Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Living with Paradox in International Development: An Extended Case Study of an International NGO

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The European Journal of Development Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

International non-governmental organisations (NGOs) combine practical and advocacy efforts to address global challenges like poverty and climate change. However, NGOs are embedded within the same global system they seek to challenge. This article explore the tensions this raises from the vantage point of one particular organisation (Concern Universal). Drawing on a paradox perspective, we find that despite the structural constraints, NGO actors and the poor people they work alongside are active and well-informed participants in the development process. However, a focus on the communicative labour of NGOs uncovers the power relations at play in that work. Nonetheless, our paper challenges ideas about development as ‘us versus them’. Rather, by focusing our analysis on the relationships between NGO actors and multiple others, we show how the organisation is effectively constituted by these and other relationships.

Résumé

Les organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) internationales conjuguent des actions concrètes avec un travail de plaidoyer en vue de combattre des problèmes mondiaux, tels que la pauvreté et le changement climatique. Cependant, les ONG sont imbriquées dans ce même système mondial qu’elles contestent. Cet article se penche sur les tensions qui en découlent, à travers le prisme d'une organisation spécifique (Concern Universal). Face à cette situation paradoxale, on remarque qu’en dépit des contraintes structurelles, les ONG et les démunis aux côtés desquels elles interviennent participent de manière active et éclairée au processus de développement. Néanmoins, un examen approfondi du travail de communication des ONG permet de dévoiler les relations de pouvoir qui caractérisent leur entreprise. Notre article remet toutefois en question certaines idées concernant le développement, qui le dépeignent comme une opposition entre « nous et eux ». En concentrant notre analyse sur les rapports entre les ONG et plusieurs autres acteurs, nous montrons que ce sont concrètement ces rapports parmi d’autres qui façonnent l’organisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Concern Universal changed its name to United Purpose in 2016, after merging with two other UK-based organisations. Names of individual participants have been changed.

References

  • Balboa, C. 2013. How successful transnational non-governmental organisations set themselves up for failure on the ground. World Development 54: 273–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, N., D. Hulme, and M. Edwards. 2015. NGOs, states and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort? World Development 66: 707–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baur, D., and H. Schmitz. 2012. Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics 106 (1): 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannick, T., and D. Coghlan. 2007. In defence of being ‘native:’ The case for insider research. Organisational Research Methods 10 (1): 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. 1998. The extended case method. Sociological Theory 16 (1): 4–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., and J. Cook. 2013. CSR, cooptation and resistance: The emergence of new agonistic relations between business and civil society. Journal of Business Ethics 115: 741–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S., J. Vieira da Cunha, and M. Pina e Cunha. 2002. Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations 55 (5): 483–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J. 2005. Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J., and Clark, T. 2011. Communication, organizing and organization: an overview and Iitroduction to the Special Issue. Organization Studies, 32: 1149–1170.

  • Cooren, F., F. Matte, Barné C. Benoit, and B. Brummans. 2013. Communication as ventriloquism: A grounded-in-action approach to the study of organisational tensions. Communication Monographs 80 (3): 255–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dar, S. 2014. Hybrid accountabilities: When western and non-western accountabilities collide. Human Relations 67 (2): 131–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, S. 2007. Negotiating accountability within international contexts: The role of bounded voice. Communication Monographs 34 (3): 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, S. 2009. NGOs, communicative labor, and the work of grassroots representation. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 6 (4): 328–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, S. 2012. Nonprofits as political actors. Management Communication Quarterly 26: 147–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, M. 2011. Communicating social change: Structure, culture, and agency. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. 2000. NGO rights and responsibilities: A new deal for global governance. London: The Foreign Policy Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M., and D. Hulme. 1992. Scaling up NGO impact on development: Learning from experience. Development in Practice 2 (2): 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, A. 2001. Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localisation. Political Geography 20: 139–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fejerskov, A., E. Lundsgaarde, and S. Cold-Ravnkilde. 2017. Recasting the ‘new actors in development’ research agenda. European Journal of Development Research 29 (5): 1070–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frumkin, P. 2002. On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gamborg, C., K. Millar, O. Shortall, and P. Sandøe. 2012. Bioenergy and land use: Framing the ethical debate. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6): 909–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganesh, S., and H. Zoller. 2012. Dialogue, activism, and democratic social change. Communication Theory 22 (1): 66–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganesh, S., H. Zoller, and G. Cheney. 2005. Transforming resistance, broadening our boundaries: Critical organisational communication meets globalisation from below. Communication Monographs 72 (2): 169–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1987. The theory of communicative action (volume 2): Lifeworld and system. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesketh, C. 2016. The survival of non-capitalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34 (5): 877–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J. 2017. Talking into (non)existence: Denying or constituting paradoxes of Corporate Social Responsibility. Human Relations 71 (5): 668–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idemudia, U. 2017. Environmental business–NGO partnerships in Nigeria: Issues and prospects. Business Strategy and The Environment 26 (2): 265–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iivonen, K. 2018. Defensive responses to strategic sustainability paradoxes: Have your Coke and drink it too! Journal of Business Ethics 148: 309–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalili, R. 2013. Financing empowerment? How foreign aid to southern NGOs and social movements undermines grassroots mobilisation. Sociology Compass 7 (1): 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P., J.K. Le, and A.H. Van de Ven. 2013. Responding to competing strategic demands: How organising, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organisation 11 (3): 245–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, J. 2013. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organisations. Academy of Management Journal 56: 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketola, M. 2016. Understanding NGO strategies to engage with donor-funded development projects: Reconciling and differentiating objectives. European Journal of Development Research 28 (3): 479–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D., and P. Opoku-Mensah. 2006. Moving forward research agendas on international NGOs: Theory, agency and context. Journal of International Development 18 (5): 665–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., and B. Doherty. 2016. A fair trade-off? Paradoxes in the governance of fair-trade social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics 136: 451–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKague, K., C. Zietsma, and C. Oliver. 2015. Building the social structure of a market. Organisation Studies 36 (8): 1063–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair, S. 2013. Governance, representation and international aid. Third World Quarterly 34 (4): 630–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L., and G. Fairhurst. 2015. Revisiting ‘organisations as discursive constructions’: Ten years later. Communication Theory 25 (4): 375–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L., G. Fairhurst, and S. Banghart. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organisations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals 10 (1): 65–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R., and K. Cameron. 1988. Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organisation and management. Cambridge: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinecke, J., and S. Ansari. 2016. Taming wicked problems: The role of framing in the construction of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Management Studies 53: 299–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, S. 2015. The paradoxes of aid work: passionate professionals. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schad, J. 2017. Ad fontes: Philosophical foundations of paradox research. In Oxford handbook of organisational paradox, ed. W. Smith, M. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, and A. Langley, 27–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schad, J., and P. Bansal. 2018. Seeing the forest and the trees: How a systems perspective informs paradox research. Journal of Management Studies (forthcoming).

  • Schad, J., M. Lewis, S. Raisch, and W. Smith. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals 10: 5–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schemeil, Y. 2013. Bringing international organisation in: Global institutions as adaptive hybrids. Organisation Studies 34 (2): 219–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seckinelgin, H. 2006. The multiple worlds of NGOs and HIV/AIDS: Rethinking NGOs and their agency. Journal of International Development 18: 715–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, G., and P. Bansal. 2017. Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial–social paradox. Organisation Studies 38 (3): 341–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. 2014. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal 57: 1592–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W., M. Erez, S. Jarvenpaa, M. Lewis, and P. Tracey. 2017. Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organisation studies special issue on paradox, tensions and dualities of innovation and change. Organisation Studies 38 (3–4): 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W., and M. Lewis. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organising. Academy of Management Review 36 (2): 381–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trethewey, A., and K. Ashcraft. 2004. Practising disorganisation: The development of applied perspectives on living with tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research 32 (2): 81–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tvedt, T. 2006. The international aid system and the Non-Governmental Organisations: A new research agenda. Journal of International Development 18 (5): 677–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wadham, H., and R. Warren. 2014. Telling organisational tales: The extended case method in practice. Organisational Research Methods 17 (1): 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A., D. Gilbert, and E. Freeman. 1994. A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4): 475–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrangel, C. 2017. Recognising hope: US global development discourse and the promise of despair. Environment and Planning D 35 (5): 875–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ybema, S., M. Vroemisse, and A. Van Marrewijk. 2012. Constructing identity by deconstructing differences: Building partnerships across cultural and hierarchical divides. Scandinavian Journal of Management 28 (1): 48–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. 2012. Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank everyone at Concern Universal, along with the partner organisations, companies, and communities mentioned, for their collaboration with this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, All Saints Campus, Oxford Road, Manchester, M15 6BH, UK

    Helen Wadham, Cathy Urquhart & Richard Warren

Authors
  1. Helen Wadham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cathy Urquhart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard Warren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Wadham.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wadham, H., Urquhart, C. & Warren, R. Living with Paradox in International Development: An Extended Case Study of an International NGO. Eur J Dev Res 31, 1263–1286 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-019-00210-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-019-00210-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation