argues for persuasion not disruption

For activists, disruption gains attention, but education changes minds.

In their campaigns to get organizations to adopt socially responsible practices, social activists choose between disruptive protests and evidence-based persuasion, often targeting select few organizations in the hope that more will also change their practices. But are such tactics effective? In their study of an anti-sweatshop campaign on US university campuses, Forrest Briscoe, Abhinav Gupta, and Mark Anner find that disruptive tactics actually hurt activists’ goal of capitalizing on their wins to influence non-targeted organizations. In contrast, when activists used evidence-based tactics, their wider goals were furthered.


This entry was posted in strategic debates. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s