This article examines the influence of radical flank actors in shifting field-level debates by increasing the legitimacy of preexisting but peripheral issues. Using network text analysis, we apply this conceptual model to the climate change debate in the United States and the efforts of Bill McKibben and 350.org to pressure major universities to “divest” their fossil fuel assets. What we find is that, as these new actors and issue entered the debate, liberal policy ideas (such as a carbon tax), which had previously been marginalized in the U.S. debate, gained increased attention and legitimacy while the divestment effort itself gained limited traction. This result expands theory on indirect pathways to institutional change through a discursive radical flank mechanism, and suggests that the actual influence of Bill McKibben on the U.S. climate debate goes beyond the precise number of schools that divest to include a shift in the social and political discourse.
AmentaE.CarenN.ChiarelloE.SuY. (2010). The political consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 287-307.
2.
ApfelD. (2015). Exploring divestment as a strategy for change: An evaluation of the history, success and challenges of fossil fuel divestment. Social Research, 82, 913-937.
3.
BailC. A. (2012). The fringe effect: Civil society organizations and the evolution of media discourse about Islam since the September 11th attacks. American Sociological Review, 77, 855-879.
4.
BaronD.NealeM.RaoH. (2016). Extending nonmarket strategy: Political economy and the radical flank effect in private politics. Strategy Science, 1, 105-126.
5.
BeerC. (2016). Rationale of early adopters of fossil fuel divestment. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17, 506-519.
6.
BourdieuP. (1993). The field of cultural production. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
7.
BourdieuP.WacquantL. (1992). Invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BrierA.HoppB. (2011). Computer assisted text analysis in the social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 45, 103-128.
CalhounC. (1993). Habitus, field, and capital: The question of historical specificity. In CalhounC.LiPumaE.PostoneM. (Eds.), Bourdieu: Critical perspectives (pp. 61-88). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
CarleyK. M. (1997). Network text analysis: The network position of concepts. In RobertsC. (Ed.), Text analysis for the social sciences (pp. 79-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
CovaleskiM. A.DirsmithM. W. (1988). An institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation, and fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 562-587.
13.
CressD.SnowD. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1063-1104.
14.
CrossR.SnowD. A. (2011). Radicalism within the context of social movements: Processes and types. Journal of Strategic Security, 4, 115-130.
15.
DavisG. F.McAdamD.ScottW. R.ZaldM. N. (Eds.). (2005). Social movements and organization theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Den HondF.De BakkerF. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32, 901-924.
17.
DiMaggioP. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In ZuckerL. (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3-22). Cambridge, MA.: Ballinger.
18.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
19.
DowneyD.RohlingerD. (2008). Linking strategic choice with macro-organizational dynamics: Strategy and social movement articulation. In McCoyP. (Ed.), Research in social movements (pp. 3-38) Basingstoke, England: Emerald Group.
20.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M.YaroshJ. H. (2016). The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environment, 58(5), 4-23.
21.
DuttonJ.AshfordS. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 397-428.
22.
EesleyC.LenoxM. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 765-781.
23.
EisenhardtK. (1989). Building from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
24.
FligsteinN. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19, 105-125.
25.
FligsteinN.McAdamD. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
26.
FreemanJ. (1975). The politics of women’s liberation. New York, NY: Longman.
GamsonW. A. (1975). The strategy of social protest. Homewood, IL.: Dorsey Press.
29.
GeorgallisP. (2017). The link between social movements and corporate social initiatives: Toward a multi-level theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 735–751.
30.
GreenwoodR.HiningsC. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1022-1054.
GuptaD. (2002, March14-16). Radical flank effects: The effect of radical-moderate splits in regional nationalist movements. Paper presented for the Conference of Europeanists, Chicago, IL.
33.
HainesH. (1984). Black radicalization and the funding of civil rights: 1957–1970. Social Problems, 32(1), 31-43.
34.
HainesH. (1988). Black radicals and the civil rights mainstream, 1954-1970. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
35.
HargraveT.Van de VenA. (2009). Institutional work as a creative embrace of contradiction. In LawrenceT.SuddabyR.LecaB. (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 120-141), Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
36.
HeberleinT. A. (2012). Navigating environmental attitudes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
37.
HilgartnerS.BoskC. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 53-78.
38.
HirschP.LounsburyM. (1997). Ending the family quarrel: Toward a reconciliation of “old” and “new” institutionalisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 406-418.
39.
HoffmanA. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 351-371.
40.
HoffmanA. (2009). Shades of green. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring, 40-49.
41.
HoffmanA. (2011). Talking past each other? Cultural framing of skeptical and convinced logics in the climate change debate. Organization & Environment, 24(1), 3-33.
42.
HoffmanA. (2015). How culture shapes the climate change debate. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
43.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis, fifth assessment report. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
KingB. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 395-421.
46.
KingB. G.PearceN. A. (2010). The contentiousness of markets: Politics, social movements, and institutional change in markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 249-267.
47.
KleinN. (2014). This changes everything. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
48.
LawrenceT. B. (1999). Institutional strategy. Journal of Management, 25, 161-187.
49.
LawrenceT. B.SuddabyR. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In CleggS.HardyC.LawrenceT.NordW. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (pp. 215-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.Roser-RenoufC.FeinbergG.HoweP. (2013). Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in April, 2013. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
51.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.Roser-RenoufC.RosenthalS.CutlerM. (2017). Climate change in the American mind: November 2016. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
52.
LipskyM. (1968). Protest as a political resource. American Political Science Review, 62, 1144-1158.
53.
LounsburyM.VentrescaM.HirschP. M. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on U.S. recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 71-104.
54.
MartinM. K.PfefferJ.CarleyK. M. (2013). Network text analysis of conceptual overlap in interviews, newspaper articles and keywords. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3, 1165-1177.
55.
McAdamD. (1992). Studying social movements: A conceptual tour of the field. Cambridge, MA: Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University.
McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212-1241.
58.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Social Problems, 47, 499-522.
59.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155-194.
60.
McKibbenB. (2012, August2). Climate change has some scary new math. Rolling Stone, 52-60.
61.
MeyerD. S.StaggenborgS. (1996). Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1628-1660.
OliverC. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145-179.
64.
OreskesN.ConwayE. (2010). Merchants of doubt. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
65.
Pew Research Center. (2014, January27). Climate change: Key data points from Pew Research. Washington, DC: Author.
66.
PielkeR. (2007). The honest broker. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
67.
PoppingR. (2000). Computer-assisted text analysis. London, England: Sage.
68.
RaoH. (2009). Market rebels. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
69.
RitchieJ.DowlatabadiH. (2014). Understanding the shadow impacts of investment and divestment decisions: Adapting economic input–output models to calculate biophysical factors of financial returns. Ecological Economics, 106,132-140.
70.
ScottW. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71.
SeidmanG. (2015). Divestment dynamics: Mobilizing, shaming, and changing the rules. Social Research, 82, 1015-1037.
72.
SelznickP. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
73.
SineW. D.LeeB. H. (2009). Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the U.S. wind energy sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 123-155.
74.
TrueloveE.KelloggK. (2016). The radical flank effect and cross-occupational collaboration for technology development during a power shift. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, 662-701.
75.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993). US EPA oral history interview #2: Russell Train. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
76.
VasiI. B. (2011). Winds of change. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
77.
WhiteH. (1981). Where do markets come from?American Journal of Sociology, 87, 517-547.
78.
WhiteH. (1992). Identity and control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
79.
WootenM.HoffmanA. (2008). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SahlinK.SuddabyR. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 130-148). London, England: Sage.
