What does it mean to understand opposition and resistance? What can you learn from studying opposition? When should you study opposition? How should you study opposition? What ethical and legal boundaries should guide your research? What does it mean to understand opposition and resistance? Many advocacy campaigns encounter disagreement, resistance, or organized opposition. Understanding that opposition can help your group make better decisions about strategy, communication, negotiation, public engagement, and risk. Not every person or organization that disagrees with you should automatically be treated as an opponent. Some may: Support the overall goal but disagree with the proposed strategy Have concerns about cost, timing, implementation, or unintended effects Have legal, institutional, or professional responsibilities that limit what they can support Be uncertain because they lack information Strongly oppose the goal itself It is therefore useful to think in terms of a spectrum that may include support, uncertainty, specific concerns, and organized opposition. In some advocacy efforts, opposition may be minimal. In others, the proposed change may affect institutions, businesses, public agencies, organizations, or constituencies with significant interests in the outcome. The purpose of studying opposition is to understand the advocacy environment accurately – not to collect personal information for intimidation, embarrassment, or retaliation. Who may oppose or resist your proposal? Sometimes organized opposition is easy to identify. In other situations, an organization that appears opposed may actually support some aspects of your proposal or may be open to negotiation. Ask: What position has this person or organization taken publicly? What part of the proposal do they support or oppose? What interests or responsibilities may influence their position? What authority do they have? What evidence or values do they cite? Has their position changed over time? Are there areas of shared interest? Avoid assuming that an entire organization has one position. Staff, leadership, members, departments, or affiliated groups may disagree internally. What can you learn from studying opposition? Careful research can help your group: Understand current public positions Identify the reasons behind disagreement Understand past strategies and responses Identify relevant decision-makers Assess the organization's resources and influence Anticipate likely questions or criticism Recognize your own campaign's weaknesses Improve your evidence, arguments, and communication Identify possible areas for negotiation or collaboration This analysis should focus on information that is relevant to the issue. The goal is not to search for embarrassing personal facts or unrelated weaknesses. Look for shared interests Research may reveal that your group and an organization resisting your proposal share some objectives. For example, two groups may both want safer neighborhoods while disagreeing about the policy most likely to produce that result. Shared interests may create opportunities for: Negotiation Joint research Pilot projects Agreement on a narrower policy Collaboration on related goals Common ground is useful when it is genuine. It should not require advocates to minimize violations of rights, ongoing harm, or serious conflicts of interest. When should you study opposition? Begin early enough that your understanding of likely resistance can inform campaign planning. Continue updating that information as the campaign develops. Positions may change because of: New evidence Leadership changes New laws or policies Budget conditions Public pressure Negotiations Changes in community priorities Opposition analysis is therefore an ongoing part of advocacy planning rather than a one-time activity. How should you study opposition? Start with publicly available, issue-relevant information. Useful questions include: What has the organization said publicly about the issue? What policies, proposals, or campaigns has it supported in the past? Who has formal authority to make decisions? What legal, financial, political, or operational interests may be involved? What organizations or constituencies does it work with? What arguments or evidence does it rely on? What constraints affect its choices? What commitments has it made publicly? Public and organizational information Useful sources may include: Official websites Annual reports Budgets Public statements Meeting minutes Regulatory filings Court records Legislative testimony Campaign-finance records where legally public and relevant News archives Research reports Public agency records Evaluate each source for accuracy, relevance, date, methodology, and context. Conversations with knowledgeable people People who have worked with or interacted with an organization may provide useful context. Ask about: Publicly observable decision-making patterns Past negotiations Organizational priorities Implementation concerns Relevant history Avoid soliciting confidential, private, or improperly obtained information. Do not pressure employees or former employees to disclose information they are legally or ethically required to protect. Study institutions, not private lives Opposition research should generally focus on a person's public role rather than private life. Information such as a person's home address, banking relationships, family circumstances, private associations, or other personal details usually has no legitimate place in an advocacy campaign unless it is directly relevant to a lawful and documented conflict of interest or other issue of genuine public concern. Even when information is publicly accessible, ask whether collecting or publishing it is necessary, proportionate, and connected to the advocacy issue. Formal research into institutions or public conduct Some campaigns may need a more systematic investigation of an institution's public conduct, regulatory history, finances, policies, or legal obligations. This can be appropriate when the issue involves: Possible regulatory violations Misuse of public funds Conflicts of interest Failure to meet legal obligations Misleading public statements Environmental or public-health concerns Discrimination or other violations of rights The purpose should be to establish relevant facts, not to search broadly for material that might embarrass or discredit a person. Develop a research plan A structured plan can help keep the investigation focused. Ask: What question are we trying to answer? What information would answer it? What sources are appropriate? What legal or ethical limits apply? Who will collect and review the information? What is the timeline? How will findings be verified? Example research worksheet Question Information needed Possible sources Timeline Determine whether an environmental agency has consistently enforced a particular regulation Enforcement records Inspection reports Relevant regulations Public statements Agency records Public-records requests Court or administrative records Audits By August Notice that the objective is to answer a defined question rather than to “discredit” a particular person. Public records and transparency laws Public-records laws can provide access to information held by government agencies. Federal Freedom of Information Act requests apply to federal executive-branch agencies, while states and local jurisdictions generally have their own public-records laws and procedures. Before making a request: Identify the agency likely to hold the record Determine which law or procedure applies Check whether the information is already available online Describe the requested records as specifically as possible Be aware that some information may be withheld or redacted for privacy, legal, security, or other reasons Use information obtained through public-records laws for legitimate advocacy, research, oversight, or accountability purposes. Business and organizational records Businesses, nonprofit organizations, public institutions, and regulated entities may produce records that help explain their public activities. Depending on the issue, relevant information might include: Corporate registrations Regulatory filings Financial reports Property and zoning records Permits Inspection records Contracts Court cases Enforcement actions Focus on information that is relevant to the organization's public responsibilities, the advocacy issue, or a documented conflict of interest. Avoid collecting personal data simply because a public database makes it accessible. Understand interests, constraints, and likely responses Once you have gathered relevant information, try to understand the situation from the other organization's perspective. Ask: What outcome are they seeking? What responsibilities do they have? What risks do they perceive? What financial or institutional interests are involved? What legal constraints apply? What evidence would they consider persuasive? Which strategies have they used before? This does not mean agreeing with their position. It means understanding it accurately enough to anticipate likely responses and choose an effective strategy. Use the information responsibly Opposition research should improve the quality of your advocacy. It can help you: Prepare stronger evidence Anticipate questions Identify areas of negotiation Recognize possible implementation concerns Respond to inaccurate public claims Identify documented legal or regulatory concerns Focus public criticism on conduct and evidence If an organization acts inconsistently with its public commitments, violates regulations, misrepresents evidence, or fails to meet documented obligations, advocates may reasonably bring that information to public attention. Make sure the claim is: Relevant Verified Accurately described Supported by appropriate documentation Avoid threatening exposure merely to pressure someone into compliance. Accountability should focus on the issue rather than personal humiliation. If you uncover possible illegal conduct If your research identifies credible evidence of possible illegal conduct, consider consulting qualified legal counsel or reporting the matter to the appropriate regulatory, oversight, law-enforcement, or other authority. Distinguish clearly between: Allegations Evidence Official findings Your organization's interpretation Do not publicly describe someone as having committed a crime or violation unless the evidence supports that statement. Ethical and legal boundaries Advocacy does not justify unlimited investigation. Do not: Misrepresent your identity to obtain private information Plant people inside another organization to secretly gather information Obtain private records through deception Harass individuals or their families Publish home addresses or other sensitive personal information simply to increase pressure Encourage unlawful access to records or computer systems Spread unverified allegations These tactics can harm individuals, undermine public trust, create legal liability, and distract from the issue itself. Ethical standards do not depend on whether you believe the other side is good or bad The original disagreement may involve people acting in good faith, organizations defending financial interests, institutions accused of serious misconduct, or ideological conflicts. The seriousness of an issue may justify stronger lawful advocacy – such as litigation, regulatory complaints, investigations, organizing, public demonstrations, or investigative journalism. It does not automatically justify deception, invasion of privacy, harassment, or other unethical tactics. Apply the same basic standards of accuracy, proportionality, legality, and respect regardless of how strongly you disagree with another person or organization. Avoid stereotyping ideological or religious disagreement Strong religious, political, or ideological convictions do not by themselves mean that people are irrational, incapable of considering evidence, or likely to engage in violence. Evaluate individuals and organizations according to their actual conduct. If a group has engaged in threats, violence, harassment, or other unlawful conduct, address those behaviors directly rather than attributing them broadly to religion, ideology, or belief. Keep people directly affected at the center Opposition research can easily become focused on institutional conflict rather than the people the advocacy effort is supposed to benefit. Periodically ask: Does this research help us understand or address the community problem? Are we spending more energy studying another organization than listening to people affected? Is the information relevant to the desired change? Could publishing it harm people who are not responsible for the issue? Research should serve the campaign's community goals rather than become an end in itself. In Summary Advocacy campaigns sometimes encounter organized opposition, and understanding that opposition can improve strategy. Begin by determining what another person or organization actually supports or opposes rather than assuming every disagreement is permanent or absolute. Study public positions, institutional interests, decision-making authority, past actions, legal responsibilities, resources, and relevant relationships. Focus on information connected to the issue. Do not treat people's private lives, home addresses, banking relationships, families, or unrelated personal history as legitimate advocacy material simply because the information may be available. More formal investigation may be appropriate when there are credible questions involving regulation, public funds, conflicts of interest, public statements, environmental conditions, discrimination, or other matters of legitimate public concern. Define the research question before gathering information. The purpose should be to establish facts, not to search broadly for material that can be used to embarrass or discredit someone. Public records, regulatory filings, court records, organizational reports, public statements, audits, and news archives can provide useful information when evaluated carefully and used in context. Understanding another organization's interests and constraints can help advocates anticipate likely responses and identify possibilities for negotiation without requiring agreement. Use findings responsibly. Public criticism should focus on documented conduct, relevant evidence, and accountability. Advocacy does not justify deception, spying, harassment, invasion of privacy, or publication of sensitive personal information. Stronger advocacy may be appropriate when the stakes are high, but ethical standards should not disappear simply because advocates believe the opposing organization is acting badly. Finally, remember that studying opposition is a means to a larger purpose. The goal is not to gain “every edge” or exploit another organization's vulnerabilities. It is to understand the advocacy environment well enough to choose effective, lawful, ethical strategies that move the community closer to the change it is seeking. Contributor Eric Wadud Prue Breitrose Resources Online Resources Identifying Allies and Opponents. This advocacy planning model provides information on how to establish a group or individual as an ally, opponent, or neutral/unknown group. Print Resources Altman, D., Balcazar, F., Fawcett, S., Seekins, T., & Young, J.(1994). Public health advocacy: Creating community change to improve health. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center for Research in Disease Prevention. Biklen, D.(1983). Community organizing: Theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bobo, K., Kendall, J., & Max, S. (1996). Organizing for social change: A manual for activists in the 1990s. St. Paul, MN: Seven Locks Press. Homan, M., (1994). Promoting community change: Making it happen in the real world. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Kahn, S. (1982). Organizing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. King, D. (1992). Get the facts on anyone. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Robinson, J. & Green, P. (2010). Introduction to community development: Theory, practice, and service-learning. SAGE Publications, Inc. This book provides both theoretical and practical approaches to community development, as well as case studies and supportive materials to develop community development skills. Weinberg, S. (1996). The reporter's handbook: An investigator's guide to documents and techniques. New York, NY: St. Martin's.
