Non-Governmental and Not-for-Profit Organizational Effectiveness: A Modern Synthesis

  • Jesse D. Lecy
  • Hans Peter Schmitz
  • Haley Swedlund
Original Paper

Abstract

NGO/NPO effectiveness remains a prominent concern for scholars and practitioners, but the literature on this issue is increasingly fragmented along disciplinary lines. We address this problem by presenting a comprehensive and interdisciplinary review of the literature on NGO and NPO effectiveness using citation analysis. In order to uncover commonalities across disciplines concerned with similar questions, we deploy a structured literature review using snowball sampling within citation networks. This approach limits author biases, fosters an interdisciplinary perspective, and adds a different methodological approach to conventional content-based literature reviews. Our review uncovers three trends: (1) there is broad scholarly consensus that unidimensional measures of effectiveness are not useful—even though such measures are commonly used by NGO/NPO rating agencies; (2) the scholarship on NGO/NPO effectiveness is dominated by conceptual works, while empirical studies remain rare; (3) a consensus on how to operationalize effectiveness remains elusive. These results suggest that progress in our understanding of NGO/NPO effectiveness requires enhanced efforts at crossing disciplinary divides, adding empirical analyses, and increasing attention to develop shared categories and methodologies.

Keywords

Non-for-profit organizations Non-governmental organizations Structured literature review 

Résumé

L’efficacité des ONG/ASBL demeure un sujet majeur de réflexion des chercheurs et praticiens mais les publications sur cette question sont de plus en plus fragmentées le long des lignes disciplinaires. Nous traitons ce problème par la présentation d’une étude exhaustive et interdisciplinaire des publications sur l’efficacité des ONG et des ASBL en recourant à une analyse de citations. Afin d’identifier des éléments communs à travers les disciplines s’intéressant à des questions similaires, nous développons une étude structurée des publications en utilisant un échantillonage en chaîne au sein des réseaux de citations. Cette approche limite les partis-pris des auteurs, favorise une perspective interdisciplinaire et ajoute une approche méthodologique différente aux études conventionnelles des publications basées sur le contenu. Notre étude met en évidence trois tendances: (1) il existe un large consensus intellectuel quant au fait que les mesures unidimensionnelles de l’efficacité ne sont pas utiles bien que ces dernières soient couramment utilisées par les agences de notation des ONG et des ABSL; (2) la recherche sur l’efficacité des ONG et des ABSL est dominée par des travaux conceptuels, alors que les études empiriques sont encore rares; (3) un consensus sur la manière d’opérationaliser l’efficacité demeure inexistant. Ces résultats indiquent qu’une compréhension optimisée de l’efficacité des ONG/ABSL exige des efforts accrus visant à traverser les divisions disciplinaires, ajouter des analyses empiriques et être plus attentif au développement de catégories et méthodologies communes.

Zusammenfassung

Die Effektivität von nicht-staatlichen bzw. Nonprofit-Organisationen ist für Gelehrte und Fachleute nach wie vor von wichtigem Belang; doch ist die Literatur zu diesem Thema entlang disziplinärer Linien vermehrt zersplittert. Wir behandeln dieses Problem, indem wir eine umfassende und interdisziplinäre Auswertung der Literatur zur Effektivität von nicht-staatlichen bzw. Nonprofit-Organisationen präsentieren, wobei wir auf die Zitationsanalyse zurückgreifen. Um Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen den betroffenen Disziplinen aufzudecken, die sich mit ähnlichen Fragen beschäftigen, nehmen wir eine strukturierte Literaturauswertung vor und wenden das Schneeballverfahren innerhalb der Zitationsnetzwerke an. Diese Vorgehensweise schränkt die Voreingenommenheit des Autors ein, fördert eine interdisziplinäre Perspektive und ergänzt die konventionellen inhaltsbasierenden Literaturauswertungen durch eine weitere methodologische Vorgehensweise. Unsere Prüfung enthüllt drei Trends: (1) es herrscht weitgehend Einigkeit zwischen den Gelehrten, dass eindimensionale Effektivitätsmaße nicht zweckdienlich sind—auch wenn diese Maße im Allgemeinen von Ratingagenturen für nicht-staatliche bzw. Nonprofit-Organisationen angewandt werden; (2) die Wissenschaft in Bezug auf die Effektivität von nicht-staatlichen bzw. Nonprofit-Organisationen wird von konzeptionellen Arbeiten dominiert, während empirische Studien eher die Seltenheit sind; (3) Einigkeit darüber, wie die Effektivität zu operationalisieren ist, liegt fern. Diese Ergebnisse weisen darauf hin, dass zur Erlangung eines besseren Verständnisses der Effektivität von nicht-staatlichen bzw. Nonprofit-Organisationen größere Anstrengungen unternommen werden müssen, die dazu führen sollen, die disziplinären Differenzen zu überkommen, empirische Analysen hinzuzufügen und das Augenmerk erhöht darauf zu legen, gemeinsame Kategorien und Methodologien zu entwickeln.

Resumen

La efectividad de las ONG/NPO (Organizaciones No Gubernamentales/Organizaciones Sin Ánimo de Lucro) sigue siendo una preocupación destacada para eruditos y profesionales, pero el material publicado sobre esta cuestión está cada vez más fragmentado en líneas disciplinarias. Abordamos este problema presentando una revisión integral e interdisciplinaria del material publicado sobre la efectividad de las ONG/NPO utilizando el análisis de citas. Con el fin de descubrir los elementos comunes entre las disciplinas afectadas con cuestiones similares, desplegamos una revisión estructurada del material publicado utilizando el muestreo de bola de nieve dentro de las redes de citas. Este enfoque limita los sesgos de los autores, fomenta una perspectiva interdisciplinaria, y añade un enfoque metodológico diferente a las revisiones convencionales del material publicado basadas en el contenido. Nuestra revisión descubre tres tendencias: (1) existe un amplio consenso entre los eruditos de que las medidas unidimensionales de efectividad no son útiles aunque dichas medidas sean utilizadas comúnmente por las agencias de calificación de ONG/NPO; (2) el mundo de los eruditos de la efectividad de las ONG/NPO está dominado por trabajos conceptuales, mientras que los estudios empíricos siguen siendo raros; (3) un consenso sobre cómo operacionalizar la efectividad sigue resultando esquivo. Estos resultados sugieren que el progreso en nuestra comprensión de la efectividad de las ONG/NPO requiere un aumento en los esfuerzos por superar las divisiones disciplinarias, añadir análisis empíricos, y aumentar la atención para desarrollar categorías y metodologías compartidas.

摘要

非政府组织/非盈利组织的效能问题一直是学者和业内人士的关注重点,但各个学科中关于这一问题的文献却越来越支离破碎。为了解决这一问题,我们利用引文分析,对关于 NGO 和 NPO 效能的文献进行了全面的跨学科综述。为了找到不同学科对于类似问题的共同点,我们在引文网络内利用雪球式采样,对文献资料进行了结构性综述。这一方法限制了作者的偏见,培养了一种跨学科的视角,还在基于内容的传统文献综述之外增添了一种不同的方法。我们的综述发现了三种趋势:(1)学者普遍认为,单一角度的效能评估没有实用价值—尽管这种评估被 NGO/NPO 评级机构广泛采用;(2)对 NGO/NPO 效能的学术研究以概念为主,实证研究少之又少;(3)关于如何使效能具有可操作性,仍难达成一致意见。上述结果表明,要想更好地理解 NGO/NPO 效能,就需要更努力地打破学科界限,增加实证分析,更加重视发展共享的类别和方法。

要約

NGO/NPOの有効性では学者と開業医に関する最大の懸念が残されているが、この問題に関して論文では学問的な専門性が寸断されている。そこで本論文では、引用分析を使用してNGOとNPOの有効性を包括的で学際的に再調査して、この問題を提示する。類似した質問に関して専門性を超えた共通性を除去するために、引用ネットワークにおける雪玉式の標本抽出を使用することで、構造的な論文の再調査を展開させる。このアプローチは、従来の内容重視の論文の再調査に対して著者への偏見を限定して、学際的な観点を広げて、異なる方法論のアプローチを追加する。再調査では3つの傾向を明らかにする。(1) NGO/NPOの格付機関によってそのような基準は一般に用いられているが、その単次元の測定は有益ではないという広い学究的な了解がある。(2) NGO/NPOの有効性に関する研究は概念的な研究によって支配されているが、実証的研究はまれに残されている。(3) どのように有効性を可能にするかという合意は得られにくい。これらの結果より、NGO/NPOの有効性に対する理解は、専門性の分割に対する反対、実証的な分析の追加、共有したカテゴリと方法論への開発に関心を高める必要がある。

ملخص

فعالية المنظمات الغير حكومية/المنظمات التي لا تسعى إلى الربح (NGO/NPO) لا تزال مصدر قلق بارز للعلماء والممارسين، لكن مجزأة على نحو متزايد في الأدب حول هذه المسألة على طول خطوط تأديبية. نحن نعالج هذه المشكلة من خلال تقديم إستعراض شامل ومتعدد التخصصات من المؤلفات حول فعالية المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO) و المنظمات التي لا تسعى للربح (NPO) بإستخدام تحليل الاستشهاد.. من أجل الكشف عن القواسم المشتركة في مختلف التخصصات المعنية بمسائل مماثلة، نحن ننشر إستعراض أدب منظم باستخدام عينة كرة الثلج داخل شبكات الاستشهاد. هذا النهج يحد من تحيزات المؤلفين، ويعزز منظور متعدد التخصصات، ويضيف نهجاً مختلف المنهجية إلى إستعراض الأدب التقليدي القائم على المحتوى. مراجعتنا تكشف ثلاثة اتجاهات : (1) هناك إجماع واسع على أن الوسائل الأحادية الأبعاد للفعالية ليست مفيدة – على الرغم من إنه عادة تستخدم مثل هذه الوسائل من قبل وكالات تصنيف المنظمات (NGO/NPO)، (2) المنح الدراسية على فعالية (NGO/NPO) تهيمن عليه يالعمل المفاهيمي، في حين الدراسات التجريبية لا تزال نادرة، (3) توافق في الآراء حول كيفية تفعيل الفعالية لا يزال بعيد المنال. هذه النتائج تشير إلى أن التقدم في فهمنا للمنظمات (NGO/NPO)، الفاعلية تتطلب تعزيز الجهود عند معبر القسمة التأديبية ، وإضافة التحليلات التجريبية، وزيادة الاهتمام المشترك لتطوير الفئات والمنهجيات.

References

  1. Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Bacon, C. (2005). Confronting the coffee crisis: Can fair trade, organic, and specialty coffees reduce small-scale farmer vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua? World Development, 33, 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnow, B. (2000). Exploring the relationship between performance management and program impact: A case study of the job training partnership act. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19(1), 118–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bebbington, A., & Mitlin, D. (1996). NGO capacity and effectiveness: A review of themes in NGO-related research recently funded by ESCOR. International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, L. D. (2008). Creating credibility: Legitimacy and accountability for transnational civil society. Sterling: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. (1983). Some Conclusions about Organizational Effectiveness. In K. S. Cameron & D. A. Whetten (Eds.), Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of multiple methods (pp. 261–277). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, J. P. (1977). On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In P. S. Goodman & J. M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness (pp. 13–55). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Charity Navigator, GiveWell, Great Nonprofits, Guidestar, & Philantropedia & Philanthropy Action. (2009). The worst (and best) way to pick a Charity this year. Experts explain that overhead ratios and executive salaries are a red herring. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from http://www.philanthropyaction.com/documents/Worst_Way_to_Pick_A_Charity_Dec_1_2009.pdf.
  9. Connolly, T., Conlon, E. J., & Deutsch, S. J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multiple-constituency approach. The Academy of Management Review, 5, 211–217.Google Scholar
  10. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. de Solla Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Solla Price, D. J. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27, 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 56–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Cambridge: Social Enterprise Initiative/Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  15. Ebrahim, A., & Weisband, E. (Eds.). (2007). Global accountabilities participation, pluralism, and public ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Edwards, M. (1999). NGO performance—what breeds success? New evidence from South Asia. World Development, 27, 361–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  18. Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level food assistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Estabrooks, C. A., Winther, C., & Derksen, L. (2004). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the research utilization literature in nursing. Nursing Research, 53, 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organisations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Forbes, D. P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2), 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foster, M. J., & Lock, A. R. (1990). Factoring effectiveness factors. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41, 111–117.Google Scholar
  23. Fowler, A. (2002). Assessing NGO performance: Difficulties, dilemmas and a way ahead. In M. Edwards & A. Fowler (Eds.), The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management (pp. 293–307). London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Friedlander, F., & Pickle, H. (1968). Components of effectiveness in small organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Garfield, E. (1980). Bradford’s law and related statistical patterns. Current Contents, 19, 5–12.Google Scholar
  27. Garfield, E. (2001). From computational linguistics to algorithmic historiography. Paper presented at the Lazerow Lecture held in conjunction with panel on “Knowledge and Language: Building Large-Scale Knowledge Bases for Intelligent Applications”, Pittsburgh, September 19, 2001.Google Scholar
  28. Georgopoulos, B. S., & Mann, F. C. (1962). The community general hospital. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  29. Georgopoulos, B. S., & Tannenbaum, A. S. (1957). A study of organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 22, 534–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glänzel, W. (2003). Bibliometrics as a research field. A course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators. Retrieved April 25, 2010, from http://www.norslis.net/2004/Bib_Module_KUL.pdf.
  31. Goggins Gregory, A., & Howard, D. (2009, Fall). The nonprofit starvation cycle. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 48–53.Google Scholar
  32. Goodman, P. S., Atkin, R. S., & Schoorman, F. D. (1983). On the demise of organizational effectiveness studies. In K. S. Cameron & D. A. Whetten (Eds.), Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of multiple models (pp. 163–183). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harris, J. K., Beatty, K. E., Lecy, J. D., Cyr, J. M., & Shapiro II, R. M. (forthcoming). Mapping the multidisciplinary field of Public Health Systems and Service Research. American Journal of Preventative Medicine.Google Scholar
  35. Heiberg, D., & Bruno-van Vijfeijken, T. (2009). Which measurements matter? Monday Developments, 27, 26–27.Google Scholar
  36. Herman, R. D. (1990). Methodological issues in studying the effectiveness of nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 19(3), 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2004). Doing things right: Effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations, a panel study. Public Administration Review, 64, 694–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoefer, R. (2000). Accountability in action? Program evaluation in nonprofit human service agencies. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11, 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jobson, J. D., & Schneck, R. (1982). Constituent views of organizational effectiveness: Evidence from police organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 25, 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaplan, R. S. (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11, 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaplan, D., & Elliott, P. R. (1997). A didactic example of multilevel structural equation modeling applicable to the study of organizations. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74, 75–85.Google Scholar
  44. Klijn, E. -H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2000). Public management and policy networks. Public Management Review, 2, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lecy, J. D., Mergel, I., & Schmitz, H. P. (2010). Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Maxwell School of Citizeneship and Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  46. Lewin, A. Y., & Minton, J. W. (1986). Determining organizational effectiveness: Another look, and an agenda for research. Management Science, 32, 514–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lewis, D. (2001). The management of non-governmental development organizations: An introduction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lowell, S., Trelstad, B., & Meehan, B. (2005, Summer). The ratings game. Evaluating the three groups that rate the Charities. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 39–45.Google Scholar
  49. McCain, K. W. (1991). Mapping economics through the journal literature: An experiment in journal cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 290–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meho, L. I. (2006). The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World, 20, 32–36.Google Scholar
  51. Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 1, 60–67.Google Scholar
  52. Mitchell, G. E., & Schmitz, H. P. (2010, March 9). Navigating effectiveness. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from http://hausercenter.org/iha/2010/03/09/navigating-effectiveness/.
  53. Najam, A. (1998). Searching for NGO effectiveness. Development Policy Review, 16(3), 305–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55, 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Toole, L. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57, 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Price, J. L. (1968). Organizational effectiveness: An inventory of propositions. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
  57. Price, J. L. (1971). The study of organizational effectiveness. The Sociological Quarterly, 13, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61, 414–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000). Governance and public administration. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance. Authority, steering and democracy (pp. 54–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sharman, J. C. (2007). Rationalist and constructivist perspectives on reputation. Political Studies, 55, 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sheehan, R. M., Jr. (1996). Mission accomplishment as philanthropic organization effectiveness: Key findings from the excellence in philanthropy project. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 110–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sowa, J. E., Selden, S. C., & Sandfort, J. R. (2004). No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 711–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spar, D., & Dail, J. (2002). Of measurement and mission accounting for performance in non-governmental organizations. Chicago Journal of International Law, 3, 171–182.Google Scholar
  67. Steers, R. M. (1975). Problems in the measurement of organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 546–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thomson, D. E. (2010). Exploring the role of funders’ performance reporting mandates in nonprofit performance measurement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2006). Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19, 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Williams, A. R., & Kindle, C. (1992). Effectiveness of nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations: Some methodological caveats. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(4), 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wing, K., & Hager, M. A. (2004). Getting what we pay for. Low overhead limits nonprofit effectiveness. Washington: Nonprofit Overhead Cost Project/Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  73. Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. E. (1967). A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32, 891–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zammuto, R. F. (1984). A comparison of multiple constituency models of organizational effectiveness. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 606–616.Google Scholar
  75. Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psychobiology of language. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesse D. Lecy
    • 1
  • Hans Peter Schmitz
    • 2
  • Haley Swedlund
    • 3
  1. 1.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.Radboud Universiteit NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations