Abstract
This article explores the use of interpretive methodologies to study civil society networks within the field of third sector research. Interpretive methodologies situate reality as both socially constructed and negotiated and seek to understand meaning and meaning-making practices, which from a critical perspective act as forces of and derivatives of power relations. In particular, we develop the concept “interpretive engagement” to highlight a common but broadly defined focus of study in relation to civil society networks and use it as an illustrative example for highlighting the value of interpretive methods—specifically those that focus on discourses and discursive practices as forms of meaning-making—for advancing scholarship in the field of third sector research. Drawing on research in the field that employs interpretive methodologies and techniques to understand such practices, our interpretive engagement concept demonstrates how interpretive methods can address neglected areas of study in relation to the expressive functions of organized civil society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A discourse is a “specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” (Hajer, 1995, p. 44).
These features of context are not variables to be operationalized a priori, but forces that inform interpretations in the spirit of Levi Strauss’s “bricolage,” or the piecing together of forms of data (and methods) that emerge in the field (Patton, 2002, p. 402).
References
Aquino Alves, M. (2014). Social accountability as an innovative frame in civic action: The case of Rede Nossa Sao Paulo. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(3), 818–838.
Appe, S. (2016). NGO networks, the diffusion and adaptation of NGO managerialism, and NGO legitimacy in Latin America. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(1), 187–208.
Appe, S. (2020). Beyond the professionalized NGO: Life-history narratives of grassroots philanthropic leaders in Africa. Nonprofit Management and Leadership., 31(2), 335–353.
Appe, S., Barragán, D., & Telch, F. (2017). Civil society vocabularies and signaling value: Cases from Colombia and Ecuador. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 39(2), 100–121.
Ashman, D., & Sugawata, C. L. (2013). Civil society networks: Options for network design. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23(3), 389–406.
Beaton, E.E. (2021). Ethnography: Tales of the Nonprofit Field. Voluntas. OnlineFirst.
Bunger, A. C. (2012). Administrative coordination in nonprofit human service delivery networks: The role of competition and trust. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(6), 1155–1175.
Chen, K. K. (2018). Interorganizational advocacy among nonprofit organizations in strategic action fields: Exogenous shocks and local responses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4S), 97S-118S.
Coule, T.M., Dodge, J., & Eikenberry, A.M. (2020). Toward a typology of critical nonprofit studies: A literature Review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, OnlineFirst.
Del Felice, C. (2012). Transnational activism and free trade. Exploring the emancipatory potentials of global civil society. Voluntas, 23(2), 302–327.
Dodge, J. (2017). Crowded advocacy: Framing dynamics in the fracking controversy in New York. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(3), 888–915.
Dodge, J., & Ospina, S. M. (2016). Nonprofits as “Schools of Democracy”: A comparative case study of two environmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), 478–499.
Dryzek, J. (2006). Deliberative global politics, discourse and democracy in a divided world. Polity Press.
Ebrahim, A. (2001). NGO behavior and development discourse: Cases from Western India. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12(2), 79–101.
Gåsemyr, H. J. (2016). Networks and campaigns but not movements: Collective action in the disciplining Chinese State. Journal of Civil Society, 12(4), 394–410.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(12), 433–448.
Gordon, C. W., & Babchuk, N. (1959). A typology of voluntary associations. American Sociological Review, 24, 22–29.
Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford University Press.
Hvenmark, J. (2016). Ideology, practice, and process? A review of the concept of managerialism in civil society studies. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 2833–2859.
Katz, H. (2006). Gramsci, hegemony, and global civil society networks. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(4), 332–347.
Lewis, D. (2013). Civil society and the authoritarian state: Cooperation, contestation and discourse. Journal of Civil Society, 9(3), 325–340.
Liljeblad, J. (2017). The Pyu Ancient Cities World Heritage application: Lessons from Myanmar on transnational advocacy networks. Journal of Civil Society, 13(1), 18–34.
Lofland, J., Snow, D., Andersen, L., & Lofland, L. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Maier, F., & Meyer, M. (2011). Managerialism and beyond: Discourses of civil society organization and their governance implications. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(4), 731–754.
Marberg, A., Korzilius, H., & van Kranenburg, H. (2019). What is in a theme? Professionalization in nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations research. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 30(1), 113–131.
McDuie-Ra, D. (2007). The constraints on civil society beyond the state: Gender-based insecurity in Meghalaya, India. Voluntas, 18(4), 359–384.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–218.
Suárez, D. F. (2012). Grant making as advocacy. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22(3), 259–280.
Theros, M. (2019). Reimagining civil society in conflict: Findings from post-2001 Afghanistan. Journal of Civil Society, 15(2), 143–161.
Vandepitte, E., Vandermoere, F., & Hustinx, L. (2019). Civil anarchizing for the common good: Culturally patterned politics of legitimacy in the climate justice movement. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(6), 327–341.
Yanow, D. (2014). Interpretive analysis and comparative research. In I. Engeli & C. R. Allison (Eds.), Comparative policy studies (pp. 131–159). Palgrave Macmillan.
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2014). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. M. E. Sharp Inc.
Funding
This research was not funded.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have 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
About this article
Cite this article
Appe, S., Dodge, J. Interpretive Engagement and the Study of Civil Society Networks: An Illustration of Interpretive Methods. Voluntas 33, 1156–1163 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00434-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00434-7