457

The author is an Associate Professor in the School of Human Kinetics at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Sociology of Sport Journal, 2007, 24, 457-477 © 2007 Human Kinetics, Inc.

New Media, Social Movements, and Global Sport Studies: A Revolutionary Moment

and the Sociology of Sport

Brian WilsonUniversity of British Columbia

By considering three main questions, this article develops an argument for rethink-ing existing approaches to understanding both sport-related social movements and “local” responses to globalizing forces in light of the emergence of Internet communication. They are: (a) How can extant conceptions of sport-related social movements be expanded to account for more advanced forms of cultural and political opposition that result from and are potentially enhanced by the Internet? (b) How does the link between the development of the Internet and the enhanced formation and functioning of (new) social movements offer a foundation from which to expand understandings of relationships between global sport-related influ-ences and the responses of local cultures? (c) What methodological approaches are best suited for studying Internet-related forms of sport-related activist resistance? The article concludes that recent developments in communication technology have contributed to a situation in which there is immense revolutionary potential in sport-related contexts, and for sociologists (of sport) interested in contributing to activist projects.

Cet article suggère de repenser les approches à la compréhension des mouvements sociaux reliés au sport ainsi que les réponses « locales » aux forces globalisantes à la lumière de l’émergence des communications via Internet. L’article considère trois questions principales : a) comment les conceptions existantes des mouve-ments sociaux reliés au sport peuvent-elles être élargies pour prendre en compte les formes plus avancées d’opposition culturelle et politique qui proviennent de l’Internet ? b) Comment le lien entre le développement de l’Internet et le fonc-tionnement amélioré des (nouveaux) mouvements sociaux peut-il offrir une base à partir de laquelle pourrait s’améliorer la compréhension des relations entre les influences mondiales liées au sport et les réponses des cultures locales ? c) Quelles approches méthodologiques sont les plus appropriées pour l’étude des formes d’activisme de résistance en sport via l’Internet ? En conclusion, il est suggéré que les développements récents dans les technologies de la communication ont contribué à une situation qui offre un potentiel révolutionnaire immense en plus d’un domaine d’intérêt pour les sociologues (du sport) intéressés à contribuer à des projets activistes.

458 Wilson

In their 1994 article “Sport, World Economy, Global Culture and New Social Movements,” Jean Harvey and François Houle argued that existing work on glo-balization and sport needs to be reoriented to better account for the influence of new social movements. Their position—put simply—was that the (sport-related) political, economic, and cultural forces that have come to permeate national boundaries are driven not only by corporations and capitalistic interests, but also by groups of loosely connected individuals from various countries (i.e., new social movement-groups) who share concerns about, for example, human rights and the environment. In making this point, Harvey and Houle acknowledged that ongoing technological innovations in communication have contributed to the development of a vast network of transnational relationships—relationships that are enabling for movement groups and corporate entities alike. Two years later, Harvey, Rail and Thibault (1996) included their vision for understanding sport-related new social movements in a theoretical statement about the various connections between sport and globalization.

Surprisingly, there has been little mention of social movements (new move-ments or otherwise) in the sociology of sport literature since Harvey et. al’s work in the mid-1990s.1 In the same way, the implications of the rise of “new media” forms (specifically, the Internet) for the study of globalization more generally have yet to be considered in any depth by sociologists of sport.2 These blind spots are conspicuous considering the link between the rise and success of social movements (especially transnational movements) and the widespread emergence of the Internet—a link that has been increasingly investigated in mainstream sociological work since 2000 (cf., Bennett, 2003; Kahn and Kellner, 2004; Langman, 2005; Meikle, 2002). In fact, Sage’s (1999) study of transnational movements against Nike’s exploitation of Asian factory workers and Lenskyj’s (2000, 2002) research on anti-Olympics protest networks are among the only works to acknowledge and consider (empiri-cally) the importance of Internet communication for sport-related movements—or for the study of sport-related globalization processes more generally.

The goal of the current article is to expand on these novel but largely empiri-cal explorations of relationships between the rise of the Internet and sport-related social developments. Three broad questions are pursued in this context. The first is: How can extant understandings of sport-related social movements be expanded to account for more advanced forms of cultural opposition that result from and are potentially enhanced by the Internet communication medium? The rationale for pursuing this question is that the Internet medium—a medium which allows for relatively barrier-free production of messages that are distributed to (if not consumed on) a global cyber-stage—has scarcely been acknowledged in work on social resistance and social movements in the sociology of sport, and has only recently been considered in any depth in mainstream sociological work on social movements. Renowned social movement and communication theorist John Down-ing (2001) affirmed this observation, stating that:

It frankly beggars the imagination to explain how so many social movement specialists could think it feasible to analyze the dynamics of social movements without systematic attention to their media and communication. (p. 26).

The second question is: (How) does this link between the development of the Internet and the enhanced formation and functioning of (new) social movements

New Media, Social Movements, and Global Sport Studies    459

offer a foundation from which to expand existing understandings of relationships between global sport-related influences and the responses of local cultures? This question is especially pertinent considering the wealth of ongoing work in the sociology of sport that examines interactions between “the global and local”—work that tends to emphasize how globally disseminated cultural messages and products are used in local contexts in ways that reflect both the indigenous features of the context, and the influence/contents of the incoming messages. I argue in this article that the potential for Internet-driven (and transnational) forms of resistance/response are under-theorized in writing focused on sport and “the local.” Moreover, I suggest that this question has particular relevance for thinking about the role that sociolo-gists of sport can (and do) play in Internet-related local and transnational activist projects in the current “revolutionary moment.”

The third question is: What methodological approaches are best suited for studying Internet-related forms of activist resistance—resistance that circulates locally and globally? This question acts as a departure point for discussion about the need to link theories that are privileged in the study of globalization, social movements, and sport with literature that concentrates on methods for studying local responses and the role of the Internet in this context. I argue here that sociolo-gists of sport would benefit from greater attention to literatures that describe and rationalize the need for ethnographic work that: (1) sheds light on the impacts of global forces in local settings; and (2) is sensitive to the ways that people experi-ence and use the Internet medium.

These questions are pursued in the following structure. Initially, the globaliza-tion debates in the sociology of sport are revisited with particular attention given to scholarly explorations of local resistance, (new) social movements, and com-munication technology. An argument is then developed for reconceptualizing “the local” in the sociology of sport in a way that is particularly sensitive to globally disseminated forms of activism and social response. This position is informed by key works drawn from theory and research burgeoning outside the sociology of sport focused around social movements and the Internet. Subsequently, I discuss how the current social, cultural, and political moment is one where sociologists of sport are especially enabled to participate in (often Internet-supported) activist projects. I then consider strategies for conducting “global ethnographies” (Burawoy et. al, 2000) and using Internet-sensitive qualitative methodologies (Hine, 2000, 2005) and contend that adopting these approaches for research in the sociology of sport field would allow for more comprehensive and nuanced understandings of “the local and global.” The article concludes with suggestions for sociologists of sport interested in transnational activism and globalization and the relevance of the Internet in this context.

Theorizing “Local Reactions” in the Sociology of Sport

In the sociology of sport, debates about the extent to which local cultures alter and/or resist globalizing cultural forces are well rehearsed, but neverthe-less, complex (see Andrews & Ritzer, 2007; Carrington et. al., 1999; Jackson & Andrews, 1999; Maguire, 1999; Miller et. al., 2001; and many others for reflec-tions on these debates). Work by Miller et al. (1999) on sport and “the local” is

460 Wilson

particularly pertinent in encapsulating issues relevant to this article because the authors were sensitive to links between the globalization of capital and the rise of neoliberal thinking around governance—while at the same time being considerate of the positioning of social movement groups around these developments. Miller et. al’s (1999) description of neoliberalism and associated processes of globaliza-tion is germane in this context:

Neoliberalism is associated with individual freedom, the sanctity of the marketplace, and minimal government involvement in economic matters…It provides an intellectual alibi for a comparatively unimpeded flow of capital across national boundaries. What appears to be emerging is the rejection of corporatist or tripartite approaches to solving economic problems, where labor, capital, and the state work together. Subordinate groups are now given little or no credence; the state—on behalf of capital—actively undermines the union movement through policies designed to “free” labor from employment laws; and the Keynesian-style welfare system, which helped to redistribute funds to the working class, is dismantled (p. 20).

Notable in the above passage is the authors’ description of the interrelated processes of neoliberalism and globalization alongside a discussion of ways that these processes are associated with: (1) the systemic undermining of more tradi-tional social movement organizations; and (2) the increasing marginalization of various subordinate groups. I have specifically highlighted this excerpt because it includes a rare (i.e., rare in the sociology of sport literature) explanation of the altered positioning of movement groups (in this case, union movements) in a late capitalist era. Miller et. al’s (1999) analysis of these processes includes a descrip-tion of two forms of local reactions to global forces that have emerged alongside and/or as part of these developments: the first being the integration of global cultural messages (e.g., as distributed by Nike about Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods) into local cultures in ways that retain aspects of the local context (i.e., glocalization); the second being the more explicit attempts by local groups to respond to these forces through collective action. To demonstrate the second reaction, the authors described the global “anti-golf” movement, a movement best known for its members’ demonstrations against the building of golf courses because of the environmental damage associated with course development. Although Miller et. al. do not mention the centrality of the Internet or communication technology for the promotion of such a movement, their article remains an important step forward for sociologists of sport thinking through the various ways that “the local” and “local responses” can be understood in analyses of globalization and sport.

It is appropriate to return here to Harvey and Houle’s (1994) interpretation of reactions to cultural imperialism, reactions they saw to be both resistant to and a contributor to an increasingly fragmented global culture. Although Harvey and Houle (1994) did not conduct empirical research on new social movements and sport per se—and understandably did not account for the specific impacts of the Internet—their review of existing research revealed that “[although] there is no example of sport-specific, organized, new social movements like feminism, pacifism, and ecologism…sport has been deeply influenced by and contributed to” these movements (p. 347). In related work, Harvey et al. (1996) constructed

New Media, Social Movements, and Global Sport Studies    461

a theoretical model intended to describe globalization processes in the sociology of sport by identifying the various ways that national and global-level issues were linked with political, economic, cultural, and social processes. In this mode, new social movements were considered a “global–social” dimension. In clarifying this depiction, they described the successful efforts of the feminist movement to advance the cause of women on a global scale through international conferences and related challenges to the International Olympic Committee. In the same vein, they outlined the accomplishments of the anti-apartheid movement in “helping the development of world consciousness against racism in sport” (Harvey et. al., 1996, p. 268), while noting the importance of advances in communication technology for the development of these and future movements.

(New) Social Movements, Sport, and the InternetBuilding on the foundational work of Harvey et al., Sage (1999) conducted an

empirical study of a sport-related new social movement—the previously mentioned examination of the “organizational dynamics, collective actions, and outcomes of a transnational advocacy network that was formed to protest the labor practices of Nike’s sport shoe factories in Asia” (p. 206). Sage’s research is particularly pertinent to this article because he identified the “implications of the Internet as a mobiliz-ing structure for collective action of all kinds,” and explained how “this means of communication is . . . [extremely] effective [for transnational advocacy networks] because it is able to bypass governmental laws and domestic media sources that could screen, repress and censure communication unflattering to powerful elites” (1999, pp. 215-216). While Sage’s argument is innovative and important in this context, authors like Knight and Greenberg (2002) offer a valuable warning about overstating the role of the Internet for democratization and mobilization around the anti-sweatshop movements—arguing that “although the Internet has something of a democratizing effect on the capacity to communicate, it functions primarily as a tool to inform and motivate those who are already aware of and sympathetic to the antisweatshop campaign” (p. 555). More specifically, the authors suggest that initial awareness of the sweatshop movements tends to come from exposure to old media, such as “face-to-face communication, public spectacles, and cover-age in the mainstream news media” (p. 555). In this way, Knight and Greenberg highlight the need to consider the Internet’s positioning in relation to the everyday (offline) activities of activists, and to their usage of other media—a point I return to later in this article

Another example of research on a sport-related transnational movement is Lenskyj’s (2000) study of the International Network Against Olympic Games. Her research included a focus on four European groups who were campaigning against their countries’ bids for the 2006 Winter Games (working largely from an environmental-impacts platform), as well as the renowned Bread Not Circuses anti-Olympic group. Lenskyj’s (2000) analysis, like Sage’s, is significant here because she identified a link between the enhanced functioning of the movement and the rise/use of the Internet, describing how “electronic communication, specifically e-mail correspondence and web sites, facilitated cheap and speedy international networking between [anti-Olympic] groups in Nagano, Sydney, Toronto, Salt Lake City and elsewhere” (p. 123).

462 Wilson

Beyond these works, there is a dearth of research investigating links between the Internet and sport-related activism. Although this could be partially attribut-able to a lack of sport-related social movements, this seems unlikely given the popularly noted emergence of environmental groups concerned with the impacts of the Olympics, the recent rise of international sport-for-development move-ments/networks (acknowledging that many of these nongovernment organizations are quite distinct from more resistance-oriented movement organizations), and the existence of a variety of movement groups concerned with social inequality in and around sport more generally. It is equally perplexing that existing theoretical work on globalization, social/local resistance, and sport has had little to say about the intricacies of transnational collective action.

(New) Social Movements, Communication Technology, and Globalization: Beyond the Sociology of Sport

Outside the sociology of sport literature, debates about the difference between new social movements and older ones and the impacts of the Internet on these movements are far more intense and well developed. These debates take place against a backdrop of writing that describes global integration as a process that has been taking place over hundreds of years, and has accelerated over recent decades (Smith, 2004). For example, authors like Fukuyama (1992) point to the fall of the Soviet Union and various other central and eastern European socialist states around 1989 as being a key in this context because they signified a triumph of ideologies associated with liberal democracy. Although the significance of these specific events remain contested amongst political scientists, what is generally accepted is that the political, ideological, and economic policies of the United States (which tend to support a neoliberal approach to international relations that is based around the promotion of a “free” global marketplace) were, practically speaking, left unchal-lenged by other countries (Mayo, 2005).

The problem with the free global marketplace referred to above, according to critics, is that core nation states of the West tend to be unequal benefactors in a world economic system where the mass consumption habits of these states require the extraction of resources from peripheral nations in the global South (Smith, 2004). This inequality is at the base of concerns expressed by activist groups about institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, that tend to promote the unimpeded promotion of cross-border, free-market practices, and especially the opening up of markets in developing countries—despite the potential risks associated with these openings in often unstable markets (cf., Stiglitz, 2002). It is important to emphasize here that the promotion of capital has itself become a networked phenomenon, which is to say, it has become more fluid and dispersed, while remaining tied to dominant nation states, multinational corporations, and multilateral institutions (cf., Hardt and Negri, 2001a, 2004).

With this background, we can shift our analytic lens to understanding the work-ings of social movements groups—and specifically, the fundamental connection that can be drawn between Melucci’s (1996) argument that social movements tend

New Media, Social Movements, and Global Sport Studies    463

to reflect the societal conflicts of their historical moments, and Harvey and Houle’s (1994) view of new social movements that identifies global human rights-related concerns (e.g., women’s rights, environmental issues) as key agenda items on the contemporary international stage. This link has particular relevance for understand-ing the processes underlying the emergence and development of social movement groups. For example, it would seem sensible, following the work of Melucci (1988) and Hunt and Benford (2004), that the recruitment of membership for new move-ments would be based less around the personal (i.e., financial) interests of people in relatively disconnected social and geographical contexts, and more around the diffuse links between and networks connecting those who share a social conscious-ness and identity-based concerns and feelings about the issues of our time.3 That is to say, more diffuse and global concerns may have less relevance to one’s day-to-day financial and occupational interests (acknowledging that in many contexts, global issues around work conditions are centrally related to these day-to-day experiences), and more to do with the broader sense of injustice and pending catastrophe that affect many (potential) activists—as well as the sense of belonging and solidarity that movement membership can offer around these issues. The main point here is that the organizational and recruitment efforts of activist groups must reflect the social concerns and communication patterns of the contemporary moment—a moment that is, at least in part, defined by the emergence of a “movement of movements” (i.e., antiglobalization movements) that is “characterized not by identifiable leaders but by its affinity group or cell-like structure in which small, self-forming groups network with other like-minded groups and at times coordinate action and share information, but are not answerable to each other” (Wall, 2007, p. 261).

As noted earlier though, there are debates within the field around the extent to which social movements in the information age (i.e., new social movements) are actually different from previous iterations of social movements (i.e., older social movements)—given that social movements have always developed in relation to the dominant modes of available communication. Theorists like Dyer-Witheford (1999) and Carroll and Ratner (1994) suggest that with the emergence of a post-Fordist economy, capitalism remains the dominant mode of production—and for this reason, recent developments remain consistent with neo-Marxist influenced depictions of political and economic evolution and social activism.4 Downing (2001) offers other critiques of the new social movement literature, focusing on the tendency for some NSM supporters to “consign” movements that “did not fit their schema” (such as labour movements) “to the trash can of a prior epoch” (p. 25). Furthering this argument, Downing identified a Western focus in the new social movements literature, pointing out that movements in other parts of the world, such as the antiapartheid movement in South Africa, Afro-Brazilian political movements, and the Palestinian intifada are seldom mentioned in this context. Although these critiques of the literature do not necessarily require that the new social movements concept be eliminated, they do highlight the need to be clear about the range of movements that continue to exist, and the range of technologies, priorities, and cultural positionings of these groups.

From these departure points, researchers and theorists have increasingly dem-onstrated how the interactive, reciprocal Internet medium has the potential to, and often does, support and enhance the formation and functioning of (transnational) activist groups (cf., Fisher, 1998; Kedzie, 1997). At the same time, this developed

464 Wilson

understanding of relationships between social movements and the Internet has been shown to have considerable implications for how globalization (especially the local) can be approached by sociologists—theoretically, epistemologically, and methodologically. A leader in this regard is Dyer-Witheford (1999), who emphasized that possibilities for a “globalization-from-below” (i.e., highly developed forms of transnational activism) exist because of the characteristics of a late 20th century, global-capitalist cyber-society (c.f., Brecher, Costello, & Smith, 2000; Cohen & Rai, 2000; della Porta et al., 2006). Elaborating on this point, Dyer-Withford described how the very mechanisms that allowed a globalized capitalism to rise are the same mechanisms that inadvertently undermine this system, allowing for novel, diffuse, and expansive systems of resistance. In this case, Dyer-Witheford is referring to the fundamental relationship between highly developed forms of communication, globalized forms of resistance, and political economy. As he explained:

In creating the pathways for its own transnational circuit, it [i.e., capitalism] has unintentionally opened the routes for a global contraflow of news, dia-logue, controversy, and support between movements in different parts of the planet…Thus, while the effect of globalization has often been to divide workers more strictly within a given city, region, or nation, it has, paradoxically, also created the possibility of building alliances across city, regional, and national boundaries (Dyer-Witheford, pp. 146-147).

This argument is akin to Hardt and Negri’s (2004) suggestion that as capital-ism becomes more global, it becomes more visible and identifiable—and thus allows opponents of economic globalization to identify one another in ways that enable the creation of “new circuits of cooperation and collaboration that stretch across nations and continents” (Hardt and Negri, 2004, p. xiii). Hardt and Negri’s work attained particular notoriety because of their suggestion that these opponents exist as part of the “multitude,” a term which loosely refers to heterogeneous, interconnected resistance networks against global capitalism (i.e., the movement of movements referred to earlier). According to these authors, the same networks that enabled the increasing spread of capitalism in a society increasingly domi-nated by “immaterial” forms of work (e.g., work focused around communication, information, and social/affective relations) have also enabled the development of connections to and within “the common.” The common refers here to “an open network of singularities that links together on the basis of the common they share and the common they produce” (Hardt and Negri, 2004, p. 355)—an amalgama-tion that connects people through shared experiences/desires without denying or subordinating the distinctions between these singularities. While Hardt and Negri have been critiqued for exaggerating the level of society’s reliance on immaterial work and for their ambiguous and overly ambitious view of the potential of the multitude, the possibilities for resistance in a globally networked society that they elucidate remain provocative in light of existing research on the development of Internet communities and decentralized online networks.

For example, Kedzie’s (1997) study of “revolution through technology” (with a particular focus on the fall of the Soviet Union) offers some support for Hardt and Negri’s and Dyer-Witheford’s suggestions by showing how dispersed com-munication media are essential tools in the development of “consequential unities,”

New Media, Social Movements, and Global Sport Studies    465

such as new social movements. His main point was that the more “reciprocal” the mediated relationship that is enabled by a technological form—which is to say, the more readily and easily any message sent through a technology-driven com-munication medium can be responded to “via the same medium and to the same audience”—the more likely it is that the technology will aid the facilitation of democratic change (Kedzie, 1997, p.220). With this in mind then, it would seem that the Internet, with the immense potential it offers for inexpensive, almost instan-taneous response through venues like email and chatrooms, would be a powerful medium for promoting the democratic change.

The most renowned reflection on these issues appears in the work of Castells (1997), who described the resistive activities and capacities of an environmental organization and a Mexican Indigenous group (the Zapatistas) that protested against the North American Free Trade Agreement. Castells’s key argument was that these movements were successful because they were able to gain sympathy and support from a global audience, an audience that was only accessible to these relatively small and underfunded groups because of the availability of, and their effective use of, the Internet medium. More recent work by Featherstone (2006) expanded these foundational understandings of globalization and transnational (and largely Internet-driven) networks in his description of recent political movements against globalization that “include proposals for ‘de-globalization’ and ‘alternative global-izations’” (p. 387). Similarly pertinent studies focused around the development of “transborder communities” emphasize the role of the Internet in facilitating connections and mobilizations amongst those who share a place of origin, but are separated by physical spaces (Stephen, 2007a; 2007b).

The links that these authors have drawn between the respective literatures associated with (new) social movements, communication technology, and global-ization provide a compelling basis for considering how current understandings of the global–local relationship—as theorized in the sociology of sport—might benefit from increased attention to the potential for impactful forms of resistance “from-below” in an age of cyber communication. Put another way, it is crucial that sociologists of sport who are interested in social resistance and globalization consider how technology-oriented opportunity structures—akin to the “politi-cal opportunities” used to explain the success of social movements in work by authors like Doug McAdam (1996)—make it increasingly likely that individuals with shared interests/goals organize themselves and promote their message locally and/or transnationally.

A “Revolutionary Moment” and the Sociology of Sport

If we accept the argument that the current moment in history allows for unprec-edented levels of transnational activism, then it seems crucial to consider in more depth: (1) the various forms of sport-related activism that are taking place; and (2) the role that sociologists of sport could play (and do play) in inciting positive social change. I would further argue that there is an urgent need to consider these possibilities in an era where increasingly dense ties are being established between corporations and educational institutions in countries like the United States and

466 Wilson

Canada—links that have, according to critics like Giroux (2003), led to a movement away from education practices based around the development of critical conscious-ness and civic involvement. Thought about with this article’s central argument in mind, there is a strong rationale for considering the role that Internet-based venues can play and have played as a “public sphere”—a sphere that structurally allows for oppositional communication at a time when the elimination and surveillance of authentic civic venues is rampant (cf., Habermas, 1991; Poster, 1997).

Acknowledging that there are various ways that activist activity can be under-stood and defined, some forms of sport-related interventionist work include: doing cultural studies-oriented research and writing that is driven by political and social priorities; participation in forms of critical pedagogy and community-building practices; and the use of resistance/protest tactics. In the sociology of sport area, a most prominent form of activism is through cultural studies-driven scholarly work that is intended to inform activist practice. It is important to note here that the field of cultural studies was originally focused around the use of critically driven writ-ing and theorizing as a way “into” intervention (Leistyna, 2005). With this history, the effective connection between practice and the theorizing of power relations around gender, ethnicity, race, and class can be seen as integral to, for example, feminist and postcolonial social movements—although there are ongoing debates and discussions about how effectively these connections have been made (cf., Conway, 2004; Shragge, 2003). Howell, Andrews, and Jackson (2002) advanced this argument in an attempt to demonstrate how sociologists of sport working in a cultural studies tradition can and do engage in interventionist practices. Examples offered by Howell et al. (drawing on Cole, 2000) include possibilities for cultural studies practitioners to intervene in health-related developments—providing public critiques of fitness facilities that are driven more by profit motives than by con-cerns with the exclusion of marginalized populations from recreation. In a similar way, sociologists could (and in some cases do) highlight the complexities around participation in fundraising campaigns, such as bicycle rides to support AIDS or running races to support cancer research—campaigns that support civic interven-tion, while at the same time reflecting neoliberal developments associated with the downloading of social responsibilities from government to citizens and private foundations/companies (Cole & Howell, 2000; King, 2006).

The Internet is a space where these sorts of interventionist critiques can be, and are, distributed and consumed in unprecedented ways. Critical commentaries about various topics are broadcast through media sources such as pirate and community-based online radio and alternative news sources like Indymedia (Atton, 2004). Blogs (i.e., online journals/logs/diaries) have become increasingly prominent as spaces where social critiques and commentaries are circulated. A sport-related example of this is the website “sportsBabel,” a blog of research notes, quotes and commentar-ies by doctoral student/lecturer Sean Smith that is intended to critically examine “the impact of digital media and other technologies on the sportocratic apparatus” (http://www.sportswebconsulting.ca/sportsbabel/about/). The web presence of the “Media Watch” feminist organization (www.mediawatch.com) that monitors, offers information about, and catalogues studies of representations of gender (including portrayals in sport-related media) is another example of cultural studies-driven online activism, which is part of a broader, fragmented media literacy movement.

New Media, Social Movements, and Global Sport Studies    467

There are clear links here between the popular education goals that underlie cultural studies-driven interventionist practices and critical pedagogy work that is based around the classical writings of theorist–activists like Paulo Friere (1970) and Antonio Gramsci (1971). Although there are fundamental (unresolved) issues about the role that researchers and theorists can play in social movements around public education (Conway, 2004), participatory action research by scholars like Wendy Frisby and her colleagues (Frisby, Reid, and Ponic, 2007) focused around community building and recreation access for low income women has been shown to facilitate the development of critical consciousness raising amongst participants and researchers, including awareness of and possible responses to systemic pro-cesses underlying the marginalization of certain populations. There are obvious possibilities for sociologists of sport and leisure who are informed by the progres-sive project of Frisby et. al., as well as interventionist research like Turner-Lee and Pinkett’s (2004) study of “community building and community technology” in two low income neighborhoods in major United States cities—research that showed the Internet and online communication to be helpful for enhancing offline relationships and information/resource sharing.

Community building and information sharing through the Internet are also fundamental to more resistance-oriented, transnational collectives. Activists like those involved in the cycling demonstrations promoting the environmental move-ment (e.g., the “Critical Mass” mass bicycle ride) use websites to promote their work. The anti-Olympic and antisweatshop protesters noted earlier also use online resources for these purposes. The Listserv for the North America Society for the Sociology of Sport is a forum for organizing meetings, sharing information about issues and teaching, as well as (to varying degrees) provoking thought about and social action around topics of interest to members of the community (e.g., native American mascots). In essence, it is through Listservs like NASSServ where the many possibilities noted above for activism (i.e., community building, social resis-tance, and critical pedagogy) can be furthered and potentially realized.

While advocating for interventionist practices by sociologists of sport, it is important to remain sensitive to the complexities and barriers associated with this sort of work—whether this be work as a researcher who studies social movements, or as a scholar interested in progressive social change. For example, even getting involved in activist work requires academics to be “highly disciplined about not using class privilege and ‘expertise’ to unfairly dominate activist agendas”—a point that has led some to argue, half-jokingly, that the best thing some academics can do is to “keep to their own lofty debates” (Peters, 2005, p. 44–45). Moreover, and as Peters (2005) has noted, scholars who question how to dismantle repressive institutions will likely find themselves reflecting on their own elite roles in hierar-chical academic establishments. For those studying social movements, important questions need to be asked about whether the research being conducted is of value to activists themselves (e.g., does it offer important information about what sort of protest tactics are most effective?). Despite these concerns, authors like Meyer (2005) still optimistically argue that academics can play a crucial role in social change by embracing the “essentially democratic role of giving students, activists and communities the tools that make sense of their lives and politics—even if each outcome and choice is not what we might like” (p. 203).

468 Wilson

Ultimately, and given the immense potential offered by the Internet for critical engagement at this historical juncture, there is a solid rationale for being hopeful about contributions to “collective instances of revolt . . . and utopian and alternative projects” (Hardt and Negri, 2001b, p. 242) in sport-related contexts. In recognizing this potential, critical sociologists (of sport) should consider their role in contributing to a “breaking of the spiral” referred to by Dyer-Witheford (1999) and others, who have identified the ongoing incorporation of (sporting) practices and resistances into capital.

Sport-Related (New) Social Movements, Globalization, and the Internet: Research Methods

and Future Directions

In discussing specific ways that research on “globalization from below” in the sociology of sport area might be enriched through increased attention to the Internet, it is important to recall that studies do exist that include descriptions of sport-related movement groups whose efforts have been supported by the adoption of the Internet medium. The antisweatshop movements and anti-Olympic movements identified by Sage (1999), Lenskyj (2002), and Knight and Greenberg (2002) are the clear-est examples of (studies focused on) sport-related transnational movements that have benefited from the Internet. Also noteworthy are groups like the “anti-jocks” (Wilson, 2002), a collective of (predominantly male) youth who critique aspects of hypermasculine sport cultures, an almost exclusively online group whose members are connected through their shared identities and politics. That the message offered by this small number of youth has global reach (if not global impact) is certainly relevant as we think through ways that “the local” is understood in discussions about globalization in the sociology of sport. Other groups that have not been studied for their relationships to Internet technology, that nevertheless deserve attention here include: the “Critical Mass” and “Surfers Against Sewage” environmental movements (cf., Wheaton, 2007); global feminist movement groups that engage concerns related to women’s and girls sport; aboriginal rights groups aiming to raise support for a movement to abolish the use of names like Indians and Redskins in professional sport; and sport-for-development humanitarian organizations like Right to Play that use the Internet to help organize and promote themselves as part of doing globally focused activist work (following Darnell, 2007).

In addition to sport-specific movements, studies focused on ways that sport is featured and understood in broader movements that are, in part, driven by and through Internet communication (e.g., feminist, antiglobalization, environmental-ist movements) are also needed. Such work is especially important in a neoliberal era in which many sport-related nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) use the Internet to solicit donations and to attract corporate partners to support their activi-ties, a trend that could provide a powerful departure point for research examining paradoxes around the positioning of and use of Internet communication in nonprofit sport organizations generally. This work would also undoubtedly inspire overdue debate about relationships and tensions between sport-related NGOs and often more resistance-oriented movement organizations.

New Media, Social Movements, and Global Sport Studies    469

Studying the Internet, Sport, and Globalization from Below

Put simply, globalization from below, as a concept and a topic of study in the sociology of sport, needs to be taken more seriously and discussed with greater sensitivity to the range of possibilities enabled by new media developments. At the same time, there is a related scarcity of work that is focused around the relationship between critical analyses of sport-related phenomena (like social movements) and the use of ethnographic methods as a way of attaining insight into the perspectives of social movement members themselves (cf., Beal, 2002). In essence, I am arguing for an integrated, historically located, critical approach to the study of sport-related issues and movements in an age of Internet communication.

A suggestion for sociologists of sport intent on pursing such an approach is to be more attentive to ways that globalization can be understood through fieldwork-based research. In saying this, I recognize the utility of “contextual analysis” techniques adopted by authors like Howell et. al. (2002), Grainger and Andrews (2005), Andrews (2006), and several others to examine globalization processes and local–global interactions. However, in arguing for the use of qualitative approaches that foreground the perspectives and experiences of those who are negotiating and reacting to global forces and developments, my position is that local groups who are apparently influenced by global forces remain especially abstracted within more macro-level studies of local responses. Moreover, thorough ethnographies focused on local responses would, inevitably, account for the role that the Internet plays (or does not play) in the everyday lives of those who react to and interact with sport-related global forces. In this way, the unique features of the Internet as a globally oriented communication form could be recognized as part of a broader exploration of the meanings that people give to their local/resistance activities and experiences.

A similar argument is made in the book Global Ethnography by Burawoy et al. (2000) that features a series of ethnographies that examined ways that globalization impacted, among other groups, homeless men, workers in San Francisco shipyards, Irish software developers, and breast cancer activists. Underlying these studies is a commitment to what Burawoy termed an “extended case study” approach, an approach that was guided by the following four principles: (1) that the researcher must enter the field in order to appreciate the experiences of individuals; (2) that fieldwork must take place over time and space; (3) that research must extend from micro-processes to macro-forces; and (4) that theory is extended and challenged as due process when assessing research findings (pp. 26–28). Similar assertions about the utility of multi-sited ethnographic data collection strategies for studies of globalization (e.g., of migration and transnational activism) have also been made (Marcus, 1995)—arguments that implicitly and in many cases explicitly refer to the need to account for the transnational potential and space of the Internet (Hine, 2000; Miller & Slater, 2000; Wilson, 2006).

Variations of the extended case study approach to studying globalization have been carried out by researchers focused on sport-related topics. In addition to Sage’s and Lenskyj’s work mentioned earlier, a most succinct example of a global ethnography is embodied in Michael Silk’s (2005) study of media production practices at the 1998 Kuala Lumpur Commonwealth Games. By immersing himself in the media production setting at the games, with a crew of

470 Wilson

television personnel from the Television New Zealand (TVNZ), Silk was able to examine and subsequently discuss how “behind-the scenes” decisions made by editors, producers, and camera people were influenced by pressures associated with and derived from broader (capitalist-driven and globally oriented) economic and political formations. MacNeill’s (1996) work on the production of Olympic hockey is similarly notable for her use of ethnographic methods to shed light on globalization-related issues—especially ways that political and economic factors impact (media) production practices, and ways that threats to “nation” are implicitly and explicitly responded to through localized media constructions.

A study I was a part of entitled “Connected Youth: A Study of Youth-Driven Social Movements, Globalization, and Community in the Age of the Internet” (described in Wilson, 2006) was likewise designed to examine local responses to global issues by youth activist groups (including responses by sport-for-development groups), while at the same time focusing on the relevance of the Internet in this context. Goals pursued in this study included: to examine ways that youth-driven social-movement groups and organizations use the Internet; to evaluate the extent to which Internet communication facilitated online and offline connections among and within groups; to consider whether and how the Internet enabled the promo-tion of the groups goals and key messages, and to study whether and how Internet communication enabled the formation of global communities and transnational social movements. Methods adopted for the research included a combination of in-depth interviews with representatives from 37 activist groups, analysis of these groups’ websites, and observations at key events/forums put on by some of these groups (following strategies for studying “circuits” and “flows” of culture outlined by Cheryl Hine [2000], as well as Burawoy).

These studies offer a foundation from which to consider how to carry out empirical research that examines relationships between globalization (and associ-ated political, economic, and social developments) and media production/reception practices. In a similar way, these research efforts (at times, inadvertently) act as departure points for considering ways that Internet communication has enabled certain manifestations of globalization. With this background, I offer two broad suggestions for ways that sociologists of sport might integrate theoretical and methodological insights around the Internet into thinking around social movements, social inequality, and globalization.

The first suggestion is to be attentive to questions not only about the impor-tance of communication technology and the Internet for understanding globaliza-tion-related developments in and around sport, but also to the issues and advances associated with the study of new media generally. This suggestion is inspired by ongoing debates in and around communication studies that concentrate on whether there is a need to use new methods to study new media (i.e., the Internet). While most authors tend to agree that sensitivity to the unique characteristics of the Internet in relation to other media is required (e.g., characteristics which include: the relative ease with which individuals can communicate to a global audience; and the potential for reciprocal interaction through online media), it seems that many researchers do not see the need to study the Internet using substantially new or revised methodolo-gies, or they are unaware of the emerging literature in this area (cf., Wilson and Atkinson, 2005). In many cases, this is not necessarily a problem. More traditional methods for studying media (e.g., content and textual/discourse analysis) remain useful for studying online content—especially if this online content is studied as a

New Media, Social Movements, and Global Sport Studies    471

set of texts, like the text of a newspaper or magazine (Wilson, in press). Moreover, authors that are hesitant about radically rethinking strategies for conducting research in the Internet age have convincingly argued that most new methods for studying the Internet are simply a modest rethinking of traditional methods.

An example of this is Hine’s (2000) approach to the use of “virtual ethnog-raphy,” which is based largely around traditional methodological approaches and perspectives drawn from authors like Hammersley and Atkinson (1995). With this idea in mind, Markham (1998) referred to the difficulties associated with studying the Internet using qualitative methods as “the paradox of conducting a non-traditional ethnography in a non-traditional nonspace, with traditional sensi-bilities” (p. 62). Acknowledging these challenges, sensitivity to new or rethought approaches are increasingly seen to be indispensable for understanding cultural life, especially relationships between online and offline experience. On this basis, many ethnographers and others who use various qualitative methodologies are drawing on an emerging body of ideas and techniques focused around the use of computer mediated communication (CMC) alongside face-to-face (FTF) methods in interviewing and focus groups (e.g., Hine, 2000, 2005; Kendall, 1999; Mann & Stewart, 2000; Miller & Slater, 2000; Sade-Beck, 2004). These same researchers are also encountering and working through issues having to do with the politics and ethics of representation in the Internet research (e.g., the ways that respon-dents’ online texts are interpreted in the absence of more conventional contextual data; questions about which online spaces are considered public and which are private; concerns about attaining informed consent for use of newsgroup discus-sion texts when newsgroup members may vary greatly over a short period of time [cf., Markham, 2005]).5 All this to say, any study of the role of the Internet in sport-related phenomena should account for methodological issues and strategies pertinent to this medium and space.

The second and related suggestion is to be attentive to the ways that the online and offline lives of many Internet users (and activists) are interconnected and con-tinuous. While this may seem like a commonsensical proposition, the point emerges from a set of critiques that have been offered in mainstream work on cyberspace and everyday life that point out that studies on the Internet tend to focus on either the online or offline experiences of Internet users, without adequately considering how they relate to one another, or the meanings that people (e.g., transnational activists) give to these experiences (Hampton & Wellman, 1999; Orgad, 2005; Wellman et al., 2002; Wilson & Atkinson, 2005). In an ethnographic study of online–offline relationships embedded in cultural life in Trinidad and Tobago, Miller and Slater (2000) articulated this point well, stating that the focus of so much research on “virtuality or separateness as the defining feature of the Internet may well have less to do with the characteristics of the Internet and more to do with the needs of these various intellectual projects” (2000, p. 5).

Although there is little research focused around the Internet and sport, it would be fair to suggest that authors who have contributed to this slowly growing tradition of Internet-based work made attempts to account for the broader structural context within which online interactions take place. For example, Plymire and Foreman’s (2000, 2001) work accounted for issues around sexuality and mass media through a study of newsgroups; Davis and Carlisle Duncan (2006) considered how masculine privilege is reinforced through fantasy sports; and Mitrano (1999) studied sport fan reactions to the loss of a professional hockey franchise in their home city by

472 Wilson

examining posts on an Internet discussion forum. Having said this, none of these authors focused their analysis on understanding people’s experiences across the online–offline divide, nor did they focus efforts on developing a methodological protocol around the study of the Internet that was informed by the range of existing literature that directly engages issues and strategies for studying online life and/or for considering relationships between online and offline activity.

Conclusions

In this article, I argued that the body of research on social movements and glo-balization in the sociology of sport field would benefit from increased sensitivity to the importance of the Internet for thinking through theoretical issues around—and for developing empirically based understandings of—relationships between the rise the Internet and the potentially changing nature of local responses to global forces. Although I have emphasized the need for researchers who study globaliza-tion from below to account for impacts of Internet communication, it is equally necessary to examine the role the Internet for understanding globalization from above (e.g., the influence of Nike and the NBA), especially given the increasingly realized potential of the medium for the promotion of a digital capitalist agenda (Schiller, 1999; cf., Sparks et al., 2006). Moreover, and given the immense interest in issues around globalization and neoliberalism for sociologists of sport, it would seem, in this context, imperative to consider questions like: How do transnational sport-related corporations take advantage of the Internet? How does the Internet impact the flow of sport-related culture around the world, and more specifically, how does the Internet impact sport-related “cultural flows” across borders (e.g., flows related to tourism, business-related exchanges and relocations, and media images, following Appadurai, 1990) and; What are the various unintended consequences of Internet communication technology in these contexts? It is also important to consider the relevance of the digital divide between countries that contain relatively high numbers of people with access to the Internet, and countries where access is extremely limited (cf., Dartnell, 2006, p. 7; McIver, 2004). With this in mind, it is important not to overstate the possibilities for and impacts of the global exposure” of web-based messages or transnational global forms of Internet-driven activism (Haythornwaite & Wellman, 2002; Knight & Greenberg, 2002).

In a more general way, and although this article has made some progress in identifying and theoretically addressing a shortcoming in the sociology of sport literature, clear challenges remain for researchers interested in continuing the ongo-ing project of refining critiques and descriptions of the intricacies of sport-related globalization processes. For example, and following Downing’s 2001 observation about the startling lack of consideration given to communication technology for those studying social movements, it is imperative that sociologists of sport who study resistance tactics, neoliberal developments, and social inequality more gener-ally account for the Internet as an underlying and ever-present force within a global landscape where multinational corporations and (new) social movement groups/organizations are engaged in, within, and across online and offline spaces. Moreover, and in doing so, sociologists of sport might also be encouraged to consider their own role as (potential) contributors to activist related work in this revolutionary moment.

New Media, Social Movements, and Global Sport Studies    473

Notes

1.  In saying this, I recognize that work focused around social resistance and policy developments that aimed to address gender and race-related inequalities (e.g., Title IX; the threatened boycott of the 1968 Olympics by African-American athletes) are certainly associated with civil rights-related social movements (Birrell and Cole, 1994; Leonard, 1998). In a similar way, work focused around fan-based movements (e.g., to save sport teams—Wilson and White, 2002) and responses to the use of mascots that are based on stereotypical depictions of aboriginal groups are also centrally relevant to the social movements and sport literature (Davis-Delano, 2007; Miller, 1999).

2. The exception to this position would be the widespread acknowledgment of the increasingly global reach of television programming that is enabled by new media-related technological developments (cf., Rowe, 2003).

3. More interest-based movements tend to be theorized using a “resource mobilization” per-spective that reflects what movement members have to gain (in terms of financial resources or benefits) from movement involvement, while “new” social movement theory tends to focus more on the identity-driven motivations of movement members (Buechler, 2000).

4. In the same way, these theorists tend to acknowledge that the classical Marxist position does not adequately grasp the intricacies of gender and ethnicity, but they remain committed to a (revised) political economy framework that explains how the underlying/ever-present capitalist division of labor incorporates and depends on discrimination by gender or ethnicity to establish its hierarchies of control.

5. Markham (2005) has noted in this context that “new communication technologies privilege and highlight certain features of interaction while obscuring others, confounding traditional methods of capturing and examining formative elements of relationships, organizations, com-munities and cultures” (p. 796).

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank those at the United Nations mandated University for Peace in Ciudad Colon, Costa Rica, who generously offered research space and sup-port during the writing of this article. The author also acknowledges the contributions of Lyndsay Hayhurst, Shannon Jette, Brad Millington, and Meridith Griffin to the research project referred to in this article. The project, entitled “Connected Youth: A Study of Youth Driven Social Movements, Globalization, and Community in the Age of the Internet” was supported through funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Finally, the author would like to express gratitude to two anonymous reviewers and Annelies Knoppers, whose insightful comments and suggestions were the basis for key revisions to the article.

ReferencesAndrews, D. (2006). Toward a physical cultural studies. Keynote address at North Ameri-

can Society for the Sociology of Sport Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, November 1-4.

Andrews, D., & Ritzer, G. (2007). The grobal in the sporting glocal. Global Networks, 7(2), 113-153.

Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global economy. Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 295-310.

474 Wilson

Atton, C. (2004). An alternative internet: Radical media, politics and creativity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004

Beal, B. (2002). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies: Doing critical ethnography. In J. Maguire & K. Young (Eds.), Theory. sport and society (pp.353-373). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

Bennett, L. (2003). Communicating global activism: Strengths and vulnerabilities of net-worked politics. Information, Communication & Society, 6(2), 143-168.

Birrell, S. & Cole, C. (Eds.). (1994). Women, sport, and culture. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.

Brecher, J., Costello, T., & Smith, B. (2000). Globalization from below: The power of soli-darity. Cambridge: South End Press.

Buechler, S. (2000). Social movements in advanced capitalism: The political economy and cultural construction of social activism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Burawoy, M., Blum, J., George, S., Gille, Z., Gowan, T., Haney, L., et al. (2000). Global ethnography: Forces, connections, and imaginations in a postmodern world. Berkeley, CA. University of California Press.

Carrington, B., Andrews, D.L., Jackson, S.J., & Mazur, Z. (2001). The global Jordanscape. In D.L. Andrews (Ed.), Michael Jordan Inc.: Corporate sport, media culture, and late modern America (pp. 177-216). Albany: SUNY Press.

Carroll, W., & Ratner, R. (1994). Between Leninism and radical pluralism: Gramscian reflections on counter-hegemony and the new social movements. Critical Sociology, 20, 3-26.

Castells, M. (1997). Power of identity: The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Cohen, R., & Rai, S. (2000a). Global social movements: Towards a cosmopolitan politics. In R. Cohen & S. Rai (Eds.), Global social movements (pp. 1-17). London: The Ath-lone Press.

Cole, C. (2000). Our new wellness champions. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 24(2), 91-95.

Cole, C., & Howell, J. (2000). Chelsea Piers: New York City’s new point of pride. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 24(3), 227-231.

Conway, J. (2004). Identity, place, knowledge: Social movements contesting globalization. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.

Darnell, S. (2007). Playing with race: Right to Play and the production of Whiteness in “development through sport.” Sport in Society, 10(4), 560-579.

Dartnell, M. (2006). Insurgency online: Web activism and global conflict. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Davis, N., & Carlisle Duncan, M. (2006). Sports knowledge is power: Reinforcing mascu-line privilege through fantasy sport league participation. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 30(3), 244-264.

Davis-Delano, L. (2007). Eliminating native American mascots: Ingredients for success. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 31(4), 340-373.

della Porta, D., Andretta, M., Mosca, L., & Reiter, H. (2006). Globalization from below: Transnational activists and protest networks. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Downing, J. (2001). Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dyer-Witheford, N. (1999). Cyber-Marx: Cycles and circuits of struggle in high technology capitalism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Featherstone, M. (2006). Genealogies of the global. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2-3), 387-392.

Fisher, D. (1998). Rumoring theory and the internet: A framework for analyzing the grass roots. Social Science Computer Review, 16(2), 158-168.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

New Media, Social Movements, and Global Sport Studies    475

Frisby, W., Reid, C., & Ponic, P. (2007). Levelling the playing field: Promoting the health of poor women through a community development approach to recreation. In P. White & K. Young (Eds.), Sport and gender in Canada (pp. 120-135). Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history: The last man. London: Hamish Hamilton.Giroux, H. (2003). Public spaces, private lives: Democracy beyond 9/11. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Grainger, A., & Andrews, D. (2005). Resisting Rupert through sporting rituals?: The trans-

national media corporation and global-local sport cultures. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 1(1/2), 3-16.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International pub-lishers.

Habermas, J. (1991) The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (trans. T. Burger with F. Lawrence). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York: Routledge.

Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (1999). Netville online and offline: Observing and surveying a wired suburb. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 475-492.

Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2001a). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2001b). Adventures of the multitude. Rethinking Marxism, 13(3/4),

236-243.Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2004). Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire. New

York: Penguin. Harvey, J., & Houle, F. (1994). Sports, world economy, global culture and new social move-

ments. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11, 337-355. Harvey, J., Rail, G., & Thibault, L. (1996). Globalization and sport: Sketching a theoretical

model for empirical analyses. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 20(3), 258-277. Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (2002). The Internet in everyday life: An introduction.

In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 3-41). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.Hine, C. (Ed.) (2005). Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the internet. Oxford:

Berg.Howell, J., Andrews, D., & Jackson, S. (2002). Cultural and sport studies: An interventionist

practice. In J. Maguire & K. Young (Eds.), Theory, sport and society (pp. 151-177). Oxford: JAI Press.

Hunt, S., & Benford, R. (2004). Collective identity, solidarity, and commitment. In D. Snow, S. Soule, & H. Kreisi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 433-457). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Jackson, S., & Andrews, D. (1999). Between and beyond the global and the local. Interna-tional Review for the Sociology of Sport, 34(1), 31-42.

Kahn, R., & Kellner, R. (2004). New media and internet activism: From the ‘battle of Seattle’ to blogging. New Media & Society, 6(1), 87-95.

Kedzie, C. (1997). A brave new world or new world order? In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the internet (pp. 209-232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kendall, L. (1999). Recontextualizing ‘cyberspace’: Methodological considerations for online research. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research (pp. 57-74). London: Sage.

King, S. (2006). Pink ribbons, Inc: Breast cancer and the politics of philanthropy. Min-neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Knight, G., & Greenberg, J. (2002) Promotionalism and subpolitics: Nike and its labor crit-ics. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(4), 541-570.

Langman, L. (2005). From virtual public spheres to global justice: A critical theory of internetworked social movements. Sociological Theory, 23(1), 42-74.

476 Wilson

Leistyna, P. (2005). Cultural studies: From theory to action. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Lenskyj, H. (2000). Inside the Olympic industry : Power, politics, and activism: Albany:

SUNY Press. Lenskyj, H. (2002). The best Olympics ever?: Social impacts of Sydney 2000. Albany:

SUNY Press. Leonard, W. (1998). Sociological perspective of sport (5th Edition). San Francisco, CA

Benjamin-Cummings. MacNeill, M. (1996). Networks: Producing Olympic ice hockey for a national television

audience. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13(2), 103-124.Maguire, J. (1999). Global sport : Identities, societies, civilizations. Cambridge: Polity

Press.Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research. London:

Sage.Markham, A. (1998). Life online. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Markham, A. (2005). The methods, politics, and ethics of representation in online ethnogra-

phy. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 793-820). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marcus, G. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system. The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95-117.

Mayo, M. (2005). Global citizens: Social movements and the challenge of globalization. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.

McAdam, D. (1996). Political opportunities: Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements (pp. 23-40). New York: Cambridge University Press.

McIver Jr., W. (2004). A human rights perspective on the digital divide: A human right to communicate. In P. Day & D. Schuler (Eds.), Community practice in the network society: Local action/global interaction (pp. 155-169). New York: Routledge.

Meikle, G. (2002) Future active: Media activism and the internet. New York: Routledge.Melucci, A. (1988). Getting involved: Identity and mobilization in social movements. Inter-

national Social Movements Research, 1, 329-348.Melucci, A. (1996) Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. New York:

Cambridge University Press.Meyer, D. (2005). Scholarship that might matter. In D. Croteau, W. Haynes, & C. Ryan (Eds.),

Rhyming hope and history: Activists, academics, and social movement scholarship (pp. 191-205). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). The internet: An ethnographic approach. New York: Berg.Miller, J. (1999). Indians, Braves, and Redskins: A performance struggle for control of an

image. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 85, 188-202.Miller, T., Lawrence, G., McKay, J., & Rowe, D. (1999). Modifying the sign: Sport and

globalization. Social Text, 17(3), 15-33. Miller, T., Lawrence, G., McKay, J., & Rowe, D. (2001). Globalization and sport. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. Mitrano, J. (1999). The “sudden death” of hockey in Hartford: Sports fans and franchise

relocation. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16(2), 134-154.Orgad, S. (2005). Moving from online to offline relationships with research participants. In

C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 51-65). Oxford: Berg.

Peters, C. (2005). Knowing what’s wrong is not enough: Creating strategy and vision. In D. Croteau, W. Haynes, & Ryan, C. (Eds.), Rhyming hope and history: Activists, academics, and social movement scholarship (pp. 41-56). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Plymire, D., & Forman, P. (2000). Breaking the silence: Lesbian fans, the internet, and the sexual politics of women’s sport. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 5, 141-153.

New Media, Social Movements, and Global Sport Studies    477

Plymire, D., & Forman, P. (2001). Speaking of Cheryl Miller: Interrogating the lesbian taboo on a women’s basketball newsgroup. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 13, 1-21.

Rowe, D. (2003). Sport and the repudiation of the global. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 38(3), 281-294.

Sade-Beck, L. (2004). Internet ethnography: Online and offline. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2). Article 4. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_2/pdf/sadebeck.pdf.

Sage, G. (1999). Justice do it! The Nike transnational advocacy network: Organization, collective actions, and outcomes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16, 206-235.

Schiller, D. (1999). Digital capitalism: Networking the global market system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Shragge, E. (2003). Activism and social change: Lessons for community and local organiz-ing. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.

Silk, M. (2005). Sporting ethnography: Philosophy, methodology and reflection. In D. Andrews, D. Mason, & M. Silk (Eds.), Qualitative methods in sport studies (pp. 65-103). Oxford: Berg.

Smith, J. (2004). Transnational processes and movements. In D. Snow, S. Soule, & H. Kreisi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 311-335). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Sparks, R., Young, M., & Darnell, S. (2006). Convergence, corporate restructuring, and Canadian online news. Canadian Journal of Communication (Online) 31(2).

Stephen, L. (2007a). Transborder lives: Indigenous Oaxacans in Mexico, California, and Oregon. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Stephen, L. (2007b). Indigenous transborder ethnic identity construction in life and on the net: The Frente Indígena de Organizaciones Binacionales (FIOB). Paper presented at Rockefeller conference on “Poverty and community in Latin America.” Northwestern University, May 24-25.

Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: Penguin Books.Turner-Lee, N., & Pinkett, R. (2004). An asset-based approach to community building and

community technology. In P. Day & D. Schuler (Eds.), Community practice in the net-work society: Local action/global interaction (pp. 170-185). New York: Routledge.

Wall, M. (2007). Social movements and email: Expressions of online identity in the global-ization protests. New Media & Society, 9(2), 258-277.

Wellman, B., Boase, J. & Chen, W. (2002). The networked nature of community: Online and offline. IT & Society, 1(1), Pp. 151-165

Wheaton, B. (2007). Identity, politics and the beach: Environmental activism in surfers against sewage. Leisure Studies, 26(3), 279-302.

Wilson, B. (2002). The “anti-jock” movement: Reconsidering youth resistance, masculinity and sport culture in the age of the internet. Sociology of Sport Journal, 19, 207-234.

Wilson, B. (2006). Ethnography, the internet and youth culture: Strategies for examining social resistance and ‘online-offline’ relationships. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(1), 307-328.

Wilson, B. (in press). Believe the hype?: The impacts of the internet on sport-related subcultures. In M. Atkinson & K. Young (Eds.), Tribal play: Sport, subcultures and countercultures. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Wilson, B., & Atkinson, M. (2005). Rave and Straightedge, the virtual and the real: Explor-ing on-line and off-line experiences in Canadian youth subcultures. Youth & Society, 36(3), 276-311.

Wilson, B., & White, P. (2002). “Revive the pride”: Social process, political economy and a fan-based grassroots movement. Sociology of Sport Journal, 19(2), 119-148.