Campaign Entrepreneurs in Online Collective Action: GetUp! in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, multi-issue, online campaigning organisations have emerged and mobilised citizens on, mostly, progressive issues. For example, MoveOn in the United States is a renowned leader in the field, and similar organisations now exist in the UK, Canada, New Zealand and at the transnational level. In Australia, GetUp!, with over 600,000 members, has become part of mainstream political debate, while also bringing a disruptive social movement approach to online citizen mobilisation. The role of leadership is underexplored in understanding how these organisations discursively construct their actions and successes. This paper argues that online campaigning organisations are increasingly blurring the line between social change, activist politics and the market, and that leaders play a key role in this process. It uses three points of empirical analysis to substantiate this argument. First, the active diffusion of hybrid political repertoires between online campaigning organisations in the USA and Australia consolidates GetUp! within a transnational ‘network forum’. It also demonstrates that that there is a distinct Australian political context based on the history of social democracy shaping progressive social movements and organisational relationships. Second, the career pathways of 23 GetUp! activist campaigners demonstrates the diffusion of personnel between these online campaigning organisations. Further, it highlights the shift some have made from progressive civil society to the creation of new entrepreneurial, market-facing, organisations. Third, qualitatively analysing how three high-profile GetUp! leaders have used both mainstream and social media to successfully promote their ‘story of self’ assists in the development of the concept of ‘campaign entrepreneurs’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".