From Game Protection to Wildlife Management: Frame Shifts, Organizational Development, and Field Practices

Abstract

One enduring question in social movements research is the relationship between cultural representations and organizational structure. In this article, we examine the development of different discursive frames over time, and how such frame shifts affect movement structure and practices. This approach seeks to illuminate the dialectical interplay between the movement community's discursive frame and its practices, and thus expand our understanding of the process of social movement growth and change. Through a close qualitative and historical analysis of a discursive shift within the hunting community of the United States in the 1930s from a focus strictly on game protection to a more expanded discursive frame of wildlife management, we show how this cultural shift led to major changes in both the organizational structure and advocacy goals of this social movement. We conclude with a discussion of how this process can be further studied.

Penalty or Payoff? Diversity of Tactics and Resource Mobilization Among Environmental Organizations

“…In this tradition, research on the American environmental movement specifically has found that organizations are actually penalized for adopting a strategy of diversification (Olzak & Johnson, 2019). However, research shows that it is more often the case that movements and organizations experience a payoff as a result of issue diversification (Aldrich, 1979; Carroll, 1985; Edwards & Marullo, 1995; Heaney & Rojas, 2014; Walker & McCarthy, 2010) and this is particularly true for their ability to accumulate resources (Brulle & Benford, 2012; Cornfield & Fletcher., 1998; Johnston, 1980). Our research challenges this trend by showing that issue diversity does not have a significant impact on mobilization outcomes as measured by income, FTE staff, and members.…”

“…Although research on specialization has focused on the implications of diversification or specialization on the life span of a population of organizations, a separate body of work has focused on how issue framing, and frame extension in particular, is related to various mobilization outcomes such as the accumulation of valuable human resources (Benford & Snow, 2000; Brulle & Benford, 2012; Cornfield & Fletcher., 1998; Edwards & McCarthy, 2004; Johnston, 1980; Snow et al, 1986). Frame extension is related to issue foci because it highlights how groups can focus on a narrower set of issues or connect a larger set of issues through meaning making work.…”

“…For example, the American Federation of Labour relied on frame extension—from a narrow issue focus on labor law to a wider focus on “social welfare and the regulation of private-sector employment conditions”—to gain members (Cornfield & Fletcher, 1998, p. 1311). In the environmental movement, Brulle and Benford (2012, p. 79–80) find that the discursive shift from game protection to wildlife management (accompanied by the establishment of wildlife protection laws in the 1930s) prompted the growth of SMOs working within this issue area throughout the 20th century.…”

“…While some contemporary research in the environmental movement sector indicates that organizations are penalized for adopting a generalist strategy (Olzak & Johnson, 2019), most research in the area finds that diversification acts as a benefit (Aldrich, 1979; Carroll, 1985; Edwards & Marullo, 1995; Heaney & Rojas, 2014; Walker & McCarthy, 2010). This is especially true for research that specifically examines the effects of focusing on a diversity of issues on resource mobilization (Brulle & Benford, 2012; Cornfield & Fletcher., 1998; Johnston, 1980). We expect that ENGOs adopting a generalist or diverse portfolio of issues will experience a payoff in mobilizing organizational resources.…”

Emotional framing of NGO press releases: Reformative versus radical NGOs

“…Given the prominence of major international NGOs impacting corporate environmental action, we select the following five cases-Conservation International, Friends of the Earth, Global Witness, Greenpeace andWWF-between 2002 and2017. We adopt the well-established view that actors motivate action by giving sense to their stakeholders through various sentiments, also referred to as emotional framing (Pesqueira et al, 2020;Raffaelli, Glynn, & Tushman, 2019;Reber & Berger, 2005;Reinecke & Ansari, 2016). It is common to study framing shifts in organisational communication of NGOs, including their social media accounts (Ji, Harlow, Cui, & Wang, 2018), news media coverage (Brulle & Benford, 2012) and press releases (Luxon, 2019). We also study 5880 press releases issued by these NGOs and investigate framing shifts concerning 225 of the largest multinational companies (MNCs).…”