Activism Research and Track 1.5 Dialogues: A Forum for Constructing Political Opportunities
By Devo Probol
In a 2001 memo drafted to the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), Charles R. Hale, a political anthropologist, made a case for the importance of engaging in “activist research.” A participant in the SSRC’s Global Security Cooperation (GSC) program, the memo emphasized the importance of social science researchers' active involvement in the conduct, interpretation, and use of the research conducted on particular groups or organizations as a means to ensure that the impact was most beneficial for the social actors being studied, while simultaneously guaranteeing the highest standards of research were being adhered to while doing so (Hale, 2017). In his memo, Hale offers three propositions as to why conducting activist research is necessary:
“First, there is no necessary contradiction between active political commitment to resolving a problem, and rigorous scholarly research on that problem. The second proposition is that activist research has the potential to lead to better research outcomes: deeper and more thorough empirical knowledge of the problem at hand, as well as theoretical understanding that otherwise would be difficult to achieve. Inevitably activist research projects come with their share of tensions, contradictions and ethical dilemmas. A third, ancillary, proposition is that the research outcome is improved when such tensions are identified and confronted directly” (Ibid.)
To further his argument, Hale advocates for activist research by suggesting that conducting activist research affords social science researchers the ability to determine the root causes of various issues that plague our society, such as oppression, inequality, and violence, while also allowing researchers to conduct research in tandem with collectives of people who are subjected to these conditions. In addition, he also articulates the benefits of activist research in that it enables researchers to assist activists in developing effective strategies and tactics that have tremendous potential for bringing about desperately needed change within our society (Ibid). Put simply, Hale notes that to be engaged in activism research means conducting research as activism as well as research on activism.
Other scholars have made similar claims about activism research while also taking into consideration the ethics and consequences of engaging in such research. For instance, Kende (2016) argues that although there are a variety of practical implications and possible applications for activism research, designing and conducting research in this area should be carried out in both a thorough and responsible manner, as research findings have the potential to be used by activists to bolster the effectiveness of their strategies and tactics, and conversely, can be leveraged by those who wish to co-opt, minimize, or suppress the collective action or connective action of activists (see Bennett and Segerberg, 2012; Olson, 1965). As such, activist researchers must seriously consider the number of ways in which various stakeholders could utilize their research findings for better or worse. For social scientists, this is a recurring ethical consideration for all our research endeavors. Nevertheless, this should not hinder our engagement with those in positions of power best situated and willing to implement change. Now more than ever, track 1.5 dialogues like the Milton Wolf Seminar are critical to seeing through the activist researchers’ agenda in that they create an aperture where political opportunities can take place.
With these considerations in mind, I argue that there are three primary reasons track 1.5 dialogues, such as the Milton Wolf Seminar, which brings together academics, government officials, and others from various sectors making up the whole of society, serves as an effective forum for engaging in activism research. First, the norms and rules governing these dialogues offer a space where controversial topics can be discussed openly without fear of retribution due to constraints on attribution, which may lead to increased consciousness-raising around social movements amongst elites from across the whole of society (WOS). Second, track 1.5 dialogues offer an opportunity for scholars to advocate on behalf of social movements and persuade practitioners in positions of power toward mobilizing their resources in a way that aligns with social movement goals, creating potential political opportunities in specific contexts. Lastly, the conversations between scholars and practitioners at track 1.5 dialogues may also lead to additional discoveries that further the field of inquiry, which only helps advance scholars’ activism research endeavors.
According to the U.S. Institute of Peace, there are a multitude of forms or tracks in which diplomacy can take place. For example, while track 1 diplomacy refers to traditional diplomacy in that government officials come together to negotiate official agreements between entities, a track 1.5 dialogue is a type of multi-track diplomacy that brings together both government and nongovernment officials in an unofficial capacity to discuss solutions to some of the world’s most significant challenges (Staats et al., 2021). In this respect, the Milton Wolf Seminar is a track 1.5 dialogue that convenes each year at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, bringing together academics, researchers, legal experts, technologists, diplomats, citizen activists, regulators, and journalists from across the globe to discuss issues related to the seminar’s yearly theme. Taking place over three consecutive days, the Milton Wolf Seminar allows subject matter experts to come together to deliberate how the dynamic relationship between media and diplomacy continues to shape our world, even as new challenges emerge.
This year, the 2023 Milton Wolf Seminar theme was “Media at the Abyss: War, Deglobalization, and the Diplomatic Response.” Some questions were provided beforehand to help situate and frame our discussions, including: “What is the shape and form of journalism and information in a de-globalizing world? What sort of regulatory models for media and platforms should be pursued? Are there any local, national, or global interventions that suggest new pathways forward? What are the implications of these trends for transnational activism and social justice movements?” Although an array of topics were discussed during each session, what became apparent was that each panel was engaged in activism research either consciously or unconsciously aware. In many cases, the activism research presented constituted a form of everyday activism as well.
Jane Mansbridge (2022), in her entry in the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, defines everyday activism as such: “Everyday activism is talk and action in everyday life that is not consciously coordinated with the actions of others but is (i) to some degree caused (inspired, encouraged) by a social movement and (ii) consciously intended to change others' ideas or behavior in directions advocated by the movement.” While the Milton Wolf Seminar participants may not have deliberately coordinated their actions with others, much of the research and information presented by panelists suggest that various social movements had influenced them. Moreover, many participants openly advocated or supported the ideas or goals of the social justice movements as a central takeaway of their research endeavors. For instance, while sessions such as “Resistance, Response, and Revolution: Global Movements for a World on the Edge” offers an obvious example of activism research at play during the seminar based on the title alone, other sessions, such as “Global Trends, Local Realities: Case Studies,” included several panelists who provided firsthand accounts of their lived experience as both journalists and as strategic communication professionals reporting and messaging stakeholders regarding the war in Ukraine to advocate on behalf of others experiencing these hardships. Whether presenting on topics related to the numerous methods and means by which governments lodge and propel disinformation campaigns to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty or examining the ineffectiveness of state-funded troll farms in deterring activists and protestors in Iran, these track 1.5 dialogues offer a place where activism research can burgeon, as well as provide an opportunity for scholars to engage in everyday activism.
As noted above, one of the primary reasons track 1.5 dialogues like the Milton Wolf Seminar as a forum affords researchers and practitioners alike to engage in activism research as a form of everyday activism is due to constraints related to attribution. Participants operated according to Aspen Rules for the 2023 Milton Wolf Seminar, meaning that participants could not be quoted without obtaining explicit permission. In other track 1.5 dialogues, Chatham House Rules is also commonly used. For participants in track 1.5 dialogues, restrictions on attribution promote feelings of trust and efficacy, creating an environment of psychological safety in which participants are more likely to be forthcoming and honest regarding sensitive topics as they are less fearful of retribution (Edmondson, 1999). As such, these environments are conducive to activist research as a form of everyday activism in that participants are more inclined to engage with these ideas more fully due to the environment of psychological safety constructed within these forums.
The second reason track 1.5 dialogues, such as the Milton Wolf Seminar, are essential forums for engaging in activism research as everyday activism is because it allows activist researchers a space to make a compelling case to practitioners in positions of power to align resources in a way that’s favorable to the movement's cause. For example, elites, including numerous government officials and regulators, partake in these dialogues, meaning that activist researchers have the opening to interact and advocate on behalf of the social movements which they research. By doing this, activist researchers can persuade elites toward social movement interests, creating potential political opportunities, or vulnerabilities, for activist researchers to seize on to help usher in social change (Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996). According to McAdam (1999), there are four phases of the political opportunity structure: an increase in political pluralism within the society, a decline in repression by those in power, the splitting or division of elites on topics related to organized opposition, and finally, an increase in political enfranchisement. Track 1.5 dialogues foster the chance for activist researchers to create divisions amongst powerful elites in favor of the social movements in which they research. Ideally, activist researchers would persuade these elites toward their political alignments and encourage them to take the necessary action to synchronize their operations, activities, and investments in ways that support the social movement’s goals.
The third reason that track 1.5 dialogues are vital forums for furthering activism research as everyday activism is that they create a forum where activist researchers can come together to explore their ideas with other activist scholars and practitioners alike, who may have alternative views of the groups or movements being researched. In partaking in these discussions, activist researchers can iterate on their ideas and theories, strengthening them in ways that are not possible if conducting activist research in isolation. Moreover, activist researchers are able to gather insights from practitioners who are experts in applied settings, which serves to help further the field of research, presenting new opportunities for activist researchers to explore. Essentially, participating in these forums is multi-beneficial in that it increases the reach of activism research while concurrently expanding the field of research altogether.
Although there are many benefits to participating in track 1.5 dialogues as an activist researcher, particularly the Milton Wolf Seminar, it does not come without risks. Apprehension around engagement with elites for fear that activism research findings will be leveraged against the social movements that are the focus of our research is a valid concern. According to Meyer and Staggenborg (1996), elites as allies to both movements and countermovements are essential to the effectiveness and longevity of movements. However, if elites use their resources to rally against movement goals due to the challenge they pose to elite interests, activist research findings could be used to mollify or suppress movements by implementing negative framing efforts or by co-opting the messaging of activists. Consequently, activist researchers must mitigate and hedge the risks associated with participating in track 1.5 dialogues by protecting their research participants’ identities, concealing sensitive methods and means by which activists engage in their repertoires of contention, and most importantly, acquiring explicit consent from the groups they research to ensure that they are advocating for research participants needs and wants in an informed way that they are comfortable. By doing so, activist researchers make certain that they are not only engaged in ethical research but are also conscientiously aligned with the activist groups themselves in their role as an advocate.
Despite these real concerns, activist researchers must continue to partake in track 1.5 dialogues like the Milton Wolf Seminar, as engagement across the whole of society is essential to achieving change. Given that these track 1.5 dialogues have rules protecting participant privacy due to constraining attribution, conversations in these forums tend to be more forthcoming and honest due to the increased psychological safety participants are afforded. Additionally, scholars of activism research are provided a platform in which they have the potential to persuade elites from across the whole of society towards a favorable position of social movements, perhaps even constructing political opportunities - where elites have the ability to align their resources with that of the movement in question. Finally, participation in track 1.5 dialogues, like the Milton Wolf Seminar, also allow activist researchers to improve and strengthen their research, opening up new avenues of research related to activism to explore. As long as activist researchers thoughtfully and conscientiously protect the groups they are researching by mitigating the risks of presenting their research findings in these forums (i.e., via informed consent around where the findings will be presented, protecting research participant’s identities and the means and methods they use as part of their repertoires of contention), track 1.5 dialogues can serve as a place where activism research as everyday activism for scholars can flourish.
References
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Hale, C. R. (2017, December 5). What is Activist Research? Items: Insights from the Social Sciences.
Kende, A. (2016). Separating Social Science Research on Activism from Social Science as Activism. Journal of Social Issues, 72: 399-412.
McAdam, D. (1999). Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930-1970. University of Chicago Press.
Meyer, D. S., & Staggenborg, S. (1996). Movements, Countermovements, and the Structure of Political Opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 101(6), 1628–1660.
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press.
Staats, J., Walsh, J., & Tucci, R. (2021, June 16). A Primer on multi-track diplomacy: How does it work? United States Institute of Peace.