Advertisement

A Century of Nonprofit Studies: Scaling the Knowledge of the Field

  • Ji MaEmail author
  • Sara Konrath
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

This empirical study examines knowledge production between 1925 and 2015 in nonprofit and philanthropic studies from quantitative and thematic perspectives. Quantitative results suggest that scholars in this field have been actively generating a considerable amount of literature and a solid intellectual base for developing this field toward a new discipline. Thematic analyses suggest that knowledge production in this field is also growing in cohesion—several main themes have been formed and actively advanced since 1980s, and the study of volunteering can be identified as a unique core theme of this field. The lack of geographic and cultural diversity is a critical challenge for advancing nonprofit studies. New paradigms are needed for developing this research field and mitigating the tension between academia and practice. Methodological and pedagogical implications, limitations, and future studies are discussed.

Keywords

Nonprofit and philanthropic studies Network analysis Knowledge production Paradigm shift Science mapping 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Zhaonan Zhu and Sasha Zarins for their assistance with data preprocessing; Dr. Chao Guo, Dr. Diarmuid McDonnell, Dr. Femida Handy, Dr. Jeffrey Brudney, Dr. Richard Steinberg, Dr. Susan Phillips, Xunyu Xiang, and Dr. Zheng Yang for their comments and suggestions; and Dr. Simon DeDeo for providing computing resources. Willow the cat also deserves special acknowledgement for her patient lap sleeping while writing this manuscript (with S.K.). Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Association of SPEA Ph.D. Students Annual Conference 2015; Annual Conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action 2015 and 2017. We thank the meeting participants for their comments during presentations. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions.

Funding

This work was supported in part by the John Templeton Foundation (#47993 and #57942 to S.K.) and the National Institutes of Health [1R21-HD073549-01A1 (NICHD) and 1R01-CA-180015 (NCI) to S.K.].

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adams, W. C., Lind Infeld, D., Wikrent, K. L., & Bintou Cisse, O. (2016). Network bibliometrics of public policy journals. Policy Studies Journal, 44(S1), S133–S151.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anheier, H. K., & Ben-Ner, A. (1997). Economic theories of non-profit organisations: A Voluntas symposium. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 8(2), 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(suppl 1), 69–97.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089976400773746346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamin, L. M. (2008). Account space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), 201–223.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764007301288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, J. C. (2007). The Anglosphere challenge: Why the English-speaking nations will lead the way in the twenty-first century. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Bernick, E., & Krueger, S. (2010). An assessment of journal quality in public administration. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(2), 98–106.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690903188891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Börner, K., Theriault, T. N., & Boyack, K. W. (2015). Mapping science introduction: Past, present and future. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(2), 12–16.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2015.1720410205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, Pierre. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brass, J. N., Longhofer, W., Robinson, R. S., & Schnable, A. (2018). NGOs and international development: A review of thirty-five years of scholarship. World Development, 112, 136–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.07.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bremner, R. H. (1988). American philanthropy (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brudney, J. L., & Durden, T. K. (1993). Twenty years of the journal of voluntary action research/nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly an assessment of past trends and future directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22(3), 207–218.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764093223004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brudney, J. L., & Herman, R. D. (2004). Readers’ perceptions of philanthropy and nonprofit management journals. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(3), 293–301.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004266326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brudney, J. L., & Kluesner, T. M. (1992). Researchers and practitioners in nonprofit organization and voluntary action: Applying research to practice? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(3), 293–308.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089976409202100307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bushouse, B. K., & Sowa, J. E. (2012). Producing knowledge for practice assessing NVSQ 2000–2010. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 497–513.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011422116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carrington, P. J., & Scott, J. (2011). Introduction. In: J. Scott & P. Carrington, The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 1–8). 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/the-sage-handbook-of-social-network-analysis/n1.xml. Accessed 17 June 2016.
  17. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen, C. (2014). The citespace manual (version 1.01). Philadelphia: College of Computing and Informatics Drexel University.Google Scholar
  19. Clemens, E. (2006). The constitution of citizens: Political theories of nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 207–220). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Corry, O. (2010). Defining and theorizing the third sector. In R. Taylor (Ed.), Third sector research (pp. 11–20). New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5707-8_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DiMaggio, P. J., & Anheier, H. K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56–87.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004269430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–973.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00019-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The Marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00355.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elsevier. (2017). About scopus. Retrieved May 24, 2017, from https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus.
  29. Gazley, B., & Guo, C. (2015). What do we know about nonprofit collaboration? A comprehensive systematic review of the literature. In Proceedings of the seventy-fifth annual meeting of the academy of management.Google Scholar
  30. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  31. Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 340–361.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764005275411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall, P. D. (1999). The work of many hands: A response to Stanley N. Katz on the origins of the “serious study” of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 522–534.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764099284013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hall, P. D. (2006). A historical overview of philanthropy, voluntary associations, and nonprofit organizations in the United States, 1600–2000. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 32–65). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2011). Concepts and Measures for Basic Network Analysis. In J. Scott & P. Carrington, The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 340–369). 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/the-sage-handbook-of-social-network-analysis/n24.xml. Accessed 17 June 2016.
  35. Hu, Q., Khosa, S., & Kapucu, N. (2015). The intellectual structure of empirical network research in public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 593–612.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jackson, S. K., Guerrero, S., & Appe, S. (2014). The state of nonprofit and philanthropic studies doctoral education. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 795–811.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014549056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Katz, S. N. (1999). Where did the serious study of philanthropy come from, anyway? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(1), 74–82.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764099281006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Korff, V. P., Oberg, A., & Powell, W. W. (2015). Interstitial organizations as conversational bridges. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(2), 34–38.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2015.1720410210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mirabella, R. M. (2007). University-based educational programs in nonprofit management and philanthropic studies: A 10-year review and projections of future trends. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4 suppl), 11S–27S.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764007305051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mirabella, R. M., & Wish, N. B. (2001). University-based educational programs in the management of nonprofit organizations: An updated census of U.S. programs. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(1), 30–41.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3381167.Google Scholar
  43. Morris, S. A., Yen, G., Wu, Z., & Asnake, B. (2003). Time line visualization of research fronts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 413–422.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Musick, M. A., Wilson, J., & Bynum, W. B. (2000). Race and formal volunteering: The differential effects of class and religion. Social Forces, 78(4), 1539–1570.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3006184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ni, C., Sugimoto, C. R., & Robbin, A. (2017). Examining the evolution of the field of public administration through a bibliometric analysis of public administration review. Public Administration Review, 77, 496–509.  https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Noyons, E. (2001). Bibliometric mapping of science in a policy context. Scientometrics, 50(1), 83–98.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005694202977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Payton, R. L., & Moody, M. P. (2008). Understanding philanthropy: Its meaning and mission. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Peirson, E. (2016). Tethne (Version 0.8) [Python]. Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://diging.github.io/tethne/. Accessed 13 Aug 2016.
  50. Persson, O. (1994). The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986–1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 31–38.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199401)45:1%3c31:AID-ASI4%3e3.0.CO;2-G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  52. Price, D. J. D. S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3683.510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.  https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1995.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  55. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Salamon, L. M. (1987a). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government: Toward a theory of government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 16(1–2), 29–49.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089976408701600104.Google Scholar
  57. Salamon, L. M. (1987b). Partners in public service: The scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 99–117). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Salamon, L. M. (2012). Government-nonprofit relations from an international perspective. In J. S. Ott & L. A. Dicke (Eds.), The nature of the nonprofit sector (2nd ed., pp. 367–384). Philadelphia, PA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  60. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schuller, T., Baron, S., & Field, J. (2000). Social capital: A review and critique. In Social capital: Critical perspectives (1 edn, pp. 1–38). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Shier, M. L., & Handy, F. (2014). Research trends in nonprofit graduate studies: A growing interdisciplinary field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 812–831.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014548279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Simon, K. W. (2013). Civil society in China: The legal framework from ancient times to the “New Reform Era.” Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199765898.001.0001/acprof-9780199765898. Accessed 2 Aug 2016.
  64. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (Pre-1986), 24(4), 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799–813.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:9%3c799:AID-ASI9%3e3.0.CO;2-G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith, D. H. (2013). Growth of research associations and journals in the emerging discipline of altruistics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 638–656.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013495979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wagner, A. (2012). “Third sector” and/or “civil society”: A critical discourse about scholarship relating to intermediate organisations. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(3), 299–328.  https://doi.org/10.1332/204080512X658036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weisbrod, B. A. (1975). Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three-sector economy. In E. S. Phelps (Ed.), Altruism, morality, and economic theory (1st ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  69. Weisbrod, B. A. (1977). The voluntary nonprofit sector: An economic analysis. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  70. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 215–240.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 694–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1999). The effects of volunteering on the volunteer. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 141–168.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1192270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wolfgang, B. (2004). Social capital. In D. F. Burlingame (Ed.), Encyclopedia of philanthropy in the US. San Francisco: ABC-CLIO Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public AffairsUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Lilly Family School of PhilanthropyIndiana University – Purdue University IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations