FACILITATING THE SHIFT:
How union organisers work with emotion to
promote engagement with collective action.
Madeleine Wolf Student ID: 11238453
Madeleine.Wolf@student.uva.nl
Submitted in pursuit of M Sociology,
Comparative Organisation and Labour Studies.
Supervisor: Johan de Deken
Second Reader: Sarah Bracke
1. INTRODUCTION. 4
2. MECHANISMS TO MOTIVATE WORKER PARTICIPATION IN COLLECTIVE ACTION. 6
2.1 Problem construction 6
2.2 General Research Question 8
2.3 Societal, policy and/or academic relevance 9
3. THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS 10
3.1 Activation though SMO 10
3.2 Transactional vs Transformational 11
3.3 Centrality of emotions and organiser role in emotion work 12
3.4 Core elements 13
4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS; 16
4.1 Methodological approach 16
4.2 Methodological limitations 17
4.3 Overview of research process 19
Phase 1 – Training material and theoretical content review 19
Phase 2 – Interviews with practitioners (educators and organisers) 20 Phase 3 – Analysis, interpretation, theory testing and theory making 21
4.4 Scope of cases 22
5. EXISTING THEORY AND EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON ENTRY PATHWAYS AND MOTIVATIONS
FOR ACTIVISM 24
5.1 Entry Paths 24
Role of Organisers 26
Issues as a motivator 27
Rebel, Citizen, Change Agent, Reformer 28
5.2 Moral Shock 32
Defining a Moral Shock 32
Framing 34
5.3 Group Identity & Efficacy 35
Collective Identity 35
Group efficacy 36
5.4 Education around Systems of Power 37
Political education 38
Sociological imagination 38
Oppositional consciousness 39
5.5 Activist Human Capital 40
5.6 The “Shift” -outcome and iterative process 41
6. BACKGROUND TO AUSTRALIAN UNION ORGANISING CASE STUDY 44
6.1 ‘Organising Model’ 44
6.2 Training approach – ACTU Organising Works 46
6.3 Organising Model ‘toolkit’ -common frameworks used as motivation mechanisms 46 Connecting the 1:1 framework with mechanisms of engagement 48
6.4. Contemporary research on the experience of Australian union organisers 51
7. THE ORGANISING MODEL AND TOOLKIT FRAMEWORKS 53
7.1 General comments on research findings 53
7.2 Organising Model: Respondent entry pathways to organising 54
7.3 Organising Model: Role of delegates in the workplace 57
7.4 Reflections on the 1:1 conversation 59
General support for use of 1:1 Organising Conversation 59
Critique of 1: 1 – Rigidity and Scripting 60
7.5 Barriers to successful 1:1 conversations 61
Confidence in the conversation structure 61
Authenticity: gut instinct over sales pitch 62
Discomfort in the ask 63
Connecting with “like” and unlike” member groups 64
7.6ISSUES/MORAL SHOCK AS ENTRY PATH 65
“Who says I’m angry?” 65
Choosing non industrial issues at pro-company workplaces. 66
7.7 Hope Stories 68
Borrowing Hope Stories 68
Lack of a plan to win 69
7.8 Experience of taking action 69
7.7 Concluding reflections on the Organising Model and toolkit 70
8. CASE STUDIES 72
Case Study: Sofie – Call Centre Footwear Policy 72
9 LESSONS FOR UNIONS AND OTHER SMOS 82
9.1 Lessons for Australian unions 82
9.2 Lessons for other SMOs 84
10 CONCLUSION AND FURTHER STUDY 85
Further study 86
BIBLIOGRAPHY 88
Appendix 1: Emotions Potentially Relevant to Protest, 92 APPENDIX 2: EXAMPLES OF EMOTIONS BY SOCIAL SETTING, 93
Appendix 3: MAP Types 94
Appendix 4: ACTU Organising Works Training material 95
OW_2_28 The Organising Conversation (2016) 95
OW30 Anger, Agitation & Hope/Motivation (2015) 96
OW 31 Hope: Story-telling (2015) 97
OW 32 Action and Closure (2015) 98
OW 40 Analysis: Issues and Mapping 99
Figure 1: Theorised Mechanism Elements for Facilitating Engagement in Collective Action... 15
Figure 2: "Typical" theorised entry path ... 25
Figure 3: "Self managed" entry path ... 26
Figure 4: “Rebel" entry path 1 ... 31
Figure 5: “Rebel” entry path 2 ... 31
Figure 6: "Citizen" entry path ... 32
Figure 7 “Shock” entry path ... 35
Figure 8 “Group identity” entry path ... 37
Figure 9: The Shift ... 42
Figure 10 1:1 Organising Conversation framework ... 48
1. INTRODUCTION.
Within the study of global labour markets, and more particularly with the sociological study of labour relations, working people as actors within both labour markets and institutional systems are frequently relegated to a role as units of production and/or consumption, rather than as actors who possess agency and capacity to engage in challenging or changing labour market institutions and workplaces.
Historically, worker agency in labour markets has been developed and expressed through workers involvement in their union. As social movement organisations representing workers, a central role and primary goal of many unions is to develop worker agency through the promotion of collective action and engagement in change. Like other social movement organising, union organising involves a process of deliberate interactions between workers and their union over time. This work of developing worker agency is largely conducted by either paid union officials or experienced union volunteers. This paper begins in Chapter 2 with a general consideration and problem construction around the relevance of understanding and unpacking the mechanisms that promote and facilitate worker engagement in union collective action. The research question and scope of research is defined along with some preliminary points around potential relevance
Chapter 3 outlines the underlying theoretical assumptions of the research approach. The central assumption is that Social Movement Organisations play a deliberate role in facilitating engagement in action through the use of structured emotion work in their organising. These underlying theoretical assumptions are drawn from both scholarly review of contemporary social movement theory and auto-ethnographic analysis drawn from the researcher’s decade of experience working within Australian unions. Through combining experiential reflection and relevant scholarship, a set of four core mechanism elements of successful organising are proposed. These elements are named for exploration as moral shock; group identity and efficacy; education around systems of power; and activist human capital.
Chapter 4 describes the research design and methodology used to prepare for, gather, and analyse qualitative data on organising practice from a case study. This case study seeks to operationalize the general question around the mechanics of organising within a specific context. Entry path mechanisms and development processes involved in promoting worker activism in a contemporary labour market environment are explored through the collection and analysis of qualitative data from experienced Australian union organisers and
educators. The aim of this data collection is to understand which (if any) of the proposed theoretical core mechanism elements are used in their practice.
In Chapter 5, a review of existing contemporary theory and empirical studies is applied to provide deeper understanding of the meaning, relevance and operation of the proposed core mechanism elements for the entry path to activism. This chapter provides expanded explanation of the meaning and operation of the four core elements, including proposed models for how the elements may act in different combinations as entry path mechanisms.
The role of organisers in the process and the nature of the desired affective change (the shift) are also explored.
Chapter 6 provides background information for the specific context of Australian union organising as the chosen research case study. In particular, explanation is provided on how the Australian union movement’s organising model is theorised, and how this constructs the work of organisers around workplace capacity building through developing activist agency in workers. An analysis of the ‘toolkit’ purported to enable this organising work introduces the language and approach expected to be described by interview respondents.
Chapter 7 presents research findings in relation to the general application of the organising model theory and organising toolkit frameworks in the respondents’ work, identifying themes and variations of both organiser success and limitations.
In Chapter 8 selected illustrative cases are drawn from the data and used to consider how the combination of core mechanism elements presents in longer organising drives
conducted in specific situations.
Chapter 9 provides analysis of how the research findings may be applicable both to the ongoing work of Australian unions as well as in a broader social movement context, including identification of findings from the data not fully explored in this paper and suggestions for further study.
Chapter 10 concludes with a summary of findings around necessary and sufficient mechanism and how these were found to be facilitated by union organisers.
2. MECHANISMS TO MOTIVATE WORKER PARTICIPATION IN
COLLECTIVE ACTION.
2.1 PROBLEM CONSTRUCTION
Within the study of global labour markets, and more particularly with the sociological study of labour relations, consideration of working people as actors within both labour markets and institutional systems is frequently relegated to a role as units of production and/or consumption1.
When considering the personal and interpersonal impacts of labour market policy measures, there is an apparent tendency to assume that working people are inherently either apathetic or powerless2 in the face of the forces of contemporary global neo-liberal
economic reality3. When faced with the very real threat of unemployment and ongoing
insecure work, worker fear can act either to maintain existing patterns of organisation (particularly if deliberately promoted by employers)4 or as the catalyst for them to engage in
collective action to change their situation.
The cause of this worker fear is insufficient power5 within the labour market, but whether
the reaction will be fight or flight hinges on whether an actor believes they have the capacity to change their situation. Inward focussed fear promotes inertia, subjugation and workers who feel anxious and powerless about the future. Outward focussed fear promotes rebellion (‘fight’ response) and desire to overcome the fear through taking action6. If
workers are able to feel assured about their capacity to engage with the future then they will feel confident, and this confidence is likely to lead them to take action.7 This confidence
in the ability to act is what is meant by agency in this paper.
Defining agency in this way is a direct counter to the problematic theme proposing worker ‘agency’ as comprising individuals taking responsibility for increasing their personal reserves of resilience in order to survive their lot8, rather than a focus on how workers can
successfully claim meaningful collective agency through organising to improve their
circumstances. Some authors posit that an idealised emergence of “class consciousness” will eventually occur9 among groups of people experiencing insecurity and austerity, and that
this class identity will act as a spontaneous mechanism to channel workers’ agency towards improving their position. How resilience or class consciousness could function empirically to generate agency or activity among workers is largely unexplored. The mechanics of how people would come to identify with, and take action as, members of such a class remain opaque among most macro labour studies analyses. Few connections are made between
1 Crouch, 2012; Crouch, 2015; Hall & Soskice, 2001; Sennett, 1998; Pontusson, 2005; Streeck, 2005 2 Sennett, 1998 3 Berlant, 2007 4 Barbalet, 1998, pp. 160-162 5 Barbalet, 1998, p 154 6 Barbalet, 1998, p 154 7 Barbalet, 1998, pp. 89-90, 101 8 Neocleous, 2013; Bracke, 2016 9 Barbalet, 1998; Crouch, 2015
the potential agency of workers as empowered and co-ordinated labour market actors and the potential challenge such a group may pose to the assumptive norms of neoliberal labour market policies.
Unions have long played a role in providing institutional support for the emergence and maintenance of the kind of collective identity and collective power of workers that promotes agency. Their contemporary role as social movement organisations able to provide workers with education, structure, and opportunities for coordinated action is under represented in much of the literature. This analytic and empirical gap appears to lead many authors to present as inevitable the disenfranchisement, insecurity and sense of powerlessness faced by many working people.
Unions as an institutional actor are, factually, described as declining in membership, power and institutional influence globally10. While eulogising this decline and its impact in relation
to broad measures of welfare state policy influence, macro-economics, income, and employment conditions, little is included in most labour studies discussions about the potential impact of unions as a social movement organisation (SMO) engaged in facilitating agency, empowerment and affective resilience among working people.
In the current era of rapidly changing global labour markets and shifting geo-politics, the ability of ordinary people to develop the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively
respond to emerging moral shocks and grievances of their world is strongly relevant11. While
people may have many varied and intersecting identities across their life in terms of their gender, sexuality, race, religion, family status or social origins, almost all people in the industrialised world will at some time be identifiable as a ‘worker’, and could potentially benefit from an improved sense of agency accessed through this identity.
Unions are uniquely positioned to offer workers opportunities to develop their ‘sociological imagination’ in order to understand and contextualise themselves both individually and as a ‘class’, as well as framing issues around which they may take action. Thinking sociologically is not in itself a guarantee of mobilisation or engagement in collective action, but can play a role in the critical knowledge of how the world works12 that will enable an active rather than
passive response to fear and insufficiencies of power. The benefit to workers and their unions in developing greater capacity for such sociological imagination is that when it is engaged workers issues can be “identified, analysed, and understood13 for what they truly
are – symptoms of a wider system of power relations. Once issues are identified and contextualised within their surrounding systems, the work of building power and making change can proceed, and workers may be able to develop and apply their collective agency to challenging status quo conditions.
For all the research that exists on social movement organisation and social movement mobilisation, there has been limited empirical work on explaining the mechanisms required to create or support entry points and pathways for a person’s early commitment to social
10 Pontusson, 2005; Pontusson, 2013; Streeck, 2005. 11 Han, 2015; Wells, 2013; Chambers 2003
12 Wells , 2013, p. 553 13 Wells , 2013, p. 565
change action. In particular, there is limited scholarship on the specific activities of union collective action as distinct from other mobilisations types such as mass protests or armed insurgency. There is also little empirical study of how social movement organisers,
educators or other leaders can best use their skills and experience to facilitate and support the occurrence of this fundamental shift into an activist affect and identity.
This thesis aims to address some of the gaps identified above, by exploring how workers come to engage with unions as a social movement through which they can experience a sense of agency as an actor within labour markets. To operationalise this research at a scale researchable within the confines of a one year Master’s program, the specific context of the Australian trade union movement was selectedfor study.
Within the chosen case study environment of Australian unions, a movement wide
commitment to a particular mode of organising (known as the Organising Model) has been in operation since the 1990s. The organising model centralises the development of
workplace activist capacity for collective action. There is also a well-developed and comprehensive collection of union education materials in use across Australian unions, which contributes to a common understanding of organising theory and fundamental practice approaches. This provides as table background for exploring real life application of theorised mechanisms. More details of the Australian union context is provided in Chapter 6
Background to Australian union organising case study.
The ways in which worker actors are able to experience a greater sense of empowerment and agency in responding to the pressures of the modern labour market will be analysed, based on the reflections of experienced union organisers and educators within this
particular context. Specific reflection on the educative, emotional and affective mechanisms used by these organisers can then be compared to broader theoretical proposals for
generalisability and potentially wider application.
2.2 GENERAL RESEARCH QUESTION
The central research question is
What mechanisms do union organisers (and educators) use to best facilitate the fundamental affective shift that motivates workers to take part in union collective action?
I contend that there are generally successful emotion and affect mechanisms to be
understood by unpacking and analysing the specific emotional change processes underlying the steps of the common organising frameworks in use by Australian unionists. These organising frameworks are proposed to result in the desired affective “shift” from passivity to action, by moving workers from a state of fear to anger to hope and then to action in line with the concept of agency outlined above. Gathering research data on how organisers facilitate those emotion process steps in practice will lead to an assessment of which
mechanism or combination of mechanisms reliably promote worker action in the Australian union environment.
There is a common organising conversation framework in use across Australian unions that provides a foundational structure for the required emotional journey. In answering the research question, analysis will centre on the application of this core framework, as described by organisers familiar with its purpose and use.
The primary value of attempting to understand the specific mechanisms involved is to aid unions (and potentially other civil society organisations) in clarifying and refining their approach to this crucial element of organising. The detail of how mechanisms generate the desired outcomes will likely vary depending on the experience, skills and situational
analytical choices of the organiser leading the process, the characteristics of the workers being organised, and the context in which the conversations occur.
2.3 SOCIETAL, POLICY AND/OR ACADEMIC RELEVANCE
The societal relevance of this research lies in the ability for academics, social change practitioners, and potential future activists to better understand the mechanics of successful union organising. By focussing on a basic conversation structure tool, findings around organising mechanics should be more generalizable to other social movement organising contexts. In particular there is wide scope for application of identified successful motivational mechanisms across social movement organisations engaged in different kinds of activity, from community to electoral and wider civil society organising efforts.
The academic relevance is to provide a contribution to the relatively new field of sociology concerned with the emotions of social change and social movements. To date there has been little empirical research aimed at understanding the organising mechanics which encourage the emotional and cognitive changes that form the pathways into activism for ‘ordinary’ people14. Particularly missing is research based not on academic theoretical
abstraction, but drawn from the knowledge and skills of experienced practitioners of social change.
There is an opportunity for theory generation and testing drawn from combing wider theoretical perspectives with data collected from those most deeply embedded in and knowledgeable about how such processes operate in their real world application. Few scholars in this emerging field of emotions of social change have social change organising experience of their own to draw from, and few have made use of the rich and varied data available from research subjects with this organising experience in order to generate or test propositions around how the affect shift into activism is facilitated.
14 I distinguish here between ‘ordinary’ developed world citizens in contrast to people who are
mobilised into armed struggle or similar radicalisation. While I suspect there is similarity in the overall structure of entry pathways for union activism and armed struggle, such activities are clearly located in different institutional and organisational spaces and carry vastly different safety risks.
3. THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS
While each individual makes contact with social movements in a manner unique to their life, values and circumstances, this research draws upon common threads shared by various theoretical and empirical studies of social movement participation in order to generalise and make comparisons about effective mechanism patterns. Auto-ethnographic insight15
from the researcher’s experience in union organising and educations provides a depth of knowledge about the theory and practice of Australian union organising and union education practice. This background knowledge will be coupled with a scholarly review of literature and empirical studies to unpack the application of specific organising tools and construct more general theoretical models.
3.1 ACTIVATION THOUGH SMO
The core underlying assumption of this study is that it is rare for people to undertake a social justice activation process on their own16. The individual experience of reflex emotions
to fear or injustice are unlikely to result in purposeful action unless supported by
engagement with an efficacious group or social movement organisation (SMO). Rather than an individual experiencing activation in isolation, it is assumed that people generally
develop their activist agency through a deliberate and facilitated process conducted by a social movement organiser.
SMOs help the individual to frame their issues, and provide institutional support such as skills development, financial and material resources, knowledge of systems of power, and experience in applying methods of organising for collective action. Activism is the product of the concerted efforts by SMOs to “appeal to, arouse, manipulate and sustain”17 strong
affects and emotional responses that will motivate people to engage in collective action as part of the SMO’s approach to change.
I draw from theoretical insights primarily from emerging cultural and cognitive theories to understand how social movement organisations develop the capacity of their members as social movement actors. 18 In particular exploring how cognitive factors such as ideology,
values, and beliefs are discussed and framed by organisers as part of “sense making”19 in
order to produce shared meaning and shared interpretations of the world20.
In order to encourage participation and promote the ability of people to challenge and change prevailing social norms, SMOs operationalize shared values, beliefs and ideals to “diagnose situations, generate solutions, and communicate views and positions.”21
15 Crawley, 2012; 16 Jasper, 1998, p. 405 17 Jasper, 1998, p. 405
18 Schaefer Caniglia & Carmin, 2005, p. 206 19 Schaefer Caniglia & Carmin, 2005, p. 206 20 Schaefer Caniglia & Carmin, 2005, p. 206 21 Schaefer Caniglia & Carmin, 2005, p. 205
This deliberate crafting of normative shared identities22 and framing of group goals23 creates
‘new’ normative alignments for members and frames the behaviours that are considered appropriate or usual among the group. The normalisation of participation in collective action a vital part of group identity making and enactment for most SMOs24. This normative
alignment can then be used by group members as a bridge to connect with potential members by amplifying, clarifying or shaping their views and beliefs about their
circumstances25, gathering greater support for the group’s goals and thus providing greater
weight to the group’s claims and greater potential for powerful collective responses.
3.2 TRANSACTIONAL VS TRANSFORMATIONAL
A further underlying assumption is that while some people may be motivated by
instrumental or transactional benefits26 to join a union or other social moment organisation,
such transactional benefits are unlikely to lead to them participating in activism. This research is not particularly focussed on the decision to join a union, which may require nothing more than a ‘sign up’ process or nominal financial commitment akin to purchasing an insurance policy. Rather the focus is on the decision of an individual to participate in collective action within or on behalf of the SMO, it is the mechanics around the entry path into activism rather than the ‘point of purchase’ of initial membership which will be explored.
The difference between transactional and transformational approaches relates both to the operating style and choices of the SMO, as well as to the experience and expectations of members and is reflected in differences in group identity formation, and how resources are invested in development of members’ skills and knowledge.
In transactional organising efforts, also referred to as ‘mobilising’ efforts, participation is conceptualised as a cost-benefit analysis27. The organisational goal is to make engagement
as “costless as possible”28 for as many people as possible in an effort to maximise donations,
attendance at mass rallies, signing of pro-forma letters or online petitions and such. SMO’s provide only the level of technical and material support sufficient to the performance of specific tasks, such as providing copies of materials, managing petition signing tools, or advertising a public action.
At the level of observable member behaviours, ‘transactional’ organisational members are expected to participate in “in role” behaviours “which require little sacrifice of time and effort (e.g. voting) or public display (wearing a union button”)29.
22 Hunt & Benford, 2004; Moyer, McAllister, Finley, & Soifer, 2001; Sin, 2009; Thomas , McGarty , & Mavor,
2009; Gould, 2004
23 Schaefer Caniglia & Carmin, 2005, p. 205
24 Thomas , McGarty , & Mavor, 2009; Gould, 2004; Heshizer & Lund, 1997 25 Schaefer Caniglia & Carmin, 2005, p. 205
26 Heshizer & Lund, 1997 27 Han, 2015, p. 99 28 Han, 2015, pp. 94-96 29 Heshizer & Lund, 1997, p. 70
In contrast transformational or more pure ‘organising’ efforts30 requires an organisation
“investing in developing the activist’s capacity to act” 31. The focus is on “the ways that
collective action changes the affects, outlooks and other orientations of individuals and groups”. This mindset change is what is referred to as ‘the shift’.
A key assumption in a transformative approach is the importance of group identity and interpersonal relationships. The organisational goal is for people to develop their capacity to collectively solve their own problems through fostering group interactions and encouraging participation in collective action. Participant motivation is conceptualised as the “product of dynamic social interactions... and participatory opportunities”32. SMOs provide entry paths
to activism through structured group reflection and coaching practices drawing from the foundations of popular and adult education approaches33 to build relationships with and
between activists in the context of their learning and planning for action. Activist tasks are designed to promote long-term commitment to group identity and other people within the organisation. The central SMO activity and resource focus becomes the development of activist human capital34. This requires SMOs invest in the recruitment and development of
organisers (or similar roles) who can provide training35, coaching and support for activist
development.
At the level of observable member behaviours, ‘transformative’ organisational members are expected to participate in “extra role”36 behaviours that go beyond dutiful participation. It
is the process of organisers facilitating workers into these extra role behaviours which is the subject of this research – understanding how organisers motivate people to take on a higher level of activity, with the consequent higher levels of both risk and potential efficacy.
3.3 CENTRALITY OF EMOTIONS AND ORGANISER ROLE IN EMOTION WORK
The final underpinning assumption is the centrality37 of powerful emotional and affectiveresponses in the decision to become more active. The core emotion work of discussion, framing, education and activation processes described by organising and mobilisation theorists38 can be summarised by the model turned catch cry of Anger, Hope, Action. While
triggering and guiding emotional responses is considered core organising work, analysis of the emotional mechanics involved in organising work is often somewhat shallow. The theoretical work of sociologists and social psychologists investigating the emotions of social
30 Han, 2015, pp. 96-99 31 Han, 2015, p. 96 32 Han, 2015, p. 99
33 Burke, Geronimo, Martin, Thomas, & Wall, 2002; Bleakney & Morrill, 2010; Wells , 2013; Crosby, 2005;
Friere, 1970;
34 Isaacs, Coley, Cornfiled, & Dickerson, 2016; van Dyke & Dixon, 2015 35 Han, 2015, pp. 106-121
36 Heshizer & Lund, 1997, p. 70 37 Jasper, 1998, p. 399
change39, and the emotion typologies40 they offer, provide a compatible analytic layer to
deepen the empirical understanding provided by organising theorists.
Key emotion concepts to frame the hypothesised mechanisms have been drawn from explorations of the emotions of social movements41, including: the need to find appropriate
issues that trigger sufficient emotional energy to break existing patterns or habitus 42; ideas
of polarising emotions that act as a ‘moral battery’43; the role of ‘agitation’ of emotions
towards anger and other activating emotions44; promotion of solidaristic group identifies45;
education around systems of power46; and the need for organisers to offer a vision of
efficacy, or hope story, in order to build a bridge into activism47
Two tables extracted from James Jasper’s ‘The Emotions of Protest’48 are attached as
appendices to provide a reference baseline of emotion types and terminology used in this reasearch.
3.4 CORE ELEMENTS
In order to operationalise the research question I have attempted to combine the various theoretical assumptions from auto-ethnographic49 analysis of organising practice with
supporting theory from the literature to develop a set of core mechanism elements to underpin this research.
I start from an understanding that the necessary and sufficient conditions to support
collective action are a result of a “dynamic and iterative system of interrelations”50 between
a sense of injustice and moral outrage51, shared social identity formation, and perceptions
of a group’s potential efficacy that create new normative alignments. I draw particularly from the varied combinations of social change motivation elements developed as models by Thomas et al, with the addition of activist human capital and education around systems of power. From this process, I propose that there is a required combination of elements that are likely to reliably lead to collective action participation. These elements labelled as moral shock, group identity and efficacy, education around systems of power and development of activist human capital.
39 Goodwin, Jasper, & Polletta, 2001; Goodwin, Jasper, & Polletta, 2004; Jasper, 2011; Jasper, 1998; Thomas ,
McGarty , & Mavor, 2009; Schaefer Caniglia & Carmin, 2005.
40 Goodwin, Jasper, & Polletta, 2001; Goodwin, Jasper, & Polletta, 2004; Jasper, 2011; Jasper, 1998
41 Two tables extracted from James Jasper’s ‘The Emotions of Protest’ are attached as appendices to provide a
reference baseline of emotion types and terminology used in this reasearch.
42 Sin, 2009; Jasper, 1998; Alinsky, 1971; Han, 2015 43 Jasper, 1998 and Alinsky, 1971
44 Sin, 2009; Jasper, 1998; Alinsky, 1971
45 Hunt & Benford, 2004; Thomas , McGarty , & Mavor, 2009;
46 Alinsky, 1971; Bleakney & Morrill, 2010; Barclay & Skarlicki, 2005; Moyer, McAllister, Finley, & Soifer, 2001; 47 Sin, 2009; Jasper, 1998; Alinsky, 1971; Thomas , McGarty , & Mavor, 2009;
48 Jasper, 1998 49 Crawley, 2012;
50 Thomas , McGarty , & Mavor, 2009. P. 207 51 Thomas , McGarty , & Mavor, 2009. P. 207
These elements are deliberately harnessed 52 by the pro change (SMO) group, and are
understood to be interrelated and interdependent rather than discrete factors. The causal order and interrelations of the different elements present a complex picture which will be considered against empirical evidence to constitute a clearer understanding of the required mechanisms for a person’s shift to a pro-change, activist normative alignment. The model is intentionally circular (as represented in Figure 1 below) rather than linear, and could
perhaps be even better represented as a spiral or series of circles where each element is repeated as needed to motivate new engagement, or to maintain competency in one or more elements.
Many theorists place a catalysing issue or moral as the usual entry point. While supporting this as a general assumption, I contend that it is possible for someone to enter the model through each element in certain circumstances, or even ‘between’ or as a result of a combination of elements. For example a person may come to first feel connection to a group identity through shared values or personal relationships rather than through
experiencing a shock. They may already be engaged in discussions around systems of power before connecting with a particular group identity or undertaking development of their activist human capital. There is also the possibility that a person may enter at the ‘centre’ by participating in collective action as a first contact with union such as through attending a May Day parade or similar53.
Data gathered from interview respondents will be assessed in relation to which elements are described, and in which order they are applied in order to motivate participation in action.
52 Thomas , McGarty , & Mavor, 2009. P. 209
53 This type of entry path is described by Saunders, Grasso, Olcese, Rainsford, & Rootes, 2012 and the
Figure 1: Theorised Mechanism Elements for Facilitating Engagement in Collective Action
Collective
Action
Moral shock Group identity and efficacy Education around systems of power Activist Human Capital4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS;
Aside from the examples noted below in Part 5, the specific mechanisms of activist development either in the training room or as part of an organiser’s work do not seem to have been investigated deeply. Similar concepts and research questions to the one explored in this paper are included in the ‘further research’ sections of other recent papers54 included
in the literature review.
This research question does not appear to have been operationalized previously in a similar context so there is no clear empirical model to follow or replicate. New theoretical
understandings formed by the bricolage of existing theoretical and empirical approaches are proposed, with the models included in Chapter 5 a summary of theoretical proposals to test. I contend that the best data on mechanisms lies within the rich experience of organising practitioners, so the research methods draw largely from inductive approaches such as grounded theory, analytic induction and process tracing to develop and test concepts, categories and theories as part of the research. These inductive approaches aim to develop and test hypotheses and refine some coherent theoretical approaches which may be further tested either within or beyond the scope of the current project.
4.1 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
Grounded55 or practice56 theory includes several steps of sampling, data collection, coding
and comparison in theory development57 and prefers the construction of theory out of an
inductive approach based on practitioner observation and lived experience, after a brief initial deductive phase connecting practice to the body of existing theory. The approach take in this research follows a generally analytic induction (AI) approach, starting with a brief content review of Australian union training materials to confirm auto-ethnographic recall around the purpose and structure of OW training materials, and to “locate common factors and provisional explanations.”58
AI’s logic of proof relies on “the richness or variety of cases that have been shown to be consistent”59. Cases will be drawn from a variety of union organising environments within
Australia. Using a Causal Process Tracing explanatory approach60, it is possible to test
whether within each case the “configurations of conditions”61 at critical junctures can be
54 Jasper, 2011, p. 298 “A combination of a negative and a positive emotion operates as a moral battery driving
action forward. We need to understand the rhetoric and practices organizers use to alter these combinations to foster action.”; Isaacs, Coley, Cornfiled, & Dickerson, 2016, p. 172 “How participants sometimes acquire significant resocialization articulated with movement ends are important questions that require much more attention across a variety of different movement settings. Future research focusing on forms and dimensions of movement schooling set within different social movement contexts would be especially beneficial
55 Bryman, 2016, pp. 572-580
56 Moyer, McAllister, Finley, & Soifer, 2001, p. 101 57 Bryman, 2016, p 577
58 Smelsner & Baltes, 2001 59 Smelsner & Baltes, 2001, p. 7 60 Emmenegger pp 7-10 61 Emmenegger p 13
identified. I also drew from Process Tracing approaches, particularly the value of deep prior knowledge of the researcher62 in proposing conceptual frameworks63 and the balance of
necessary and sufficient tests in causal inference64.
Control factors include selecting as respondents only people who have experience and background in the same core frameworks (see below 4.4 Scope of cases and 7.2 Organising
Model: Respondent entry pathways to organising for more detail about respondents).
Given the limited number of available and relevant cases, Rueschemeyer’s approach to the value and use of ‘small n’ case studies65 is also a relevant. Interviews were with broadly
experienced respondents and conducted in a loosely structured, long form and in depth manner to provide the richest data possible from a small sample. It is anticipated that there will be useful comparisons available both between each cases of respondent work at different unions, as well as between cases where different respondents organised in similar environments.
4.2 METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATION
SWhile my preference would be to directly research the experience of a worker’s individual emotional shift by observing the process of organisers having 1:1 conversations with workers, then interviewing the worker for their reflection on the experience, this is not a very practical or researchable approach for a number of reasons.
Firstly, it is important for organisers to create trust, rapport and credibility with the workers they approach so that they can question deeply and listen actively to what workers are saying about their issues. Observation is likely to damage this trust building process, distract the organiser from focussing on the worker and distort the outcome success of the
conversation. There are also potential privacy and consent issues involved in observing such conversations about potentially sensitive workplace or personal issues without prior
consent.
Secondly, while ‘shadowing’ an organiser in their daily work is a familiar practice from my former role as a union trainer responsible for assessing organisers demonstrated
competencies in the workplace, I am aware that the desired ‘cases’ of emotional shift do not necessarily occur as a result of a single conversation, much less multiple times per day per organiser as would be optimal for research purposes. While organisers are likely to hold organising conversations many times per day in workplaces, it is simply not practical to spend the necessary weeks or months of direct observation to construct theory, given the time available in a one year Master’s programme.
Thirdly, while I could return to a union organising role myself, and have these conversations as a participant observer to avoid the above issues of third party observation, this is also not practical. I would need to find a single sponsoring union to employ me in order to have the
62 I have 10 years work experience as an educator and organiser within the Australian union movement,
providing a deep background understanding of the core 1:1 conversation framework for organising.
63 Collier, 2011, pp. 823-824 64 Collier, 2011, pp. 825-828 65 Rueschmeyer, 2003
legal right to enter workplaces in Australia as an organiser66. Even if such a sponsor could be
found, operating in only one industry would make it unlikely that I could gain access to the necessary breadth of cases and worker types for a robust sample.
The more feasible research approach I have chosen focuses on interviewing educators and organisers about their experience in using organising frameworks, and more broadly their experience of facilitating the shift in workers, and then taking an inductive approach to theory development to explain the phenomenon of the affective shift to action.
There is an acknowledged limitation in being unable to gather data direct from the person experiencing the shift. Investigating a series of individuals and the precise emotional changes they undergo would be a very different piece of research than the current paper, which aims to understand the process from the perspective of the organiser whose work it is to lead the emotion work for others.
For the purpose of understanding best practice approaches to facilitating such a shift, this research will use the aggregated experience of those who have performed the work over extended time and in a range of contexts. This kind of practitioner ethnography, particularly among people who (should) have experience in reflective practice, will provide a wider perspective on pattern making – identifying common practice and variations.
As a researcher in this particular context I am both advantaged and limited by my former work experience in the environment of my case study. Existing relationships of trust and rapport with interview subjects, who include former colleagues and students, aided deeper reflection from subjects than may have been shared with an unknown researcher. Pre-existing subject matter credibility and shared terminology and conceptions around union organising work, allowed shorthand descriptions of practice and for respondent to use the terms they were comfortable with to explain their work rather than either the respondent or the researcher needing to decode jargon. This closeness does present potential risks of bias or lack of reception to ideas outside the expected responses. Similarly my own work as an organiser and educator both equips me for advantageous “deep prior knowledge”67 but
also poses a potential risk around an inability to synthesise beyond my own lived
experience. Some auto-ethnographic assumptions and analysis are included in this research, and findings that contrast with personal perspectives will be identified as such for
discussion.
There was some risk in organisers or educators being unwilling to share stories of failure, but I anticipated that self-selection among potential respondents, coupled with the advantage of previously established credibility and relationships between researcher and respondent should minimise such barriers. I did not anticipate high barriers in gaining sufficient trust with subjects to enable questioning and probing for unsuccessful approaches as well as successful ones, and this proved true throughout the data collection process.
66 Federal Right of Entry Permit requirements 67 Collier, 2011, pp. 823-824
4.3 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PROCESS
While the research focus is on the shift of individual workers, due to the issues discussed above, the means for understanding the individual shift is through the aggregated reflection of experienced organisers and educators who have facilitated a large volume of such
individual shifts in the course of their work. Broadly, the exploration of the ‘real world’ mechanisms that facilitate the shift was conducted in three phases:
P
HASE1
–
T
RAINING MATERIAL AND THEORETICAL CONTENT REVIEWTo provide a baseline for subsequent interviewing and coding work, I conducted an initial brief content review of Organising Works training materials related to teaching organisers the tools to facilitate the shift in their members. Some examples of these baseline tools include the 1:1 organising conversation framework and frameworks for identifying and developing activists and delegates. In examining the session notes I looked for indicators of emotional change mechanisms and how the conversation framework related to the core elements identified above.
This analysis contributes to the review of existing theory below in Chapter 5, as well as to the questions asked during interview and the analysis of interview data. Prior to conducting interviews, I also reviewed contemporary Australian academic views on the operation of the Organising Model (see below 6.4. CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ON THE EXPERIENCE OF
AUSTRALIAN UNION
ORGANISERS
) for indicators of rationale, outcome measures, success indicators and any known barriers for organisers in operationalising the model. The final piece of preparation involved mapping the existing typologies of emotions in social movements68 to produce a rubric of expected connections and indicators around theemotion mechanisms in play in the work of organisers in generating or working with group identity69, moral shock70, systems of power and oppositional consciousness71, and activist
human capital development72 as hypothetically necessary components of a burgeoning
activist’s affective shift.
In line with inductive process73 this initial work was intended to provide a baseline. It was
expected that additional frameworks or phenomenon may be identified during the interview process. This iterative approach proved useful as the data collection progressed and respondents referred to additional (known, understood, and shared) frameworks and tools beyond those included in the initial content analysis, including frameworks regarding problem solving, campaigning, tactic selection, managing expectations, handling objections and exploring global systems of power and inequity.
68 Jasper, The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions In and Around Social Movements, 1998 69 Hunt & Benford, 2004, Becker, 2008 (1953)), van Dyke & Dixon, 2015,
70 Jasper, The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions In and Around Social Movements, 1998 71 Crouch, 2015; Gould, 2004; Turner & Stets, 2006
72 Bleakney & Morrill, 2010; Isaacs, Coley, Cornfiled, & Dickerson, 2016; van Dyke & Dixon, 2015 73 Smelsner & Baltes, 2001
P
HASE2
–
I
NTERVIEWS WITH PRACTITIONERS(
EDUCATORS AND ORGANISERS)
Interviews were conducted with experienced practitioners In order to unpack and analyse the application of the identified organising frameworks. The fundamental premise of
organising work in this context is that in order for workers to “shift”, organisers engage with them in a series of conversations following the 1:1 framework. These conversations
facilitate iterative emotion processes that follow an expected trajectory from initial contact, through the identification of a motivator, followed by education about the union’s plan to win (which includes hope stories, conceptualising the power of collective action, and proposing a pathway towards a resolution), with the final stage being “the ask”, or commitment to some action by the worker.
The precise process and combination of steps an organiser uses in each workplace or with each person or group of people was expected to vary but broadly follow the steps outlined in the 1:1 conversation framework. Interviews focussed on gathering empirical experiential reflection on the mechanisms used to facilitate the key emotional processes related to the 1:1 conversation.
From my initial document review, I expected that the most explicitly identified connections would relate to the moral shock and education around systems of power elements. The necessity of an issue or motivator (moral shock) around which to organise was expected to be paramount in motivating activity, with the ability for a worker to contextualise any response within the systems of power of their workplace or industry, and connected to the efficacy of their union’s approach to action as the second vital piece to build a bridge for their understanding of the need for their participation in collective action.
This is consistent with Hershizer and Lund’s study74 of normative vs instrumental
attachment, as well as with Thomas et al’s findings75 about social identity. In effect my
expectation was that the normative role of a developing social identity and understanding of group efficacy was probably sufficient for people to join their union and was expected to underpin the ongoing success of union collective action as a plan to win, but that the instrumental catalyst of having something go wrong was more likely to be the usual trigger to participate in action.
In line with the Organising Model’s strategic premise76, the role of activist human capital
development was expected to emerge primarily through indicators of organisers’ work directly with identified activists and delegates as part of a broader educative process around promoting local problem solving and collective responses to issues. For example it was expected that organisers would describe identification, mentoring and coaching of activists as an integrated part of their ongoing organising work, rather than as a separate or external process of training unrelated to the activates of collective organising. Indicators of the normative alignment practice referred to as “the shift” or “being union” were expected to
74 Heshizer & Lund, 1997
75 Thomas , McGarty , & Mavor, 2009 76 see 6.1 ‘Organising Model’ below
present as subtle changes that organisers would refer to in terms of the jargon of organising frameworks
The operational sub questions that guided the interview process were:
In practice, how does the experienced union organiser lead and facilitate the necessary and sufficient cognitive and emotional changes to result in worker activation?
How do organisers apply the common organising frameworks in their day to day organising work?
How do organisers perceive, adapt, and vary the frameworks for different contexts?
What different issues and motivators for change have been successful in catalysing engagement in union action?
What is it about the emotions involved in those issues that made them successful?
How do organisers agitate and educate around issues and motivators in order to encourage engagement in collective action as a plan to win?
How do organisers describe indicators of success or progress, lack of success or progress in their organising efforts?
Are there other conversation structures or approaches which are useful to supplement or replace the common frameworks? Why are these alternatives more useful?
Are there patterns or trends in successful application of the frameworks with workers who have different ascriptive characteristics (age, gender, industry, education level etc.)?
What barriers do organisers experience in achieving their organising goals?
Gaps or lacks in their own experience or skills?
Institutional barriers including leadership direction, support for their work, union reputation and image?
Skills, willingness or workload of delegates and activists?
P
HASE3
–
A
NALYSIS,
INTERPRETATION,
THEORY TESTING AND THEORY MAKINGDrawing from the results of the repeated and refined coding and categorising in phases 1 and 2, in this final phase a more analytical approach is taken to identifying patterns,
relationships and differing structural conditions between and among the defined categories. As expected in a qualitative research effort, respondents did not contain their reflections to consideration of the 1:1 framework, but reflected on a range of factors involved in their organising work as well as on union organising and the movement more generally. Themes that emerged outside of the mechanism context, but which suggest interesting avenue of analysis have been noted in the ‘further research’ section.
4.4 SCOPE OF CASES
To provide an established common baseline from which to infer testability of the
mechanisms, I only interviewed respondents from among educators and organisers who have participated in the Organising Works programme77 (OW).
With a preference for small ‘n’ but deep cases,78 five respondents were carefully selected to
most effectively provide multiple relevant cases within the experience of each interview subject. All respondents were either OW participants who also had experience in organising for three or more unions, and/or educators who were either OW participants themselves or with extensive (more than 5 years) prior union organising experience. 4 out of 5 of my respondents have worked both as union educators and organisers.
Most union educators have previously worked as organisers, and are responsible for facilitating, observing and debriefing in class practice sessions of the frameworks by organisers. Educators are likely to have a more highly developed understanding of the underlying purposes and mechanisms of the emotional and cognitive shifts that are being promoted through the use of the core frameworks. They are also often involved in the assessment of organiser competencies79, so their perspective on the how and why of the
mechanisms is a rich one.
Due to qualification requirements80 OW is the most verifiable and stable training package
available to explore the teaching and learning of organising methods and is explicit both in its stated purpose and in defined competency outcomes. As a result, the OW approach to teaching and learning core frameworks and developing organising practice is held largely stable and verifiable over time and acts as source material for other training programs across the ACTU and the wider union movement.
This stable shared understanding and the restriction to only an Australian union context should allow for clarity in understanding general mechanisms as well as in specific identifiable variations in practice. Variety and comparison will come from analysing respondents’ experience of applying the same basic tools in different environments over time, with the aim of synthesis and pattern making across as much depth and breadth as possible.
Choosing a narrower focus of a specific context, a single institutional type (Australian unions) and a well established common background understanding in approach to activist engagement81 is a more practical scale at which to explore the key questions. In this
context, I am able to take advantage of my own experience, prior knowledge82 and
77http://www.actu.org.au/education-training/organising-works 78 Rueschmeyer, 2003
79 I use the term competencies in line with Vocational education practice to include the specific combinations
of skills, knowledge, attitude and behaviours that are required to perform complex tasks.
80 OW includes a Certificate IV vocational qualification for participants who chose to complete the required
assessment projects. Materials are therefore subject to review by the Australian Qualification Standards Authority around whether they achieve stated learning outcomes.
81 Crosby, 2005; Alinsky, 1971 82 Collier, 2011
ethnographic understanding83 drawn from a decade of practice in the same field as my
interview subjects.
I considered also including tests of any emerging theory with non-union NVDA practitioners or other civil society organisations beyond trade unions, but feel that restricting the cases to Australian unions will provide greater overall testability of emerging concepts than trying to cover all available social movement options. ‘Outside’ application would be the subject of future research.
The possible limitations of using only Australian unions are clearly around a potential lack of generalizability or transfer of findings to other activist training environments, or even to other union environments depending on how different they are to the current Australian context. I contend that there are significant similarities in the basic general mechanisms that succeed in motivating engagement with action in a variety of social movement organising environments. The scope of this research proposal is limited by both its short operational duration and lack of funding/budget for a more comprehensive study, but findings should be useful to a broader audience that just Australian unions.
To protect the confidentiality of interview content, and the privacy of people referred to during the process, all respondents have been de-identified by giving each a pseudonym for reference in the published version of this research, and all will be referred to as female gendered. The original interview transcripts including legal names will be submitted separately for data validation purposes.
Respondents were not provided with the research question, or any prior detail of hypothesised mechanisms beyond my interest in talking to them about their union
experience and checking that they had some recall of the basic frameworks covered in OW. The interviews were open in structure to give space for respondents to identify and reflect on any theoretical assumptions and models developed so far, as well as to draw out
concrete cases of the mechanisms they have applied to facilitate the desired emotional shift in workers.
More detail of respondent biographies is included in 7.2 Organising Model: Respondent
entry pathways to organising
5. EXISTING THEORY AND EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON ENTRY
PATHWAYS AND MOTIVATIONS FOR ACTIVISM
5.1 ENTRY PATHS
As this research aims to explore engagement in activism rather than the initial membership sign up process, reinforcing this particular understanding of entry path is important. In its simplest meaning, an entry path is the “distinct manner in which an individual makes initial contact with and enters a movement”84. Isaacs et al use this definition to refer to entry
paths for the civil rights movement, where transactional or passive participation was not presented as an option. Entry paths as discussed in this research are intended to mean the entry to activism not the purchase of passive membership.
The consensus theoretical construction is that people are usually motivated to engage in action when faced with something in their lives that is so bad, wrong or unjust/unfair that they feel they must take action. Their entry point involves overcoming inertia, fear, and passivity to risk acting in a new way:
“taking a new step is what people fear most…They must feel so frustrated, so
defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.”85
While different organising theorists propose somewhat different combinations of, and labels for mechanisms to facilitate entry pathway processes, they are all essentially variations on the fundamental Anger, Hope Action process. The entry path requires
something to change in order to overcome acceptance of the status quo, and that change is likely to occur as the result of strong emotion such as anger or outrage.
The ‘usual’ entry path to action is understood to be a combination86 of a trigger event (see
below 5.2 Moral Shock), followed by or in parallel with a deliberate education process by an SMO including discussion, problem definition and framing, (see below 5.4 Education around
Systems of Power), training and skills development, (see below 5.5 Activist Human Capital),
and encouraging participation in group norms involving smaller initial activities (see below5.3 Group Identity & Efficacy). If a entered at moral shock and proceeded clockwise through the elements they would be following this ‘standard’ pathway. This process is represented in linear form below as Figure 2: "Typical" theorised entry path
84 Isaacs, Coley, Cornfiled, & Dickerson, 2016, p. 157. 85 Alinsky, 1971, p. xix
FIGURE 2:"TYPICAL" THEORISED ENTRY PATH
The models in this section are intended to act as a first illustration of the variety and complexity of entry paths possibilities. The elements are described more fully in the rest of this chapter, and the actual entry path for individuals may involve a different sequence of elements.
As outlined in Chapter 3 above, a central assumption is that this entry path is generally one that is deliberately facilitated by SMOs as part of their organising strategy, and that
individual spontaneous engagement in collective action is rare. The possibility that someone’s entry path may be ‘self managed’, for example that they make an individual decision to attend a mass protest event as their first action, is considered in Saunders et al’s analysis of the differential protest participation of ‘Novices’ through to ‘Stalwarts’. A novice in their study is a person who has never participated in protest action87 before the moment
of study, and who is not already affiliated with the protest group. Saunders et al initially expected novices to be somehow remarkable in terms of availability or agency, in order to overcome the “higher barriers in their passage from non-protester to protester than an experienced protester does in attending yet another protest”88, but their study concludes
that in fact “political engagement works best of all”89 as a predictor of action. That is, that
people who ‘spontaneously’ participate in collective action are essentially already primed by their own individual political tendencies and existing worldview90.
87 Saunders, Grasso, Olcese, Rainsford, & Rootes, 2012, p. 269 88 Saunders, Grasso, Olcese, Rainsford, & Rootes, 2012, p. 264 89 Saunders, Grasso, Olcese, Rainsford, & Rootes, 2012, p. 274
90 The Saunders variables around political engagement include “measures of political engagement,
respondents’ previous political engagement, degree of interest in politics, self-placement on the left-right continuum, subscription to left-libertarian values, extent of distrust of government, and dissatisfaction with democracy.” Saunders, Grasso, Olcese, Rainsford, & Rootes, 2012, p. 272
Moral shock Education process (framing, discussion, problem solving) Training and skills development Participate in Action
In this model, the work typically done by SMO organisers in terms of sensitising people to injustice, framing their issues and understanding the role of collective action in change making is done by the person themselves. The role of the ‘Rebel’ in Moyer’s Movement Action Plan typology (below) shares some characteristics with Saunders’ novice. This early, individually motivated activist type will be explored more fully in that context.
FIGURE 3:"SELF MANAGED" ENTRY PATH
The need for ‘someone’ to take responsibility for performing the role of facilitating this process of eliciting, guiding and directing the emotions that emerge for people in response to their circumstances is consistently referenced91 as an important part of facilitating social
change. The term ‘organiser’ for this role is used by all those who use union examples92, as
well as by non-union organising theorists93.
R
OLE OFO
RGANISERSThe facilitation of activist identification and development is primarily performed by social movement organisers. Success requires organisers to systematically perform a complex array of deliberately affective processes which act as mechanisms to create entry and development paths for people in their organisations. As the “basic work of progressive social change”94, organising (the work of organisers) is the process of “creating politically
active constituencies out of people with problems”95.
91 Friere, 1970; Thomas , McGarty , & Mavor, 2009; Goodwin, Jasper, & Polletta, 2004; Sin, 2009; and Jasper,
1998 & 2011
92 Heshizer & Lund, 1997; Bleakney & Morrill, 2010; Han, 2015; Peetz, Pocock, & Houghton , 2007. 93 Alinsky, 1971; Han, 2015; Chambers, 2003; Sen, 2003
94 Sen, 2003, p. 47 95 Sen, 2003, p. 47
