Social movements and political outcomes: why both ends fail to meet

The relationships between social movement challenges and political outcomes remain strongly underresearched in the field of social movements. Here, we use the labels “social” and “political” in a broad sense to comprise many types of challenges and many types of outcomes, such as economic and social outcomes for specific movements as well as general policy outcomes. Four theories are crucial for understanding successful mobilization of social movements: relative deprivation, resource mobilization, framing, and the theoretical figure of the opening political opportunity structure. Political outcomes, at least in democratic political systems, are usually the result of a parallelogram of different claims and means of influencing outcomes, in short, of compromises. Here, we list various forms of outcomes, from successful acceptance of movement demands to part-time successes or entire failures, and also the various strategies incumbents have in dealing with social movement challenges. Researchers usually have focused on the individual and structural conditions of the emergence of social movements but less so on the conditions of processing social movement demands and the outcomes for movements themselves, for the electorate and for policy changes. Consequently, there is little research available that would meet the requirements of an adequate research design in view of the numerous factors spelled out here as a theoretical control list. The idea of a response hierarchy of incumbents is suggested as a sort of a dispositional concept for further, more consolidated, research in this area. Also the notion of cycles of various sorts has to be kept in mind in order to avoid misjudging of both, the persistence of social movements over time, and their eventual successes and failures

Preface

(undefined)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

AMFIBIA: A Meta-Model for the Integration of Business Process Modelling Aspects

Today, there are many different formalisms and notations for modelling business processes. Though most of the formalisms have their justification, the plethora of notations makes it hard to compare and to exchange business process models among different tools. AMFIBIA (A Meta-model For the Integration of BusIness process modelling Aspects) sets out to capture the basic aspects of business process models and to define their concepts independently from a particular formalism and notation, and then map different formalisms to these basic concepts. This way, business process models can be compared with each other, and it will be even possible, to integrate and combine different formalisms in a single workflow engine. Currently, we implement a prototype of a workflow engine, which supports the concepts of AMFIBIA. Since the development of AMFIBIA started quite late in the history of workflow management, it might not have strong impact on existing workflow management systems. The concepts of AMFIBIA, however, should be applicable to SOA, were formalism independence is even more important. The talk presents the ideas and concepts of AMFIBIA and intends to trigger a discussion on the aspects of SOA and the aspects and concepts that need to me captured in SOA

Bidirectional Transformations (Bx 2015) Special Section: Editorial

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio