Each dilemma action in the dataset has a unique identifying code:

Country#-YEAR-MO

This identifies the country where the action took place and the year and month of the start of the action.

Eg: 730-1929-11
where "11" corresponds to November and 730 refers to the country code of a unified Korea (i.e. prior to 1948). The country codes can be found here. There will be some territorial entities not listed with a country code on that website. We can add these ad hoc and list the country codes in the code book.

If there is more than one event per month/country, then we can expand the identifier to include days. Please flag if we have more than one action in the same country and the same month.

When doing this, it is important to record the country code correctly for independent states. Many Chenoweth campaigns (and many DA events) occur in non-independent states. For example, the Chenoweth campaigns that occur in 1989 and 1990 in Soviet Republics (eg. Baltic states) need to be recorded with the country code for the Soviet Union (365) until those Baltic Republics are independent states (September 1991). So actions that occur in Baltic states prior to Soviet recognition of Baltic state independence should be given the country code for the Russia/Soviet Union. This is also true for pro-independence events in Africa that occur under colonial rule and prior to independence.

Enter the month the action began.

Identify the core issues at the heart of the struggle. Some dilemma actions will have more than one goal, but generally it will be possible to identify the main issue and secondary issues. We have space for up to three secondary goals.

Identify the tactics used from Gene Sharp’s 198 nonviolent tactics. If there are tactics deployed that are not on Sharp’s list, add them to our updated list. These might include tactics related to social media and technology that were not possible when Sharp created his list. When a new category may need to be created, alert the team leader.

Indicate 1) Nonviolent category, 2) Nonviolent subcategory, 3) DA tactics.

What was the widely held belief that was targeted by the Dilemma Action? Widely held beliefs underpin dilemma actions as a way to build support and sympathy from the public. Note that it is possible for a Dilemma Action to relate to more than one widely held belief. If there are more than one, please elaborate.

When the Yes Men impersonated Dow Chemical and suggested they would offer reparations for the Bhopal incident they tapped into the widely held belief that corporations should be held accountable for catastrophes they create.

When protesters in Turkey began kissing in the subway, they tapped into the widely held belief that affection shouldn’t be punished.

Identify if the tactic used an element of playful irony. Was there silliness or play? Did the activists use humor to counter fear? Did irony form a centerpiece of the action? Like making a “tough” autocrat actually appear weak? Was the center of the action a playful effort to expose an abuse of power? Like bringing pool toys when you know your group will be water cannoned.

Code tip: If the DA is an example of laughtivism, input 1. If it is not, input 0.

Many laughtivist dilemma actions will include art, theater or performance, but not all artivism is laughtivist. Laughtivism requires a deliberate use of irony in the action, whereas art can simply be creative and/or provocative.

For example, when a crackdown on gatherings followed the Gezi Park protests in Turkey, Turkish performance artist Erdem Gunduz came out with his “standing man” protest. Standing in Gezi Square, facing a billboard with the image of Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey, he stood in protest of the government. But he had to STAND ALONE (so he couldn’t be prosecuted for breaking the gathering ban). When the protest later spread, hundreds of people joined as LONE INDIVIDUALS, not as a group.

This is a typical example of performance activism or Artivism without a humor/laughtivism component. There is a performance without ironic humor. Laughtivism and Artivism are not necessarily overlapping.

Code tip: If the DA is an example of artivism input 1. If it is not, input 0.

Was the Dilemma Action a one-time event or was it part of a larger campaign?

Code tip: If the DA is part of a larger campaign, input 1. If it is not, input 0.

If yes, then when in a campaign did it happen?

Code for Emerging and building phase (early), for Engagement phase (middle) or for Final phase of a larger campaign.

For example, OTPOR in Serbia used dilemma actions in all three phases: the emerging phase (President on the barrel), the Engagement phase (marching to police stations to deliver flowers, occupying police stations after arrests), and the final phase of ending its struggle with a general strike.

Emerging/building phase - indicates a small core group with up to several hundred people, unaffiliated with a larger movement or campaign. Small, often artistic stunts performed by individuals and small groups unaffiliated with larger organizations at early stages of the campaigns will drop into this category.

Engagement phase - initiates either an action coming from an already established group or recognizable/visible campaign OR an action from smaller group that IS a part of the larger movement (e.g. Orange Alternative in Poland, small in numbers, but a prominent part of an already powerful and wider anti-communist coalition).

Final phase/ victory phase – indicates situations in which dilemma actions are used as a “final bullet” in rising campaigns. For example, when you see a general strike which paralyzed the country this indicates the final phase of the campaign. Here the dilemma action is used as “coup de grace” by its authors to give a final kick to a larger campaign.

Cases are awarded up to 10 points based on potential positive consequences.

1. MC- Media Coverage:

Was there media coverage?

Code tip: Enter 1 for any media coverage, including social media–but this should be outside of the actual group of activists to count. Enter 0, if there was no media coverage at all. Enter 0 if the DA occurred at a time when there was no media, i.e., when the Iroquois women launched a sex strike in 1650.

If the DA occurred when there could not be media coverage, all subsequent coding for media-related questions will be 0.

In general, we expect to have some media because it is due to this coverage that we know about the DA. It will only be in extremely rare cases that the team is analyzing a DA that never had any media. This means that many DAs that fail to get media won’t appear in the dataset.

Be wary of biased coverage especially in highly censored media environments. Do not allow biased coverage to weigh heavily and skew results. Instead, we are looking for positive signs in media from reliable sources so that we don’t give too much weight to anti-activist propaganda. Often in highly controlled media environments it will be social media and foreign press that will be the most significant resources.

If yes, indicate the following:

2. MSYMP: Was the media coverage sympathetic to the activists?

Test: Did the media focus on the tactic as a disruption of order or did it focus on the legitimate concerns of the activists? Did it have a positive or supportive attitude towards the activists or did it support the opponent? Make sure to explain your coding in the DA narrative.

Code tip: Enter 1 for any media coverage, including social media, that signals support for the activists and/or critique of their opponent. Enter 0, if media coverage criticized the activists and/or supported their opponents. Since, in some cases, media coverage will be highly censored and biased in the home country, make sure to access coverage from outside the home country to code this answer if the coverage in-country is only negative. We might expect negative coverage at home, so code 1 if there is positive either in the home country or abroad. The goal of this metric is to see if the DA helped build sympathy to the cause.

3. OR - Opponent response

Did the opponent react with violence or another aggressive act in such a way as to look as though they were overreacting? Did they do something that made them seem ridiculous or absurd, like arresting a barrel or toys? Or did the opponent do nothing and look bad for their inaction?

Test: Scan coverage to see responses of the opponent. Did they react and look bad for their actions or did they do nothing and look weak? If their response looked reasonable and the activists seemed like extremists code 0.

Code tip: Enter 1 for any reaction that reflects badly on the opponent. Focus on whether action makes them look stupid for caring too much, abusive for unniecssary punitivce responses or whether inaction makes them look weak and vulnerable. Enter 0, if coverage suggests that the opponent responded well and if the opponent looks the same or BETTER after the DA.

4. CONC: Were concessions made? Resignations? Policy change? Other measurable outcomes?

Test: Look for tangible ways that the DA advanced activist goals. We measure issues like narrative and attitudes separately. So focus here on whether there were overt concessions: resignations, law or policy shifts, concessions or other clear changes desired by the activists. This is a relatively high bar and many DAs that were largely successful will not attain this directly. Often, getting this level of change takes time and a series of actions that build. If the goals of the activist group were ultimately conceded and if you can see a connection from the DA to the concession, then code this as yes.

Code tip: Enter 1 for any positive concession even if it took time to happen. Enter 0, if after the DA, nothing significant was changed.

1. PS: Did the Dilemma action build sympathy with the public?

Test: Are there photos of the public during the action? Scan them for audience expressions. Are there quotes from the public in response to the action? Answer yes if you can find positive expressions or positive statements of support. Make sure to explain your coding choice in the DA narrative.

Code tip: Enter 1 for evidence of a positive public reaction. Enter 0, if after the DA, the public response was negative. Do not attempt to gauge all reactions. Make sure to consider bias and propaganda.

2. REFR: Did the Dilemma action reframe the narrative of the opponent? Changing the opponent from scary or invincible to ridiculous or repressive?

Test: Was media coverage of the event supportive of the target of the opponent or critical? Did it describe the target as a victim or characterize them as repressive, unjust, corrupt or illegitimate? Look for how the opponent is described in the media and in any statements from observers. It is not only media coverage that matters for this metric, but also the actual way that the DA framed the opponent. Did the DA have the power to make an opponent look bad--less scary, less strong, less powerful, less ethical, less legitimate? Was the DA able to disrupt the opponent narrative and expose their abuses of power or other flaws?

Code tip: Enter 1 for a positive outcome. Enter 0, if after the DA, the image of the opponent was either the same or better.

3. SA: Did the dilemma action appeal to a broad segment of the public?

Test: Did the Dilemma Action only appeal to the activists and their existing allies? Or did it help expand their allies? Scan photos, media coverage, and social media and scholarship for evidence of the reach of the dilemma action. Broadening segment appeal is important to advancing a cause. If the DA chose a good widely held belief to underpin it, it should have success with this metric.

Code tip: Enter 1 for a positive sign that the message went beyond the activists themselves. Enter 0, if after the DA, there was no shift in public support for the activist cause.

4. PUN: Did punishment favor the activists? Did the dilemma action reduce the risk of severe punishment for activists? Or, if the activists were harshly punished, did that punishment invigorate and embolden the activists and make their target look bad?

Test: if the activists were punished, compare with the response of authorities to other activists in the same context. Check to see if the DA made it harder to punish the activists according to standard practices. If the activists were punished, for example arrested, test to see if the arrests were like a “badge of honor” for the activists and made them proud or helped them look “cool.”

Code tip: Enter 1 for a positive outcome. Enter 0, if after the DA, any punishment hurt the image of the activists and favored the image of the target.

5. RF: Did the dilemma action reduce fear and/or apathy among the activists? Test: Seek commentary by activists about their participation in the movement. Also possible to test by following media posts by activists. Can further be tested by determining if the movement grew in numbers and held more actions.

Code tip: Enter 1 for a positive outcome. Enter 0, if after the DA, activists expressed worry over continuing their struggle.

6. EREP: Did the dilemma action get replicated by other movements?

Test: it does not need to be clear that the specific action was copied. Just that a similar set of tactics was used at a later date.

Code tip: Enter 1 for any examples of similar DAs. Enter 0, if the DA tactics are expressly avoided by other activists due to negative outcomes or if there is no evidence of a similar type of action.

A score of 0-3 for those DAs that are part of larger campaigns.

7. PAR: Did the dilemma action encourage more participants to join the movement?Did the movement grow afterwards?

Test: Determine if the movement had more subsequent actions, grew their numbers, or gained more media for their work.

Code tip: Enter 1 if the DA attracted more members. Enter 0, if after the DA, there were defections or no sign of increased numbers.

8. CW: Did the activist group continue working together after the action?

Code tip: Enter 1 if the group continued. Enter 0, if after the DA, a group that had held more than one event stopped working together.

9. IREP: Did the dilemma action get internally replicated by the same movement?

Test: it does not need to be clear that the specific action was copied. Just that a similar set of tactics was used at a later date.

Code tip: Enter 1 for any examples of similar DAs done by the same group. Enter 0, if the DA tactics are expressly avoided by other activists due to negative outcomes or if there are no clear examples of either replicating or deliberately avoiding the tactics.