Logo

Social Change and Protests July 07, 2023

Social Change and Protests

Social movements ranging from Black Lives Matter to the climate movement are a fixture of political life. But what makes some social movements more successful than others? We surveyed 120 academic experts in Sociology, Political Science and other relevant disciplines to investigate this question.

Primary results

  1. Experts thought the most important tactical and strategic factor for a social movement’s success is “the strategic use of nonviolent disruptive tactics”, ranking it as more important than focusing on gaining media coverage and having ambitious goals.
  2. 69% of experts thought that disruptive tactics were effective for issues (like climate change) that have high public awareness and support. For issues with high awareness but low support (like anti-vaccination), only 30% thought disruptive tactics were effective.
  3. The most important governance and organizational factor for a social movement’s success was the ability to “mobilise and scale quickly in response to external events”, whereas experts thought having decentralised decision making was the least important factor.
  4. The most important internal factors that threatened social movement success were “internal conflict or movement infighting” and a “lack of clear political objectives”.
  5. 90% of experts thought that non-violent climate protests targeting the government are at least somewhat effective overall.

A list of all academics who were happy to share information about their participation is available at the bottom of this page.

    Section 1: Protests in a democratic context

  1. Question 1

    The ultimate goal of social movements is often to influence national government policy or legislation. To achieve this, they may focus on a range of intermediate goals. How important are the following intermediate goals in contributing to an ultimate goal of influencing government policy or legislation?
    1. • Increasing issue awareness amongst the general public
    2. • Making public opinion more supportive of the issue
    3. • Winning over elite allies (high-profile experts or celebrities)
    4. • Winning over political allies (local or national policymakers)
    5. • Gaining sympathetic media coverage
    6. • Gaining backing from industry and business

    Results

    survey 1 responses

  2. Question 2

    We are now going to ask some questions about the factors which affect the likelihood of success of a social movement. By success, we mean a continuum from tangible, measurable success such as policy wins, through to longer-term changes such as public discourse or public opinion which may have second-order effects which are hard to measure. We divide the factors into external factors which are those largely outside of a movement’s control and two types of internal factors: those relating to strategy and those relating to governance, both of which lie more within a movement’s control. How important do you think the following external factors are in contributing to a social movement’s success?
    1. • Supportive media coverage
    2. • Supportive elite allies (policymakers, high-profile experts or celebrities)
    3. • A sympathetic government being in power
    4. • The nature of the political system (e.g. level of proportional representation)
    5. • The ability to attract funding
    6. • The current state of public opinion on the issue

    Results

    survey 2 responses
  3. Question 3

    How important do you think the following tactical and strategic factors are in contributing to a social movement’s success?
    1. • A strict avoidance of violent tactics
    2. • Having both more radical and more moderate flanks
    3. • The strategic use of nonviolent disruptive tactics
    4. • A focus on achievable demands
    5. • Having ambitious goals
    6. • A focus on gaining media coverage (positive or negative)

    Results

    survey 3 responses
  4. Question 4

    How important do you think the following governance and organisational factors are in contributing to a social movement’s success?
    1. • Having a high level of internal unity (e.g. on demands)
    2. • Having a broad and diverse constituency
    3. • Organisational capacity (e.g. ability to run large campaigns)
    4. • Having strong leadership with clear decision-making
    5. • Having decentralised decision-making
    6. • Being able to mobilise and scale quickly in response to external events
    7. • Having clear political goals
    8. • Being open to collaboration
    9. • Being willing to accept incremental wins
    10. • Focusing on a narrow issue (e.g. carbon emissions) rather than broader systemic issues (e.g. global climate justice)
    11. • Size (number of supporters)

    Results

    survey 4 responses

  5. Question 5

    Social movements sometimes fail to achieve significant wins, whether on policy, public opinion or other desired outcomes. This is often due to external factors but some factors lie more within a movement’s control. How important are the following internal factors in threatening social movement success?
    1. • Being unwilling to compromise
    2. • Having stated goals that are too broad
    3. • Having stated goals that are too radical
    4. • Being unable to grow
    5. • Being co-opted by other groups or individuals
    6. • Activists not being sufficiently engaged in the long-term
    7. • Internal conflict or movement infighting
    8. • Having a lack of clear political objectives
    9. • Being too dependent on key individuals
    10. • A lack of clarity on leadership and decision-making

    Results

    survey 5 responses

  6. Question 6

    This question concerns the relative importance of internal and external factors to a social movement’s success in achieving its goals. How important do you think factors inside a movement’s control (e.g. tactics and strategy) are compared to factors outside its control (e.g. political context) in achieving the following goals?
    1. • Increasing issue awareness amongst the general public
    2. • Making public opinion more supportive of the issue
    3. • Winning over political allies (local or national policymakers)
    4. • Winning over other elite allies (high-profile experts or celebrities)
    5. • Gaining sympathetic media coverage of the issue
    6. • Gaining backing from industry and business
    7. • Winning policy or legislative changes

    Results

    survey 6 responses

  7. Question 7

    The following questions relate to the appropriateness of social movements using disruptive tactics given different levels of public support and awareness of the issue. Please indicate how effective disruptive protest might be in the following contexts. By 'effective', we mean bringing about overall positive outcomes. In the case of the climate movement, this would look like a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, either through direct effects on policy, or indirect effects on policy or individual behaviour via increased public awareness and support for the issue.
    1. • Low awareness, low public support (e.g. the farmed animal advocacy movement)
    2. • Low awareness, high public support (e.g. traffic safety)
    3. • High awareness, low public support (e.g. anti-vaccination)
    4. • High awareness, high public support (e.g. climate change)

    Results

    survey 7 responses

  8. Question 8

    In your view and in your country (or one you are familiar with), what has been the most successful social movement in the last 20 years? On what basis do you consider it to be successful and to what do you attribute its success?

    Results

  9. Question 9

    What is the single most important piece of advice you would give to organisers of protest movements?

    Results

  10. Section 2: The Climate Movement

  11. Question 10

    Given your knowledge of the climate movement, we would like your views on the overall effectiveness of different climate protest tactics. By overall effectiveness, we mean a wide range of possible outcomes, including increased media coverage, shifting public opinion, policy change, movement building etc. Assuming all are non-violent and are similar in other respects (e.g. same number of participants), how effective do you think the following tactics are likely to be?
    1. • Targeting the public (e.g. blocking roads)
    2. • Targeting the fossil fuel industry (e.g. blockades at oil refineries)
    3. • Targeting the government (e.g., government department for climate change)
    4. • Targeting less related venues (e.g. art galleries or sporting events)

    Results

    survey 10 responses
  12. Question 11

    We are now going to ask your views about nonviolent, non-disruptive climate actions (such as a legal protest march). What overall effect do you think non-disruptive protests are likely to have on the following outcomes, in relation to the goals of the activists?
    1. • Government policy
    2. • Public opinion
    3. • Corporate behaviour
    4. • Supportive media coverage
    5. • Support from influential individuals
    6. • Movement-building (e.g. growing the number of people interested in joining the movement)
    7. • Higher salience in public discourse
    8. • People's behaviour and choices

    Results

    survey 11 responses
  13. Question 12

    We are now going to ask your views about nonviolent, disruptive climate actions. By disruptive we mean actions which, though non-violent, might cause inconvenience to the public or to others (such as a roadblock that disrupts traffic). What overall effect do you think disruptive protests are likely to have on the following outcomes, in relation to the goals of the activists?
    1. • Government policy
    2. • Public opinion
    3. • Corporate behaviour
    4. • Supportive media coverage
    5. • Support from influential individuals
    6. • Movement-building (e.g. growing the number of people interested in joining the movement)
    7. • Higher salience in public discourse
    8. • People's behaviour and choices

    Results

    survey 12 responses
  14. Question 13

    Some disruptive protests have a clear ‘action logic’ whereby the reason and goals of the protest is obvious (e.g. climate activists targeting fossil fuel companies). Others have less clear logic (e.g., climate activists throwing soup at paintings). This question concerns your agreement with various statements on the action logic of disruptive protests.
    1. • Protests with strong action logic are likely to have overall positive outcomes
    2. • Protests with no clear logic are likely to have overall positive outcomes
    3. • Substantial media coverage for a logical protest (e.g. blockading oil depots) is likely to be beneficial for the issue of climate change
    4. • Substantial media coverage for an illogical protest (e.g. disrupting art galleries) is likely to be beneficial for the issue of climate change
    5. • Protests with strong logic are likely to be more effective in achieving the goals of the activists than protests with no logic

    Results

    survey 13 responses
  15. Question 14

    We are now going to ask your views on some potential negative consequences which can arise from climate protests. By a ‘backfire effect’ we mean an overall negative consequence such as a reduction in public support or lower chance of policy implementation. By ‘polarisation’ we mean an increase in highly contrasting opinions on a cause.
    1. • Non-disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect
    2. • Disruptive climate protests cause a backfire effect
    3. • Violent climate protests cause a backfire effect
    4. • Polarisation of climate change as an issue is likely to hinder the progress of the climate movement
    5. • Polarisation of climate change is unavoidable

    Results

    survey 14 responses

  16. Section 3: The Animal Advocacy Movement

  17. Question 15

    We would like your views on the overall effectiveness of different targets for animal advocacy protests. By overall effectiveness, we mean a wide range of possible outcomes including increased media coverage, shifting public opinion, policy change, movement building etc. Assuming all are nonviolent and are similar in other respects (e.g. same number of participants), how effective do you think the following tactics are?
    1. • Targeting the public
    2. • Targeting the animal agriculture industry (e.g. blockades at meat distribution plants)
    3. • Targeting the government (e.g., government department for agriculture)
    4. • Targeting less related venues

    Results

    survey 15 responses
  18. Question 16

    We are now going to ask your views about nonviolent, non-disruptive animal advocacy actions (such as a legal protest march). What overall effect do you think non-disruptive protests are likely to have on the following outcomes, in relation to the goals of the activists?
    1. • Government policy
    2. • Public opinion
    3. • Corporate behaviour
    4. • Supportive media coverage
    5. • Support from influential individuals
    6. • Movement-building (e.g. growing the number of people interested in joining the movement)
    7. • Higher salience in public discourse
    8. • People's behaviour and choices

    Results

    survey 16 responses
  19. Question 17

    We are now going to ask your views about nonviolent, disruptive animal advocacy protests. By disruptive we mean actions which, though non-violent, might cause inconvenience to the public or to others (such as a roadblock that disrupts traffic). What overall effect do you think disruptive protests are likely to have on the following outcomes, in relation to the goals of the activists?
    1. • Government policy
    2. • Public opinion
    3. • Corporate behaviour
    4. • Supportive media coverage
    5. • Support from influential individuals
    6. • Movement-building (e.g. growing the number of people interested in joining the movement)
    7. • Higher salience in public discourse
    8. • People's behaviour and choices

    Results

    survey 17 responses
  20. Question 18

    Some disruptive protests have a clear ’action logic’ (e.g., animal activists targeting industrial meat producers). Others have less clear logic (e.g., animal activists targeting football games). This question concerns your views on the action logic of disruptive protests.
    1. • Protests with strong action logic are likely to have overall positive outcomes
    2. • Protests with no clear logic are likely to have overall positive outcomes
    3. • Substantial media coverage for an illogical protest (e.g. disrupting football games) is likely to be beneficial for the issue of animal advocacy
    4. • Substantial media coverage for a logical protest (e.g. blockading meat distribution facilities) is likely to be beneficial for the issue of animal advocacy
    5. • Protests with strong logic are likely to be more effective in achieving the goals of the activists than protests with no logic

    Results

    survey 18 responses
  21. Question 19

    We are now going to ask your views on some potential negative consequences which can arise from animal advocacy protests. By a ‘backfire effect’ we mean an overall negative consequence e.g. a reduction in public support or lower chance of policy implementation. By ‘polarisation’ we mean an increase in highly contrasting opinions on a cause.
    1. • Non-disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect
    2. • Disruptive animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect
    3. • Violent animal advocacy protests cause a backfire effect
    4. • Polarisation of animal rights or animal welfare is likely to hinder the progress of the animal advocacy movement
    5. • Polarisation on animal advocacy is unavoidable

    Results

    survey 19 responses

Participating Experts

Wisnu Adihartono (Ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales), Paul Almeida (University of California, Merced), Philipp Altmann (Universidad Central del Ecuador), Shamsul Arefin (University of Massachusetts Amherst), Elizabeth A. Armstrong (University of Michigan), Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur (Rhode Island College), Matthew Baggetta (Indiana University), Paul Bagguley (University of Leeds), Joshua A. Basseches (Tulane University), Colin J. Beck (Pomona College), Karen Beckwith (Case Western Reserve University), Oscar Berglund (University of Bristol), Luca Bernardi (University of Liverpool), Mary Bernstein (University of Connecticut), Michelle Beyeler (University of Zurich), Elizabeth Borland (The College of New Jersey), Cameron Brick (University of Amsterdam), Jorge Cadena-Roa (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Bart Cammaerts (London School of Economics and Political Science), Alejandro Tirado Castro (Universidad Carlos III Madrid), Camilo Cristancho (Universitat de Barcelona), Colin Davis (University of Bristol), Michaela DeSoucey (North Carolina State University), Ivaylo Dinev (Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS)), Benjamin Duke (University of Leicester), Zackary Dunivin (Indiana University), Simone N. Durham (University of Maryland), Jan Willem Duyvendak (University of Amsterdam; Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study), Nella Van Dyke (University of California, Merced), Jennifer Earl (University of Delaware), Rachel L. Einwohner (Purdue University), Cornelia Butler Flora (Iowa State University/Kansas State University), Cristina Flesher Fominaya (Aarhus University), Carol Galais (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), Kevin Gillan (University of Manchester), Johan Gordillo-Garcia (Institute for Social Research - National Autonomous University of Mexico), Robyn E. Gulliver (University of Queensland), Selin Bengi Gumrukcu (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey), James F. Hamilton (University of Georgia), Christina Hansen (Malmö University), David J. Hess (Vanderbilt University), Elizabeth Humphrys (University of Technology Sydney), Maria Inclan (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas), Larry W. Isaac (Vanderbilt University), Nicole Iturriaga (University of California Irvine), James M. Jasper (), Ben Kenward (Oxford Brookes University), Bert Klandermans (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam), Sarah Lockwood (University of Cambridge), Winnifred Louis (University of Queensland), Andrew Martin (Ohio State University), Setsuko Matsuzawa (The College of Wooster), Alice Mattoni (Mattoni), Margarita López Maya (Universidad Central de Venezuela), Holly McCammon (Vanderbilt University), John McCarthy (Penn State University), Angela G. Mertig (Middle Tennessee State University), David S. Meyer (University of California, Irvine), Bishnu Prasad Mohaptra (MIT World Peace University, Pune, India), Joost de Moor (Sciences Po), Laura Morales (Sciences Po), Lorenzo Mosca (University of Milano), Lisa Mueller (Macalester College), Bariki Gwalugano Mwasaga (Prime Minister's Office), Erin O'Brien (Queensland University of Technology), Catharina O'Donnell (Harvard University), Pamela Oliver (University of Wisconsin, Madison), Susan Olzak (Stanford University), Michelle Oyakawa (Muskingum University), Louisa Parks (University of Trento), Katia Pilati (University of Trento), Daniel Platek (Polish Academy of Science), Martín Portos (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), Jan-Erik Refle (University of Geneva & University of Lausanne), Heidi Reynolds-Stenson (Colorado State University Pueblo), Elle Rochford (University of Delaware), Conny Roggeband (University of Amsterdam), Deana A. Rohlinger (Florida State University), Eduardo Romanos (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Teal Rothschild (Roger Williams University), Dieter Rucht (Berlin Social Science Center), Brent SImpson (University of South Carolina), Kim Scipes (Purdue University Northwest), Eric Selbin (Southwestern University), David C. Sorge (Bryn Mawr College), Sarah A. Soule (Stanford University), Viktoria Spaiser (University of Leeds), Anthony J. Spires (The University of Melbourne), Suzanne Staggenborg (University of Pittsburgh), Verta Taylor (University of California, Santa Barbara), Didem Turkoglu (Kadir Has University), Katrin Uba (Uppsala University), Dr Sara Vestergren (Keele University, UK), Katerina Vrablikova (University of Bath), Mattias Wahlström (University of Gothenburg), Stefaan Walgrave (University of Antwerp), Edward Walker (University of California, Los Angeles), Omar Wasow (University of California, Berkeley), Regina Werum (University of Nebraska-Lincoln), Åsa Wettergren (University of Gothenburg), Dr. Wayne T. Whitmore (Inver Hills Community College), Matthew S. Williams (Loyola University Chicago), Lesley Wood (York University), Michael C. Zeller (Universität Bielefeld)