Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTARROW, Sidney
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-29T09:54:10Z
dc.date.available2019-10-29T09:54:10Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationMobilization : an international quarterly, 2019, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 274-292en
dc.identifier.issn1086-671X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/64745
dc.description.abstractEvery so often, social scientists hit upon a scheme that aims to revolutionize the field they work in by making what they see as major innovations. In 2001, Doug McAdam, the late Charles Tilly, and I had such an ambition. We claimed, first, that the field we called “contentious politics” had been specified too narrowly it was, in a later formulation, too “social movementcentered” (McAdam and Boudet 2012). We also wanted to know how institutional and noninstitutional contention intersect to produce not-wholly-predictable outcomes. And we wanted to move away from familiar causal language with a mechanism-based approach that focused on the “how” of dynamic sequences of contention. To reinforce our critique and implement our ambitions, we surveyed a wide range of contentious episodes, ranging from ordinary conflicts, like strikes and demonstrations within functioning democracies, to civil conflicts, wars, and revolutions.en
dc.description.sponsorshipERC POLCON project funded.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSan Diego State Universityen
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/338875/EU
dc.relation.ispartofMobilization : an international quarterlyen
dc.relation.ispartofseries[POLCON]en
dc.titleMobilization forum : comments on Kriesi, Hutter, and Bojar : incremental steps to major innovationsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.17813/1086-671X-24-3-274
dc.identifier.volume24en
dc.identifier.startpage274en
dc.identifier.endpage292en
dc.identifier.issue3en


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record