Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information and Organization

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/infoandorg

Digital organizing of a global social movement: From connective

to collective action
Carmen Leong a, *, Isam Faik b, Felix T.C. Tan a, Barney Tan c, Ying Hooi Khoo d
a
University of New South Wales, UNSW Business School, School of Information System and Technology Management, Kensington, NSW 2052
Sydney, Australia
b
Ivey Business School, Western University, 1255 Western Rd, London, ON N6G 0N1, Canada
c
The University of Sydney, The University of Sydney Business School, Rm4074 Abercrombie Building (H70), NSW 2006, Australia
d
Department of International and Strategic Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Social media are increasingly credited with the emergence and rapid scaling of social movements.
Social movements Consequently, many studies have explored the role of social media and other forms of Information
Social media and Communication Technology in enabling collective action beyond formal organizations. The
Connective action
focus in these studies has been on connective actions that emerge from the individualized but
Collective action
interdependent uses of social media in the pursuit of a movement’s objectives. However, few
Enabling and constraining roles of technology
Digital activism studies have examined how social movements go beyond connective actions to build organizing
Case study capacity that can support effective and sustainable mobilization. Understanding the mechanisms
underlying the shift from connective action to a more organized, concerted form of action is
particularly important in the light of significant differences in lifespan and outcomes among social
media-enabled movements. To advance our conceptualization of these mechanisms, we studied
the case of Bersih movement, a transnational coalition and social media-enabled social movement
that pushed for clean and fair elections in Malaysia. The case highlights two types of emergence,
clustering and structuring emergence, that enabled the movement to evolve across three different
phases: dispersed individuals, dispersed groups, and networked group. Our analysis of the case
reveals that each of these two types of emergence exhibits different dynamics between the
environmental, cognitive, and relational mechanisms that underlie the evolution of social
movements. Our findings also present both the enabling and constraining roles of social media in
clustering and structuring emergence.

1. Introduction

Recent years have seen the rise of a large number of social media-driven social movements (Bennett, Segerberg, & Walker, 2014;
Shirazi, 2013; Valenzuela, 2013). Some of the most publicized examples include the anti-austerity movement in Spain known as the
Indignados, the anti-authoritarianism uprisings that swept through the Arab world and became known as the Arab Spring, and the
Occupy Wall Street movement that emerged in the wake of financial crisis to protest rising economic inequality. Social media are
Internet-based technologies that allow users to create, circulate, share and exchange information in a variety of formats and with

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Leong), [email protected] (I. Faik), [email protected] (F.T.C. Tan), [email protected]
(B. Tan), [email protected] (Y.H. Khoo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2020.100324
Received 10 August 2019; Accepted 8 November 2020
Available online 28 November 2020
1471-7727/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 C. Leong et al.
Table 1
Mechanisms on the Emergence of Social Movement.
Theoretical Key Arguments and Concepts Examples Main Emergence Mechanisms
Perspectives

Relative Social psychological factors that drive individuals to act (irrationally) Davies (1970); Gurr (1970); Rose Preconditioning Cognitive
deprivation include shared sense of grievance, inequality, and deprivation ( (1982) Changes to the psychological and emotional states of individuals Mechanisms
theory Hannigan, 1985). Social movement participants are seen as lead to a felt imperative for action.
irrational, and therefore, collective action tends to be spontaneous
and lacks organization (Soon & Cho, 2014).
Rational choice Participation of individuals in social movements is a result of rational Becker (1976); Lewin (1988) Cost-benefit-analysis
theory analysis of costs, risks and benefits (Olson, 1965). Shifts in the perceived possibilities for change (i.e., in the
weighting of costs and benefits) shape individuals’ decision to
participate in a movement.
Collective action Social movement leaders and adherents assign meaning to and Benford and Snow (2000); Yetgin, Identification with an ideology or purpose
frames interpret events and conditions in ways that are intended to mobilize Young, and Miranda (2012) Changes to individual’s perception of interests, identities and
potential adherents and constituents so as to garner bystander possibilities for change are altered, leading to an identification
support and demobilize antagonists (Snow & Benford, 1988 p. 198). with the movement cause and ideology and, henceforth,
The resultant products of this framing activity are referred to as participation in the movement.
frames, or collective action frames, i.e., the “specific metaphors,
symbolic representations, and cognitive cues used to render or cast
behavior and events in an evaluative mode and to suggest alternative
modes of action” (Zald, 1996 p. 262).
Collective Social movement participants motivate, intensify and sustain their Hunt, Benford, and Snow (1994); Identification with others Relational
identity individual involvement by associating with other actors in the Jasper and Polletta (2001) The essence of collective identity is a “shared sense of one-ness or Mechanisms
2

movement (Diani, 2012). we-ness among those individuals who compose the collectivity” (
Snow & McAdam, 2000 p. 42).
Social network The connection and ties between participants are critical for the Anduiza, Cristancho, and Networking
diffusion of information, individual recruitment, and coalition Sabucedo (2013); Bennett and In which network is altered or cultivated to obtain critical
building (Diani & McAdam, 2003). Segerberg (2012); Soon and Cho resources or new organizational models, enabling participants to
Social network constitutes a form of mobilizing structures, or (2014) cause change.
collective vehicles, informal as well as formal, through which
individuals organize and engage in collective action (McAdam,
McCarthy, & Zald, 1996).
Resource The rise of a social movement is shaped by the acquisition and Klandermans (1984), Fuchs Resource Acquisition Environmental
mobilization aggregation of resources. The importance of “outside” resources, (2006) In which outside resources that can affect the participants’ Mechanisms
theory including both societal support and constraint of social movement, is capacities to engage in and organize a change is altered, triggering

Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

emphasized. In addition to emotions and feelings, this approach or growing a movement.
stresses the significance of organizational bases, resource
accumulation, and collective coordination (McCarthy & Zald, 1977;
Tilly, 1978).
Political Process The rise of a social movement is dependent on the broader political McAdam et al. (1996) External conditioning
systems that structure opportunities for collective action. Changes in In which external factors (e.g., political opportunity structures)
political opportunity structures or institutional structure and/or that can affect the participants’ capacities to engage in a change is
informal relations of a political system and movement mobilization altered, triggering or growing a movement.
can constrain the range of options available to movements, as well as
trigger movement activity in the first place (McAdam et al., 1996 p.
3).
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

multiple individuals/communities (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Leonardi & Vaast, 2017). They significantly lowered the cost of
communication and coordination and have consequently instigated fundamental shifts in the formation of social movements (Castells,
2013; Shirky, 2008). By linking individuals to vast networks of users, social media allow ordinary people with little financial or
organizing capacity to mobilize and influence the evolution of movements (Cardoso, Boudreau, & Carvalho, 2013; Kane, Alavi,
Labianca, & Borgatti, 2014; van Laer & van Aelst, 2010).
These fundamental changes reflect a new logic of collective action that differs from traditional formation of social movements,
which is typically led by social movement organizations (SMO) such as NGOs and political parties. Bennett and Segerberg (2012) refer
to this new logic as the logic of connective action. In addition, this logic as characterized by “far more individualized and techno­
logically organized sets of processes that result in action without the requirement of collective identity framing or the levels of
organizational resources required to respond effectively to opportunities” (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012 p. 750). It builds on the renewed
abilities of empowered individuals to co-produce and co-distribute content, coordinate through individualized yet connected con­
tributions, and leverage a new and growing action repertoire enabled by social media (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012). Studies have
increasingly examined the logic of connective action as the basis of a new form of collective engagement (e.g., Rane & Salem, 2012;
Selander & Jarvenpaa, 2016; Vaast, Safadi, Lapointe, & Negoita, 2017).
In particular, when explaining the capacity of social movements for sustained mobilization, studies of collective action have largely
focused on the ability of SMOs to mobilize resources in their environment (Cardoso et al., 2013; Klandermans & Roggeband, 2010;
McCarthy & Zald, 1977). We consequently have limited understanding of how social movements that are not centrally led by an SMO
develop the organizational capacity for sustainable and effective mobilization. In particular, the rapid scaling of social media-enabled
movements limits their ability to build an infrastructure for collective decision-making and makes them more susceptible to “tactical
freezes” when the movement starts to garner public attention (Tufekci, 2017). In addition, the connective affordances (Vaast et al.,
2017) of social media are often transitory affordances (Selander & Jarvenpaa, 2016) that lack the capacity for sustained and effective
organizing. Despite the increasing interest in social media-enabled social movements, the literature offers little development in un­
derstanding how the emerging connective action of these movements develop into more organized and stabilized collective action.
Understanding the mechanisms underlying this shift is critical for our ability to analyze why and when some social media-based
movements succeed in maintaining their momentum and achieving their objectives, while others fail to sustain their mobilizing ca­
pacity and quickly dissipate.
Therefore, in this study, we examine the following research question: How does the connective action of social media-based
movements develop into a more organized, concerted form of collective action? For this, we investigated an in-depth case study of
the Bersih movement, a transnational social movement in support of clean and fair elections in Malaysia. We analyze the enabling and
constraining effects of social media use on grassroots organizing and theorize the emergence of the Bersih movement as it grew from its
initiation on social media platforms to reach a global scale of coordinated activities. Our analysis of the case highlights three distinct
phases in the emergence of digitally-enabled social movements as they arise from dispersed individuals into a collection of dispersed
groups and subsequently into a networked group. The transitions between these phases reflect different types of emergence. The first
transition reflects a clustering emergence as dispersed individuals coalesce into various dispersed groups. This type of emergence is based
on a logic of connective action where movement activities are more individualized with limited need for collective identity or sub­
stantial organizing resources. The second transition reflects a structuring emergence through which a core group emerges to drive the
networked group and acts as an obligatory passage point for the coordination of the movement’s activities, thus, reflecting a logic of
organized collective action.
To support our theoretical development, we present an overview of the literature on social movements and the enabling and
constraining effects of social media in the next section. We then provide details on the research method followed by the case findings
and analysis. A discussion of the findings is then presented along with a process model depicting the evolution of social movements
across three phases. We conclude by highlighting theoretical and practical implications of this study.

2. Literature review

2.1. Mechanisms of emergence for social movements

Social movements are a supra-organizational form of collective action geared towards inducing social change (Yuce, Agarwal,
Wigand, Lim, & Robinson, 2014). They often arise in conditions of social, economic, or political strife and involve groups of loosely
organized actors protesting the legitimacy, authority, and actions of powerful actors in society, such as governments and large cor­
porations (Diani, 2012; Jenkins & Perrow, 1977; Roberts, 1998). Despite their differences from formal organizations, social move­
ments exhibit a certain degree of organizational continuity that allows the mobilization of resources and the persistence of actions that
aim to change deep-seated social orders and power structures (Snow, Soule, & Kriesi, 2004).
Since the 1970s, different collective action theories have been proposed to explain various dimensions of the emergence of social
movements, including pre-conditions or triggers of collective action, motivations of participation, and resources for mobilization. Each
of these theories offers a different focus with regards to the mechanisms underlying the emergence of collective action. Table 1
provides a summary of major social movement theories, describing their key arguments and concepts, and specifying the mechanisms
they emphasize in understanding the emergence of collective action.
As indicated in the last column of Table 1, the various mechanisms proposed by the different theories can be categorized into
cognitive, relational, and environmental mechanisms (McAdam et al. (2001 p. 25). Cognitive mechanisms relate to the processes that
affect the individual and collective perceptions of potential movement participants and influence their attitude towards the events and

3
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

the movement, as well as their intention to join the activities of the movement. Relational mechanisms represent changes to the
processes and scale of connections between individuals and groups. These connections are defined by the formal and informal net­
works that allow movement participants to coordinate their actions and mobilize resources. Environmental mechanisms reflect
changes imposed by external forces such as political and socio-economic forces on conditions that set the stage for a movement to start
and grow.
Cognitive mechanisms have been associated with perceptions of injustice (Davies, 1970; Rose, 1982), as well as with changes in the
perception of costs and benefits of participation. Many studies on cognitive mechanisms have focused on the collective frames
advanced by SMOs for interpreting the issues at hand and the adoption of those frames by movement participants (Benford & Snow,
2000). Campbell, 2005 identified four types of cognitive mechanisms, including framing, diffusion, translation, and bricolage. In this
typology, framing refers to the symbolic activities that shape the perception of issues and link problems to solutions. Diffusion is the
process through which ideas and practices spread through a given network and generate perceptions of new possibilities or imperatives
for action. Translation refers to the changes that diffused ideas and practices undergo across contexts. Finally, bricolage points to the
process through which ideas and practices that are translated from different contexts create new hybrids and generate new forms of
social action. Relational mechanisms have been linked to network building activities of movement participants. A key approach to
building these networks is the construction of collective identity among participants in a movement (Jasper & Polletta, 2001).
Environmental mechanisms have been associated with the political opportunity structures that shape the possibilities of action and
capacities of the protest group (Campbell (2005). For example, sharp increases in inequality, the death of a dictator, or a call for
elections can create opportunities for political action and for the mobilization of bystanders to join a movement. In addition to changes
in political opportunity, the availability of new resources that movement participants can draw from their environment can constitute
a significant environmental mechanism for the growth of the movement (Fuchs, 2006).
McAdam et al. (2001) argued that a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of social movements requires consideration of
these various types of mechanisms and how they relate to each other. They suggested that “any adequate theory of contention will have
to integrate environmental, cognitive, and relational mechanisms” (p. 344). Therefore, developing a broad conceptualization of the
shift from connective to collective action requires consideration of how multiple types of mechanisms interrelate in social media-
enabled social movements. Some strands of social movement studies offer examples of integrating different types of mechanisms,
such as the studies on movement leadership which link attention to political opportunities (an environmental mechanism) with the
development of mobilizing structures through social networks (a relational mechanism) and framing process (a cognitive mechanism)
(Ganz, 2000; Morris, 2000). Consideration of multiple types of mechanisms is particularly important for social media social move­
ments since their growth is linked to the formation of large networks of social media users (a relational mechanism). This enhances the
visibility of political opportunities through news and information sharing (an environmental mechanism) and reduces the perceived
cost of participation (a cognitive mechanism) (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012).

2.2. Role of social media in enabling and constraining collective action

Social media platforms are built on user-generated content to connect individuals and communities (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010;
Obar & Wildman, 2015). They include platforms for social networking, text messaging, sharing photos, podcasts, streaming videos,
wikis, blogs and discussion groups (Hanna, Rohm, & Crittenden, 2011). These various types of social media generate multiple ways of
interacting that support the construction of new relationships and communities (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011).
Various studies have highlighted the role of social media in shaping and altering established modes of collective action (Linders, 2012)
through advocacy (Obar, Zube, & Lampe, 2012) and collective activism (Eltantawy & Wiest, 2011; Tufekci & Wilson, 2012).
However, social media have both enabling and constraining effects on collective action. While the use of social media platforms
lowers the cost of participation in social movements, it also enhances complacency and weakens the level of commitment, leading to
what has been termed “slacktivism” among online participants (Gladwell, 2010). In this regard, the literature presents contradictory
findings on the effect of social media on the longevity of connections. Some argue that social media use leads to ephemeral relations
that lack longevity (Juris, 2005), while others have noted that the low cost of network building on social media can help maintain
relations among dispersed groups, such as diasporas, and support the longevity of their relations collective identity (Sobré-Denton,
2016).
Only a limited number of studies have combined both the enabling and constraining roles and effects of social media use in their
analysis of collective action (Miranda, Young, & Yetgin, 2016; Oh, Agrawal, & Rao, 2013). For example, in a two-year study of
Amnesty International’s digital activism, Selander and Jarvenpaa (2016) highlighted the role played by social media in both chal­
lenging and maintaining the values of the movement as supporters gained greater influence on the direction of the movement. Other
studies examined the contradictory effects of social media on collective action in the context of crises-instigated movements. For
example, Oh et al. (2013) focused on information processing by citizens during social crises and highlighted the dual effect of social
media as both a source of collective intelligence for the community and a rumor mill. Similarly, Miranda et al. (2016) found that social
media can have both emancipatory and hegemonic effects, as they alleviate structural constraints to participation and also limit
people’s exposure to content that reinforces their preexisting beliefs.
To understand the effects of social media on social movements, Bennett and Segerberg (2012) had argued for the need to go beyond
the logic of collective action, which is associated with mobilizing organizational resources and collective identities, to a logic of connective
action that can better reflect the dynamics underpinning emergent action coordinated over social media platforms. Specifically,
connective action represents a new form of engagement whereby diverse individuals develop interdependent roles as they adopt
different features in their use of social media (Vaast et al., 2017). The two logics represent different perspectives with regards to the

4
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

role of social media in social movements. While the logic of collective action focuses on networks and connections as outcomes of social
movement mobilization, the logic of connective action focuses on networks as the basis for the emergence of social movements
(Bennett & Segerberg, 2012).
While existing studies had begun to examine the connective actions enabled by social media (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012; Lim,
2013; Vaast et al., 2017), little attention has been paid to the process through which connective action develops into a more organized,
concerted form of collective action. In this study, we build on a case study of a digitally-enabled global social movement to analyze this
process and the role of various emergence mechanisms in its unfolding.

3. Methodology

To investigate the mechanisms through which the connective action of social media-enabled social movements evolves into
structured collective action, we draw on a qualitative case study (Pan & Tan, 2011; Walsham, 1995) of the Bersih movement in
Malaysia. The use of a case study approach fits the emergent nature of social movement organizing, which involves multiple actors,
dynamic interactions, diverse forms of action, and multiple levels of engagement (Koch & Schultze, 2011). Given the exploratory

Table 2
Data collection and role of theory.
Data Collection

Primary Data Collection: Identifying suitable interviewees

Semi-structured In order to ensure a diversity of perspectives in our analysis, we identified a diverse set of community groups for our interviews,
Interviews including ordinary citizens, students, academics, working professionals, administrators of Facebook groups, and active members of
relatively more organized groups of Bersih 2.0 and Global Bersih. Appendix A summarizes the interviewees.
The identification of interviewees was based on:

1) News reports that suggested some individuals as influential within the movement
2) List of contacts provided by Global Bersih group, which maintained a list of overseas city coordinators
3) Searchable Facebook groups/pages that led to the administrators, especially those residing overseas
4) Personal social network of some of the authors, which led to various participants in the movement, both local and
overseas.
The “snowballing” approach (Patton, 1990) was used to expand the range of our interviews
Designing the interviews
Through analysis of a wide range of secondary data, the authors gained some familiarity with the case and its context before the
interviews.
Each interview began with broad and generic questions and progressed to questions specific to our theoretical lens. The replies
elicited through generic questions (see Appendix B) posed to all interviewees allowed us to deepen our understanding of the
historical and sociopolitical context of the case.
We adopted an iterative approach to design the interviews. Whenever new themes emerged, new interview questions were
formulated to elicit further information that could explain, deny, refine, or enrich the arguments or modify the theoretical lens. In
addition, new questions were devised based on the findings from previous interviews.
Conducting the interviews
We adopted a specialized role strategy (Dubé & Paré, 2003)–while the interviews were conducted by at least two interviewers in
order to pick up points missed by one interviewee, others made analytical notes to ensure the interviewees were not overwhelmed.
Depending on the preference of interviewees, the interviews were conducted in either Chinese or English.
Given the risks associated with the activism of the interviewees at the time of the study, they were assured of the academic nature of
the study in order to help allay any fears they might have (Myers & Newman, 2007).
We tried as much as possible to use the interviewees’ own terms when asking a question, clarification or for further elaboration.
Academic terms were only used when we believed the interviews to share a similar understanding of the concepts.
Various representations of data
All of the interviews were recorded and transcribed (and translated if the interviews were conducted in Chinese).
The data collected amounted to approximately 212 pages of transcripts, field notes, and secondary data.
Primary Data Collection: Two authors and a research assistant scanned Facebook and YouTube for relevant pages, groups and videos. Search terms like
Social Media “Bersih,” “Bersih+Malaysia,” “Bersih movement” were used. A list of Facebook groups available on the Global Bersih Facebook page
was also provided by an interviewee.
The data obtained from social media sites helped us access statements and conversations that would otherwise be ephemeral (
Quarantelli, 2002 p. 107). Appendix C lists our sources of social media data.
Secondary Data Collection: The authors and a research assistant also looked up for relevant articles in news, reports, journals, books and magazines. Similar
Archival data search terms were used including Bersih,” “Bersih+Malaysia,” “Bersih movement.” Relevant articles from 2007 (the first Bersih
rally) to July 2016 were added to our data corpus for analysis and were used in preparing for interviews.
Appendix D lists our sources of archival and secondary data.

Role of Theoretical Lens

Roles of Theoretical Lens Role 1: The theoretical lens served as an initial guide for the design of the study and data collection (Walsham, 1995)
Our attention to the emergence mechanisms and the enabling and constraining effects of social media shaped the design of our
interview questions and our analysis of the data. This theoretical angle opened up the possibility of considering the unintended
consequences of technology application in social context.
Role 2: The theoretical lens was part of an iterative process of data collection and analysis (Walsham, 1995)
The theoretical lens offered us an “anchor point” that helped us collect and make sense of the data, but our understanding of the
theory, such as the enabling and constraining effects of social media, evolved with the analysis.

5
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

nature of our study, we adopted an interpretive approach to our data collection and analysis (Klein & Myers, 1999; Walsham, 1995).
The three mechanisms of social movement (cognitive, relational, and environmental mechanisms), as well as the dual effect of social
media, formed our theoretical lens. This theoretical lens served as a “sensitizing device” (Klein & Myers, 1999 p. 75) that allowed us to
analyze the data with certain expectations based on prior knowledge while remaining open to new and unexpected findings that can
alter our understanding (Walsham, 1995).
Malaysia’s Bersih movement on electoral reform was chosen as a revelatory case (Mason, 2002) in relation to our phenomenon of
interest for several reasons. First, emergent organizing facilitated by social media was evident through community-driven grassroots
groups. The movement saw the rise of more than 70 self-organizing communities on Facebook including about 40 groups/community
pages that were created by the Malaysian diaspora in more than 90 cities globally. Second, social media played a formative role in the
emergence of organizing capacity in the movement. Social media was used not only to invigorate the offline movement but also to
organize creative online engagement and garner resources (e.g., online fundraising campaigns). Third, the movement achieved
tangible results on the ground, culminating in the surprising defeat in the May 2018 elections of the party that ruled the country since
independence.

3.1. Data collection

We collected primary data from semi-structured interviews and social media logs, and secondary data from news, reports, books,
and magazines on the Bersih movement. We first gathered secondary data (2015 Oct to 2016 Feb) in order to build a broad under­
standing of the movement, which later informed the research design and interviews. Later (2016 Mar-Aug, after Bersih 4.0 rally), we
conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with different types of participants in the movement. Each session was recorded and averaged
approximately 70 mins in duration. Also, data from social media including Facebook and YouTube were reviewed (during 2016 Apr-
Sep) to generate a contextual understanding of what transpired as the Bersih movement unfolded. The various sources of data collected
enabled us to examine multiple first-order interpretations of the same event in the life of the movement and, thus, enhanced the quality
of our second-order interpretations. Table 2 summarizes our approach to data collection.

3.2. Data analysis

First, data analysis began with data organization and categorization in tandem with data collection (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pan & Tan,
2011). By going through and organizing the archival documents, we developed an overall understanding of the movement, including
the sociopolitical context in which it emerged, the history of its initiation and evolution, and the level of social media use across its
different stages. This helped the authors to immerse themselves in the context of the study and derive questions directly relevant to the
research question. We then used interview data to generate narratives (Langley, 1999) related to the diverse uses of social media by the
various movement participants. As we went through this text of narratives (Pentland, 1999), we paid attention to activities and
community involvement that emerged from individual and group’s use of social media and from a more organized use of the tech­
nology. In preparation of the main corpus of data for subsequent analysis to identify the mechanisms, we highlighted narratives of
events, actions and interactions with a particular focus on verbs describing actions that produced changes from the initial conditions to
the observed outcomes (Avgerou, 2013).
Second, the analysis involved open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We considered the distinctive features of social media, how
they were used in the movement by local and overseas communities, how individuals/groups leverage social media to participate, and
the resultant outcomes. From the text of narratives or descriptive surface structures, stories were created to describe our interpretation
of how movement participants were continuously engaged. Simultaneously, tentative concepts were developed to represent the
processes. We believe that a clean theoretical slate is impossible (Eisenhardt, 1989), and that familiarity with theories can enhance the
researcher’s “sensitivity towards subtle nuances in data” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998 p. 49). Hence, the conception of social movement
mechanisms (i.e., cognitive, relational and environmental) and the enabling and constraining effects of social media were applied as an
analytical filter in our empirical investigation to derive the tentative concepts that illustrate the social movement organizing
(Appendix E shows an example of coding).
Third, we conducted further abstraction and axial coding. The tentative concepts derived earlier were abstracted, based on their
empirical substance, to present “an objective version of the basic events and characters required to uniquely identify a particular story”
(Pentland, 1999, p. 720). We turned to the existing knowledge of the logic of connective action and logic of collective action as a point of
comparison to clarify the emergent concepts of social movement organizing. We also looked for connections among the derived
concepts in accordance with the principle of axial coding. The concepts were compared for similarities and differences. For example,
we iterated between data from initial period of social movement and later to capture evidence that challenged or complemented our
existing knowledge of the logic of connective action that focused on a relatively short and temporary period of social movement. Hence,
the concepts of cognitive mechanism, relational mechanism, and environmental mechanism are identified, and more importantly, the
relationships among them became evident. Appendix E illustrates the coding process.
The last stage of analysis involved selective coding. When the results of the partial analysis above were aggregated, the empirical
characteristics of those concepts became identifiable (Avgerou, 2013), allowing us to tease out the core mechanisms of social media-
enabled movements, i.e., the deep structures that drive the process. For example, as presented in our discussion, clustering emergence
was instigated by changes in the political conditions (environmental mechanism) that lead to changes in how members of the public
perceived the costs and benefits of participation in the movement (cognitive mechanism), which helped in the growth of the movement
and the formation of multiple groups with a loosely defined common goal (relational mechanism). Until the findings were finalized, we

6
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324
Fig. 1. Key Events of Malaysia’s Bersih Movement.
7
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

ensured alignment among the data, theory, and findings (Klein & Myers, 1999). To uncover diverse meanings held by participants and
different viewpoints including competing ones, triangulation is applied to capture multiple data sources (including interviews, focus
groups, news reports, and archival data) (Keutel, Michalik, & Richter, 2014).

4. Case findings and analysis

4.1. The rise of a global movement

From Malaysia’s independence in 1957 until the general elections of May 2018, the same political coalition, known as Barisan
Nasional (BN), has been ruling the country. Towards the end of this period, many citizens started linking BN’s continued hold on power
to the electoral process, which they increasingly perceived as “unbalanced” and favoring the incumbent coalition (Lee, 2014). Some of
the factors that enforced this perception included the use of the state apparatus in general elections to support the ruling party, dif­
ficulties in bringing allegations of electoral fraud to justice, and the gerrymandering of electoral maps (The Economist, 2013). In
addition, the implementation of the Printing Press and Publications Act 1984, which forced newspapers to renew their operating li­
cense each year, was seen as limiting any serious reporting on government corruption (Lakhdhir, 2015). Concerns were raised also by
human rights groups with regards to the growth of civil society and political participation that was being curtailed through arbitrary
detentions and limits on the freedom of association, assembly, and speech in the country (The Equal Rights Trust, 2012).
In 2007, a grassroots movement known as Bersih (meaning “clean” in Malay language) emerged. One of the main objectives of the
movement was campaigning for Malaysia’s electoral reform. Due to the state control over most mainstream media, many Malaysians
channeled their sense of dissatisfaction and frustration with the political process through social media. They began sharing information
and expressing views on the issue using Facebook pages, YouTube, Instagram, WordPress blogs, and WhatsApp groups. More than 70
Facebook and Twitter pages, accounts, and groups were created as part of the Bersih movement that involved four rallies over eight
years of development, including the Facebook page of “Bersih 2.0,” which gathered more than 247,000 followers, and “Global Bersih
(GB),” with more than 18,500 followers.
Fig. 1 presents key events in the evolution of the movement from 2007 to early 2016. Four major rallies took place within the period
of our study (Bersih 1.0, Bersih 2.0, Bersih 3.0, and Bersih 4.0), with each rally reflecting the growing momentum of the movement.
Bersih 1.0 rally saw some 30,000 Malaysians joining the demonstrations held at the capital city of Malaysia. In Bersih 2.0 rally, the
number increased to 50,000. At this stage, simultaneous rallies were organized by overseas Malaysians at 32 cities worldwide. This was
also the time the use of social media started to play a critical role in building the mobilization capacity of the movement. A movement
leader recalled:
“When Bersih 2.0 rally was launched, we (already) have the Internet, Facebook, so many more tools and I guess you and other people
might call it web 2.0…People are already used to using them and we all have (these applications on) our mobile phones, so it’s a whole
different world to 20 years ago.”
Soon after, the Global Bersih group was formed by a group of overseas Malaysians. In 2012, the group helped coordinate locally
organized rallies in 72 cities worldwide to coincide with the large Bersih 3.0 rallies organized in multiple Malaysian cities. Though the
movement did not lead to a change in the ruling party in the 2013 General Election, the movement managed to sustain its ability to
mobilize. In 2015, a 34-h rally was organized across the country and dubbed Bersih 4.0. Social media helped the activists mobilize 3.2
million people for the rallies locally and overseas. More than 90 cities across the world held demonstrations in support of Bersih 4.0. In
May 2018, an alliance of opposition parties, Pakatan Harapan, won the General Elections and the country saw its first transition of
power after six decades of independence, in what was seen as a significant success for the Bersih movement.
This evolution of the Bersih movement can be divided into two main phases. The first is the clustering of movement activities with
only a loose structure supporting the organization of the movement, and the second is the structuring phase with the emergence of
more structured forms of collective action. The clustering emergence of the movement was particularly visible during the Bersih 2.0
rally when individuals connected via the Facebook groups, while structuring emergence manifested when core groups (Bersih 2.0
group and Global Bersih group) emerged in the later stages of Bersih 3.0 and 4.0 rallies. Below, we provide the details of the two
emergence.

4.2. The clustering of movement activities

The first stage in the evolution of the movement involved the clustering of individual actions around a common cause. The political
conditions in Malaysia created an environment that was conducive to the rise of the movement. These conditions were made more
visible through the use of social media. As such, in the lead-up to the Bersih 2.0 rally in 2011, social media became an important space
for mobilizing at scale for the demonstrations.

4.3. Environmental mechanisms: changes in political opportunities

In the lead-up to the Bersih 2.0 rally in 2011, the political conditions in Malaysia created an environment that was conducive to the
rise of the movement. The government had started going beyond its political opponents to target civil society members, including
students, activists, academics and ordinary citizens, in what some political analysts described as a “wave of repression” (Lakhdhir,
2015, p. 5). These changes in the political environment inflamed the long-perceived unfairness in the election process and created

8
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

opportunities for the Bersih movement to form and grow.

While in the past such actions would have gone unnoticed by the general public, social media enabled regular citizens to increase
the visibility of such events as each participant in the movement could develop an audience to which they convey their perspective on
the event. In addition to blogpost, the news regarding the arrests of activists was also shared widely on Facebook as depicted in the
excerpt below.
This amplified the level of attention accorded to the actions of the government and turned them into opportunities for political
action by the movement participants. However, just as social media increased the visibility of political opportunities, it also distorted
the perception of existing opportunities through the propagation of false information, including by movement participants. An activist
expressed frustration with the spread of such information by stating:
People try to falsify news, there are people too aggressive who want to make the change, most probably then they say something that is not
right like during the election, they say [the Prime Minister who led the ruling party] is flying off with a plane, run away from country. So
this is not right [information], it shows people very desperate to make the change, so they falsify the news.
In dealing with these contradictory effects of social media use, Bersih participants needed to influence the legitimacy of circulating
information. They created Facebook pages that became a basis of reliability for movement-related information. Establishing legitimate
channels for the circulation of information was particularly important because of the desire of the early movement activists to lead a
people’s movement that does not rely on iconic figures. A member of the Bersih 2.0 Group explained their approach by stating:
It should not be icon based. Bersih is a people’s movement. It is not an icon’s movement. And if people pushing for icon, we will never
allow second, third, fourth generation to come up, we cannot keep Ambiga (previous leader of Bersih 2.0 Group) there all the time, we
cannot keep Maria (leader of Bersih 2.0 Group at the time of this study) all the time… it should be diverse. It is a people’s movement
[that] belongs to the people.

4.4. Cognitive mechanisms: shifts in perceptions of the movement

The changes in Malaysia’s political environment and their visibility through social media triggered changes in people’s attitude
towards the government and their understanding of the growing movement. The increased awareness of the government’s repression
amplified the citizens’ long-suppressed frustrations and aroused their shared sense of grievance. Social media provided normal citizens
the opportunity to overcome their fear and express their opinion in a form of participation that they perceived to be safer than physical
protests, which they saw as exposing them to the direct scrutiny of government agents. As a primary school teacher and civil servant
illustrated the “culture of fear”:
As civil servants, we are worried…when we participate in political movement or show support to the opposing voice. We do not want to be
captured on the camera. Although we are not there, we should express our stand and support. That’s why I write my own views [on
Facebook].
In addition, social media allowed people to overcome their sense of isolation and inefficacy. A former steering committee member
of Bersih 2.0 explained the transformation by stating:
I think it (social media) helps to do away with the sense of solitude and hopelessness because you happened to be a minority. I’m not
talking about specific minority categories, such as ethnic groups, region, gender, or whatever. I’m just saying that often, we all feel the
same: I’m the only one who holds this feeling …and so, what difference can I make? You feel the inefficacy. You can’t do anything.
You’re not going to make any difference…Social media allows you to find like-minded people elsewhere and I think that’s important
because, emotionally, it takes away the feeling that you’re not going to make any difference.
In addition, social media allowed individuals to not just seek but also create groups that others could join. A number of Facebook
groups and pages were initiated by the movement participants (see Appendix C) to create a global network in support of local actions.
In addition to the principal Facebook group Bersih 2.0, more than 70 Facebook pages and Twitter accounts were created and named
after their geographic location, such as Bersih Australia (about 1600 Facebook followers), Bersih Taiwan Rally (about 3600 Facebook
followers), and Bersih 2.0 UK (about 4400 Facebook followers). Other participants built their groups around their social roles. For
example, one mother created the Mamas’ Bersih Facebook group to appeal to the concerns of mothers as a way of mobilizing for the
Bersih Movement. Since its establishment in 2012, the group has amassed over 9000 members and continues to serve as a platform to
encourage mothers to share their experiences. A mother and volunteer of Mamas Bersih explained:
Because we are worried about the future of our next generation, we try to influence others with the power of women. On our Facebook
page, mothers would share their heartfelt experience and feelings.
Social media also facilitated the establishment of connections between the cause of the Bersih movement and causes of various
activist groups in the country. These include the environmental society (Anti-Lynas), the student youth movement, (Malaysia Youth
and Students Democratic Movement), and the civil movement group (Johor Yellow Flame). Administrators and members of such group
would interpret posts from the Bersih 2.0’s Facebook in ways that link them to their own cause and share them with their group
members.
However, social media also constrained the growth of the movement through cognitive and emotional mechanisms. For example,
some activists were concerned that social media was dampening the momentum of the movement by acting as a medium through
which citizens can simply “let off steam” instead of channeling their anger into concrete actions. A movement participant explained
this concern by stating:

9
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

That’s why I said social media has pros and cons. The pro is everyone gets information now, the con is the ventilation process puts you
down. People don’t go to the street because you can ventilate online, for some people if you like or you share something, that advocacy is
good enough.

4.5. Relational mechanisms: building a global network

The above cognitive and emotional changes among the movement’s base gradually developed into relational networks because of
the need for movement members to have shared meanings of their activities and collective support for individual actions. Social media
enabled these developments as it allowed individuals to grow the movement along their existing friendship networks. Many people
joined the movement because of their prior relations with other movement members. While this might be the case for traditional
movements as well, social media supported this form of growth at a much broader scale by supporting connections to indirect contacts
(e.g. friends of friends) and publicly accessible virtual spaces. In particular, members of the Malaysian diaspora could connect with
family, friends, and like-minded individuals back home to express their support for the objectives of the movement. As a Malaysian
residing overseas explained:
For me, it’s just to show my support. Because you see people back home are really working hard to get our voice heard, and I would just
simply be there to show my support… I can’t even really say I’m very political – I haven’t even actually voted. But I just wanted to show
my support to friends and families back home who also share the same views.
The use of social media facilitated the sharing and replication of informational resources (texts, images, videos) across multiple
groups. Group members could share information on diverse means for supporting the Bersih Movement. For instance, through their
Facebook page, the Global Bersih group shared instructions on how to organize rallies overseas. These were shared with overseas
supporters who had expressed interest in becoming more involved in the movement due to their inability to attend the Bersih rallies in
Malaysia, as described by a member of the Global Bersih group:
People started coming and thought, “how can we join?” It’s really through Facebook how we ran the whole process. For example, if
you’re sitting in Sydney and you want to organize an event, if you come to our Facebook page, we give the information. And they also
know they are not alone.
On the other hand, social media constrained the growth of Bersih’s relational networks. For example, while Facebook allowed
individuals to connect with movement supporters globally, it also exposed them to counter-networks that were a source of intimidation
and trolling, which had discouraging effects on their engagement and that of other movement participants. This was described by a
former steering committee member of Bersih 2.0 by stating:
Some people would directly attack you and say, “Hey! You are being used by the opposition.” Other people would say, “You lost your
plot.” Others would then say that you’re craving for attention… There are people who come back to troll you and distract you…, you just
need to learn how to ignore.
In some cases, knowledge of the visibility of people’s online activities to their connections inhibited various movement participants
from freely expressing their views on social media. For example, a participant who worked as a civil servant described this challenge by
stating:
A lot of my Facebook friends are civil servants. As civil servants, we are worried that we might risk losing our pension when we participate
in political movement[s]… The general mentality … is to avoid discussing politics as much as we could.
In navigating these tensions between the ability that social media offers movements to build on existing networks and its limitations
in exposing them to counter-networks, Facebook group administrators had to make decisions regarding their approach to the
governance of the movement’s digital platforms. They needed to keep the governance as open as possible while maintaining some
control over the direction of the movement. The social media administrators of Bersih 2.0 group explained how they handled this
challenge in the hope that the coalition and participants commitment would be strengthened:
We let them comment, it’s freedom, so we don’t delete comments, unless there is a question that we need to answer, clarification yes you
need to answer but if you want to slander us or what, go ahead. We will not remove any comment because the forum will, when you
attack me, there will be my supporters come in to defend, so we let the debate go on.
As a result, this first phase of clustering emergence gave rise to dispersed groups that were only loosely connected through social
media.

4.6. The structuring of a global movement

In the first phase of the movement, as in many other social media-enabled movements, a large, fluid and loosely connected network
emerged quickly. However, before the movement could achieve its long-term goal of electoral reform, it needed to sustain its ability to
mobilize and overcome the various constraints resulting from its dependence on social media. For example, the autonomy and freedom
of speech in social media, while contributing to conversations around political issues and changes in the environment, have simul­
taneously caused a difficulty in controlling the quality of information. Experienced activists also shared their worries on the situation
in which social media ended as a channel simply for emotional expressions instead of action facilitation. The growth of the network
could also be limited by opposing forces who similarly made use of the openness of social media. In hindsight, these constraining
effects of social media use could limit the development of a movement that demands long-term actions to effect desired changes (Earl &

10
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

Kimport, 2011; Snow et al., 2004), as shared by the President of Global Bersih:
So over the next three years [after Bersih 2.0 rally], there was an on-going debate among ourselves and of course after the period of
action and all that, you have a drop off, about half of the people who were active then just sort of drop off one because they were no longer
interested to maintain the ongoing level of energy, which takes a lot of time and energy.
Addressing the challenges of sustainability required more structured forms of organizing. We outline below the mechanisms
through which these forms emerged in the Bersih movement, and the transformation of dispersed groups into networked group including
Bersih 2.0 and Global Bersih groups during Bersih 3.0 and 4.0 rallies.

4.7. Relational mechanisms: need for more structured relations

The use of social media allowed the Bersih movement to gain momentum and scale rapidly, but as the movement grew, the
constraints of social media highlighted the need for new forms of collective action that would allow sustainability and effectiveness to
counter the effect of opposing forces. Leaders of the movement expressed the need for more consistency in the movement’s activities.
The rapid formation of small groups in different cities around the world as part of the Bersih movement became a source of concern for
some movement leaders. For example, the President of Global Bersih indicated that,
For us, it’s a matter not so much about the fake ones, but the independent ones, people who just take up the initiative in a small city - and
usually [it’s a] small cities, because [in] big cities we have an ongoing relationship - but [in] smaller cities somebody would say: okay, it’s
really important I need to do something, I’m just going to call myself Bersih small town. With no connection with us whatsoever. All of
sudden they will set up Facebook page or something like that and we hear about it and they are doing things on their own. It becomes a
little bit of a struggle for us… people have the right to have their own independence but [we need] to ensure that it’s part of the broader
movement, we want to make sure that they are brought in, we will support them as well. They are using the Bersih name and we have to
safeguard that. Bersih is such a trademark.
In addition, the use of social media could not guarantee the continuity of the movement because distributed connective actions did
not allow the formation of strong and sustainable ties that can maintain the movement’s momentum. Unlike traditional social
movements that allow strong ties to emerge through shared experiences, social media-based connections were seen by some Bersih
participants as relatively weak and limited in their capacity to hold the movement together, whether it was within general members or
the core group of coordinators:
Social media is useful in providing the forum for people to discuss but it’s not very sticky, you know people click and they are done. But
there is no stickiness of relationship which is not the same as a lot of friendships, which survive strongly up until today. I know some who
forged [friendships after meeting] as strangers on the street, being beaten up by police at Bersih 2, running away from chemical, tear gas,
and water cannon, and that is the experience and memory people have which is stronger than interacting on Facebook. For sure, it’s a
real memory, it’s not just online. (A Bersih participant).
Now, we can get them on Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp but the difficulty in Global Bersih just for our group, all the cities coordinators,
we never met each other. None of us have met each other…I don’t know much about them other than what’s on Facebook… It’s like
something is missing. (a GB’s steering committee member).
As a result, the leaders of the Berish movement started moving towards a more structured form of collective action. In particular,
they looked into measures to formalize the roles in a hitherto loosely organized group. The President of Global Bersih explained the
need for this shift by stating:
We understand that to sustain this level of organizing, outreach and everything, we need to formalize ourselves. We need to have
infrastructure to the movement. So that’s why we started to develop all of these things. In the two years between [Bersih] 2.0 to 3.0
Global Bersih’s name started to be formalized. [Some] of us started to form the steering committee, we started to form infrastructure for
that, and form our own list of steering committee… Previously, the steering committee was everybody who was the organizer of rallies in
cities; really quite big. But now, because of the problem, [we thought] let’s have a formal steering committee, let’s elect a president,
secretary, treasurer and all that. Let’s look at where we want to register as an international NGO. And all of that just happened very
recently, around at that time where Bersih 3 came about.
In view of the challenges of injecting authority and hierarchical structure in a grassroots movement, a Global Bersih’s steering
committee member explained their initiative to implement a semi-formal city coordinator network:
We started doing what we called city coordinators. These are people from each city, or volunteers who want to do something, even if there
is just 10 of us in a small house to show our support. Even that was enough because it doesn’t matter if it is just two people because it is to
show solidarity with what’s happening back in Malaysia.
What we were able to do for Bersih 4.0 is that we formalized city coordinators network and this has been a deliberation for a number of
years on how we can have a second level outside of this steering committee. The second level of people is the focal point in each city. (GB’s
President).
The organizers of Global Bersih have shared that the city coordinator network was one of the key factors that enabled the quick
growth of momentum from Bersih 2.0 rally (32 cities) to Bersih 3.0 rally (72 cities) and later to Bersih 4.0 rally (90 cities).

11
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

4.8. Cognitive mechanisms: reassessing participation and converging frames

Since the movement took a long time to achieve any concrete change, some participants found it hard to sustain a continued
participation beyond individual expression of emotions, especially when the movement entered periods of low intensity. As the
President of Global Bersih explained:
I think probably the biggest challenge after the Bersih 2.0 rally is the total turn up. Everybody was so focused on this event and sort of
what do we do now, as people start dropping, like go back to studies, work and family. This is a very natural progression of event
organizing. But the core of us who stayed on, we wanted to see something more, we understood that we needed to continue to engage and
see what we can do… we needed to consolidate and see how we turn this into something more permanent, we had something here that we
should not lose… but what is it and what should it look like?
Adding structure and formalization to the movement was central to its leaders’ approach to keeping momentum. However, this
approach had its limitations and drawbacks. A member of Global Bersih’s steering committee explained this challenge by stating:
It’s a fine line I would say, because once it starts to become a bit too formalized, like an organization, people get a bit turned off in some
ways.
In addition, the more structured form of collective action intensified conflict between active members because it forced groups of
people from different backgrounds and with diverse experiences and expertise to work together and coordinate their actions and
decision making processes. These conflicts increased the attrition rate of core members:
My whole career has been with the NGO world, so I’m very used to the way NGOs work, …., there is a certain way we do things, certain
ways we make decisions, collectively, and go about organizing and all that… And Global Bersih is not like that at all, we have people who
come from business world, students, who are engineers, journalists, researchers and professors, the whole spectrum of it, completely very
different things. … And some people have dropped off; quite honestly, some people just can’t work with each other, and have dropped
out…. So we still believe in the same thing but we are not able to work together. So that has narrowed the core. We really need to reach out
and bring in more people. The next round is beginning now. We need a rebirth. (President of GB).
Beside the formalization of roles, the activists were also structuring the movement by standardizing their action repertoire. For
example, Bersih participants started producing photos of different forms of participation in the movement and posting them on
Facebook (see Fig. 2). This allowed them to normalize participation in the movement for other members. As an organizer explained:
We asked people to take pictures with hands holding the leaflets of Bersih. That is one way to counteract the so-called “yellow terror.”
People are afraid of wearing the yellow shirt or holding the leaflet, so we took pictures to encourage people to do it and boost their self-
confidence.

4.9. Environmental mechanisms: signs of effects on political conditions

The movement’s core group and the network of city coordinators had gradually developed enough authority to allow various
groups to connect with each other and synergize their efforts. This helped to consolidate the efforts and amplify the visibility of the
overall movement and thus mobilize support on a larger scale. When the second Bersih rally was held in Kuala Lumpur in 2011, many
overseas supporters were inspired to gather around a central location in their local city to demonstrate their support for the major rally
in Malaysia. However, while this resulted in 32 participating cities worldwide, the gathering efforts of the community were largely
spontaneous and isolated in nature. In the lead up to Bersih 3.0, Global Bersih had encouraged community members wanting to
organize their own rallies in their local cities to send the links of their Facebook rally event to the Global Bersih group. These links were
shared by Global Bersih, as shown in Fig. 3 below, and helped to attract others to join a rally in their local city.
Despite being able to successfully mobilize people to partake in the major rallies, as seen through the increasing participant turnout
from 2007 to 2016, the leaders of the Bersih movement were concerned about the public image of the movement that has formed over

Fig. 2. Photo excerpts from JomBalikUndi’s Facebook page archives.

12
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

Fig. 3. List of cities where rallies were held concurrently in 2015 (Source: Global Bersih).

time. In particular, they were concerned that the greater public would only regard Bersih as a rally movement and, therefore, does not
involve any actions that can have direct effects on the political environment. This challenge was described by a member of the steering
committee for the Bersih 2.0 group:
In people’s mind, they still think that we are a protest movement. That is, we only appear during a protest and then we disappear.
To overcome this perception of the movement, activists took various initiatives through social media platforms in order to structure
the support for direct action. A notable example of such initiatives is the Jom Balik Undi (JBU) (meaning “Go Home and Vote”)
campaign. JBU was a social media-based crowdfunding campaign designed to encourage overseas Malaysians to travel back to
Malaysia to vote during the 2013 General Election. In the 2018 General Elections, the campaign also involved coordination on social
media to transport overseas postal vote back to Malaysia. The former President of GB illustrated the success of the JBU campaign by
stating:

We come home every year anyway, just time your next holiday for the elections, come and vote so that was ‘Jom Balik Undi’ come home
to vote. It was quite successful. I think for the first time in Malaysian history, that was also on Malaysia Kini, 5000 plus Malaysians living
overseas actually flew home to vote. And some of them even carried the voting papers of those who could not fly home to deliver to the
constituencies. Because they don’t even want to trust the postal system.

5. Discussion

This study examines the evolution of social media-based social movements from distributed connective action to organized col­
lective action. In so doing, it highlights the role of social media in enabling the mechanisms through which social movements emerge

Fig. 4. Social Media-Enabled Mechanisms Shaping the Emergence of a Global Social Movement.

13
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

and grow, and in taking movements beyond the initial clustering of individual actions towards more structured forms of organizing.
Building on our analysis of the Bersih case, we develop here a process model that reflects the progression of the movement from
dispersed individuals to a stable network of well-connected groups (Fig. 4).
The case highlights two types of emergence that enabled the movement to evolve across three different phases. The first type of
emergence is clustering emergence, which reflects a change in the nature of movement activities from dispersed individuals participating
independently in social media to more connected but unstructured groups of participants. This clustering reflects a logic of connective
action which builds on the affordances of social media for supporting interdependent roles of online activities among group members,
such as content generation and content propagation (Vaast et al., 2017). This form of collective action does not necessarily require the
construction of a collective identity or the mobilization of significant resources from the movement’s environment.
Most studies on digitally-enabled social movements limit their analysis of the evolution of movements to this level of emergence
(Oh et al., 2013; Selander & Jarvenpaa, 2016; Vaast et al., 2017). This study highlights a second type of emergence that we call
structuring emergence, which reflects a shift towards more structured forms of organizing, leading to the establishment of a more
organized and relatively stable network of activist groups. This type of emergence is based on a logic of collective action which requires
formalization and standardization of movement activities. It, thus, builds on specific features of social media that provide structure to
action through access and participation control.
Answering McAdam et al. (2001)’s call to integrate multiple types of mechanisms in explaining the emergence of social movements,
our analysis integrates cognitive, relational, and environmental mechanisms in explaining the shifts from connective action to
organized collective action. In particular, we show how the two types of emergence represent different sequences of how the different
types of mechanisms build on each other (Fig. 5). In the case of the Bersih movement, clustering emergence was instigated by changes
in the country’s political conditions (environmental mechanism) that lead to changes in how members of the public perceived the costs
and benefits of participation in the movement (cognitive mechanism), which helped in the growth of the movement and the formation
of multiple groups with a loosely defined common goal (relational mechanism). On the other hand, structuring emergence was
instigated by the need for more organized and stable relations between the movement members, which were pursued for the sake of
more control over the flow of information and the coordination of activities (relational mechanism). These changes to the structure of
participation in the movement led its members to reassess the costs and benefits of their involvement (cognitive mechanism). The
resulting risk of loss in momentum leads to the need for visible signs of success in influencing the political conditions as a means to
sustaining the motivation of members and maintaining the mobilizing capacity of the movement (environmental mechanisms).
Social media enabled the different mechanisms and shaped how each mechanism built on the other. For example, in the early stages
of the movement, social media supported the connective actions of participants by increasing the visibility of political opportunities
through more open and inclusive platforms allowing individuals to share information that would otherwise be hidden from the general
public. Through social media use, changes in the political environment such as increased government repression, which would nor­
mally constrain the range of options available to movement participants, were more readily turned into triggers of movement activities
(McAdam et al., 1996). However, social media also distorted the perception of political conditions through misinformation or prob­
lematic framings of political events. This dual effect of social media on the growth of the movement created the need for a shift towards
a more structured form of collective action.
The structuring emergence of social movements is initiated based on relational mechanisms. In the case of Bersih, social media
allowed the creation of a global network of active groups led by a core group that is linked to city coordinators. The presence of a core
group allowed the movement to consolidate resources and capabilities that the Bersih community worldwide had to offer. While in
digitally-enabled social movements, core groups tend to be loosely defined and unstructured, the structuring emergence in the Bersih
case lead the movement members to assign roles to members of the core group. This enabled them to reduce conflict and maintain
commitment in support of the movement.
The structuring emergence of social movements is also based on cognitive mechanisms. In the Bersih case, social media enabled the
convergence of the diverse framings of the cause by the different groups constituting the movement, as well as those of other support
groups. Studies of social movements have emphasized the alignment of frames as a critical condition for the emergence and sus­
tainability of collective action (Benford & Snow, 2000; McAdam et al., 1996). The Bersih case shows how social media enable the

Fig. 5. Different sequences of emergence mechanisms between clustering and structuring emergence of social media-enabled movements.

14
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

alignment of frames across the broad base of the movement. It does so by enabling open deliberations at a large scale around the
movement’s cause. However, social media also increased the potential of conflict between movement participants as it blurred the
boundaries between the social groups joining the movement. The relative ease of joining a movement on social media meant that core
activists have to contend with a diverse set of participants with different conceptions of what activism means and how it should be
organized.
Finally, environmental mechanisms are also critical in the structuring emergence of social movements. In the case of Bersih, social
media enabled movement participants to showcase its influences on political conditions by bringing attention to any event or issue that
relates to the movement’s cause. The more structured forms of organizing the movement create possibilities for activities that can have
direct effect on its environment, such as supporting global voting in the Bersih case. Showcasing a movement’s successes resulting from
such direct interventions is critical for maintaining its momentum and its ability to mobilize at a large scale.

6. Implications and contributions

This paper offers several contributions to the literature on social media-enabled social movements. First, it contributes to the
growing work on digitally-enabled social movements by emphasizing the need to go beyond the connective actions that shape their
emergence to examine the more structured forms of organizing that are often critical for their sustainability and effectiveness. In
particular, we highlight the dual effect of social media on the growth of social movements. On the one hand, they offer movement
activists a heightened ability to direct the public’s attention to their cause, evade censorship, and mobilize at a large scale. On the other
hand, the rapid scaling of social media-enabled movements limits their ability to build a capacity for sustained mobilization, which
often comes from personal interactions in the long process of coordinating sequences of movement actions and counter-actions.
Tufekci (2017) highlighted this constraint of social media in the evolution of movement by suggesting that the lower coordination
costs and the thing that people thought might empower movements, paradoxically, in the long run, disempower them. Our analysis
indicates that understanding this paradox requires attention to both the clustering and structuring emergence of social media-enabled
movements.
In addition, this study also contributes to the broader literature on social movements by highlighting the role of social media in
shaping the transformation of movements towards more structured forms of collective action. Studies of traditional social movements
have for long discussed the shift of movements towards increased formalization as a common phase in the evolution of movements
(Zald & Ash, 1966). However, limited attention has been given to understanding this shift in the case of movements built around social
media platforms. These new forms of movements grow and scale differently from traditional social movements, which means that their
shift towards formalization is also different and requires particular attention to the role of social media in both enabling and con­
straining the formalization process.
Furthermore, this study offers a theoretical framework of social media-enabled social movements that pulls together several
streams of the social movement literature, including the “resource mobilization” (McCarthy & Zald, 1977), the “political opportu­
nities” (McAdam et al., 1996), and the “framing” (Benford & Snow, 2000) streams. While previous information systems studies have
focused on one of these streams (e.g., Oh et al., 2013; Selander & Jarvenpaa, 2016), this study supports McAdam et al.’s (2001)
argument that integrating multiple mechanisms (cognitive, relational, and environmental) can be generative of theoretical insights
that offer a broader understanding of how social movements start and grow.
Finally, this research offers practical implications for supporters of social media-enabled social movements as well as for other
stakeholders, such as policymakers and companies that can affect and are affected by the evolution of social movements. For the
supporters of social movements, our findings highlight the need to manage the transition from distributed connective action to
structured collective action in a way that helps the movement maintain its momentum. Specifically, they need to provide a structure
that maintains the direction of the movement while keeping an open space for individualized expressions. For other stakeholders in the
movement’s field of action, our findings suggest the need to differentiate between the clustering and structuring emergence of
movements when considering the mutual influence between the movement and its environment. This implies that they need to adjust
their strategies for engaging with the movement depending on which phase of growth the movement has reached.

7. Conclusion

This paper develops a theoretical framework for conceptualizing how the connective action of social media-based movements
develop into a more organized, concerted form of collective action. The model distinguishes between the clustering and structuring
emergence of social media-enabled social movements and presents the dual effect of social media, being both an enabler and a
constraint of the movements’ growth, as a trigger for the transitions from one type of emergence to the other. The model offers an
empirically grounded framework for understanding the process of emergence in social media-enabled social movements. It, thus,
contributes to the growing literature on digital activism and online social movements and opens the way for future studies to examine
social media organizing beyond the early stages of movement formation. Further studies would also benefit by expanding the coverage
of data, which in our study is mainly from the advocates of the electoral reform. Data such as those from the ruling power or supporter
of the current regime would provide a more holistic understanding. Lastly, researchers can take our framework further by developing
and validating formal propositions to extend theory to prediction (Type III) and explanation and prediction (Type IV) (Gregor, 2006).
By doing so, the boundary conditions of our framework could be better defined.

Appendix A

15
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

Exhibit A-1
List of interviewees.

Interviewees (31) Role

Participants Activist Administrator (Social Grassroot

media) leaders

Participants (Civil servant) ✓

Participant (Business owner) ✓
Participant (Working professional) ✓
Participant (Working professional) ✓
Participant (Overseas expatriate) ✓
Student activist ✓ ✓ ✓
Student activist ✓ ✓
Student activist ✓ ✓
Activist, Cartoonist ✓ ✓
Activist working for an NGO that uses open technologies to make government ✓ ✓
accountable
Activist, Academic ✓ ✓
Activist, Blogger ✓ ✓
Participant, Global Bersih City coordinator (Toronto) ✓
Administrator of Facebook group Johor Yellow Flame ✓ ✓ ✓
Administrator of Facebook group Mamas Bersih ✓ ✓ ✓
Administrator of Facebook group Bersih@LA, Global Bersih City coordinator (Los ✓ ✓ ✓
Angeles)
Administrator of Facebook group Bersih@LA, Global Bersih City coordinator (Los ✓ ✓ ✓
Angeles)
Administrator of Facebook group Bersih@Sydney, Global Bersih City coordinator ✓ ✓ ✓
(Sydney)
Administrator of Facebook group Bersih@Hong Kong, Global Bersih City ✓ ✓ ✓
coordinator (Hong Kong)
Administrator of Facebook group Bersih@Taiwan, Global Bersih City coordinator ✓ ✓ ✓
(Taiwan)
Administrator of Facebook group Bersih@Auckland, Global Bersih City coordinator ✓ ✓ ✓
(Auckland)
Administrator of Facebook group Bersih 2.0, Bersih 2.0 (Secretariat) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Political scientist, Bersih 2.0 (ex-steering committee) ✓ ✓ ✓
Global Bersih (President) ✓ ✓
Global Bersih (former President) ✓ ✓
Global Bersih (Steering committee) ✓ ✓ ✓
Global Bersih (Steering committee) ✓ ✓ ✓
Global Bersih (Steering committee) ✓ ✓
Global Bersih (Steering committee) ✓ ✓
Global Bersih (former steering committee) ✓ ✓ ✓
Global Bersih (administrator) ✓ ✓

Appendix B

B.1. Excerpt of interview topic guides

General questions

1. Please tell us about your background (education, work experience)

2. What are the social media that you used? Why?
3. Before the movement, what do you use social media for?
4. During the movement, what do you use social media for?
5. How did you participate in the movement before the movement’s social media channels were introduced?
6. From your view, how did social media make a difference in the movement? Can you give an example?
7. What do you find are the most useful features of the social media platform of your choice? Why?
8. What are some of the negative implications of social media use, if any? Can you give an example?

Questions regarding the use of Social media for organizing

9. How did you organize the movement before social media were used?
10. What are some of the considerations behind the use of social media?
11. Is there a dedicated person who manages the social media?
12. How do you decide when to share on official or personal page?
13. How is social media used to gather, disseminate and share information?

16
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

14. How do you manage people’s opinions, comments, and suggestions through social media? (i.e. a participant posts a suggestion
on the Bersih’s Facebook page)
15. Have you engaged with other non-government organizations/established community-based groups using social media? If so,
how?

Appendix C

C.1. Archival data in social media

Social Media Links Number of Likes/

Views/Followers

Facebook Links Likes

Bersih 2.0 [Official] https://www.facebook.com/BERSIH2.0OFFICIAL/?fref=nf 247,591
Bersih 4.0 (@bersih2013) https://www.facebook.com/bersih2013/?fref=ts 101,918
BERSIH 4.0 WE READY 400,000 https://www.facebook.com/groups/419890838036268/ 17,031
MALAYSIAN
Bersih 4.0 (Bersih4.0Malaysia) https://www.facebook.com/Bersih4.0Malaysia/?fref=ts 74,129
Global Bersih https://www.facebook.com/GlobalBersih/?ref=br_rs 18,630
BERSIH - Gabungan Pilihanraya Bersih dan https://www.facebook.com/bersih2/?ref=br_rs 183,032
Adil
Bersih - Gabungan Pilihanraya Bersih dan Adil https://www.facebook.com/bersih.org/ 988
Bersih 5.0 Are u ready https://www.facebook.com/bersih4.0iamready 4030
JomBalikUndi https://www.facebook.com/JomBalikUndiMalaysia/?fref=ts 7307
Bersih 4 Links to all Global Locations https://www.facebook.com/events/1655371618041303/
https://www.facebook.com/events/1462409077398557/
Bersih 4.0 Brisbane/Gold Coast https://www.facebook.com/Bersih-40-BrisbaneGold-Coast-612478618893303/ 1775
Malaysian in Brazil https://www.facebook.com/groups/malaysian.in.brazil/ 155
Bersih Hong Kong Edition https://www.facebook.com/Bersih-Hong-Kong-Edition-117586255044014/ 461
Bersih 2.0 Hong Kong Edition https://www.facebook.com/Bersih-20-Hong-Kong-Edition-196132650437927/ 862
Bersih 3.0 Hong Kong Edition (@Bersih3HK) https://www.facebook.com/Bersih3HK 1193
Bersih 4 Hong Kong https://www.facebook.com/Bersih-4-Hong-Kong-101880710163816/ 720
Bersih 4.0 Jordan https://www.facebook.com/Bersih4.0jordan?fref=ts 174
Bersih Busan https://www.facebook.com/Bersih-Busan-1611592669109174/ 211
Bersih Zurich https://www.facebook.com/Bersih-Zurich-1628762937393677/ 90
Bersih Taiwan Rally 旅台大馬遊子聲援Bersih https://www.facebook.com/BersihTaiwan?fref=ts 3676
Bersih 4.0 Washington DC https://www.facebook.com/Bersih4DC 679
Bersih 4 Canada https://www.facebook.com/bersih4canada?fref=ts 510
Bersih Berlin https://www.facebook.com/Bersih-Berlin-1635606183347703/ 23
Bersih Shanghai https://www.facebook.com/BersihShanghai/ 1248
Bersih 4.0 New York https://www.facebook.com/bersih4NYC/ 740
Bersih 2.0 UK https://www.facebook.com/Bersih-20-UK-111909382231134/ 4404
Mamas Bersih 净选盟母亲团 https://www.facebook.com/Mamas-Bersih-%E5%87%80%E9%80%89%E7%9B%9F%E6% 9017
AF%8D%E4%BA%B2%E5%9B%A2-258511654246103/?fref=ts
Johor Yellow Flame (JYF) 柔南黄色 https://www.facebook.com/johoryellowflame/ 8340
Bersih 2.0 New Zealand https://www.facebook.com/bersih.nz/ 1220
Bersih Global Countdown https://www.facebook.com/countdown4bersih/ 4030
Pahlawan Bersih https://www.facebook.com/PahlawanBersih/ 15,215
Bersih 4.0 Sweden https://www.facebook.com/Bersih2Sweden/?ref=br_rs 165
Bersih Australia https://www.facebook.com/BersihAustralia/ 1594
Bersih 4.0 Adelaide https://www.facebook.com/Bersih2Adelaide/?ref=br_rs 1275
Bersih 2.0 Singapore https://www.facebook.com/Bersih-20-Singapore-120271994726343/ 2541
Bersih 4.0 (@Bersih4.0fairandcleanelection) https://www.facebook.com/Bersih4.0fairandcleanelection/ 2946
Otai Bersih https://www.facebook.com/OtaiBERSIH/ 194,307
Bersih (@bersih.hijau) https://www.facebook.com/bersih.hijau/?ref=br_rs 17
Bersih 4.0 Columbus, Ohio https://www.facebook.com/BersihColumbusUSA/?ref=br_rs 740
Bersih3.0 picture and video https://www.facebook.com/Bersih3.0PhotosVideos/?ref=br_rs 3361
Bersih 4.0 Firechat https://www.facebook.com/BersihFirechat/ 28
Bersih 3.0 USA https://www.facebook.com/Bersih30USA/?ref=br_rs 1026
Bersih 3.0 Portland https://www.facebook.com/Bersih30Portland/ 259
Bersih 3.0 Online Rally https://www.facebook.com/Bersih3OnlineRally/ 802
Bersih Youth https://www.facebook.com/BersihYouth/?ref=br_rs 39
Bersih 2011 https://www.facebook.com/bersih2011/ 8534
Bersih 3.0 Houston https://www.facebook.com/Bersih3Houston/ 305
Bersih Los Angeles https://www.facebook.com/Bersih.LosAngeles/ 250
Bersih 3.0 in Melaka https://www.facebook.com/BersihMelaka/ 10,376
Bersih 4.0 Atlanta USA https://www.facebook.com/bersih4atlanta/ 115
Bersih 4.0 Bangkok https://www.facebook.com/Bersih3.0Bangkok/ 1057
Your Bersih Stories / Pengalaman Bersih Anda https://www.facebook.com/bersihstories3/ 621
(continued on next page)

17
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

(continued )
Social Media Links Number of Likes/
Views/Followers

Jom Balik Undi Bah https://www.facebook.com/JomBalikUndiBah/ 986

Penang Bersih [OFFICIAL] https://www.facebook.com/428JumpaDiKl/ 2999
Bersih 4.0 (@MalaysiaBersih4) https://www.facebook.com/MalaysiaBersih4/ 91
Bersih 4.0 (@Bersih4.0) https://www.facebook.com/Bersih4.0/ 1544
1,000,000 Malaysian Ready for Bersih 4.0 https://www.facebook.com/1000000-Malaysian-Ready-for-Bersih-40-425702077454603/ 2218
Bersih 3.0 Singapore https://www.facebook.com/Bersih3.0SG/ 1887
Bersih 4.0 (@bersih4u) https://www.facebook.com/bersih4u/ 368
Bersih Bali https://www.facebook.com/Bersih3.Bali/ 780
Bersih 4.0 (@BERSIH4JUTA) https://www.facebook.com/BERSIH4JUTA/ 887
Bersih [Official] (@malaysia.bersih) https://www.facebook.com/malaysia.bersih/ 68
Bersih Christchurch https://www.facebook.com/Bersih30Christchurch/ 97
Bersih HongKong Edition (@bersih. https://www.facebook.com/bersih.hongkongedition/ 657
hongkongedition)
Bersih Toronto https://www.facebook.com/BersihToronto/ 324
Bersih Bersih Bersih https://www.facebook.com/Bersih-Bersih-Bersih-1682752001944396/ 386
Bersih Perak https://www.facebook.com/BersihPerakOfficial/ 1192

YouTube Links Views

JomBalikUndi https://www.youtube.com/user/jombalikundi (Channel)
JomBalikUndi Singapore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtPuRBN1JKA 17,964
JomBalikUndi HK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cvlTsY8UZY 15,627
JomBalikUndi Taiwan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kLZOiNSHY8 27,053
Global Bersih 3.0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whTVmndRmUg 10,185
Global Bersih (Ambiga) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmeBZEhsw9Q 10,471
Bersih 3.0 going global https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T9hZG2BREk 16,087
Global Bersih 3.0 Manchester https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O72t6DFq5F0 906
Why GB [Global Bersih] by Ambiga https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT8niWcD0l4 1391
Bersih 4.0 with Cindi Loo (GB) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oDLXwTe768 234
General Elections13 - Voters Education - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBF9-QFwctk 17,079
Ambiga
Global Bersih Crowdfunding Campaign_Maria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU0rApav0Mc 8
Chin Abdullah
Global Bersih https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaQQAq2cJW55QszKuHQywoQ (Channel)
Global Bersih Day of Re-Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pkFu9DKwIU 6684

Instagram Links Followers

Global Bersih https://www.instagram.com/globalbersih/ 3260
Bersih3Houston https://www.instagram.com/bersih3houston/ 4
Bersihrally https://www.instagram.com/bersihrally/ 207
Bersih_4 https://www.instagram.com/bersih_4/ 692
Bersih_4.0 https://www.instagram.com/bersih_4.0/ 481
Bersih2 https://www.instagram.com/bersih2/ 27
Bersih4.0_ https://www.instagram.com/bersih4.0_/ 76
Bersih_3 https://www.instagram.com/bersih_3/ 53
Bersih4 https://www.instagram.com/bersih4/ 16
Bersih4_tshirt https://www.instagram.com/bersih4_tshirt/ 31
Bersih4kk https://www.instagram.com/bersih4kk/ 69

Twitter Links Followers

Bersih 2.0 https://twitter.com/bersih2 69,400
Global Bersih https://twitter.com/GlobalBersih 5663
Bersih 3.0 Australia https://twitter.com/BERSIH3oz 1120
Bersih Melaka https://twitter.com/b3melaka 97
Bersih 4.0 https://twitter.com/4Bersih 249
Bersih 2.0 UK https://twitter.com/UKBersih 107
Bersih 3.0 https://twitter.com/bersih3a 2280
BERSIH 3.0 https://twitter.com/bersih3 566
BERSIH JAPAN https://twitter.com/BERSIHJP 502
Bersih Rally Live https://twitter.com/BersihRally 731
Bersih_live https://twitter.com/BERSIH_live 3481
Bersih 3.0 Scotland https://twitter.com/BersihScotland 91
Bersih 3.0 Singapore https://twitter.com/Bersih3Sg 170
Bersih Brisbane 3.0 https://twitter.com/BERSIHBrisbane 125
Bersih 3.0 JB https://twitter.com/bersihjb 194
Bersih Sydney https://twitter.com/Bersih3Sydney 25
Bersih 2 Los Angeles https://twitter.com/Bersih2_LA 59
Bersih Ireland https://twitter.com/BersihIreland 34
Bersih Hong Kong (Bersih 3.0 Hong Kong https://twitter.com/bersih3hk 19
Edition)
Bersih 3 Houston https://twitter.com/bersih3houston 65
(continued on next page)

18
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

(continued )
Social Media Links Number of Likes/
Views/Followers

Bersih 3 London https://twitter.com/Bersih3London 90

Bersih Newcastle UK (for Bersih 3.0) https://twitter.com/BersihNewcastle 26
Bersih 3 Perth https://twitter.com/bersih3perth 35
Bersih Washington DC https://twitter.com/Bersih_DC 34

Appendix D

D.1. Secondary data

D.1.1. Websites
Bersih 2.0 webiste http://www.bersih.org
Global Bersih website http://www.globalbersih.org

D.1.2. News articles/magazines

Al Jazeera. (2015, April 15). ‘A cartoonist’s burden: With talent comes responsibility’.
BBC. (2002, February 3). ‘Anwar Ibrahim: Symbol of opposition’.
BBC. (2011, July 9). ‘Malaysia: Police fire tear gas at banned rally’.
Green Left Weekly. (2015, August 11). ‘Movement calls mass Bersih 4 protest’.
Malaysiakini. (2016, May 12). “Wasabi’, cartoonist Zunar’s latest spicy offering’.
The Economist. (2008, March 10). ‘Political tsunami?’
The Economist. (2011, July 14). ‘Taken to the cleaners’.
The Economist. (2013, May 11). ‘Malaysia’s Election: A dangerous result’.
The Malaysian Insider. (2011, July 8). ‘Government cannot stop us, says Bersih’.
The Straits Times. (2015, September 7). ‘Bersih leader: Maria Chin Abdullah a kindly auntie’.

D.1.3. Reports
Abbott, J. 2013. ‘Introduction: Assessing the Social and Political Impact of the Internet and New Social Media in Asia’, Journal of
Contemporary Asia, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 579–590.
Global Bersih. 2015. ‘2015 Annual Report’.
Guan, L. H. 2015. ‘The Ethic Party System in Malaysia’, International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS).
Lee, J. C. H. 2014. ‘Jom Bersih! Global Bersih and the enactment of Malaysian citizenship in Melbourne’, Citizenship Studies, vol.
18, no. 8, pp. 900–913.
Khoo, Y. H. 2014. ‘Electoral Reform Movement in Malaysia: Emergence, Protest, and Reform’, SUVANNABHUMI, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.
85–106.
Khoo, Y. H. 2014. ‘Mobilization potential and democratization processes of the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) in
Malaysia: An interview with Hishamuddin Rais’, Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies (ASEAS), vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 111–120.
Lakhdhir, L. 2015. ‘Creating a Culture of Fear: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Malaysia’, Human Rights Watch.
Smeltzer, S., and Paré, D. J. 2015. ‘Challenging Electoral Authoritarianism in Malaysia: The Embodied Politics of the Bersih
Movement’, Interface: A Journal on Social Movements, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 120–144.
The Equal Rights Trust., 2012. ‘Washing the Tigers: Addressing Discrimination and Inequality in Malaysia’.
Wong, K. 2000. ‘In the Grip of Government - Losing Control: Freedom of the Press in Asia’, Asia Pacific Press.
Wong, K. 2004. ‘Counting the Costs of Comfortable Media’, Images of Asia: Cultural Perspectives on a Changing Asia, pp. 59–68.

Appendix E

19
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

References

Anduiza, E., Cristancho, C., & Sabucedo, J. M. (2013). Mobilization through online social networks: The political protest of the Indignados in Spain. Information,
Communication & Society, 17(6), 750–764.
Avgerou, C. (2013). Social mechanisms for causal explanation in social theory based IS research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(8), 399–419.
Becker, G. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768.
Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A., & Walker, S. (2014). Organization in the Crowd: Peer production in large-scale networked protests. Information, Communication &
Society, 17(2), 232–260.
Campbell, J. (2005). Where do we stand? Common mechanisms in organizations and social movements research. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald
(Eds.), Social movements and organization theory (pp. 41–68). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Cardoso, A., Boudreau, M.-C., & Carvalho, J. (2013). Think individually, act collectively: studying the dynamics of a technologically enabled civic movement. Paper presented
at the International Conference on Information Systems, Milan.
Castells, M. (2013). Communication power. Oxford: OUP.
Davies, J. C. (1970). When men revolt and why: A reader in political violence and revolution. New York: Free Press.
Diani, M. (2012). Social movements. In H. K. Anheier, & M. Juergensmeyer (Eds.), Encyclopedia of global studies (pp. 1569–1574). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Diani, M., & McAdam, D. (2003). Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford University Press.
Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2003). Rigor in information systems positivist case research: Current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 597–635.

20
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Eltantawy, N., & Wiest, J. B. (2011). The Arab spring| social media in the Egyptian revolution: Reconsidering resource mobilization theory. International Journal of
Communication, 5, 18.
Fuchs, C. (2006). The self-organization of social movements. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 19(1), 101–137.
Ganz, M. (2000). Resources and resourcefulness: Strategic capacity in the unionization of California agriculture 1959–1966. American Journal of Sociology, 105,
1003–1062.
Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change: why the revolution will not be tweeted. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-
malcolm-gladwell.
Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.
Gurr, T. (1970). Why men rebel. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54(3), 265–273.
Hannigan, J. A. (1985). Alain Touraine, Manuel Castells and social movement theory a critical appraisal. Sociological Quarterly, 435–454.
Hunt, S. A., Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (1994). Identity fields: Framing processes and the social construction of movement identities. In E. Larana, H. Johnston, &
J. R. Gusfield (Eds.), New social movements: From ideology to identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Jasper, J., & Polletta, F. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. American Review of Sociology, 27(1), 283–305.
Jenkins, J. C., & Perrow, C. (1977). Insurgency of the powerless: Farm worker movements (1946-1972). American Sociological Review, 42(2), 249–268.
Juris, J. S. (2005). The new digital media and activist networking within anti-corporate globalization movements. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 597, 189–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/25046069.
Kane, G. C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G., & Borgatti, S. P. (2014). What’s different about social media networks? A framework and research Agenda. MIS Quarterly, 38(1),
275–304.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
Keutel, M., Michalik, B., & Richter, J. (2014). Towards mindful case study research in IS: A critical analysis of the past ten years. European Journal of Information
Systems, 23(3), 256–272.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media.
Business Horizons, 54(3), 241–251.
Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansisons of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49(5),
583–600.
Klandermans, B., & Roggeband, C. (2010). Handbook of social movements across disciplines. New York: Springer US.
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93.
Koch, H., & Schultze, U. (2011). Stuck in the conflicted middle: A role-theoretic perspective on B2b E-marketplaces. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 123–146.
van Laer, J., & van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires: Opportunities and limitations. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8),
1146–1171.
Lakhdhir, L. (2015). Creating a culture of fear: The criminalization of peaceful expression in Malaysia. Retrieved from.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.
Lee, J. C. (2014). Jom Bersih! Global Bersih and the enactment of Malaysian citizenship in Melbourne. Citizenship Studies, 18(8), 900–913.
Leonardi, P. M., & Vaast, E. (2017). Social media and their affordances for organizing: A review and agenda for research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1),
150–188. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0144.
Lewin, L. (1988). Utilitarianism and rational choice. European Journal of Political Research, 16(1), 29–49.
Lim, M. (2013). Framing Bouazizi: “white lies,” hybrid network, and collective/connective action in the 2010–11 Tunisian uprising. Journalism Practice, 14(7),
921–941.
Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly,
29(4), 446–454.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Publications Limited.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241.
Miranda, S., Young, A., & Yetgin, E. (2016). Are social media emancipatory or hegemonic? Societal effects of mass media digitization in the case of the SOPA
discourse. MIS Quarterly, 40(2), 303.
Morris, A. (2000). Reflections on social movement theory: Criticisms and proposals. Contemporary Sociology, 29(3), 445–454.
Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and Organization, 17(1), 2–26.
Obar, J. A., & Wildman, S. S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge-an introduction to the special issue.
Obar, J. A., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating
civic engagement and collective action. Journal of Information Policy, 2, 1–25.
Oh, O., Agrawal, M., & Rao, H. (2013). Community intelligence and social media services: A rumor theoretic analysis of tweets during social crises. MIS Quarterly, 37
(2), 407–A407.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pan, S. L., & Tan, B. (2011). Demystifying case research: A structured–pragmatic–situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies. Information and Organization,
21(3), 161–176.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. The Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711–724.
Quarantelli, E. L. (2002). The disaster research center field studies of organized behaviour in the crisis time period of disasters. In R. A. Stallings (Ed.), Methods of
disaster research (pp. 94–126). Philadelphia: Xlibris.
Rane, H., & Salem, S. (2012). Social media, social movements and the diffusion of ideas in the Arab uprisings. Journal of International Communication, 18(1), 97–111.
Roberts, R. (1998). Environmental justice and community empowerment: Learning from the civil rights movement. The American University Law Review, 48(1),
229–269.
Rose, J. D. (1982). Outbreaks, the sociology of collective behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Selander, L., & Jarvenpaa, S. (2016). Digital action repertoires and transforming a social movement organization. MIS Quarterly, 40(2), 331–352.
Shirazi, F. (2013). Social media and the social movements in the Middle East and North Africa. Information Technology & People, 26(1), 28–49.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin Books.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–218.
Snow, D. A., & McAdam, D. (2000). Identity work processes in the context of social movements: Clarifying the identity/movement nexus. In S. Stryker, T. J. Owens, &
R. W. White (Eds.), Vol. 13. Self, identity, and social movements. University of Minnesota Press.
Snow, D. A., Soule, S. A., & Kriesi, H. (2004). Mapping the terrain. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp.
3–16). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sobré-Denton, M. (2016). Virtual intercultural bridgework: Social media, virtual cosmopolitanism, and activist community-building. New Media & Society, 18(8),
1715–1731.
Soon, C., & Cho, H. (2014). OMGs! Offline-based movement organizations, online-based movement organizations and network mobilization: A case study of political
bloggers in Singapore. Information, Communication & Society, 17(5), 537–559.

21
C. Leong et al. Information and Organization 30 (2020) 100324

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The Economist. (2013, 9 May). Malaysia’s election: A dangerous result.
The Equal Rights Trust. (2012). Washing the tigers: Addressing discrimination and inequality in Malaysia (Retrieved from London).
Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. US: Yale University Press.
Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62(2),
363–379.
Vaast, E., Safadi, H., Lapointe, L., & Negoita, B. (2017). Social media affordances for connective action: An examination of microblogging use during the Gulf of
Mexico oil spill. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1179–1206.
Valenzuela, S. (2013). Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: The roles of information, opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral
Scientist, 57(7), 920–942.
Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81.
Yetgin, E., Young, A. G., & Miranda, S. M. (2012). Cultural production of protest frames and tactics: Cybermediaries and the SOPA movement. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando.
Yuce, S. T., Agarwal, N., Wigand, R. T., Lim, M., & Robinson, R. S. (2014). Bridging women rights networks: Analyzing interconnected online collective actions.
Journal of Global Information Management, 22(4).
Zald, M. N. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. In D. McAdam, McCarthy, J., and Zald,M. N. (Ed.), Comparative perspectives on social movements (pp.
261–274). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.
Zald, M. N., & Ash, R. (1966). Social movement organizations: Growth, decay and change. Social Forces, 44(3), 327–341.

22