Online Mobilization and Maintenance: A Study of Women’s Interest Groups

Anne Whitesell

Fowler Paper Competition

Table of ContentsIntroduction...........................................................................................................1Literature Review..................................................................................................2

Group Formation, Membership, and Strategy....................................................6Interest Groups and the Internet......................................................................10

Hypotheses.........................................................................................................12Methodology........................................................................................................16Analysis...............................................................................................................20

Websites and Interest Group Staff...................................................................24Strategies in Mission Statements.....................................................................25Characteristics in Mission Statements..............................................................31

Conclusions.........................................................................................................33Bibliography........................................................................................................37Appendix 1. Website Features.............................................................................40Appendix 2. Mission Statement Features............................................................42

Page | 1

IntroductionNew communications technology has fundamentally altered the way in which

individuals organize and mobilize around common interests. Examples abound of

protestors in the Middle East using social networking media, such as Facebook and

Twitter, to connect with other protestors and organize anti-government

demonstrations. The most dramatic consequences of this mobilization present

themselves in Middle East countries such as Egypt, where anti-government protests

led to the removal of President Hosni Mubarak (Kirkpatrick 2011). While social

networking for the purposes of political mobilization is a relatively recent

phenomenon, interest groups have been using the Internet to mobilize and maintain

their organizations since the 1990s. The research concerning how interest groups

use the Internet to recruit members, provide benefits, and ultimately achieve public

policy change, has been limited. Current literature on the subject attempts to

analyze the Internet as a great equalizer for interest groups. Does the Internet allow

groups with fewer resources and smaller membership to compete with larger

organizations for the attention of the public and government officials? Does the

Internet invite more citizens to become politically active? According to Schlozman,

Verba, and Brady (2008), the answer to both of these questions appears to be no.

Larger organizations still have more experienced staff members, and inside

connections to the government. Moreover, while young adults are more likely to

donate to political campaigns online than offline, those who are involved are still

better educated and wealthier, on average, than a non-involved citizen.

This research explores how interest groups, specifically those concerned with

women’s issues, use the Internet to publicize their mission and interact with their

members. Forty-eight women’s interest groups were selected for the sample, and

Page | 2

earlier versions of their websites were compared with the current versions. I

analyzed the differences in the websites over time to understand more fully when

interest groups began to incorporate more action-oriented features on their sites.

These features include opportunities to donate to the group or “take action” (often

in the form of a letter sent to member of Congress), e-mail alert sign-ups, and links

to the group’s social networking pages. In addition, I collected the earlier versions of

the mission statements and compared them to the current versions. Through their

mission statements, interest groups broadcast their policy priorities and may

include their strategies for achieving change. Over time, mission statements may

change, as many groups in one policy area begin to adopt similar priorities, or carve

out separate policy niches. Posting such information on the Internet creates a much

larger audience than if the same statement was printed in a monthly newsletter or

in a letter disseminated among members. Technological advances, such as the

Internet, will continue to shape the methods of interest groups, though the extent of

this influence remains to be seen.

Literature ReviewThe literature concerning interest groups and the women’s movements

contains several key terms, the nuances of which should be clarified before any

analysis. The first term is women’s interests, which includes the entire population of

people and organizations concerned with policy issues affecting women. Such

interests exist in many other policy sectors as well, such as agricultural interests

(including farmers, agribusiness, and food safety groups) or education interests

(including teachers, charter school supporters, and parent organizations). Within the

broad category of women’s interests, there exist social movements and interest

groups. Social movements, explained in greater detail below, are loosely organized

Page | 3

groups of people sharing a common concern. Interest groups may share some of

the same concerns as social movements, but these groups are structured and

oftentimes recognized as tax-exempt organizations. Finally, within the women’s

social movements there are three distinct waves. The differences among these

waves are explained below, but it is important to know that the literature separates

these waves based on time. The first wave started in the late nineteenth century,

the second wave in the 1960s, and the third wave in 1980. While these three waves

share many policy concerns, they are distinct in how they address these issues.

The emergence of women’s groups in United States public policy is the result

of three waves of the women’s social movement sweeping throughout the country.

Donatella Della Porta and Mario Diani write in Social Movements: an Introduction

(2006) that three factors distinguish social movements from other forms of

organization (20). First, social movements typically take the form of two sides that

disagree on a certain public policy. The second characteristic that sets social

movements apart from other organizations is the strong collective identity shared

by members of the opposing sides. That is, the people that mobilize in these

movements are dedicated to the cause—they are drawn in by a collective good, or

purposive benefit. The third characteristic of social movements is the lack of central

organization. The two sides of the movement, while passionate about the cause, do

not create formal structures, but rather exist as informal networks of individuals.

Social movements begin with a large following of individuals advocating for

broad social and political change, but over time, the movement may become more

structured (Costain 1981, 100). Social movements that move towards a more

structured organization risk alienating their members who joined the organization

when it was a loose network of individuals with a common goal. According to Anne

Page | 4

Costain (1998), social movements and their members value their status as

“outsiders” and are often reluctant to take on traditional strategies (172). One of

the strategies adopted by structured organizations includes inside lobbying

strategies (described in more detail below) to achieve policy change. Lobbying

requires greater resources, forcing the group to prioritize their concerns. Eliminating

concerns from their lobbying agenda has the potential to create divisions within the

original movement (Costain 1981, 103). One of the major divisions during the first

wave of feminism, for instance, arose around the issue of women’s suffrage. Part of

the movement wanted to focus on the failure of the two political parties to take

action on the issue of suffrage, while the other part of the movement wanted to

align itself with the labor movement (Costain 1998, 172).

Women’s interests have proven to be one of the most difficult movements to

organize, because it represents such a large and varied segment of society (Costain

1980, 476). While all women share an obvious bond through their gender, their

interests vary depending on characteristics such as age, race, religion, and political

affiliation. The first women’s organizations, including the American Association of

University Women, Business and Professional Women’s Association, and League of

Women Voters, emerged in the late nineteenth century and encouraged moral

reform on such issues as temperance and marriage laws (Costain 1981, 108). At

their inception, these groups acted more as charitable organizations than political

groups, but as they grew, they came to adopt the strategies of other organized

lobbies. Early in their existence, for instance, these groups used personal services

as the way to achieve political action, but over time they began fundraising and

using money as a way to influence policies (Clemens 1999, 91). The groups also

Page | 5

became more structured and bureaucratic, taking away from the original social

feeling associated with these organizations (Clemens 1999, 94).

The women’s movement fell into a lull after the passage of the nineteenth

amendment, and it was not until the 1960s and 1970s that a new crop of women’s

interest groups mobilized. These organizations, forming the second wave of

feminism, were responding to the Civil Rights movement sweeping across the

United States. Rather than instilling moral values on the rest of society, these

organizations focused on attaining equality for women, from educational equality to

equal access to credit (Costain 1980, 478). Not only were these organizations

interested in different types of policies from their predecessors, but the second

wave of feminism engaged in more unorthodox strategies of influencing policy, such

as mass marches and protests (Costain 1981, 103). The groups gained momentum,

and credibility among government officials, with the passage of the Equal Rights

Amendment in 1972 (Costain 1980, 478). This legislative success proved that

Congress was receptive to women’s issues and that social movements could

coordinate their efforts in order to attain long-term changes (Costain 1981, 107).

Changing from a social movement to an organized lobby provides both

advantages and disadvantages. While social movements have a strong common

identity, organizations provide a permanent face to the cause. They provide a

centralized location for the movement to collect and coordinate resources, ranging

from member dues and government grants to experts on the subject (Della Porta

and Piani 2006, 137). In addition, formal organizations give the movement

continuity. It is easy for movements to gather members when the subject is being

widely covered by the media and conflict is high. It is more difficult though, to keep

those supporters energized when the issue is no longer on the public agenda. An

Page | 6

organized structure to the movement keeps the participants together as

enthusiasm for the cause ebbs and flows (Della Porta and Diani 2006, 138). With

these advantages also come challenges in moving from an informal social

movement to a structured lobby. Keeping together the vast interests represented

by women’s groups was no easier once these groups had achieved substantial

policy change. As formal organizations, those advocating on behalf of women had to

decide which groups should be responsible for which issues. Some members of the

movement, for instance, did not feel comfortable advocating for reproductive rights

(Costain 1980, 480). In addition, the organized groups had to divide their resources

between those in favor of reproductive rights and those interested in other issues

(Costain 1980, 478).

In spite of the challenges faced by these groups, many of them began

actively engaging in lobbying, and are still politically active today. It was during this

period, for instance, that the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC) and the

National Organization for Women (NOW) opened offices in Washington, D.C.

(Costain 1980, 478). NOW is the most widely known women’s organization today,

with over 500,000 members (women and men) and local chapters in all fifty states

(Dolan, Deckman and Swers 2011, 32). In response to the liberal position of NOW,

Concerned Women for America (CWFA) was established in 1979. CWFA, with over

500 local chapters that encourages women to engage in grassroots efforts to inspire

policy change, is now the largest conservative women’s group in the United States

(Dolan, Deckman and Swers 2011, 36). As explained by Anne Costain, these groups

were able to transform themselves into influential lobbies because of three criteria:

first, the groups had established a presence on Capitol Hill during the passage of

the Equal Rights Amendment. Second, the groups could provide a wealth of

Page | 7

information to members of Congress. Furthermore, through their grassroots

movements, these groups remained in contact with congressional constituencies

(Costain 1981, 107).

While groups such as NOW and CWFA advocated on behalf of women’s issues

in general, more specialized interest groups began to organize. These groups focus

on how public issues affect women differently depending on their race, sexual

orientation, level of education, and socioeconomic status (Haslanger and Tuana

2011). For example, both the Older Women’s League and the Black Women’s Health

Imperative, groups interested in issues pertaining to specific demographics, were

established in the 1980s (Dolan, Deckman and Swers 2011, 34). By the mid 1980s,

these groups became known as the “third wave” of feminism (Coleman 2009, 9).

The third wave is distinct from previous waves in its rejection of the values of the

second wave of feminists of the 1960s and 1970s, which had become labeled as

“anti-men, anti-feminine, anti-family” as well as “humourless, dowdy, and

puritanical” (Coleman 2009, 10). These three waves encompass the vast majority of

interest groups advocating on behalf of women’s issues. While this research focuses

on how women’s interest groups use the Internet for organizational mobilization and

maintenance, it is important to understand how interest groups as a whole attract

and retain members, and craft their strategies.

Group Formation, Membership, and StrategyAn analysis of the impact of the Internet on interest group mobilization and

maintenance must first begin with an understanding of how interest groups

organize their members, provide them with benefits, and mobilize them to political

action. Interest groups come into existence through a process that is similar to that

of social movements. David Truman wrote of the formation of interest groups in his

Page | 8

book The Governmental Process (1951), and asserted that any industrialized society

is bound to have interest groups because of specialized labor. Workers in a specific

industry band together because they have common concerns; the meetings among

these people become more frequent when there is a time of disturbance, such as an

economic crisis or period of political change (97). For example, during the second

wave of feminism, this time of disturbance was the Civil Rights movement of the

1960s.

The concerns of interest groups range across all policy areas, and yet there

are some common threads among all organizations. As noted in Mancur Olson’s

book The Logic of Collective Action (1965), it is the “essence of an organization that

it provides an inseparable, generalized benefit” (15). Thus, the first challenge

presented to an interest group is providing this collective good. As Olson explained

it, the collective good cannot be excluded from anyone—those who join the interest

group, as well as those who are not members, will reap its benefits (15). Olson

acknowledged his critics’ objections, mainly that a rational individual would

continue to support an organization from which he receives some collective good. If

he ceases to support the group, then what keeps other individuals from doing the

same, and eventually leading to the group’s demise (12)? Olson responded to these

critiques by noting that, especially in large groups, the loss of one member’s

contribution is not likely to be felt and thus an individual will not feel compelled to

work toward the group’s common interest (44).

How then, does an interest group overcome this problem of collective action,

in which individuals do not feel the need to join the organization to benefit from its

efforts? Olson theorized that in order to entice individuals to become members, the

organization must provide some non-collective good, also known as a selective

Page | 9

incentive (16). In particular, Olson stresses the importance of material benefits for

members, including discounts or access to goods and services for which individuals

would usually have to pay (Schlozman and Tierney 1986, 129). Such non-collective

goods are crucial for the maintenance of large organizations, because as the

number of members increases, each individual receives a smaller portion of the

collective good. In contrast, members of small groups perceive themselves as

receiving a large portion of the total collective benefit, because there are few others

(Olson 1965, 34). Olson’s work offered an economic perspective on the

maintenance of interest groups, but further research suggests that non-collective

goods are not as crucial as Olson believed.

In his book Mobilizing Interest Groups in America, Jack Walker (1991) found

that interest groups rose to the challenge presented by collective action, and

through a process of trial-and-error, discovered a combination of benefits that best

attract their prospective members (85). Walker categorized Olson’s selective

incentives as either professional or personal benefits. Through Walker’s survey of

interest groups, it appeared that, contrary to what Olson had predicted, few interest

groups provided these incentives to entice their members. Walker classified interest

groups as citizen, non-profit, or for-profit groups (59). Out of the citizen groups

surveyed by Walker, only 18 percent offered discounts on consumer goods, one

popular type of personal benefit (87). Most interest groups reported that offering

collective benefits to their members was more important than selective benefits.

Ninety four percent of citizen groups, for instance, cited advocacy as a benefit

provided to members, and 80 percent of these groups cited representation before

government as a critical benefit (88).

Page | 10

Walker takes the analysis a step further and explores the connection between

the characteristics of the group members and the benefits provided by the group.

Individuals rallying around a common cause often form citizen groups; that is to

say, the principle reason individuals join these groups is because they believe in the

importance of the collective benefit (92). Members of women’s interest groups, for

instance, join because of a concern about women’s issues; depending on the

interest group, that concern may focus on reproductive rights, economic equality, or

any number of other issues. The difficulty for these groups though lies in

maintaining their membership. Change in public policy is often incremental, and

only comes to fruition after years of advocacy. Citizen groups are composed of

individuals who want to see their dues, or other contributions, translated into policy

change. Trade association and groups representing businesses are accustomed to

looking at the long-term impact of policy change (93). Therefore, out of all citizen

groups, those that face opposition or are currently engaged in conflicts over public

policies are more likely to emphasize collective benefits (97). In addition to

determining which benefits are most effective in attracting and retaining members,

interest groups must consider which strategies they will employ in seeking policy

change.

Walker categorizes the strategies taken by interest groups as either inside or

outside strategies. Inside strategies involve close contact with government officials,

such as providing congressional testimony, writing legislation, and meeting with

executive branch agencies. Outside strategies are typically more indirect channels

of influence, including media campaigns and grassroots mobilization. Interest

groups may pursue outside strategies as a method of member mobilization.

According to Walker, there are three principle modes of mobilization. The first is a

Page | 11

bottom-up approach, in which individuals with common interests come together to

propose issues that they want addressed on the public agenda—these are generally

known as grassroots movements (12). Mobilization can also occur from the top-

down, and typically involve constituencies that are unable to mobilize themselves,

such as the unemployed, children, and the disabled. These groups rely on

professionals in the social services, including those in government agencies, to

initiate mobilization (13). A third, unique type of mobilization occurs through large

social movements that spread throughout the country, typically in response to a

focusing event. Individuals mobilized by a social movement tend to belong to the

educated, middle class (12). Outside strategies may spur a grassroots campaign or

a social movement, or raise awareness about a certain constituency that cannot

lobby for themselves.

Walker also identified critical characteristics of interest groups that influence

the organization’s choice of strategies (1991, 9). The first key factor is the

membership of the interest group. Some interest groups are composed of

representatives from businesses or a specific profession. According to Walker,

groups representing businesses or professions are more likely to use inside

strategies (119). These groups may already have ties to government officials, and

they find it unnecessary to broadcast their involvement with the government (106).

In contrast, citizen groups and interest groups with state and local chapters in many

locations are more likely to employ outside strategies (Walker 1991, 117).

The resources available to an interest group also determine the type of

strategy used. Inside strategies, for instance, typically require a larger staff with

experience in Washington (Walker 1991, 113). Maintaining close contact with

government officials means that the staff must be well versed in the public policies

Page | 12

currently up for debate. Implementing outside strategies, however, does not require

a centralized staff. An interest group composed of many smaller, local or state-level

chapters, may find their resources better used in organizing grassroots movements.

The presence of policy conflict also plays an influential role in shaping group

strategies. From his survey of interest groups, Walker found that an interest group

is more likely to participate in both inside and outside strategies when they are

facing opposition (119). Citizen groups that are facing conflict, however, are more

likely than groups representing business interests to use outside strategies,

because it raises public awareness about the issue (118). During the 1960s and

1970s, for instance, the second wave of feminism used outside strategies such as

mass protests to bring attention to gender discrimination. While groups may lean

toward one type of strategy, it is important to note that neither method guarantees

success (Walker 1991, 120).

The Internet has the potential to be used either as an inside or outside

strategy. The Internet provides a large audience for an interest group to express

their opinions and raise awareness about an issue. This audience increases even

further through social networking sites, in which an interest group can disseminate

a post or a tweet to millions of users. At the same time, interest groups can use the

Internet as an inside strategy. If the group is looking to contact federal agencies,

the group can comment on regulations online via the website www.regulations.gov.1

During the Obama transition, interest groups could upload policy proposals on the

administration’s transition website.2 As more interactions move online, there are

more opportunities for interest groups to use technology to see policy change.

1 The website www.regulations.gov lists proposed rules, final rules, and Federal Register notices for over 300 federal agencies.

2 The feature “Your Seat at the Table” (http://change.gov/open_government/yourseatatthetable) allowed anyone to upload documents for the Obama transition team.

Page | 13

Interest Groups and the InternetAs technology advances, one can expect that the strategies of interest

groups will advance along with it. Writing in the 1980s, Schlozman and Tierney

stated that new forms of technology will not only increase the amount of interest

group activity, but also lead to “entirely new kinds of activity” (1986, 156). For

example, the authors cite the potential for direct mail to revolutionize the way in

which organizations fundraise and coordinate letter-writing campaigns (156). The

24-hour news cycle means that interest groups using outside strategies have a

greater opportunity to appear on television. As noted by Della Porta and Diani, in

the past, organizations had to be “highly structured” to send out a message. Today,

even a “lightweight” with a limited budget and a small membership can get out

their message as long as they can gain media attention (2006, 155). Such

advancements in technology have proven advantageous for interest groups willing

to adapt their strategies, which raises the question: Are interest groups using the

Internet to facilitate their efforts? Political campaigns certainly have tapped into the

Internet—candidates use the Internet to raise funds, inform the public and mobilize

voters (Panagopoulos 2009, 1). The usefulness of the Internet for interest groups,

however, is still under exploration. It is widely acknowledged that the Internet has

the ability to bring people together, which could prove advantageous to interest

groups looking to organize (Ray 1999, 322). The vast amount of information

available on the Internet could also be beneficial to interest groups, especially if

they can target this information to encourage individuals to become involved in

political activities (Ray 1999, 323).

The existing research concerning the Internet and political participation

focuses on whether the Internet perpetuates inequalities in political participation.

“Cyber optimists” believe that the Internet can be used to break down the

Page | 14

socioeconomic barriers that exist in offline political participation (Jenson, Danziger

and Venkatesh 2007, 41). The Internet makes it easier to spread information about

political activities, but the possibility of an individual having access to the Internet

increases with a rise in socioeconomic status. In fact, a survey conducted by

Schlozman, Verba, and Brady (2010) did not show the socioeconomic status of

offline political participants to be any different from online political participants

(503). The results from the survey did indicate, however, that younger voters

constitute a larger percentage of political participants online compared to offline

participants (2010, 503). Younger voters are more likely to express their political

opinions through an e-mail or a blog entry than are older voters, and younger voters

are more likely to donate to campaigns online than offline (Schlozman, Verba and

Brady 2010, 500; Panagopoulos and Bergan 2009, 130). Knowing that young voters

are more likely to become politically active through online activities, interest groups

have the potential to recruit new, and younger, members through their websites.

Melissa Merry has researched the use of the political blogs by environmental

interest groups; her results suggest that there is great potential for interest groups

to mobilize grassroots movements on the Internet, but they have not fully tapped

into this resource. Interest groups can use blogs to fulfill multiple purposes, from

educating their members about important public policy issues to encouraging

individuals to participate in political activity (Merry 2010, 642). Interest groups

include many features on their blogs to increase their interaction with members,

such as posting links to other blogs or websites and allowing members to comment

on blog entries (Merry 2010, 648-649). Interest groups can apply many of the same

features that exist on their blog to their websites. Search functions and email lists

make it easier for members to keep up-to-date on the latest changes in the

Page | 15

organization, as well as new policies with which they may be concerned (Merry N.d.,

12). Through their websites, interest groups may also provide links to social

networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, where a member can become a

“fan” of the organization or “follow” their postings. Social networking sites also

provide a forum for interest groups to mobilize their members by publicizing

upcoming events; websites also provide this opportunity through features such as

“action alerts” (Merry N.d., 13).

Clearly, there is great potential for interest groups to use the Internet to

provide information to their members and to encourage political participation, but

the question remains whether technology puts all interest groups on equal footing,

or whether it benefits more powerful and well-funded organizations. Merry’s

analysis of environmental interest groups showed that well-funded groups are more

likely to utilize new technology such as blogs (2010, 653). These organizations

typically have a larger staff, which may enable them to hire someone to specialize

in reaching out to members through more novel forms of communication. They may

also have a larger membership base, which suggests that their websites will

experience greater traffic. Although the Internet stands to provide equal access for

all interest groups and their members, there remains a wide discrepancy among

groups as to how they utilize this newer technology.

HypothesesWith a basic understanding of the differences in the three waves of feminism

and the possibilities available for organizational maintenance and mobilization via

the Internet, I created a series of hypotheses to test the relationships between

these two broad variables. The first three hypotheses concern the differences in the

websites of the interest groups based on when they were established. The

Page | 16

remaining hypotheses address how the internal characteristics of the interest

groups affect the features on their websites.

One of the primary features on most websites of organizations is the vision or

mission statement of the group, many of which are included in an “about us”

section. This feature provides visitors with a general background of the

organization, and states the goals of the group. The group may adjust their mission

statement if they have achieved major policy change. For example, a group fighting

for women’s reproductive rights prior to Roe v. Wade would be expected to adjust

their mission following the Supreme Court case. Over time, the mission statement

of the group may evolve; groups may narrow their concerns or adopt a wider range

of issues for which they advocate. William Browne describes this balance as a

“policy niche” (1988, 220). If a group has too narrow a focus, they may find that

there is not sufficient support from members or donors to sustain the group. In

contrast, if a group tries to address too many issues, it may find itself lost amidst

the existing population of groups. According to Browne, having a “highly specific

identity” provides members and patrons with an understanding of the group they

are funding (219). A well-defined policy niche also increases the odds that the

interest group will have access to the government, because government officials

know their range of expertise (220). I expect that older groups, specifically those

from the first and second wave of feminism, change their mission statements less

frequently than groups from the third wave. Presumably, older groups have already

carved out their policy niche, and their members identify with a fixed set of issues.

H1: First and second wave interest groups will change their mission statements

less frequently than third wave groups.

Page | 17

This research will also explore issue convergence and divergence among

women’s interest groups. Issue convergence often occurs in presidential elections,

in which candidates, regardless of their party, address the same issues (Damore

2005, 88). Damore found that candidates are most likely to converge on the most

salient issues (those issues covered by the press and of greatest concern to the

voters) (2005, 88). Interest groups often follow this same trend; over time, various

groups may come to adopt similar policy concerns (convergence) or the opposite

may occur, in which groups take on an expanding array of issues (divergence).

During the early 1970s, for instance, many women’s groups focused on the Equal

Rights Amendment, because it was a major concern for their members, and the

Amendment was up for debate in Congress.

Consequently, not only do individual groups adjust their mission statements

over time, but also the entire population of women’s interest groups may move

closer together or further apart. Strategically, groups may begin to resemble one

another; as Walker noted, groups are likely to emulate the most successful groups

in their policy area (1991, 92). Many organizations are also willing to work with one

another, and the repeated interactions between groups may in turn lead to common

goals (Walker 1991, 69). Policy divergence is more likely to occur if a group faces

policy opposition. While some groups, particularly those utilizing outside strategies,

may not shy away from policy conflict, the majority of interest groups “seek out

stability, cooperation, and specialization” (Walker 1991, 68). The interest groups

formed during the third wave of feminism are most likely to experience policy

divergence. As mentioned earlier, these groups sought to distinguish women’s

rights according to class, race, and other socioeconomic factors.

H2: There will be greater policy divergence among third wave interest groups.

Page | 18

Women’s interest groups established during the 1960s and 1970s, roughly

corresponding to the second “wave” of feminism, differed from the groups

established during the first wave of feminism because of their focus on member

mobilization and unorthodox strategies for influencing public policy. Before

becoming formal organizations, many of these groups were social movements that

depended on the passion of their members to promote the cause. While these

groups adapted more structured policies, I expect that there is still a connection to

their social movement past. In translating social movements and mass mobilization

to the Internet, these groups may use action-oriented features on their websites. I

expect to find references to action alerts, in which members receive emails or text

messages notifying them of upcoming events and advertisements for public

campaigns, on their home pages. One of the primary purposes of communication

between an interest group and its members is to “serve as a kind of early warning

system,” which informs members about changes in the organization and

government policies (Schlozman and Tierney 1986, 144). I expect organizations to

share this same type of information via the Internet. A website that displays these

features suggests that the interest group is actively interested in mobilizing support

around its cause, and finds the Internet to be a useful method for mobilization. In

addition, websites may provide an option for visitors to send an e-mail to their local

representative or senator. Such a feature indicates the level of political activity for

the group.

H3: Second and third wave groups will have more action-oriented features on

their websites than first wave groups.

Posting the group’s mission statement is a basic feature on an interest

group’s website. Previous research on the websites of interest groups, however,

Page | 19

shows that interest groups can use their websites to display more sophisticated and

complicated features. While it may only take one tech-savvy individual to develop a

website, this is a luxury that many interest groups may not have. Dedicating a

member of the staff to developing the group’s web page takes away from the

advocacy work of that individual. Hiring a technology expert means that one less

person can be hired to lobby, recruit members, or perform other important tasks.

Smaller interest groups with limited funds simply do not have the resources to

designate personnel to the task of website development. Especially in the early

days of the Internet, it is likely that interest groups with smaller budgets, and a

more limited staff, are likely to stick to a basic web site format. I hypothesize that a

basic website would include information about the interest group: their goals or

mission statement, contact information, their list of issues, and potentially a list of

news stories relevant to their goals or policy area. Interest groups with a larger staff

(usually accompanied with a larger budget) probably have a staff member, or

perhaps a whole team, dedicated to developing the group’s online presence. One

would expect these websites to be more sophisticated—with more links to outside

information sources, the ability for individuals to donate money to the cause, and a

way for members to sign up to receive e-mail alerts.

H4: Interest groups with larger staff will have websites with more sophisticated

features.

If what Olson asserted is true—that the ultimate goal of an interest group is

to serve the needs of its members—then interest groups representing individual

women should be more inclined to use features on their websites that allow them to

connect with their members. Schlozman and Tierney found that interest groups

consider communicating with their members to be an important activity; more than

Page | 20

70% of groups surveyed devoted “a great deal” of time to communicating with

members or the organization’s headquarters (1986, 143). In the past, members

awaited the arrival of a monthly newsletter or magazine, or contacted the group

directly to receive information; nowadays, the Internet provides a forum in which

the members can obtain information about the group at any time and from any

location. Providing members with continuous access to pertinent information

facilitates the “farming” of members. According to Schlozman and Tierney (1986),

interest groups spend significant time and resources “cultivating” members’

support, outlining the rationale for organizational decisions and presenting

members of examples of favorable policy outcomes (146).

Providing such information on an organization’s website is more convenient

than older forms of communication, but social networking websites make this

connection even simpler. Information published on a social networking site becomes

available to a large audience within seconds. Group members can receive updates

on the organization at the same time they are posting something on the wall of a

Facebook friend or reading the latest tweets of those they are following on Twitter.

Social networking websites also allow members to republish the organization’s

information to their friends or followers, thus creating an even larger audience.

Through their websites, interest groups can link visitors to their pages on all

imaginable social networking sites. These links may be especially helpful for groups

wishing to connect on a more personal and immediate level with their members.

Interest groups without members, such as think tanks and research institutions,

may not find the immediate access available to the public through social networking

to be advantageous.

Page | 21

H5: Interest groups with individual members will display links to social

networking sites more frequently than interest groups without members.

MethodologyI compiled my list of women’s organizations from three different sources. I

first consulted Anne Costain’s article “The Struggle for a National Women’s Lobby:

Organizing a Diffuse Interest” (1980), in which she analyzed the women’s

movement in general, and in particular, the development of 14 different women’s

organizations. Many of these groups form the “first wave” of feminism, and so to

include more recently established groups, I consulted other sources. The creation

and maintenance of women’s organizations is also discussed in Women and Politics:

Paths to Power and Political Influence (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 2010). In an

appendix, the authors list 19 of the most well known women’s interest groups. A

few of these groups overlap with the sample in Costain’s work, but it also includes

many third-wave organizations. Combining these two sources, I had a sample of 26

women’s organizations. To create a sample size large enough to draw conclusions

from, I turned to Associations Unlimited, a database published by Gale that contains

information on more than 456,000 organizations3. Users find information on

associations by entering various search criteria, including the name or acronym,

location, year founded, number of members, budget, and subject category. I

narrowed my search by selecting groups under the “women” subject category with

either over 200 members or a budget of more than $50,000. Through this search, I

aimed to collect information on some of the larger interest groups not listed in my

print sources. I focused on larger groups because they were more likely to have

both a current and early version of their websites. After the search, I had a total

3 More information about the database can be found at Gale Cengage Learning’s website at http://www.gale.cengage.com

Page | 22

population of 48 interest groups; 14 of these groups were founded during the first

wave of feminism, 18 during the second wave and 16 during the third wave. While

certainly not encompassing all active women’s interest groups, these groups

represent a wide range of women’s interests and a sample from the three waves of

feminism.

Upon assembling my sample of women’s interest groups, I collected general

information on the group, including the founding year of the group, whether or not

the group had members, and the staff size. Associations Unlimited provided me with

the founding year of the group and the membership information. To obtain the staff

size of each organization, I accessed the most recent IRS Form 990 (those

submitted by tax-exempt organizations) available through GuideStar USA

(www.guidestar.org). GuideStar keeps a database on non-profit organizations, and

users can access the latest IRS forms submitted by the organizations, as well as

other information about these groups. The majority of these forms dates from 2009;

even though they date two years prior to the 2011 website, the numbers provide a

good estimate of the current staff at the interest group. Staff information was not

available for the late 1990s and early 2000s, and so the earlier websites are not

analyzed in relation to staff size.

After I finished collecting the data on the interest groups, I obtained earlier

versions of their websites using the Internet Archive at www.archive.org. The

Internet Archive is an online library of archived audio and video sources, as well as

websites, all of which is open to the public. The organization’s “Way Back Machine”

allows “people to visit archived versions of Web Sites” by simply typing in the URL

(Frequently Asked Questions). I was able to find earlier versions for 46 of the 48

interest groups’ websites. The National Women’s Law Center and the National

Page | 23

Women’s Political Caucus have their websites blocked from archiving through the

Standard for Robot Exclusion.4 In searching through the archives, I took the earliest

possible version of the interest group’s site. Nine of the websites date back from

1996; in total, 27 of the websites, or 59% of the available websites, date back prior

to 2000. There are twelve websites (26.1%) which date from between 2000 and

2003, and seven (15%) from 2004 to 2007.

From these archives, I collected data on the mission statements of the groups

at the time of the archive and eight features of the group’s website. I analyzed the

home pages of each organization’s website, and coded for whether there was a link

to, or mention of, the following features: “about us,” contact, news, donations,

becoming a member, joining an e-mail list, social networking links, and taking

action. Websites that contained a feature were coded “1” under the appropriate

variable, while websites that did not have the feature were coded “0.” I expected

the “about us” section and contact information to be nearly universal features. The

about us feature includes any background information about the group, including its

mission statement. Contact information could include a physical address, an e-mail

address, or a phone number. Many of the early websites did not have a separate

link for information about the group, but it was provided on the home page, and the

same was true of contact information. I also looked for a news feature on the home

page. Many organizations post relevant news stories, whether that includes court

rulings, new legislation, or recent protests and demonstrations. The news stories

may not specifically mention the group, but they concern relevant policy issues.

The last five features call for more active participation of website visitors.

Many interest groups will seek donations through their websites. Depending on the 4 The Standard for Robot Exclusion (SRE) allows website owners to disallow automated systems

from crawling their websites. More information on the SRE can be found under the Frequently Asked Questions at Internet Archive (www.archive.org/about/faqs.php).

Page | 24

date of the earlier website, the donation feature may allow individuals to give

through a credit card payment online (with a service such as PayPal) or there may

be a form to fill out and submit to the organization. It is important to note that many

websites do have donation features, but they are not displayed on the home page. I

focused solely on what is provided on the homepage, because it is the visitor’s first

look at the website, and the first opportunity for the group to state their priorities.

Interest groups that include donation features elsewhere on the website likely do

not see the primary purpose of the website as a fundraising mechanism. In addition

to seeking donations, some websites feature links for individuals to become a

member of the group. Just as with the donation feature, it is possible that

individuals can find information about joining the group on other parts of the

website. By highlighting the opportunity to become a part of the organization on the

home page, however, the group alludes to its priorities. As mentioned previously,

websites enable interest groups to reach out to larger audiences who may have no

previous experience with the group, and have the potential to be used as recruiting

tools.

Signing up for e-mail alerts may be considered the Internet-age equivalent of

receiving the monthly newsletter. It enables individuals to learn more about the

group and become aware of their activities without becoming full-fledged members.

Following Olson’s theory, providing such a newsletter free of the duties that come

with being a group member provides a problem for collective action. Why would an

individual choose to join the group if she can receive the same benefit without

paying the cost associated with membership? Interest groups obviously consider

providing such information to be advantageous to the maintenance of the group.

Perhaps it is their hope that by learning more about the organization, an individual

Page | 25

will feel a pull towards becoming a dues-paying member. Regardless of the purpose

behind the e-mail list, it has become a common feature on many websites. Social

networking is the step beyond the e-mail alert. An e-mail may hold the contents of a

whole newsletter, while posting a “tweet” on Twitter is only 140 characters. It is a

quick, and relatively simple, way for interest groups to disseminate information

among members and non-members alike. Providing links to social networking sites

on their home pages makes it even easier for individuals to follow their activities.

Interest groups may also use the Internet to encourage group members and

website visitors to take actions on their policy concerns. The “take action” section of

a website may include a place for individuals to sign their names to petitions, or

send a letter to their Senator or Representative. Visitors to a website can type in

their zip code and access a pre-written letter to their specific member of Congress

outlining why they should support or oppose a piece of legislation. This type of

campaign takes less time and resources than going door-to-door for signatures or

coordinating a mass mailing. The take action feature may also provide information

about upcoming demonstrations, or other ways in which members and non-

members can show their support for a cause.

In addition to coding for the features included on each interest group’s

website, I conducted a content analysis of the interest groups’ mission statements. I

collected the mission statements from the early websites as well as the mission

statements of the groups in March 2011 (referred to as “current” statements).

These mission statements reflect the priorities of the group at the time of their

publication, and may include information such as the constituency served by the

group, the goals and purpose of the group, and the types of strategies employed to

reach those goals. Each mission statement was analyzed for mentions of the

Page | 26

geographic scope of the interest group and the individuals it intended to benefit.

While the population consists of women’s groups, many of these groups also

advocate on behalf of men, children, and families. In addition, I analyzed the

mission statements looking for mentions of religious affiliation and political

ideology. In regards to political ideology, while some of the interest groups

expressed support for liberal or conservative values, many explicitly noted their

nonpartisan status. Finally, I analyzed the mission statements for reference to types

of strategy, including education, advocacy, research, and grassroots mobilization.

I conducted a series of chi-square tests to test the relationship between

variables. I also used qualitative measures to explore the evolution of interest group

websites and mission statements in the past 15 years. Taken in conjunction, these

two approaches—examining websites at different points in time and comparing

mission statements—provide a more complete picture of how interest groups use

the Internet to engage their members and the public.

AnalysisMy analysis shows that the number of web features used by interest groups

increased over time, which is to be expected. The earlier versions of the interest

group websites displayed, on average, three of the eight features for which I coded;

by 2011, that average had increased to over five features. As the Internet was more

widely accessible, and people had more experience with the technology, website

creators became more knowledgeable about the variety of features that could be

included on any given web page. As expected, the most prevalent features on the

interest group’s websites were the “about us” section and contact information.

Every one of the 46 early websites either had a separate page for information about

the organization, or provided the information on the home page (see Table 1).

Page | 27

Thirty-seven (over 80%) of the early websites contained contact information. Out of

the 45 websites viewable today, all provided information about the group, and 43

also gave contact information. The National Organization for Women and Church

Women United were the two groups that did not provide contact information on

their homepages, but for both organizations contact information is one of the links

provided under the “about us” tab. These results suggest that websites still serve as

a way to communicate the purpose of the organization with members and outsiders.

Interest groups first have to present their goals and beliefs before getting an

individual to join the group or participate in political action. After all, the purposive

benefits provided by an interest group are essential to group maintenance.

Overall, each of the eight features is used more frequently in current

statements than it was in the past, though the percentage of interest groups that

had donation features and links to social networking sites saw the greatest

increases. Two-thirds of women’s groups in the sample have links to social

networking sites on their homepages, while none of the early websites provided

these links. This is simply because social networking as we know it today (Facebook,

Twitter, etc.) did not exist in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The percentage of

websites that provided the visitor with an opportunity to donate to the group

increased dramatically from the early to the present-day versions of the website.

Less than 20% of all early websites included a donations link, while currently 80% of

organizations have a donations feature. In part, this increase illustrates the ever-

growing reach of the Internet. Over time individuals have become more accustomed

to buying things online, and with programs such as PayPal, there is a relatively safe

and effective way to do so. The increase in online donation options may also

suggest that interest groups are tapping into a new fundraising mechanism, just as

Page | 28

political campaigns have become more adept at raising money online. If interest

groups know that members, as well as individuals from outside the organization, are

more likely to contribute to their cause online rather than through phone calls or

letters, then it makes sense for the interest group to adapt their strategies.

The increases in the percentage of interest group websites with “take action”

or “become a member” features did not increase nearly as much as the percentage

of groups with donation features. Only four of the early websites (approximately 9%

of the total) had “take action” features; that number increased to 18 (40%) in the

sample of current websites. The percentage of interest group home pages with a

“become a member” feature virtually remained constant (it increased from 54.3%

to 55.6%). This data illustrates how interest groups are using their websites. It

appears that interest groups see more benefit in providing background and contact

information on the web than in actively recruiting members or mobilizing them to

action. Having an individual send a letter to their member of Congress or sign an

online petition is a rather simple gesture, but if interest groups are looking for more

involved methods of political activism (such as organizing protests, attending town

hall meetings, etc.), the Internet may not fulfill that role.

Hypothesis 3 predicts that second and third wave women’s groups are more

likely to use action features (“take action” and/or e-mail list features) on their

websites than first wave women’s groups. This hypothesis came from the

understanding that second and third wave women’s groups were politically

motivated from their creation, whereas first wave groups often began as charitable

organizations and only later became involved in politics. A chi-square test provides

support for this hypothesis when comparing the current versions of interest group

websites (see Table 2). Less than 50% of first wave women’s groups display action

Page | 29

features on their home pages. In contrast, nearly 59% of second wave groups and

over 93% of third wave groups have action features on their home pages

(significant at p < .10). An analysis of the early websites reveals no significant

differences between the different waves of feminism (see Table 3). This may be

attributed to the fact that the novelty of the technology prevented groups from

adding these more sophisticated features. Only nine of the 46 early websites

contained an action feature, and none of the websites had both a take action

feature and an e-mail list.

Interestingly, seven of the fifteen 2011 websites (nearly 47%) belonging to

third wave groups displayed both a take action feature and an e-mail list on their

home pages. For first wave groups, less than 30% of groups used both features on

their home pages. Why would an interest group display a take action feature on

their home page, but not offer an e-mail list sign-up, or vice versa? The choice may

stem from the role of the e-mail list to the group. Some groups may see an e-mail

list as an opportunity to bring the organizational newsletter, which groups

traditionally mailed to members, into the technology age. Others may use it as a

means of communicating upcoming events that require action. Therefore, the e-

mail subscription can be classified as either a passive or active feature, depending

on the intent of the interest group. Further research on the content of the e-mails

distributed by interest groups would provide more insight into this hypothesis.

Another of my hypotheses (Hypothesis 5) concerned the use of social

networking links by interest groups; I predicted that women’s interest groups made

of individual members would be more likely to connect their websites to their social

networking pages than interest groups without members. A chi-square test does not

support this hypothesis (see Table 4). In fact, a greater percentage of non-member

Page | 30

groups have links to social networking sites than members groups, 87.5% to 60.5%.

This may be caused in part by the small sample of non-member groups (eight in

total); a larger sample would provide for a more robust analysis. In addition, social

networking has integrated into our society to such an extent that it may be

inevitable for interest groups to develop their own Facebook pages or Twitter

accounts. Similar to e-mail lists, interest groups may also use social networking

sites for different purposes. A member organization, such as Feminists for Life or

Older Women’s League, may use social networking to inform their members of the

latest action taken by the group. Research institutions or think tanks may use the

sites as a platform for publishing their findings, or for encouraging donations. Again,

analyzing the content of the social networking pages would provide a better

understanding of how interest groups use these resources to promote their

message and communicate with their members.

Websites and Interest Group StaffWith advances in technology and increased access to the Internet, interest

group websites have become more sophisticated. How does the staff of the interest

group affect this sophistication? In hypothesis 4, I stated that interest groups with

larger staffs would have more sophisticated websites. There appears to be a

relationship between the size of the interest group staff and the presence donation

and take action features and social networking links (see Table 5). The average staff

of an interest group that provides social networking links on their home page is over

26 people, while those that do not have links to social networks on their home

pages have an average staff of less than 12 people. An interest group that wants to

maintain a strong presence on Facebook or Twitter may find it beneficial to hire

Page | 31

someone to specialize in that area. It is also possible, however, that an interest

group may belong to a social network but not actively update their page or

regularly tweet.

The average staff of an interest group displaying a take action feature on

their home page is significantly larger than the staff of an interest group without

this feature. On average, an interest group with a take action feature on their

website has over 29 employees, while interest groups without a take action feature

employs, on average, less than 18 people (statistically significant at p < .10). While

the work put forth by an individual when he or she signs an online petition or sends

off an e-mail to a member of Congress is minimal, coordinating such action requires

more work on the part of the interest group. Constantly changing public policies

require that interest groups keep on top of their campaigns. The League of Women

Voters (LWV), for instance, currently encourages individuals to take part in five

campaigns, concerning such diverse topics as clean air, health care, money in

elections, voter registration, and election administration.5 With such far-reaching

priorities, LWV needs specialists in each of these issues. In addition, those interest

groups encouraging political action online are probably more likely to engage in

political activity offline as well. These activities, ranging from lobbying to

participating in hearings and organizing demonstrations, call for a larger staff.

Interest groups with donation features on their websites also have

significantly larger staffs than those without such features (an average of 25

employees compared to three employees). The organization may employ someone

to coordinate donations, but it seems unlikely that an organization would need an

additional employee to handle online donations (as opposed to offline donations). 5 The complete list of issues for which the League of Women Voters advocates can be found at the

“League Action Center” (http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Take_Action&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=198&ContentID=16138).

Page | 32

Rather, the relationship between staff size and online donations is indicative of the

total resources possessed by the group. The size of an interest group staff is a

strong indicator of the overall budget of the group. In addition, interest groups with

more resources may be concerned with more policy areas. The question of

causation, however, remains: Do interest groups increase their budgets because

they experience an increase in donations from online donors, or do groups add

donation features to their websites because they have an increased need? A

donations feature on the website also suggests that a group expects to receive

funding not just from members, who can be encouraged to donate through other

means such as newsletters or phone calls, but also from outside individuals who

happen to be on the organization’s site.

Strategies in Mission StatementsWith an understanding that interest groups may use the same features to

reach different goals, I analyzed the goals of these groups as shown through their

mission statements. Mission statements could just as easily be obtained from offline

sources, such as annual reports or monthly newsletters. The online mission

statement, however, affords the interest group the opportunity to communicate its

purpose not only to those receiving its regular publications (mainly members and

patrons) but also to individuals who are not familiar with the organization. In that

sense, an online mission statement puts a public face to the interest group, and

may attract future members or donators.

Hypothesis 1 postulated that third-wave interest groups would change their

mission statements more frequently than first or second-wave groups to test this

hypothesis. To test this hypothesis, I collected an early and current mission

statement for 39 of the 48 groups in my sample. I excluded nine groups from this

Page | 33

set because either the early or current mission statement was not available. Out of

the 39 groups, seven of the current mission statements were identical to the earlier

version; three of these identical statements came from first-wave groups, while the

other four came from second-wave groups. This suggests that in the most literal

meaning, third-wave groups were more likely to change their mission statements

than were their first and second-wave counterparts. However, the vast majority of

interest groups did change at least some part of their mission statement. Therefore,

to test my hypothesis, I looked at how the strategies mentioned in the mission

statements changed between the early and current versions.

After reading through the mission statements of the interest groups, I broke

down strategies into four categories: education, advocacy, research, and grassroots

mobilization. These strategies do not encompass all the methods used by the

interest groups to achieve their goals, but they are the most common. These

categories also represent political and non-political methods used by interest

groups. Advocacy implies that the interest group is actively pursuing policy change,

and may take the form of lobbying members of Congress, meeting with members of

executive agencies, or issuing amicus curiae briefs for relevant court cases.

Grassroots mobilization means that the interest group is recruiting individuals to

stand up for a position, whether on a local, state, or federal level. Grassroots

mobilization implicates more than just the interest group’s lobbyist, and encourages

people to become politically involved. Educating the public about issues and

providing research on a topic can be seen as non-political avenues for achieving

change, though they may have underlying political motives. Women’s organizations

such as the Society for Women’s Health Research and National Council on Women’s

Page | 34

Health conduct research on women’s health issues and disseminate their findings to

the public and those involved in crafting health policy.

While the research conducted by interest groups provides valuable

information to the public about a wide range of issues, the importance of expert

information for interest groups in gaining access to government officials cannot be

undersestimated. Employing skilled lobbyists or motivating fervent supporters may

help an interest group spread the word about their issues and potentially add their

issue to the formal agenda. The formal agenda, as defined by Roger Cobb and Marc

Ross (1997), differs from the public agenda in that issues on the formal agenda are

actively under consideration by the government (7). To determine their stance on

issues on the formal agenda, members of Congress, as well as other government

officials, often rely on the expert information provided by interest groups (Esterling

2004, 50). In their mission statements, therefore, interest groups can make clear

the ways in which they seek favorable policy change, whether it is through

educating and mobilizing the public, conducting research, or advocating for their

cause.

Education, brought up in the mission statements of 21 groups, was the most

commonly mentioned strategy. This suggests that interest groups see one of their

most important goals as bringing greater awareness to the cause. The scope of

education ranges from EMILY’s List, which seeks to educate the public about pro-

choice Democratic women candidates, to the Business and Professional Women’s

Foundation, which aims to support working women by educating them on issues

such as economic equity. Even though education was the most commonly referred

to strategy, only nine groups mentioned it in both their early and current

statements. Four of these groups were founded during the first wave, three were

Page | 35

founded during the second wave, and only one was founded in the third wave. The

number of interest groups mentioning education in their statements increased over

time, from 14 of the earlier statements to 16 of the current statements (see Table

6). This change is not statistically significant, however, and neither is the difference

between the first, second, and third waves.

Ten interest groups mentioned research, the other arguably non-political

strategy. Only three of these groups (one from the first wave and two from the third

wave) mentioned conducting research in both their early and current mission

statements. In the early mission statements of these three groups, the National

Women’s Health Network (NWHN), Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR),

and Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), research is the sole strategy

mentioned. The SWHR explicitly states that in its earlier mission statement that the

organization’s “sole mission is to improve the health of women through research.”

In the current mission statements, research remains the only strategy mentioned by

NWHN and IWPR, though the SWHR expands its mission to include advocacy and

education. The number of interest groups mentioning research within their

statements more than doubled, from four groups in the early versions to nine in the

current versions. This does not necessarily mean that more interest groups are

conducting and disseminating research as in the past. It could suggest that interest

groups find research to be a more important strategy, relating back to the

importance of expert information in gaining access to government officials.

The number of interest groups mentioning advocacy in their mission

statements decreased slightly over time, from nine to eight groups. The context of

advocacy varied depending on the interest group; for instance, the American

Association of University Women’s current mission statement simply says that the

Page | 36

group “advances equity for women and girls through advocacy, education,

philanthropy, and research.” The earlier statement from the International Women’s

Health Coalition, dating from 1998 is more explicit, stating that the organization

“advocates health and population policies to better meet the needs of women and

their families.” The Women’s Policy Institute (WPI), League of Women Voters (LWV),

and Federally Employed Women (FEW) mentioned advocacy in both of their

statements. For WPI and FEW, advocacy was the only strategy mentioned in either

of their mission statements, while the LWV also addressed education within their

statements. Stressing the importance of advocacy may be helpful for organizations

with members. Overall, members expect to see some collective benefit achieved by

the group, and advocacy is one of the ways in which an interest group can show the

work it is doing on behalf of its members. The group can list the members of

Congress with whom they worked, the hearings they attended, and the executive

officials they advised. Even if the group does not achieve the desired policy change,

it can at least present a list of actions taken. Not winning a policy battle may even

help an interest group, because it provides a reason to solicit more donations and

mobilize more people to action. If an interest group can portray itself as an

“underdog” that has lost a battle against larger, better-funded organizations, than

its members may be more inclined to donate or to participate in advocacy work.

The threat of the opposition achieving their goals can have a rallying effect for

interest groups as they draw on the common purpose felt among its members.

Grassroots action was the least mentioned strategy; six interest groups

mentioned it in their earlier statements, and six mention it in their current

statements. Four groups, CODEPINK, EMILY’s List, NOW, and Feminists for Life,

include it in both of their statements; for CODEPINK and NOW it is the only strategy

Page | 37

mentioned. Many of the groups explicitly state that they are grassroots

organizations; for instance, CODEPINK describes itself as a “grassroots peace and

social justice movement.” Other groups allude to grassroots movements through

phrases such as “mobilizing women voters” (EMILY’s List). Over 36% of third wave

groups mentioned grassroots activism, compared to roughly 16% of first wave

groups and approximately 13% of second wave groups. This difference, however, is

not statistically significant (see Table 7). A larger sample size would provide

stronger evidence for this relationship.

After evaluating the different strategies conveyed by interest groups through

their mission statements, I sought to distinguish between mission statements in

which a few words were moved around and those statements that greatly changed.

I classified those mission statements that “changed” as those in which more than

one strategy was added or omitted between the early and the current statements.

The early and current versions of the AAUW mission statement provide a strong

example of a changed statement. The earlier version, dating from 1996, states “the

American Association of University Women is a national organization that promotes

education and equity for all women and girls.” The current statement says the

“AAUW advances equity for women and girls through advocacy, education,

philanthropy, and research.” The earlier version of the statement is not explicit in

how it will achieve the goals of equity for women and girls, while the current

statement lays out four ways in which the organization will seek change. The

mission statement of the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW) underwent a

similar change. The earlier statement, from 1998, states that the group will

“advance opportunities and the quality of life for African and African-American

women, their families, and their communities.” The current version expresses this

Page | 38

same goal, but continues on to say that, “NCNW fulfills this purpose through

research, advocacy, and national and community-based services and programs.”

The addition of these strategies suggests that the interest group wants to take an

active role in seeing change, and has a plan for that action.

Ten of the 39 interest groups saw significant change in their mission

statements. Nearly 31% of first wave groups and 46% of third wave groups changed

their mission statements; in contrast, less than seven percent of second wave

groups changed their mission statements. The mission statements of the OWL, for

instance, greatly changed over time. Their earlier statement from 2000 does not

mention any strategy, while the current version states that the OWL is a “national

grassroots membership organization” that “accomplishes its work through research,

education, and advocacy activities.” The differences among the three waves is

significant at p < .10, and provides support for my hypothesis, which stated that

third wave groups would be the most likely to change mission statements. This

quantitative analysis does not explain why interest groups change their mission

statements over time, nor does it indicate how important these changes are to the

operation of the interest group. Does the addition or subtraction of key terms such

as advocacy, education, research, and grassroots indicate that the interest group

fundamentally changes the way in which it operates? Alternatively, is the change in

language simply symbolic (i.e. an interest group that conducts research may be

considered more authoritative, and one that engages in grassroots activism is more

in touch with everyday citizens)?

Hypothesis 2 predicted that third wave interest groups would see greater

policy divergence over time than first or second wave groups. The policy issues

addressed by these interest groups largely did not change over time. Some

Page | 39

organizations did become more specific in the types of issues for which they

advocated. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) identified itself in

1997 as a “scientific research organization” that sought to “inform and stimulate

debate on issues of critical importance for women.” The IWPR remains committed to

women’s issues, but current lists its most important policy areas as “employment,

education & economic change,” “democracy & society,” “poverty, welfare, &

income security,” “work & family,” and “health & safety.” Similarly, Women’s Policy,

Inc. (WPI) stated in 2000 that its mission was to provide information on

“congressional actions important to women and families.” This mission evolved into

providing information on “the most significant social, economic, and health issues

across the public policy spectrum,” as written in their current mission statement.

The changes in these mission statements do not indicate a complete overhaul of the

interest group’s purpose. It does show, however, that interest groups find policy

niches and use more specific language to distinguish themselves from other groups.

These two groups, IWPR and WPI, are relatively young organizations, founded in

1987 and 1995, respectively, and it is expected that newer organizations will take a

few years before settling into their niche in the vast population of interest groups.

Further research into the changing policy priorities of women’s interest groups is

necessary to provide support for or against the hypothesis.

Characteristics in Mission StatementsOutside of the strategies used by the interest groups, the mission statements

also provides insight into the characteristics of the groups. Some of the mission

statements explicitly state the philosophical background of the group. Eight of the

groups, for instance, draw their philosophy from a religious denomination (see Table

8). Three of these groups, AGLOW, Church Women United, and Concerned Women

for America, stress their Christian, biblical roots in both their earlier and current

Page | 40

statements. Three other groups draw from specific Christian denominations:

Episcopal Women’s Caucus, United Methodist Women, and Women-Church

Convergence (a Roman Catholic group). The remaining religious groups, Jewish

Women International and National Council of Jewish Women, mention the

importance of Jewish values for their groups. Four of these groups come from the

first wave, which corresponds to the origin of these groups as charitable

organizations. The remaining four come from the second wave of feminism; none of

the third wave groups mentions religion in their mission statements. By the 1980s,

the women that needed representation by interest groups were not religiously

divided, but focused on subsets of women based on their ethnicity, race, age, and

socioeconomic status.

Some groups do not define themselves based on religious principles; rather,

their political orientation (or lack thereof) is a driving force for the group. Two of the

groups explicitly stated their political ideology: Eagle Forum stated in both its

archive and current mission statements that its purpose is to “enable conservative

and pro-family men and women to participate in the process of self-government and

public policy making.” EMILY’s List, in contrast, expressed in both the current and

earlier mission statements that its goal is to elect “pro-choice Democratic women

candidates.” While these two groups take sides politically, four groups clearly state

that their mission is nonpartisan. League of Women Voters, Foundation for Women’s

Resources, and Women’s Policy, Inc. state they are nonpartisan in both their earlier

and current statements. Feminists for Life state in their current mission statement

that the group is nonpartisan, but this is missing in their 1999 mission statement. It

is difficult to determine, just from reading the mission statements, if this was a

purposeful addition. Perhaps the group was associated with the conservative pro-life

Page | 41

movement, and over time, the group decided it was not benefitting from this

association. Further analysis of the changing tactics of the group would provide a

clearer understanding of whether the change in the mission statement was a

conscious attempt to disassociate with one political party.

In addition to identifying their political and religious associations, interest

groups use their mission statements to state clearly the constituents they are

serving. The primary focus for all of these groups is the interests of women, but

many of the mission statements also express concern about how public policies

affect men and children as well. Three interest groups, AGLOW, Eagle Forum, and

the League of Women Voters, mention men and women in their mission statements.

Eagle Forum mentions both sexes in the earlier and current versions of their

statements. AGLOW, however, only includes men in the current version of their

statement, and the LWV only mentions in their 1997 mission statement that men

and women can join the organization. It would be interesting to conduct further

research into whether women’s organizations are more willing to include men. Do

these groups find that a membership of women only is not large enough to achieve

change, or do they find that men are active partners in promoting policies that treat

the two genders equally?

Other organizations come across as more family-oriented in their mission

statements. Four interest groups mention in their mission statements concern for

the wellbeing of families, and four groups mention children. A few of these groups

are religiously affiliated; for instance, Church Women United acts “on behalf of

women and children” throughout the world. Other groups have secular origins; the

National Council of Negro Women states in its current mission statement that the

group “advocate[s] for women of African descent as they support their families.”

Page | 42

Five of these groups come from the first wave, and the other three were founded

during the third wave. The sample is too small to indicate whether this difference

among the waves is significant, though it may indicate that second wave groups are

still more closely associated with political and civil rights rather than family issues.

This raises a larger question: is it possible for a public policy to affect only women,

or is the whole society impacted by policies that target women?

When analyzing the geographic scope of the interest group, I did not include

all the groups whose names included “national” or “international.” Instead, I

focused on the groups who mentioned their geographic reach within their mission

statement. Four of the interest groups identify themselves as international

organizations. Two of these organizations, the Foundation for Women’s Resources

and P.E.O. International removed the term “international” from their current

statements. It is possible that the scope of the interest groups changed from the

time of the earlier statement to the present, but further analysis on the actions

taken by these groups during this period is required to reach firm conclusions.

Ten of the groups stated in their mission statements that they focus on

national interests. The American Association of University Women stated in its 1996

mission statements that it is a national organization, while this is missing in the

current mission. Women in Management, however, did not mention its geographic

scope in the earlier version of its mission statement, though it is included in the

current version. Has the group expanded its interest in the past 15 years—did

Women in Management begin in just a few states and expand to include the entire

nation? Does AAUW now advocate for women across the world? Alternatively, for

the AAUW, is it assumed that because the name of the group includes “American”

that it focuses solely on issues within the United States? As with many of the other

Page | 43

aspects of the mission statements, a more thorough investigation of the changing

nature of the interest groups would establish a more solid relationship between the

rhetoric used in the mission statement and the practices of the group.

ConclusionsLimited research currently exists on how interest groups use the Internet for

organization and mobilization. Research that does address the Internet and interest

groups largely focuses on whether the Internet evens the playing field between

groups with large memberships and budgets, and smaller, less well-known groups.

In my research, I examine the features placed on the home pages of interest group

websites, as well as the evolution of group mission statements in an attempt to

better understand how interest groups use the Internet to their advantage. I chose

to focus on women’s interest groups because they represent a large constituency

with many different interests, and fall into three distinct categories, based on their

founding dates.

I tested three hypotheses to explain the relationship between interest group

characteristics and the features displayed on their websites. Initially I hypothesized

that second and third wave interest groups would use action features, such as e-

mail lists and online petitions and letters to members of Congress, more frequently

than first wave interest groups. In comparing the earlier versions of these websites,

there was no significant difference between the three waves of feminism. The

technology available at the time of the early websites (going as far back as 1996)

placed some limits on the interest groups. Presumably, as technology advanced it

became easier for interest groups to add these features to their websites, and thus

the practice became more common. Therefore, it is more telling to look at the

features exhibited in the current websites, and the analysis of these sites did

Page | 44

support the hypothesis. A more complete understanding of how interest groups use

their websites to inspire citizens to take action would analyze the content of some

of these features. For instance, does the e-mail alert encourage subscribers to

become politically involved, or is the feature simply used as a replacement for the

traditional organizational newsletter? In addition, do a large number of website

visitors sign the petitions and letters to Congress, or do visitors ignore the features?

Ultimately, further research should explore the effectiveness of these features in

achieving change.

The availability of technology places some limitations on interest group

website features; does the staff size of an interest group effect the features of the

website as well? Creating a website may not require the same level of expertise

today as it did 15 years ago, but the features on the website may point to the

extent of the interest group’s activity. An interest group with action features, a

donations link, and membership opportunities is likely to have staff members

responsible for running campaigns, maintaining a donations database, and working

with members. Some interest groups coordinate campaigns in multiple policy areas;

it is likely that the group will employ experts in each of these areas. Therefore, the

sophistication of the interest group website does not necessarily mean that multiple

staff members work on maintaining the site, but it may act as a measure of the

level of activity by the group.

One of the newer features on interest group website are links to social

networking sites. I hypothesized that interest groups with members would be more

likely to feature social networking links on their home pages than groups without

members. The data did not support this hypothesis; the lack of support may be

caused by the proliferation of social networking sites. Sites such as Facebook and

Page | 45

Twitter provide advantages to interest groups with members, because they can

send out messages to their members at any time, and in turn, their members can

introduce the group to non-members. These sites also provide benefits for groups

without members; think tanks and research institutions can use social networking

sites to publicize their research efforts and connect with other groups. Similar to the

action features, analyzing the content of the profiles and posts of interest groups on

sites such as Facebook and Twitter would provide insight into what interest groups

stand to gain from joining social networks.

While the features on websites allude to the priorities and policy areas of

interest to the organizations, the mission statements clearly state the purpose and

goals of the group. Knowing that interest groups often narrow their area of

expertise to create a niche for themselves among other groups, I hypothesized that

third wave groups would change their mission statements more frequently than first

and second wave groups. The strategies of third wave groups, as identified in their

mission statements, did change more frequently than first and second wave groups.

The possibility remains though that the change in language does not actually reflect

a change in tactics. More research into the relationship between the written

strategies of the interest group and the actual practices of the interest groups is

needed to provide conclusive support for this hypothesis.

In addition to predicting that third wave groups would change their mission

statements more frequently than older groups, I also hypothesized that these

groups would experience policy divergence. This again goes back to the theory that

interest groups must find a policy niche in order to survive; if a group cannot

provide a different perspective or pertinent research on a topic, then it is less likely

to attract members and receive attention from government officials. In general, the

Page | 46

policy areas of the interest groups in the sample remained the same. Interest

groups that did change their policy areas did not completely start anew; rather,

they targeted policies that are narrower in scope. There is little doubt, however,

that interest groups do learn from one another when creating their websites. From

the early versions of the websites to the present day versions, many of the interest

groups began using the same features on their sites. Because all of the interest

groups studied were concerned with women’s issues, there is even more reason to

believe that they learn from the best practices of other groups when creating their

websites.

This research has been largely exploratory in nature, and given more time, it

could expand in several directions. This dataset included only women’s groups, but

further research may look into how interest groups concerned with other policy

areas use the Internet. For instance, does the AARP, which represents the interests

of retired individuals, find the Internet to be advantageous to their strategy?

Perhaps the group uses the Internet less as a way to communicate with members

and more as a method of connecting to other groups. On a similar note, there may

be a relationship between labor unions and their use of the Internet to recruit new

members. The research could also analyze how an interest group transfers its online

presence into offline action. How does online participation affect grassroots

movements? What kind of content do interest groups distribute online, and does it

greatly differ from the message they send out through other sources of media?

Ultimately, do interest groups with an extensive web presence see greater policy

success? As the internet continues to play a large role in the lives of citizens, it

stands to become a more important tool for interest groups.

Page | 47

Bibliography

Browne, William P. 1988. Groups, Interests, and U.S. Public Policy. Washington, D.C.:

Georgetown University Press.

Clemens, Elisabeth S. 1999. "Organizational Repertoires and Institutional Change:

Women's Groups and the Transformation of American Politics, 1890-1920." In

Civic Engagement in American Democracy, ed. Theda Skocpol and Morris P.

Fiorina, 81-110. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Cobb, Roger W., and Marc Ross. 1997. Cultural Strategies of Agenda Denial:

Avoidance, Attack, and Redefinition. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of

Kansas.

Coleman, Jenny. 2009. "An introduction to feminisms in a postfeminist age."

Women's Studies Journal 23, no. 2 (November): 3-13.

Costain, Anne N. 1981. "Representing Women: The Transition from Social Movement

to Interest Group." Western Political Quarterly 34 (March): 100-113.

Costain, Anne N. 1980. "The Struggle for a National Women's Lobby: Organizing a

Diffuse Interest." Western Political Quarterly 33 (December): 476-491.

Costain, Anne N. 1998. “Women Lobby Congress.” In Social Movements and

American Political Institutions, ed. Anne N. Costain and Andrew S. McFarland,

171-184. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers.

Damore, David F. 2005. “Issue Convergence in Presidential Campaigns.” Political

Behavior 27 (March): 71-97.

Della Porta, Donatella, and Mario Diani. 2006. Social Movements: an Introduction.

2nd Ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Dolan, Julie, Melissa Deckman, and Michele L. Swers. 2011. Women and Politics:

Paths to Power and Political Influence. 2nd Ed. New York: Pearson Education.

Page | 48

Esterling, Kevin M. 2004. The Political Economy of Expertise: Information and

Efficiency in American National Politics. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of

Michigan Press.

"Frequently Asked Questions." Internet Archive.

http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php (accessed March 17, 2011).

Haslanger, Sally, and Nancy Tuana. 2011. "Topics in Feminism." The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. January 18.

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/ entries/feminism-topics (accessed

February 23, 2011).

Kirkpatrick, David D. 2011. “Egypt Erupts in Jubilation as Mubarak Steps Down.”

New York Times, February 11: A1.

Jenson, Michael J., James N. Danziger, and Alladi Venkatesh. 2007. "Civil Society and

Cyber Society: The Role of the Internet in Community Associations and

Democratic Politics." The Information Society 23: 39-50.

Merry, Melissa K. 2010. "Blogging and Environmental Advocacy: A New Way to

Engage the Public?" Review of Policy Research 27, no. 5: 641-656.

Merry, Melissa K. N.d. "Interest Group Activism on the Web: The Case of

Environmental Organizations." Journal of Information Technology and Politics.

Forthcoming.

Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of

Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Panagopoulos, Costas. 2009. "Technology and the Modern Political Campaign: the

Digital Pulse of the 2008 Campaigns." In Politicking Online: The

Transformation of Election Campaign Communications, ed. Costas

Panagopoulos, 1-17. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Page | 49

Panagopoulos, Costas, and Daniel Bergan. 2009. "Clicking for Cash: Campaigns,

Donors, and the Emergence of Online Fund-Raising." In Politicking Online, ed.

Costas Panagopoulos, 127-140. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Ray, Marcella Ridlen. 1999. "Technological Change and Associational Life." In Civic

Engagement in American Democracy, ed. Theda Skocpol and Morris P.

Fiorina, 297-329. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and John T. Tierney. 1986. Organized Interests and

American Democracy. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. 2010. "Weapon of the

Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet." Perspectives on Politics 8,

no. 2: 487-509.

Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public

Opinion. New York: Knopf.

Walker, Jack L. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions,

and Social Movements. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Page | 50

Appendix 1. Website Features

Table 1. Summary StatisticsFeatures Early Websites Current Websites

Non-Action Features

About Us 46 (100%) 43 (95.6%)Contact 37 (80.4%) 43 (95.6%)News 19 (41.3%) 32 (71.1%)Donation 9 (19.6%) 36 (80.0%)Join 25 (54.3%) 25 (55.6%)Social Network 0 (0.0%) 30 (66.7%)

Action Features E-Mail List 5 (10.9%) 27 (60.0%)Take Action 4 (8.7%) 18 (40.0%)Total 46 45Mean Number of Features 3.02 5.29

Table 2. Action Features on Current Websites (Chi-Square Test)First Wave Second Wave Third Wave Total

Action Features 8 (42.9%) 10 (58.8%) 14 (93.3%) 32No Action Features

6 (57.1%) 7 (41.2%) 1 (6.7%) 14

Total 14 17 15 46Chi-Square: 5.949 df: 2 Significance: .051

Table 3. Action Features on Early Websites (Chi-Square Test)First Wave Second Wave Third Wave Total

Action Features 1 (7.1%) 3 (18.8%) 5 (31.3%) 9No Action Features

13 (92.9%) 13 (81.3%) 11 (68.8%) 37

Total 14 16 16 46Chi-Square: 2.768 df: 2 Significance: .251

Table 4. Social Networking and Members on Current Websites (Chi-Square Test)Members No Members Total

Social Networking 23 (60.5%) 7 (87.5%) 30

Page | 51

No Social Networking

15 (39.5%) 1 (12.5%) 16

Total 38 8 46Chi-Square: 2.120 df: 1 Significance: .145

Table 5. Mean Staff Size According to Feature on Current Websites (T-Test)

FeaturesWebsite Contains Feature Website Does Not Contain

FeatureAbout Us 22.84 1.50Contact 21.76 22.00News 24.21 16.08Donation 25.03** 3.33**Join 26.43 16.63E-Mail List 22.08 21.21Social Network 26.63** 11.69**Take Action 29.50* 17.62**Significant at p < .10 ** Significant at p < .05

Page | 52

Appendix 2. Mission Statement Features

Table 6. Strategies Provided in Mission Statements (T-Test)First-Wave Second-Wave Third-Wave Total

EducationEarlyCurrent

7 (53.8%)8 (61.5%)

4 (28.6%)4 (28.6%)

3 (27.3%)4 (36.4%)

1416

AdvocacyEarlyCurrent

3 (23.1%)3 (23.1%)

2 (14.3%)2 (14.3%)

4 (36.4%)3 (27.3%)

98

ResearchEarlyCurrent

1 (7.7%)3 (23.1%)

1 (7.1%)1 (7.1%)

2 (18.2%)5 (45.5%)

49

GrassrootsEarlyCurrent

1 (7.7%)1 (7.7%)

2 (14.3%)2 (14.3%)

3 (27.3%)3 (27.3%)

66

Change in Strategies

4 (30.8%) 1 (6.7%) 5 (45.5%)

*Significant at p < .10 ** Significant at p < .05

Table 7. Grassroots Activism across Waves (Chi-Square Test)First Wave Second

WaveThird Wave Total

Mention Grassroots(Early or Current) 2 (15.4%) 2 (13.3%) 4 (36.4%) 8Does not Mention Grassroots (Early or Current)

11 (84.6%) 13 (86.7%) 7 (63.6%) 31

Chi-Square: 2.379 df:2 Significance: .304

Table 8. Characteristics in Mission Statements (Chi-Square Test)First Wave Second Wave Third Wave Total

Religion 4 (50.0%) 4 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 8Political Ideology

PartisanNonpartisan

0 (0.0%)1 (25.0%)

1 (50.0%)2 (50.0%)

1 (50.0%)1 (25.0%)

24

ConstituencyMen & WomenFamily & Children

1 (33.3%)5 (62.5%)

2 (66.7%)0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)3 (37.5%)

38

Geographic ScopeNational 3 (30.0%) 3 (30.0%) 4 (40.0%) 10

Page | 53

International 2 (50.0%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (25.0%) 4