Constructionism and Social Movement Research:

Mutual Inspirations and the Potential for Integration

Abstract

By limiting comparisons to collective actions, we can perceive the following types of methodological differences between an explanatory approach (mobilization theory) and an interpretative approach (action theory).

The explanatory approach is an approach aimed at the construction of a comprehensive explanatory model for cause-and-effect mechanisms relating to the generation, development, and cessation of collective actions that are identified as social movements. An interpretative approach is an approach that aims to evaluate interpretatively the significance of certain social phenomena based on hierarchical macro-social and historical theories related to social movements.

Constructionism has influenced the explanatory theory (resource mobilization theory) and constructed the framing theory and the characteristics-analysis of collective action. It also has influenced interpretative theory (historical action theory), degraded the evaluation level and situated the action logic to be used by individuals to organize their action and experience.

Conversely, resource mobilization theory has redefined constructionism methodologically. Moreover, moderate sociological constructionism could relativize strategic constructionism and multiply constructionism. Lastly, this article examines the possibility that social movement research can include constructionism.