Summary
“ Islamic Mobilization: Social Movement Theory and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood” by Ziad Munson assesses the growth as well as the emergence of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood between the 1930s and 1950s. The study commences by highlighting along with empirically examining possible clarifications for the group’s development based on (1) the theory of political opportunity framework in social movement concept and (2) concepts of political Islam. An addition to these models is posited based on the information gathered from organizational records and declassified United State’s Department documents from that period.
According to the author, the successful recruitment of the Muslim Brotherhood was achieved majorly due to the manner in which Islamic memorandum was connected to its organizational strategies, activities, and structure as well as the daily lives and welfare of the Egyptians. The appraisal suggests that concepts are included in social movements in other forms than the idea of framing dictates. Also, it extends the acknowledging how organizations can grow in highly repressive settings.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Assessment of the study method
Comparative historical method is a technique for sociology that inspects chronicled occasions with a specific end goal to make clarifications which are legitimate past a specific time and place, by direct correlation with other verifiable occasions, hypothesis, or reference to date. Generally, it includes examinations of social procedures crosswise over circumstances and spots. It emphasizes on chronicled human science. While the controls of history and humanism have dependably been associated, they have associated in various courses at various circumstances. This type of research may utilize any of a few hypothetical introductions. It is recognized by the sorts of inquiries it asks, not the hypothetical system it utilizes.
Munson (2001) analyzes the phenomenon in question through an attempt to decipher how Muslim Brotherhood managed to attract unexpected count of new members as well as public support between 1932 and 1954. This period, as noted, marked one of greatest mobilization histories (Munson, 2001). The research first offers an understanding of the organization’s fast changing mobilization taken from (i) the documented information on political Islam, published basically by area specialists and political scientists, and (ii) the political chances model arguments found within the social movement publications (Munson, 2001). The article comprehensively applies the historical-comparative model in the examination of new information from unclassified United States Department archives from Egypt within the duration and proposes that the social movement concept need to extend its comprehension of the ideology so as to cater for the quick mobilization of the organization within the duration of study.
There are a few troubles that Historical Comparative study faces. The momentum driving figures in recorded similar research is James Mahoney who recognizes a few of these in his book " Near Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences." Mahoney & Rueschemeyer (2003) highlights crucial issues, for example, they assesses how miniaturized scale studies can be consolidated into full scale level of chronicled relative research issues ready for authentic similar research that keep on remaining ignored, for example, law, along with the issue of whether verifiable relative research ought to be drawn nearer as a discipline or drew nearer as a history. This makes one of the more predominant verbal confrontations today, regularly bantered between Theda Skocpol, who concurs with the recorded approach, as well as Kiser, who is an advocate of the logical view that ought to look for general standards. Kiser and Hechter utilize models inside Rational Choice Theory for causal standards. Verifiable analysts that restrict them contend that Hechter and Kiser fail to propose numerous other conceivable hypotheses. Accordingly it appears just as their promotion for general speculations is the support for their favored general hypothesis (Mahoney& Rueschemeyer, 2003). They additionally raise different reactions of utilizing discerning decision hypothesis as a part of verifiable relative research.
Switching the methods
Mixed method, multi-method, or multimethodology study includes the application of more than a single strategy for information collection or study set of related literature (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Mixed Methods research is more particular since it incorporates the assortment of subjective and quantitative information, systems, and additionally ideal models in a study or set of relevant studies. One could contend that blended techniques research is an extraordinary instance of multimethod research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Another relevant, but less frequently utilized name, for multi research is methodological pluralism. It deals with expert and scholarly research accentuate that monomethod research is enhanced using various data, strategies, techniques, perceptions, and paradigms.
Mixed method research could have applied the documents including the communiqués, newspaper translations, internal memos, and agent reports together with qualitative data from other studies to develop an all-fitting result. Multimethodology approach would have helped the audience corroborate or validate the outcomes obtained from other techniques although limited studies have been conducted on the subject area. Qualitative method along with quantitative techniques would also have allowed for one method to inform or expound on the other technique. For instance, since little information is understood concerning the topic of Muslim Brotherhood, it is necessary to first acquire sufficient knowledge concerning the variables on which to conduct research through qualitative study. The identified variables can be later analyzed using a large sample of elements or factors though quantitative technique as applied by (Munson, 2001).
A better result is attained with the application of mixed methods study. One major merit of mixed methodologies is that the researcher could have maintained emphasis on the original objective behind their choice of methodology. A major variation between mixed and historical-comparative approaches is that the author has failed to differentiate the two, suggesting that there is reasonable inherence in one that varies from the other. Creswell (2009) points that in a quantitative study the scientist begins with an issue articulation, continuing to the speculation and invalid theory, through the instrumentation into an exchange of information, population, and information investigation. Creswell recommends that for a subjective study the stream of rationale starts with the reason for the study, travels through the exploration questions talked about as information gathered from a littler sample and afterward voices how they will be investigated.
Some of the advantages that the mixed method approach could have brought to the study include, among others, the following:
Constricted perceptions of the world are often misguided, so approaching a topic from varying paradigms or perspectives may aid in helping attain a holistic view.
There are various classes of social study, that is social, cognitive, and biological, varying approaches may have specific strengths as regards one of these classes. Application of one approach should aid in getting a better understanding of the social world as well as make for additional adequate clarifications. Multi-methodology perfectly suits pragmatism.
Several existing actions already link approaches to solve specific issues; however, they have not been conceptualized sufficiently.
There are negative implications connected to switching the methodologies. First, the researcher could have found it difficult to sufficiently appraise the theoretical arguments expressed as part of the research question. For example, it can be difficult to maintain emphasis on the contact between the ideation elements of the Muslim Brotherhood. Also, limited focus can be placed on the group’s organizational operations. As illustrated by Munso (2001), the study dwelt on the comparative historic methodology because of the fact that the existing consideration of the responsibility of concepts in social movements should be deeply discerned in terms of considering the methods in which mobilization relies on the connections or communications among environments, organizations, and ideas. This should not simply dwell on the interaction with one another or a set of the identified three dimensions (Munson, 2001). The second demerit of switching the study model is that the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood proposes that the understanding of the connection between repression and mobilization should extend its emphasis to encompass the processes within the organization that allow them to stand the repressive efforts of the government.
Overall, the two methods could not have led to the same answer because of the concerns described by the need to maintain emphasis on the connection or linkage between the ideations facets of the Muslim Brotherhood, as a successful organization. Other concerns relate to the issue of dwelling extensively on the group’s organizational operations. It means that the research has served its purpose of understanding the subject of Muslim Brother in Egypt as a form of social movement.
References
Munson, Z. (2001). Islamic Mobilization. The Sociological Quarterly , 42 (4), 487-510.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher , 33 (7), 14-26.
Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). Comparative historical analysis. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences , 3-38.
