Innovating with Digital Action Repertoires at Amnesty International: Exploring Role Ambiguity

New digital technology has opened a broad range of ways in which individuals can engage with social movement organizations (SMOs). Although extant research has highlighted the role of digital action repertoires in political movements, the effects on SMOs' processes and structures still need to be elucidated. This study takes a deeper look into the organizational implications of broadening the set of digital action repertoires (engagement options). Based on a longitudinal case study at Amnesty International, we explore how digital repertoires produce role ambiguity in membership and relationship processes. This role of ambiguity has implications for collective identity and collective action. We conclude with implications for the design of repertoires.

[1]  Michael Lounsbury,et al.  Legitimating Nascent Collective Identities: Coordinating Cultural Entrepreneurship , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[2]  T. Postmes,et al.  Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  Nella Van Dyke,et al.  “Get up, Stand up”: Tactical Repertoires of Social Movements , 2007 .

[4]  Homero Gil de Zúñiga,et al.  Social Media Use for News and Individuals' Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation , 2012, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[5]  F. D. Bakker,et al.  Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities , 2007 .

[6]  B. Biddle.  RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ROLE THEORY , 1986 .

[7]  V. Taylor.  SOCIAL MOVEMENT CONTINUITY: THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT IN ABEYANCE* , 1989 .

[8]  Caroline A. Bartel,et al.  The Social Negotiation of Group Prototype Ambiguity in Dynamic Organizational Contexts , 2013 .

[9]  Bert Klandermans,et al.  The Social Psychology of Protest , 1998 .

[10]  A. Chadwick.  Digital Network Repertoires and Organizational Hybridity , 2007 .

[11]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Bridging the virtual and real: The relationship between web content, linkage, and geographical proximity of social movements , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Charles Tilly,et al.  Contentious Repertoires in Great Britain, 1758–1834 , 1993, Social Science History.

[13]  J. Earl.  The Future of Social Movement Organizations , 2015 .

[14]  Kevin McDonald,et al.  From Solidarity to Fluidarity: Social movements beyond 'collective identity'--the case of globalization conflicts , 2002 .

[15]  W. Bennett,et al.  DIGITAL MEDIA AND THE PERSONALIZATION OF COLLECTIVE ACTION , 2011 .

[16]  Roberta Ash,et al.  Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change , 1966 .

[17]  Peter Van Aelst,et al.  INTERNET AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT ACTION REPERTOIRES , 2010 .

[18]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[19]  J. V. Laer,et al.  INTERNET AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT ACTION REPERTOIRES: Opportunities and limitations , 2010 .

[20]  Jacquelien van Stekelenburg,et al.  The social psychology of protest , 1997 .

[21]  Andrew J. Flanagin,et al.  Modeling the Structure of Collective Action , 2006 .

[22]  Francesca Polletta,et al.  COLLECTIVE IDENTITY AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS , 2001 .

[23]  Shelley L. Brickson.  Athletes, Best Friends, and Social Activists: An Integrative Model Accounting for the Role of Identity in Organizational Identification , 2013, Organ. Sci..

[24]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[25]  J. D. McCarthy,et al.  Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[26]  Bob Edwards,et al.  Resources and Social Movement Mobilization , 2007 .