The frame alignment approach is one of the most influential mobilisation theories. This theory holds that frame alignment is a necessary condition for movement participation. The present study challenges this premise. Instead of treating frame alignment as a precondition for participation, the authors address it as something that should be empirically examined. And rather than distinguishing between either aligned or non-aligned protesters, they study frame alignment as a matter of degree. They do so drawing on protest surveys collected during 29 demonstrations in Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The authors answer the following research questions: To what extent are the frames of protest organisers and participants aligned? And are there differences in degrees of alignment across framing tasks, countries and issues? The findings show that many participants are only partially aligned. The highest levels of alignment are found for the diagnostic framing task. The article finds few differences across countries and issues for general alignment levels, but sub-aspects do tend to differ.
AlkonAHCortezMSzeJ (2013) What is in a name? Language, framing and environmental justice activism in California’s Central Valley. Local Environment18(10): 1167–1183.
2.
BenfordRD (1997) An insider’s critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry67(4): 409–430.
3.
BenfordRDSnowDA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology26: 611–639.
4.
Cadena-RoaJ (2002) Strategic framing, emotions, and superbarrio: Mexico City’s masked crusader. Mobilization: An International Journal7(2): 201–216.
5.
ChakravartyAChaudhuriS (2012) Strategic framing work(s): How microcredit loans facilitate anti-witch-hunt movements. Mobilization: An International Quarterly17(2): 175–194.
6.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
DianiM (2009) The structural bases of protest events: Multiple membership and networks in the February 15th, 2003 anti-war demonstrations. Acta Sociologica52(1): 63–83.
8.
EarlJSchussmanA (2003) The new site of activism: On-line organizations, movement entrepreneurs, and the changing location of social movement decision-making. In:CoyPG (ed.) Consensus Decision Making, Northern Ireland and Indigenous Movements. London: JAI Press, pp. 155–187.
9.
EdwardsBMcCarthyJD (2004) Resources and social movement mobilization. In: SnowDASouleSAKriesiH (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 116–152.
10.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
11.
ErnstR (2009) Working expectations: Frame diagnosis and the welfare rights movement. Social Movement Studies8(3): 185–201.
12.
GamsonWAFiremanBRytinaS (1982) Encounters with Unjust Authority. Belmont, CA: Dorsey Press.
13.
GerhardsJRuchtD (1992) Mesomobilization: Organizing and framing in two protest campaigns in West Germany. American Journal of Sociology98(3): 555–596.
14.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, CA: Harvard University Press.
15.
HaalboomB (2011) Framed encounters with conservation and mining development: Indigenous peoples’ use of strategic framing in Suriname. Social Movement Studies10(4): 387–406.
16.
HadlerMMcKayJ (2013) Aligned frames? The basis of political actions against offshoring in West Virginia and Austria. Sociological Spectrum33(1): 57–72.
17.
HayesAFKrippendorffK (2007) Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures1(1): 77–89.
18.
HewittLMcCammonHJ (2004) Explaining suffrage mobilization: Balance, neutralization, and range in collective action frames, 19882–1919. Mobilization: An International Journal9(2): 149–166.
19.
JasperJM (1997) The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
JasperJMPoulsenJD (1995) Recruiting strangers and friends: Moral shocks and social networks in animal rights and anti-nuclear protests. Social Problems42(4): 493–512.
21.
JohnstonH (1995) A methodology for frame analysis: From discourse to cognitive schemata. In: JohnstonHKlandermansB (eds) Social Movements and Culture. London: UCL Press, pp. 217–246.
22.
JohnstonH (2002) Verification and proof in frame and discourse analysis. In: KlandermansBStaggenborgS (eds) Methods of Social Movement Research. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
23.
JohnstonHAlimiE (2013) A methodology analyzing for frame dynamics: The grammar of keying battles in Palestinian nationalism. Mobilization: An International Quarterly18(4): 453–474.
24.
KlandermansB (1984) Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review49(5): 583–600.
25.
KlandermansB (ed.) (2012) Dynamics of street demonstrations [Special issue]. Mobilization: An International Quarterly17(3).
26.
KrippendorffK (2012) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, 3rd edn.Los Angeles and London: Sage.
27.
McCammonHJ (2009) Beyond frame resonance: The argumentative structure and persuasive capacity of twentieth-century U.S. women’s jury-rights frames. Mobilization: An International Journal14(1): 45–64.
28.
McCammonHJ (2012) Explaining frame variation: More moderate and radical demands for women’s citizenship in the U.S. women’s jury movements. Social Problems59(1): 43–69.
29.
McCammonHJ (2013) Resonance, frame. In: SnowDADella PortaDKlandermansB. (eds) The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 1092–1096.
30.
McCammonHJMuseCSNewmanHD (2007) Movement framing and discursive opportunity structures: The political successes of the U.S. women’s jury movements. American Sociological Review72(5): 725–749.
31.
MeyerDS (2004) Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology30(1): 125–145.
32.
MikaM (2006) Framing the issue: Religion, secular ethics and the case of animal rights mobilization. Social Forces85(2): 915–941.
33.
OppK-D (2009) Theories of Political Protest and Social Movements: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Critique, and Synthesis. London and New York: Routledge.
34.
PollettaFHoMK (2006) Frames and their consequences. In: GoodinRETillyC (eds) Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks Online.
35.
RheingoldH (2007) Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolut. New York: Basic Books.
36.
SnowDA (2004) Framing processes, ideology, and discursive fields. In: SnowDASouleSAKriesiH (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 380–412.
37.
SnowDABenfordRD (1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research1(1): 197–217.
38.
SnowDABenfordR (1992) Master frames and cycles of protest. In: MorrisAMuellerC (eds) Frontiers of Social Movement Theory. New Haven, CT Yale University Press, pp. 133–155.
39.
SnowDABenfordRD (2000) Mobilization forum: Comment on Oliver and Johnston. Mobilization: An International Journal5(1): 55–60.
40.
SnowDABenfordRDMcCammonHJ. (2014) The emergence, development, and future of the framing perspective: 25+ years since ‘frame alignment’. Mobilization: An International Quarterly19(1): 23–45.
41.
SnowDARochfordEBWordenSK. (1986) Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review51(4): 464–481.
42.
SnowDATanAEOwensPB (2013) Social movements, framing processes, and cultural revitalization and fabrication. Mobilization: An International Quarterly18(3): 225–242.
43.
TillyC (2004) Social Movements, 1768–2004. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
44.
Van DijkTA (1980) Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
VerhulstJ (2011) Mobilizing issues and the unity and diversity of protest events. Universiteit Antwerpen.
46.
WalgraveSVerhulstJ (2006) Towards ‘new emotional movements’? A comparative exploration into a specific movement type. Social Movement Studies5(3): 275–304.
47.
WalgraveSVerhulstJ (2011) Selection and response bias in protest surveys. Mobilization: An International Journal16(2): 203–222.
48.
WilliamsRH (2004) The cultural contexts of collective action: Constraints, opportunities, and the symbolic life of social movements. In: SnowDASouleSAKriesiH (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 91–115.
