Skip to main content
Log in

Progressive Polemics: Reflections on Four Stimulating Commentaries

  • Symposium on McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly's "Measuring Mechanisms of Contention"
  • Published:
Qualitative Sociology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Blau, P. M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, P. (1971). Patterns of discovery in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earl, J. (2000). Methods, movements, and outcomes: Methodological difficulties in the study of extra-movement outcomes. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts, and Change, 22, 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falleti, T., & Lynch, J. (2007). Causal mechanisms and context in comparative historical analysis. Unpublished paper presented to the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.

  • Falleti, T., & Lynch, J. (2008). From process to mechanism: Varieties of disaggregation. Qualitative Sociology, 31, 4. DOI 10.1007/s11133-008-9102-4.

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichbach, M. I. (1997). Contentious maps of contentious politics. Mobilization, 2, 87–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichbach, M. I. (2005). How to organize your mechanisms: Research programs, stylized facts, and historical narratives. In C. Davenport, H. Johnston, & C. Mueller (Eds.), Repression and mobilization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichterman, P. (2005). Elusive togetherness: Church groups trying to bridge America’s divisions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margadant, D. (1979). French peasants in revolt: The insurrection of 1851. Princeton NY: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, D. (1983). Tactical innovation and the pace of insurgency. American Sociological Review, 48, 735–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. S., & Staggenborg, S. (1996). Movement–countermovement interaction and the structure of political opportunities. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1628–1660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64, 1033–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D., & Anderson, L. (1991). Researching the homeless: The characteristic features and virtues of the case study. In J. R. Feagin, et al. (Ed.), A case for the case study. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2007). Contentious politics and social movements. In C. Boix & S. Stokes (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative politics. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doug McAdam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McAdam, D., Tilly, C. & Tarrow, S. Progressive Polemics: Reflections on Four Stimulating Commentaries. Qual Sociol 31, 361–367 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-008-9103-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-008-9103-3

Keywords

Navigation