|
If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||||||||
  Sociological InquiryVolume 67 Issue 4, Pages 409 - 430 Published Online: 9 Jan 2007 © 2010 Alpha Kappa Delta: The International Sociology Honor Society Published on behalf of Alpha Kappa Delta: The International Sociology Honor Society
Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 1279K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking  An Insider's Critique of the Social Movement Framing Perspective* *I am grateful to Steve Buechler, John Evans, Herb Haines, Michelle Hughes Miller, Raymond Schmitt, Randy Stoecker, and Rhys Williams for their insightful comments and suggestions. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1995 annual meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the many anonymous reviewers who conscientiously read and commented upon papers considered for inclusion in this special section. I thank Sociological Inquiry editors Joane Nagel and Bill Staples and managing editor Kevin Gotham for their vision and assistance. Finally, I am indebted to Brett Walter for his editorial assistance. Copyright 1997 by the University of Texas Press ABSTRACTIn the last decade the framing perspective has gained increasing popularity among social movement researchers and theorists. Surprisingly, there has been no critical assessment of this growing body of literature. Though the perspective has made significant contributions to the movements literature, it suffers from several shortcomings. These include neglect of systematic empirical studies, descriptive bias, static tendencies, reification, reductionism, elite bias, and monolithic tendencies. In addition to a critique of extant movement framing literature, I offer several remedies and illustrate them with recent work. The articles by Francesca Polletta, John H. Evans, Sharon Erickson Nepstad, and Ira Silver in this special section address several of the concerns raised in this critique and, in so doing, contribute to the integration of structural and cultural approaches to social movements. | 
| |||||||
