Resource Mobilization

Science communicators sometimes want to draw attention to an issue, change public opinion, or provoke (or simply to understand) social action. Resource mobilization is the idea, borrowed from sociology, that such action can only take place when an individual or group has money, friends, knowledge, or other materials that can be used to make something happen. Society is full of potential resources—economic, social, and cultural—although these are not necessarily evenly distributed. In addition, not everyone has the ability or knowledge to use resources effectively. Resource mobilization provides a theoretical framework for studying how social movements, government agencies, and the mass media are able to create, maintain, and challenge social structures, and it can be a helpful concept for science communicators who want to better understand how some issues turn into major controversies, while others are widely ignored.

Resource mobilization is one aspect of a larger process that needs to take place for an organized action or event to occur, such as putting together a protest to challenge the cutting of an old-growth timber stand or starting a letter-writing campaign against the building of a nuclear power plant. First, there must be a general level of consensus about the situation among the participants. Without this, it is likely that the group will splinter or just fade away and any initial energy for the cause will be lost. Second, participants must be willing to commit time and energy to the situation. Everyone might agree that cutting old-growth timber is a bad idea, but if no one is willing to stand in front of bulldozers in a freezing drizzle, or write letters to the editor of the local newspaper, there is little hope for generating opposition from a larger constituency that could turn the tide.

The third component is the ability to mobilize appropriate resources to provide support for proposed actions. If everyone has agreed to write letters to an editor but no one has the time to follow through, their resources may be useless in this fight. The editor of a publication already on record in support of the project may publish only one representative letter from opponents, if any, and the timber company will think there are no [Page 637]concerns when no one shows up to challenge the cutting. Finally, the group must be able to distance or distinguish itself from other groups. If one group decides to use symbols and strategies that look similar to another, possibly a more recognized national group such as Greenpeace or Audubon, potential allies may believe that their own efforts (including financial help) should be sent to the better-known group, leaving the local group unable to sustain any kind of collective action once its own resources are depleted.

As indicated, there are basically three types of resources in question: economic, social, and cultural. Economic resources are typically thought of in terms of money and wealth. The cliché states that money can buy you love, a politician, and advertisement in the media (the last two seem to be less tenuous than the first). Research on food irradiation, for example, has found that a company that irradiates food may have enough economic resources to gain positive local media attention (for example, a headline that reads “Food Irradiation Company Set to Hire 500 New Employees From the Local Area”), or can threaten to pull advertising dollars from media outlets not supporting it, or can arrange to meet with local reporters to put its best foot forward (for example, creating an event for local reporters to hear a speaker from the Food and Drug Administration addressing the history of irradiation in generally neutral terms). Money can also help buy a good lawyer—or fund a cash settlement—should lawsuits be threatened.

...