

1 . Emphasize the Personal Relevancy of an Issue and Foster Critical Awareness

Volunteers are more likely to be committed to an effort if they understand why an issue is relevant to their lives. Understanding the personal relevancy of an issue may be fostered either by developing critical awareness (Yeich, this issue) or by encouraging deliberative processing of issue-relevant information (Pratkanis & Turner, this issue).

2 . Create a Structure that Allows Systematic Coordination and Strategic Planning

Set short-term and long-term goals. Groups should identify issues, define issues in concrete terms, develop specific goals, outline flexible strategies to achieve goals, and involve a sufficient number of people (Bettencourt et al.; Perkins et al., this issue).

3. Foster Shared Leadership and Develop Leadership Skills Among the Membership

Although strong leadership is important for grassroots organizations, sharing leadership roles and the decision-making responsibilities is fundamental for keeping volunteers engaged. To create needed continuity in leadership, encourage volunteers to develop leadership skills (Kroeker, this issue).

4 . Foster Democratic and Inclusive Styles of Decision Making and Respect Diverse Viewpoints

Encourage members to think open-mindedly about relevant issues. More- over, purposefully encourage the expression of minority opinions (Pratkanis & Turner, this issue). To increase the variety of experiences, opinions, and expertise available to the group, encourage diversity in membership (e.g., varying in- comes, educations, ethnicities; Wittig & Schmitz, this issue).

5 . Foster Group Cohesion and lngroup Identijkation

Members may be more likely to persist in their activism if they feel a social connection and loyalty to the other members of the group. Moreover, if they come to identify their group memberships as an important part of how they

218 Bettencourt

define themselves, they may be more likely to contribute to the maintenance of the group.

6. Build Group and Individual Eflcacy Through Skill Building

The group as a whole will become more effective in the effort when individual members are allowed to contribute a variety of different skills. Skill development may include interpersonal communication, group participation, and technological skills. Skill development will increase group effectiveness as well as members’ feelings of self-efficacy. Sense of self-efficacy is a reliable predictor of grassroots involvement.

7. Use the Members’ Skills and Time Effectively

Members will be more satisfied if they believe their skills are being utilized and challenged. Also, due to limitations in time, volunteers will be more satisfied with their involvement if they believe their time expenditure has led to identifiable accomplishments (Hinkle et al., this issue).

8. Access Community Resources

Communities are likely to have many resources that can facilitate progress toward grassroots goals. These resources can include access to relevant information (i.e., policy documents), useful technology (computers, media), and knowl- edgeable others (Pilisuk, this issue).

9. Develop Intergroup Coalitions

Other groups may have important information or material resources that can be exchanged. In addition, coalitions among several groups may sometimes be more effective than single groups in achieving social change. Finally, establish connections with powerful persons or groups, such as those involved in the media or in public-policy decision making.

10. Emphasize Short-Term Successes of the Group and the Success of Groups with Similar Goals

Accomplishing real social-structural change may take an extended period of time. The motivation of members to sustain their efforts toward such change may be fueled by recognizing the success of short-term goals and also by learning about the struggles and successes of other grassroots groups.

Although these suggestions are important, some may be more or less important for particular groups with specific goals. As Yeich (this issue) states,


“Groups will develop their own means for generalizing knowledge and their own social action strategies based on their particular situations.”

Ethical Issues in Grassroots Organizing

As grassroots groups attempt to achieve their specified goals, it is important that they consider the effects of grassroots activism on third parties who are not directly involved in the effort but are affected by it (Friedman, this issue). Both Friedman’s and Satterfield’s (this issue) work documents how third parties can be hurt by grassroots activism. One type of ethical dilemma pits short-term gains against long-term gains. Boycotting the products of exploitive employers, for example, is likely to reduce the paychecks of current employees in the interest of gaining power that is likely to later enhance worker benefits (Friedman). When- ever people’s current welfare is treated as a means to a future end, grassroots organizers need to carefully examine the trade-off.

In addition, Friedman discusses corporate-initiated grassroots movements (see also Satterfield, this issue). He explains the disturbing trend of corporations and other powerful institutions to launch facsimile groups disguised as grassroots organizations. Friedman’s point is similar to that of Pratkanis and Turner (this issue) who assert that, ‘‘collectives can be a tool for constructing a facade of democratic involvement that masks elitist rule.” To uncover the truth of such conspiracies, research can provide information to the public about the prevalence, nature, and influence of these facsimile groups.

Conclusion

The theories and studies presented in this volume have brought social- psychological principles to been in the analysis of grassroots organizing, an area that heretofore has often been the domain of other social science disciplines. In the course of this effort, we have found that our tools of analysis are necessary, but sometimes insufficient. Their necessity derives from the need to augment sociological and political analysis with social-psychological methods of analysis. Their insufficiency stems from the fact that the social-psychological principles that our authors have applied are derived, in part, from research on small groups, under relatively controlled conditions. In this volume we have attempted to retool the concept of social identity and adapt the concept of empowerment to explain grassroots organizing. While acknowledging the tentative nature of this effort, we have nonetheless supplied the reader with potential strategies for mobilizing and sustaining grassroots groups as well as theories and methods for studying them. Traditional social-psychological research is likely to lead to a greater intellectual understanding of grassroots organizing, but a full social understand-

220 Bettencourt

ing of grassroots organizing is more likely to result when people practice as well as study it.

References

Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Beuchler, S. M. (1990). Women's movements in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers. Chavis, D. M., Stucky, P. E., & Wandersman, A. (1983). Returning basic research to the commu-

nity: A relationship between scientist and citizen. American Psychologist, 38. 424-434. Edwards, T. C., & Oskamp, S. (1992). Components of antinuclear war activism. Basic andApplied

Social Psychology, I3, 217-230. Forsyth, D. R. (1985). Effective group meetings and decision making. In N. Wollman (Ed.), Working

for peace (pp. 91-99). San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact Publishers. Friedman. D., & McAdam, D. (1992). Collective identity and activism: Networks, choices, and the

life of a social movement. In A. D. Moms & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 156-173). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gamson, W. A. (1992). The social psychology of collective action. In A. D. Moms & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 53-76). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Garrow, D. J. (1986). Bearing the cross. New York: Vintage. Hoffman, M. L. (1989). Empathy and prosocial activism. In N. Eisenberg, J. Reykowski, & E. Staub

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kahn, S . (1991). Organizing: A guidefor grassroots leaders. Silver Spring, MD: NASW Press. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Row. Ludwick, M. (1985). Organizing your group and setting goals. In N. Wollman (Ed.), Workingfor

Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present: social movements and individual needs in contemporary

Miller, G . A. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American Psychologist.

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper. Snow, D. A., Zurcher, L. A., & Ekland-Olson, S. (1980). Social networks and social movements: A

microstructural approach to differential recruitment. American Socioiogical Review, 45. 787- 801.

Taylor, D. M., Maghaddam, F. M., Gamble, I., & Zellerer, E. (1988). Disadvantaged group responses to perceived inequality: From passive acceptance to collective action. Journal of Social Psychology. 127, 259-272.

Taylor, V., & Whittier, N. E. (1992). Collective identity in social movement communities: Lesbian feminist mobilization. In A. D. Moms & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Wandersman, A., Chavis, D., & Stucky, P. (1983). Involving citizens in research. In R. Kidd & M. Saks (Eds.), Advances in applied social psychology (Vol. 2 , pp. 189-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Woliver, L. R. (1993). From outrage to action: The politics of grass-roots dissent. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Zimmerman, M. A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725-750.

(Eds.), Social and moral issues (pp. 365-393). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

peace (pp. 81-90), San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact Publishers.

society. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

24, 1063-1075.

B. ANN BETTENCOURT is an assistant professor of Social Psychology at the University of Missouri. She was a member of the Grassroots Task Force for SPSSI. In 1995-96, she was one of the co-chairs of the 60th Anniversary SPSSI Convention program. Her research primarily focuses on the areas of stereotyping processes, group identification, and intergroup conflict and cooperation.

Grassroots Organizations: Recurrent Themes and Research Approaches

Documents

Transcript of Grassroots Organizations: Recurrent Themes and Research Approaches