Plows. 2008. Social Movements and Ethnografic Methodologies PDF

Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1523–1538, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00091.
Social Movements and Ethnographic

Methodologies: An Analysis Using Case
Study Examples
Alexandra Plows*
CESAGen, Cardiff University
Abstract
This paper defines and discusses the viability and applicability of specific ethno-
graphic methods for the study and theorising of social movements and related
social mobilisation. Ethnographic methods are shown to be one tool in a box of
available methods, but are perhaps especially suited for the in-depth study of
social movements and social networks. Pros and cons of such methods are identified,
using examples drawn from an ethnographic narrative comprising over a decade
of research; ethnography of UK environmental direct activists, and more recent
ethnography of UK publics engaging with human genetic technologies. Ethno-
graphy enables developments in latent social interactions to be identified in the
field, providing data sources that inform social analysis and the development of
theoretical stakes. This ethnographic narrative has contributed to the theorising
of complexity in movement collective identity and complex social mobilisation
patterns; namely the theorising of social movement. Findings can be disseminated
to a range of stakeholders, including the research participants. Thus, ethnography
can be both a method for studying social movements and a means of ‘upstream’
public engagement, understanding what is happening at the grassroots, with the
aim of enabling capacity building between all actors in the research process. This
methodological rationale is defined as ‘action research’.
Introduction
This paper defines and discusses the viability of a specific type of ethnographic
approach to the study of social movements, using my own ethnographic
autobiography (Stanley 1991) or research narrative as the basis for discussion.
This paper critically analyses the use of specific ethnographic methods for
the study of social movements and social mobilisation, and the implications
of using these methods. Ethnography, here defined primarily as participant
observation, provides colourful, rich stories, enabling the researcher to
appreciate, and contribute, to theory through analysis of social practice.
While the relevance of ethnography is mostly discussed in relation to the
study of social movements, its use as a sociological research method more
© 2008 The Author
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
1524 Using Ethnographic Methods to Understand Social Movements
generally is also highlighted. Ethnography is a method that enables

researchers to understand what is going on ‘upstream’; at the grassroots,
in often hidden, ‘latent’ (Melucci 1996) social conditions; and to link this
knowledge back to research questions, theories. Ethnography thus captures
some essence, a certain account, of social life and this informs a subsequent
analysis. In this paper, the author’s ethnographic findings about (UK-based)
social movements are shown to enable a more general analysis or theorising
of social movements, mobilisation and the relationship between social
movement theory and practice. It could be argued that ethnography has
particular relevance for the study of social movements and social mobil-
isation, being on the ground to accurately capture fluid, shifting conditions.
Such methods enable the researcher to trace developing mobilisation patterns
in embedded social contexts; identifying key issues, such as the way social
actors are framing the stakes of engagement, in circumstances where visible
protest activity is often the tip of an iceberg.
Where trust is gained between the ethnographer and the social actors
who are the focus of the research, ethnographers can thus access data
sources, and report and translate key issues framed by mobilising actors in
these settings. This is especially useful when actors are latent, underground,
cannot or will not engage with the policy process, and so on, as is common
in UK direct action networks (Doherty et al. 2007). As the paper demon-
strates, issues around trust and the power relations between researcher/
researched are hugely important in this context. I argue that my own
autobiography as an activist turned ‘insider researcher’, reflexively under-
taking ‘action research’ (Stringer 1999) has enabled good ethnographic
practice in terms of developing trust and access within activist communities
and other research participants, and the end result of robust findings and
viable analysis.
Thus, ethnography contributes to the development of theory – in
my research in particular, to my theorising of publics, citizenship, social
movements, mobilisation, green politics. For example, studying 1990s
eco-activism not only provided an account of an underground movement
often suspicious of outsiders, it also provided insights into mobilisation
and its changing shape over time. In the CESAGen Emerging Politics
genetics project (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cesagen/politics/), I identified
complex clusters of ‘strange bedfellows’ – actors with differing ‘life world’
(Habermas 1987) positions, converging in specific arenas. These are micro-
examples of social complexity, which support recent social movement
theorists’ identification of fragmenting social movements. Over time,
then, using ethnographic methods, I was thus able to trace shifts in social
interactions in my research field, developing from explanations of a social
movement, to theorising social movement. The theoretical implications of
this finding are discussed in the conclusion.
Ethnographic information, findings and analysis can be disseminated to
a range of stakeholders including, importantly, the participants in the
© 2008 The Author Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1523–1538, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00091.x
Using Ethnographic Methods to Understand Social Movements 1525
research. Such engaged ethnography that aims to build social capacity can
thus be constructed as action research. Such action research enables the
dissemination of information to broader publics and stakeholders, about
specific issues and their implications, including what is often framed out
of the debates (Plows 2007). Of course, all social research aims at a reportage
and analysis of what is happening in social life and also, but not always,
aims to have a policy or political relevance. However, action research
tends to be more explicitly supportive of the views and aims of the actors
who are the core focus of study, and aims for the research to have a positive
impact on the goals of these actors. There are provisos around action
research as a methodology and these are discussed in context; it is not always
appropriate or relevant to an ethnographic approach.
Case studies: UK eco-activism and UK genetics publics

First, overviews of my own ethnographic narrative through specific
research sites are given, as these are drawn on throughout the paper.
1. UK eco-activism
My PhD and early Economic and Social Research Council research
(Doherty et al. 2003b, 2007) focussed on UK 1990s eco-activism, and traced
its organic network development, identifying changing mobilisation patterns
and targets. Initially mobilising through road protests, developments in
movement capacity over time meant that activists articulated a range of
interrelated issue claims (frames), increasingly through anti-GM protests
and anti-globalisation action. By 2000, multiple claims accruing to these
protest cycles (Tarrow 1998) and linked networks, became explicitly framed
in slogans such as ‘we share the same struggle’. My research charted the
movement’s cross-generational (Whittier 1995) development in terms of
framing rationales for action and the shifts in the forms and targets of such
action (see Plows 2004, 2006). I had initially been a road protestor, one
of the ‘Donga Tribe’ at Twyford Down and well immersed in the protest
and related counterculture (rave and traveller culture) of the early/mid-1990s
(Earle et al. 1994; Wall 1999; McKay 1996). Like many of my peers, I
was frustrated with media framings of us (Paterson 2000) as ‘eco-warriors’,
‘eco-terrorists’; I wanted to explain ‘my’ movement in an academic context
– how we were framing ourselves, theorising our own experience
(Stanley 1991).
My research remit was thus initially an ethnographically focussed overview
of the 1990s UK environmental direct action movement. I was able to
provide a platform for the voices of movement activists to be heard,
reporting (and occasionally translating) as they framed the stakes of the
debate in their own terms. The grounded theory (Hammersley 1993;
Hammersley and Atkinson 1993) of my ethnographic practise generated
data, enabling analysis, contributing to more theoretical debate about the
nature of social movements, mobilisation. I identified where specific case

study detail had more generalisable implications; exemplified or expanded
on specific theoretical approaches; and problematised others. In other
words, ethnographic observation enabled a developing theoretical analysis.
Recent surges of UK eco-action, for example, can be viewed as a ‘recycle
of contention’ (Plows 2006, see also Brand 1990). I also developed my
approach to and theorising of qualitative/ethnographic methods, as
discussed below.
2. (UK) public engagement with medical genomics 2003–2006

This research took ethnographic ‘snapshots’ at a range of sites, to capture
another broad overview – multiple (UK) publics engaging with medical/
human genetics or genomics. For example, I undertook participant observa-
tion at the European Social Forum (http://www.ukesf.net/) workshops
in 2004 on human genetics – I was finding out who was talking, what
their core frames were – and also engaging and participating in the dis-
cussions. This was a key example of a ‘discursive turn’ occurring outside
the policy sphere (Dryzek 2000) – actors framing issues in their own
terms. This has been a challenging research site; here I focus specifically
on the research’s significance for the study and theorising of social movements,
and of ethnographic practice in this context. The sheer complexity of
public engagement has been a core finding (Evans et al. 2007; Plows and
Boddington 2006), as multiple actors move beyond pro and anti, mobil-
ising over multiple frames, stakes and identity fields. The emergent nature
of the research (as these technologies are only just starting to impact on
the public sphere in terms of specific applications) necessitated the identi-
fication of ‘early risers’ (Tarrow 1998) and ‘prime movers’ (McAdam
1986) who are still grappling with framing the key stakes of engagement
in a complex field (Welsh et al. 2007).
Such mobilisation is extremely diverse. Pre-existing and newly catalysed
actors and networks, including patient groups, animal rights activists, anti-
GM and anti-corporate activists, disability rights actors, libertarians, pro-life
actors, transhumanists and many others (Rose and Novas 2004), are examples
of civil society actors whose discursive frames are converging and being
reframed in this new arena (Nelkin 1995; Plows and Reinsborough 2008)
through the mobilisation catalyst of human genetic technologies. They
represent just some of the many publics, who also include scientists and
policy-makers, who are engaging, co-constructing meanings, and so on.
In fact, the complex ‘assemblages’ (Irwin and Michael 2008) formed
between civil society stakeholders, policy-makers and the scientists themselves
represent a significant social reality here. There are multiple identity claims
and identity fragmentation within specific social fields – for example, between
and within patient and disability rights groups (Plows and Boddington 2006).
‘Strong ties’ and ‘weak ties’ (Granovetter 1973) exist between single issue
groups and broader existing social movements and social actors, diffusing
repertoires and frames (Carroll and Ratner 1996). Very significantly, various
factors occasionally combine to produce counterintuitive clusters of ‘strange
bedfellows’ (Evans et al. 2007). These findings shaped the way I understood
and theorised mobilisation; ethnographic research identified, used and
expanded on several important social movement theory principles.
Movement identity has always been conceived of as contested, fluid and
multiple, nevertheless the nature of ‘collective identity’ (Melucci 1996) has
become more problematised over the last decade, by social (movement)
actors themselves, and by academic theorists analysing the changing shape
of social engagement. For example, complex social assemblages that often
comprise counterintuitive strange bedfellows are characteristically identi-
fiable via ethnographic snapshots among publics engaging with genetics
(genomics). Pro-lifers and feminists mobilising together to form the pressure
group ‘Hands Off Our Ovaries’ is a key example. These strange bedfellow
clusters comprise actors from very different ‘life worlds’ (Habermas 1992),
who share similar concerns over specific issues, but who could not be said
to share a movement collective identity even at the extreme end of an
interpretation of Melucci. The multiple, difficult issues raised by human
genetic technologies mean that people’s positions are often ambivalent –
‘beyond pro and anti’ (Evans et al. 2007) (e.g. ambivalence over the pros
and cons of genetic tests), and this partly explains complex social reality
here in relation to ‘strange bedfellow’ clusters. The data used in this paper
reflect other findings and social analysis currently being discussed in
many different settings, such as in relation to the anti-globalisation
movement of movements, where McDonald (2002) identified fragment-
ing identities caused by the convergence of different life worlds; the very
diversity that was catalysing coalitions was also forcing a rethink on the
nature of social movement identity.
Appraising ethnographic methods for the study of social

movements: Theory and practice
Overview of research methods and the place of ethnography

There are multiple types of research method. It should be emphasised that
the use of ethnography or any other research method is often a matter of
pragmatism; different circumstances, goals, and so on require different
approaches; research methods ‘are not so much valid in and of themselves,
but rather will be more or less useful for particular research purposes’
(Hammersley 1993, 17).
A wide variety of research methods are available to the prospective
researcher, and the use of one does not preclude another; indeed, the
triangulation of different research methods is a valuable means of developing
rich accounts of social life and supplementing, for example, broad quant-
itative accounts with deep qualitative ones (Doherty et al. 2007). Research
methods are generally placed into two categories: quantitative research

and qualitative research. Quantitative research is generally broad in scope
and scale, and involves the design and use of methods such as surveys and
questionnaires, and the use of software programmes such as SPSS to
categorise the data and provide digitised findings, retrievals in what are
often extremely large datasets. Quantitative research has a focus on statistical
data and analysis, for example, on population demographics. Qualitative
research, discussed in more detail below, also incorporates a range of
methods, including the use of interviews, discourse analysis and ethno-
graphy. Software packages such as Atlas and Nvivo exist to facilitate the
analysis of qualitative findings. Research methods are evolving all the
time; for example, a suite of ‘high-throughput’ digital methods and
accompanying software that specifically focus on mapping and analysing
mobilisation on the Internet, are rapidly becoming established. An example
is the Issue Crawler that tracks embedded website links in innovative ways
(Rogers 2002). Such methods also blur boundaries between quantitative
and qualitative methods in interesting ways. It is also important to note,
reiterating the usefulness of methodological triangulation, that quantitative
information can supplement qualitative datasets when using qualitative
software packages such as Nvivo; retrieving searches of qualitative data by
theme and also, for example, by date.
Ethnography itself is a qualitative method. Qualitative research as a whole
aims to access the detailed views and behaviour of social actors: ‘The
essence of this approach is to view events through the perspective of
the people being studied ...’ (Bouma and Atkinson 1995, 207).
Ethnography, together with other qualitative data gathering methods
such as interviews, analysis of Internet discourse, and so forth, provides
access to these perspectives. There is a symbiotic loop whereby ethno-
graphic practise and theoretical development feed back on, and inform,
each other. Ethnography can be described as embedded participant obser-
vation or field work – immersion in the research site and immersion
in its practises. Autobiography in this ethnographic context is a feminist
methodological principle; the use of narrative as user-friendly and demys-
tified academic practise. All qualitative research is in-depth and relatively
small-scale research; however, significant social processes can be captured
through ethnography, enabling broader analysis (Schofield 1993). With
regard to the pros/cons of any methodological technique, while cons are
unavoidable they can be mitigated by reflexivity, and also by triangulat-
ing methods, either filling in gaps, and/or by enabling more confident
extrapolation through producing reiterative data. The viability and
applicability of different forms of ethnographic methods has been a con-
stant theme during my own evolving research journey. Ethnography,
central though it has been to my research, has been a tool used symbioti-
cally with others, such as interviews. Ethnographic ‘snapshots’ can inform the
use of other methods, for example, identifying prime movers for interviews.
Ethnographic methods are readily applicable to the study of social

movements and social mobilisation, and are in fact, in many cases, easily
transposable to different research environments. The following subsection
provides an overview of the use of specific ethnographic methods, discussing
their applicability specifically for understanding and analysing social move-
ments. This is followed by further subsections dealing with key issues and
themes in more detail. Key methodological issues are discussed through
an autobiography (Stanley 1991) of my own ethnographic practice; in
particular issues relating to participatory forms of action research (Stringer
1999) and ‘insider’ research (Roseneil 1993; Stanley 1991).
Ethnography and social movements

Ethnography can capture detail, nuance, a deeper appreciation of social
reality, especially among latent, emergent and underground networks taking
action and engaging in discursive turns (Dryzek 2000) off the radar of the
policy sphere. This makes ethnography especially relevant for engaging
with many different publics, part of social movements or not, who perhaps
mistrust the policy/public engagement process; or who for a variety of
reasons (social exclusion) are engaging in less visible contexts, or in less
usual or accessible ways, such as protests. Thus, ethnography can trace
real-time development of social mobilisation as it emerges. Ethnographic
methods are a form of ‘upstream public engagement’ (Demos 2004);
identifying what is happening at the grassroots, such as tracing evolving,
predisposed, UK direct action networks and their developing engagement
with genetics/genomics. Social movements and social network activity are
highly fluid, rapidly shifting phenomena; and ethnography can capture
significant shifts missed by macro-level analysis.
Importantly, ethnography identifies how publics are framing issues in
their own terms, something of particular importance for social movement
actors, who tend to take action because they feel they have been ‘framed
out’ in the first place. Ethnographers could be said to provide a translation
service, mediating between the research site and the academic (and, where
relevant, policy) sphere. This again has perhaps especial relevance for the
study of social movements, who tend to have a very developed counter-
culture with specific codes and norms (McKay 1996). The following
subsections give an autobiographical, reflexive account of my particular
form of ethnographic practise – that of engaged (action) and often
‘insider’, ethnographic research. They provide a theoretical and method-
ological framework for this specific type of ethnographic practice, emphas-
ising core areas of general relevance for all ethnographers. It is important
to emphasise that this is again a question of horses for courses – these are
methodological approaches that worked well in this particular environ-
ment (studying social movements), and that can have general applicability,
in different contexts. In the following sections, which detail the use of
specific forms of ethnographic practice in specific contexts, it should be

borne in mind that these are simply an approach and like any research
method there are limitations and problems.
Reflexive practice, autobiography, narrative

Reflexive research is about the production of accountable knowledge
(Stanley 1991, 209). Reflexivity, linked to autobiographical narrative
accounts, the locating of self in the research is, I would argue, a consistent
plus in terms of viable ethnographic practice. Reflexivity thus entails not
only being explicit about the political, personal, and so on, circumstances
of the researcher (see following subsections); but it also embeds/locates
the constructed nature of the research itself. Reflexivity as a specific
research method has provided me with a methodological mirror, a template
to engage with my often challenging ethnographic case study sites, and
the issues raised by my specific ethnographic practice. It is also linked to
the concept of action research (see below). Furthermore, a reflexive
appreciation about my own location in the research process and impact
on it, has enabled a more critical appreciation of methodological practice
per se. For example, even quantitative methods are imbued with the
knowledge claims of the researcher in terms of the design of the research
questions and the analysis of the responses. This is significant in terms of
assessing the validity of the claims made by others on the basis of their
research findings.
‘Insider’ research and ethnographic practice

I am convinced that the degree of intimacy between myself and the women I
interviewed ... was only possible because they knew I was a Greenham woman
and a feminist first ... and a sociologist second. (Roseneil 1993, 191)
Like Sasha Roseneil, when I did my PhD research, I was an ‘insider’ in

my ethnographic setting. To briefly give an overview of key pros and
cons, the identification of shared narratives, experiences, histories (of
being arrested, of living on a protest camp) means that a rapport between
researcher and researched is easily established. Roseneil above highlights
an opening up process. Trust and access are key issues, especially in
ethnographic settings where gatekeeping often occurs. This is, I would
argue, particularly true of social movements, wary of the motives of
researchers, and also of course applies to many other groups and networks,
the powerful as well as the marginalised. There is also the possibility of
the insider researcher getting ‘truer’, more nuanced accounts. Especially
in situations where negotiated access is an issue, insider research can be
seen as a methodological bonus for ethnographic practice. Crucially, this
is not to say that being an insider is a prerequisite of practising embedded
ethnography; nor does (should) it mean that an insider researcher cannot

be critical of groups one sympathises or identifies with. One does not have
to be an insider to undertake good ethnography; an ‘outsider’ undertaking
ethnography will gain a different perspective, and can also develop strong
social bonds over time. In relation to many of the groups mobilising over
human genetics issues, I was most definitely an ‘outsider’ when I conducted
my ethnography as part of a package of other qualitative techniques.
[T]he problem is that of ... becoming empirically literate ... you have to be
knowledgeable to collect good information. (Miles and Huberman 1984, 48)
Of course, developing a repertoire of acquired knowledge in any set of
conditions, whether an insider or not, will always be a methodological
bonus; in my genetics research, where I was interviewing scientists,
genetic innovators, highly expert public groups talking about genes, cloning,
and so on, I fast tracked relevant bioscientific knowledge through Web-
based learning, biology textbooks, and of course, through conversations
and interviews with my key informants.
Cons of insider research can be summarised, thus: concerns about
seeing the wood for the trees; overly sympathetic accounts that are not
rigorous enough, and ethical concerns about misuse of the trust placed in
the researcher. Increasingly, such research is itself the focus of ethical
assessment prior to its initiation. This is particularly relevant when the
research subjects are involved in contentious and potentially criminal activity –
see Plows, Wall and Doherty (2004). Reflexivity is extremely important
in ensuring methodological rigour, as being aware of possible cons can help
navigate them. These are, of course, concerns that underpin all method-
ological approaches, qualitative or quantitative, although concerns over
the ethics of access are more relevant to the practice of insider ethnography.
Ethnography practised as ‘engaged’, ‘action’ research

A standard textbook approach to qualitative methods warns against insider,
and also against ‘engaged’ ethnography; see Bouma and Atkinson’s (1995)
concerns about researchers getting too close to their material. However,
other academic approaches refute the concept of value-neutral, objective
research: Becker (1974, 107) states that it is impossible.
... To do research which is uncontaminated by personal and political sympathies
... therefore ... the question is not whether we should take sides, since we
inevitably will, but rather whose side are we on.
It is important to be reflexive about the viability of separating personal
(political and other) sympathies from research practice; whether one self-
identifies with the practise of explicitly engaged research or not, the
researchers’ own value and knowledge claims inform the practice and
analysis of all ethnographic and other forms of research. Feminist, action
and critical realist approaches argue that they are simply making such
processes explicit and being reflexive. Law (2006) notes that all research
methods, forms, sites, and so forth, are underwritten with personal and
political implications – for example, whether, and if so, how, research
findings are aimed at impacting on governance and policy, how findings
are framed, theorised, what the projected outcomes are, and so forth.
Engaged research, more widely known as action research (Fuller and
Kitchin 2004; Maxey 1999; Routledge 1996; Stringer 1999), could be
said to be a methodological application of this critique of value-neutrality.
Action research can take many forms and comes in varying shades. Stringer
(1999, 18) identifies common themes across different interpretations of
action research, which are that the research is
Rigorously empirical and reflective ... engage[s] people as active participants
[and] result[s] in some practical outcome based on the lives and work of the
participants.
During my PhD and early research work, I was activiely supportive of
key concerns of the environmental protest movement, whose core value
frames (environmental and social justice) were ones I shared. I wanted to
help get these issues on the radar more, and provide a space where activist
voices could be heard on their own terms. My engaged approach went
beyond explicit identification – I took part in protests and in some cases
helped to catalyse them. It is quite evident that such highly engaged
action research is suited to the study of social movements. Of course, this
can and should also be a critical account.
Not all engaged or action research is at this end of the spectrum,
and I am not making a claim that action research of this type is always
applicable or viable – far from it. In the genetics project, the ethnographic
focus was to get an overview of a very broad field: which publics are
engaging and what are they doing and saying? Several issues thus made
the practise of engaged research a lot more challenging personally, in
particular, how is it even possible to be on a side when the issues are so
complex? Identifying risk issues in relation to biomedical science, for
example, does not mean that one is ‘anti’ the patient groups who wish for
cures. As outlined earlier, the research identified multiple actors grappling
with multiple issues, and identified social complexity and ambivalence
as actors framed the stakes beyond pro and anti positions (Evans et al.
2007; Welsh et al. 2007). A key informant remarked that ‘the debate is
framed as a simple binary opposition ... it’s painful to try and explain the
nuances ...’
Providing an overview, a thorough account, of this nuanced field meant
that I needed to feedback what different actor groups had been saying and
represent their core frames, even when I did not agree with them (e.g.,
pro-life perspectives). Action research has its limits in this context. While I
did not support the aims of, for example, the pro-life groups, I did
want to provide a balanced account of all these engaging publics; rather

than simply sympathetically focussing on the perspectives – themselves
complex – of my case study ‘usual suspects’. Also this was a new and in
many ways unfamiliar research field with multiple issues I needed to find
out about – I could not take a position for granted. This necessitated
developing my snapshot approach; taking ethnographic soil samples in a
muddy field. I was trying to be as objective as possible when taking these
snapshots and analysing their significance; but also explicitly reflexive
about my own position and hence the limits of objectivity as discussed
above.
Despite the identification of social complexity, engaged approaches
continued to be relevant, in particular because I could identify public
groups ‘framed out’ of the debate (Plows 2007). These groups were highly
aware of this and themselves identified power relations, such as specific
socialised manifestations of political (bio-)economy, where powerful actors
co-constructed a space within which dissent was difficult to articulate and
often delegitimised. Engaged action research in this specific context thus
manifested as an aim to foreground power imbalances and injustices – and
give a fair hearing to all issues, groups, who could be seen to have less
discursive legitimacy in the debate – disability rights groups, for example
– in a climate where critical points of view are identifiably often marginalised
or misrepresented. For example, ethnographic snapshots identified prime
mover actors within the libertarian lobby group Institute of Ideas, who
consistently frame groups who have concerns about scientific developments,
as irrational actors who identify risks out of fear. Thus, a key ethnographic
finding was that robustly articulating the multiple, layered, stakes of the
debate in the public/policy sphere was crucial – simply highlighting, as
objectively as possible, how different publics were framing stakes, became
an important action research goal, aiming at generating capacity for all
publics to engage on equal terms. Thus, my action research, post the
ethnographic stage of data collection, translates in this context as a call for
a better framing of public debates on genetic technologies and an identi-
fication of the impacts of power relations. Action research that aims to
build capacity in the public sphere identifiably has general applicability for
ethnographic practice and for the practice of academic research more
generally; noting, of course, that all research aims to have an impact on
social life.
My reflexive ethnographic practice also identified how academics
themselves are key prime movers constructing meanings, not simply
through the fact that specific theoretical approaches and research sites
frame and co-construct social reality (Law 2006), but also because academics
involved with medical/human genetics are themselves part of the process
of the generation of genetic meanings in terms of the claims they make
regarding their approach to their field of study, for example framing their
research through questions of risk and benefit. This finding reconfirms
feminist critiques of academic claims regarding the viability and achievability

of academic ‘value-neutrality’ in relation to research practice. Instead, it
is abundantly clear that we as academics are always subjectively constructing
meanings about the social phenomena we try to describe through the very
act of description, and we need to become more explicitly reflexive about
this. Finally, explicitly taking sides in such ambivalent/complex research arenas
and social spaces is still possible when clear opportunities present themselves.
For example, I have been a prime mover within recent (2006/2007) feminist
networks, where concerns over issues raised by the sourcing of human
eggs for biomedical research (such the identification of health risks) have
been clearly expressed (Plows et al. 2006). Importantly, engaged reflexive
practice, engaging in campaigning with specific non-governmental organ-
isations and other groups and taking sides in specific contexts, has meant
that I am able to provide a picture of emergent and complex reality as it
occurs in real time, and to theorise network activity. To reiterate, being
an insider is not a prerequisite of good ethnographic practice; it is simply
an approach. Much of the genetics data were snapshotted among publics
I did not identify with or in groups which I was not a part of.
Conclusion: Developing theory – Changing social practice?

Social movement?
This autobiographical account of ethnographic practice has sought to
provide an overview of some specific methodological tools for the study,
analysis and theorising of social movements and social mobilisation more
generally. It has provided a critical analysis of a methodological resource
– an ethnographic toolbox – for those interested in the study of social
movements, identifying pros and cons. Ethnographic practice itself comprises
a spectrum of approaches. Use of ethnographic methods, generally used
in tandem with other methods, unearthed a view of mobilising actors in
specific circumstances. Analysis of these emerging narratives has enabled
an identification of key theoretical and social developments and complexities.
The paper has aimed to demonstrate the relevance of ethnographic meth-
odology for the general understanding of social life and social interaction,
and social movement theory and practice.
Has the social complexity, this dissolution and blurring of social groups,
networks, exemplified in this ethnographic narrative always existed? Or is
it happening more now? This is an ongoing conversation and one that has
been initiated by theorists over quite a long time-frame (Deleuze and
Guattari 1980; Touraine 1992), informing a new generation (Chesters and
Welsh 2005; Hardt and Negri 2000). Law (2006) makes a timely case for
methods for ‘mess’; developing methods for identifying and explaining
messy social realities. My ethnographic narrative and the data generated
indicate that complex social convergences, and resulting repertoire diffusion
(of ideas, grievances, claims, and so on), including protest tactics, are
occurring not just within specific social movement networks, but happening
more rapidly and more broadly across civil society; for example, the UK
fuel protests in 2000 (Doherty et al. 2003a). This is one way to read Meyer
and Tarrow’s (1998) theorising of a ‘social movement society’. If this is,
as it appears to be, a general phenomenon, then it is important to analyse
these processes, to think about social mobilisation more generally, linking
to debates within political theory on global civil society (Eschle 2001;
Eschle and Stammers 2005; Ford 2003). There is a lot of movement, a lot
of ‘cross-talk’ (Bucchi 2004) between multiple and very different sets of
actors; Irwin and Michael’s (2003) descriptions and analysis of ethno-
epistemic assemblages are a useful tool here. Such ethnographic findings
suggest that we focus more on how to develop our theorising of social
movement (Whittier 1995) in a variety of contexts. This approach may also
be of most pragmatic benefit for social actors. In other words, it is the
mobilisation itself that is important to trace and analyse; its changing shape
is interesting and highly significant and deserves careful attention on its
own terms. If actors and theorists get locked into discussions about
whether such mobilisation is or is not an (overtly new) social movement,
we might miss important developments in social life through an unnecessary
emphasis on classifications (Plotke 1995).
It is important also not to throw the baby out with the bath-water.
Melucci’s definition remains an important one, even if movements are
perhaps becoming or being conceived of as more complex, fragmented,
less of a solid block. Also, activists’ sense of ‘us and them’ tends to cohere
in the moment of taking action; the importance of direct action itself, and also
its temporality, needs restressing. Fluidity, autonomy and biodegradability
have always served to resolve internal stresses within movements (Plows
2003; Wall 1999). Identity continues to be an important, if difficult,
mobilising frame (Plows and Boddington 2006) – what academics, and
what social actors, mean by identity needs unpacking – there are multiple
ways of looking at this. Furthermore, temporary alliances and coalitions
are not new, nor are the benefits and problems associated with them
(Plows 2004). In relation to the anti-globalisation movement, for example,
an acknowledgement of multiple differences has been an important
discursive frame, simultaneously with explicitly identified common
ground. ‘We-share-the-same-struggle’ has been a core frame for this
extremely diverse, loose, global alliance, and such expressions of solidarity
should not be overlooked in the rush to identify movement (identity)
fragmentation. It may also be important to differentiate between loose
network coalitions such as the movement of movements, and clusters of
strange bedfellows; defined as the occasionally counterintuitive assem-
blages identified in the genetics project. Perhaps developing social movement
theory for the twenty-first century might place less emphasis on defini-
tions of social movements, and instead focus on explaining and theorising
a range of global civil society interactions and mobilisation.
Short Biography
Dr. Alexandra Plows works for Cardiff University, UK as a Research
Associate at the Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics
(Cesagen), part of the ESRC-funded Genomics Network. Her research
currently focuses on identifying and theorising public engagement with
genetics, genomics and related areas of bioscience. Her research relates
issues emergent in bioscience to multiple themes and fields including
sustainable development, political economy, citizenship, identity, feminism,
and social movements. Her previous research and PhD work was focused
on UK environmental direct action networks. Research methods relating
to qualitative research and ethnography in particular have been a long
standing interest. Dr. Plows has published a number of single and co-
authored papers and book chapters relating to her research.
Note
* Correspondence address: CESAGen, Cardiff University, 6 Museum Place, Cardiff, CFI0
3BG, UK Email: plowsa@cardiff.ac.uk.
References
Becker, Howard 1974. ‘Whose Side Are We On?’ In Values, Objectivity and the Social Sciences,
edited by Greshem Riley. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bouma, G.D. and G.B.J. Atkinson 1995. Handbook of Social Science Research. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Brand, Karl-Werner 1990. ‘Cyclical Aspects of New Social Movements.’ Pp. 23–42 in Challenging
the Political Order: New Social and Political Movements in Western Democracies, edited by Russell J.
Dalton and Manfred Kuechler. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bucchi, Massimiano 2004. ‘Can Genetics Help Us Rethink Communication? Public Com-
munication of Science as a “Double Helix”.’ New Genetics and Society 23: 269 – 83.
Carroll, William K. and Robert S. Ratner 1996. ‘Master Framing and Cross-Movement
Networking in Contemporary Social Movements.’ Sociological Quarterly 37: 601–25.
Chesters, Graeme and Ian Welsh 2005. Complexity, Multitudes and Movements: Acting on the Edge
of Chaos. London, UK: Routledge.
Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari 1980. A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Doherty, Brian, Matthew Paterson, Alexandra Plows and Derek Wall 2003a. ‘Explaining the
Fuel Protests.’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5: 1–23.
Doherty, Brian, Alexandra Plows and Derek Wall 2003b. ‘The Preferred Way of Doing Things:
The British Direct Action Movement.’ Parliamentary Affairs 56: 669– 86.
Doherty, Brian, Alexandra Plows and Derek Wall 2007. ‘Environmental Direct Action in
Manchester, Oxford and North Wales: A Protest Event Analysis.’ Environmental Politics 16:
805–25.
Dryzek, John S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Earle, Fiona, Alan Dearling, Helen Whittle, Roddy Glasse and Gubby 1994. A Time to Travel?
An introduction to Britain’s Newer Travellers. Lyme Regis, UK: Enabler Publications.
Eschle, Catherine 2001. ‘Globalizing Civil Society? Social Movements and the Challenge of
Global Politics from Below.’ Pp. 61–79 in Globalization and Social Movements, Basingstoke,
UK: Palgrave.
Eschle, Catherine and Neil Stammers 2005. ‘Social Movements and Global Activism.’ Pp. 50– 67

in Global Activism, Global Media, edited by Wilma De Yong, Neil Stammers and Martin
Shaw. London, UK: Pluto Press.
Evans, Robert, Ian Welsh and Alexandra Plows 2007. ‘Towards an Anatomy of Public Engagement
with Medical Genetics: Strange Bedfellows and Usual Suspects.’ Pp. 139–57 in New Genetics,
New Identities, edited by Peter Glasner, Paul Atkinson, and Helen Greenslade. London, UK:
Routledge.
Ford, Lucy H. 2003. ‘Challenging Global Environmental Governance: Social Movement
Agency and Global Civil Society.’ Global Environmental Politics 3: 120 –34.
Fuller, Duncan and Rob Kitchin (eds) 2004. Radical Theory/Critical Praxis: Academic Geography
beyond the Academy? http://www.praxis-epress.org/rtcp/dfrk.pdf.
Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. ‘The Strength of Weak Ties.’ American Journal of sociology 78: 1360–80.
Habermas, Jürgen 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action (Vol. 2). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Hammersley, Martyn (ed.) 1993. Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practise. London, UK:
Sage Publications.
Hammersley, Martyn and Paul Atkinson 1993. Ethnography: Principles in Practise. London, UK:
Routledge.
Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Irwin, Alan and Mike Michael 2003. Science, Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Law, John 2006. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research (2nd edn). London, UK: Routledge.
Maxey, Ian 1999. ‘Beyond Boundaries? Activism, Academia, Reflexivity and Research.’ Area
31: 199–208.
McAdam, Doug 1986. ‘Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer.’
American Journal of Sociology 92: 64– 90.
McDonald, Kevin 2002. ‘From Solidarity to Fluidarity: Social Movements beyond “Collective
Identity” – The Case of Globalization Conflicts.’ Social Movement Studies 1: 109 –28.
McKay, George 1996. Senseless Acts of Beauty: Cultures of Resistance since the Sixties Verso.
London, UK: Verso.
Melucci, Alberto 1996. Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, David and Sidney Tarrow 1998. ‘A Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New
Century.’ Pp. 1–29 in The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century,
edited by David Meyer and Sidney Tarrow. Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield.
Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. London, UK:
Sage Publications.
Nelkin, Dorothy 1995. ‘Forms of Intrusion: Comparing Resistance to Information Technology
and Biotechnology in the USA.’ Pp. 379–90 in Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power,
Information Technology and Biotechnology, edited by Martin Bauer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Paterson, Matthew 2000. ‘Swampy Fever: Media Constructions and Direct Action Politics.’ Pp.
151– 66 in Direct Action in British Environmentalism, edited by Brian Seel, Matthew Paterson
and Benjamin Doherty. London, UK: Routledge.
Plotke, David 1995. ‘What’s So New about New Social Movements?’ In Social Movements:
Critiques, Concepts, Case-Studies, edited by Stanford M. Lyman. London, UK: Macmillan.
Plows Alexandra 2003. Practise and Practise: The ‘What, How and Why’ of the UK Environmental
Direct Action (EDA) Movement in the 1990’s. PhD thesis, Bangor University, http://
www.iol.ie/~mazzoldi/toolsforchange/papers.html#counter (last accessed August 10, 2008).
Plows, Alexandra 2004. ‘Activist Networks in the UK: Mapping the Build-Up to the Anti-
Globalization Movement.’ Pp. 95–114 in Anti-Capitalist Britain, edited by John Carter and
David Morland. Cheltenham: New Clarion Press.
Plows, Alexandra 2006. ‘Blackwood 2004: An Emerging (Re)Cycle of UK Eco-Action?’ Envir-
onmental Politics 15: 474 – 84.
Plows Alexandra 2007. ‘You’ve Been Framed! Why Publics Mistrust the Policy Process.’ Genomics
Network Newsletter 6: 22–23.
Plows, Alexandra and Puala Boddington 2006. ‘Troubles with Biocitizenship?’ Genetics, Society
and Policy 2, http://www.gspjournal.com/.

Plows Alexandra, Joan Haran and Kate O’Riordan 2006. Should Scientific Researchers Be Allowed
to Ask Women to Provide Their Eggs for Disease Research? http://www.cesagen.lancs.ac.uk/
events/eventsdocs/HFEA_sourcing_eggs.pdf.
Plows, Alexandra and M. Reinsborough 2008. ‘Nanobiotechnology and Ethics: Converging
Civil Society Discourses.’ In Emerging Conceptual, Ethical and Policy Issues in Bionanotechnology,
Philosophy and Medicine, Vol. 101, edited by Fabrice Jotterand. Dordrecht: Springer.
Plows, Alexandra, Derek Wall and Brian Doherty 2004. ‘Covert Repertoires: Ecotage in the
UK.’ Social Movement Studies 3: 199 –219.
Rogers, Richard 2002. Issuecrawler.net: A Narrative of a Software Project. http://www.govcom.org/
ia_ontheweb.html (last accessed August 10, 2008).
Rose, Nikolas and Carlos Novas 2004. ‘Biological Citizenship.’ Pp. 439–63 in Global Assemblages:
Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, edited by Aihwa Ong and Stephen
Collier. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Roseneil, Sasha 1993. ‘Greenham Revisited: Researching Myself and my Sisters.’ Pp. 177–208
in Interpreting the Field: Accounts of Ethnography, edited by Dick Hobbs and Tim May. Oxford,
UK: Clarendon Press.
Routledge, Paul 1996. ‘The Third Space as Critical Engagement.’ Antipode 28: 399 – 419.
Schofield, Janet Ward 1993. ‘Increasing the Generalizability of Qualitative Research.’ Pp. 200–226
in Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practise, edited by Martyn Hammersley. Buckingham,
UK: Open University Press.
Stanley, Liz 1991. ‘Feminist Auto/Biography and Feminist Epistemology?’ Pp. 204–19 in
Out of the Margins; Women’s Studies in the Nineties, edited by Jane Aaron and Sylvia Walby.
London, UK: Falmer Press.
Stringer, Ernest T. 1999. Action Research (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage Publications.
Tarrow, Sidney 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics (2nd
edn). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Touraine, Alain 1992. ‘Beyond Social Movements?’ Pp. 103 –30 in Social Movements: Critiques,
Concepts, Case-Studies, edited by Stanford M. Lyman. London, UK: Macmillan.
Wall, Derek 1999. Earth First! And the Anti-Roads Movement. London, UK: Routledge.
Welsh, Ian 2000. Mobilising Modernity: The Nuclear Moment. London, UK: Routledge.
Welsh, Ian, Alexandra Plows and Robert Evans 2007. ‘Human Rights and Genomics: Science,
Genomics and Social Movements at the 2004 London Social Forum.’ New Genetics and Society
26: 123 –35.
Whittier, Nancy 1995. Feminist Generations. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Wilsdon, James and Rebecca Willis 2004. See-Through Science; Why Public Engagement Needs to
Move ‘Upstream’. London, UK: Demos.


Plows. 2008. Social Movements and Ethnografic Methodologies PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Plows. 2008. Social Movements and Ethnografic Methodologies PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1523–1538, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00091.

Social Movements and Ethnographic

generally is also highlighted. Ethnography is a method that enables

Case studies: UK eco-activism and UK genetics publics

nature of social movements, mobilisation. I identified where specific case

2. (UK) public engagement with medical genomics 2003–2006

Appraising ethnographic methods for the study of social

Overview of research methods and the place of ethnography

methods are generally placed into two categories: quantitative research

Ethnographic methods are readily applicable to the study of social

Ethnography and social movements

specific forms of ethnographic practice in specific contexts, it should be

Reflexive practice, autobiography, narrative

‘Insider’ research and ethnographic practice

Like Sasha Roseneil, when I did my PhD research, I was an ‘insider’ in

ethnography; nor does (should) it mean that an insider researcher cannot

Ethnography practised as ‘engaged’, ‘action’ research

want to provide a balanced account of all these engaging publics; rather

feminist critiques of academic claims regarding the viability and achievability

Conclusion: Developing theory – Changing social practice?

© 2008 The Author Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1523–1538, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00091.x

© 2008 The Author Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1523–1538, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00091.x

© 2008 The Author Sociology Compass 2/5 (2008): 1523–1538, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00091.x

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi