Advertisement

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

  • Helen WadhamEmail author
  • Cathy Urquhart
  • Richard Warren
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Contradiction Development Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) Paradox Partnership 

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.

Notes

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.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

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

References

  1. Balboa, C. 2013. How successful transnational non-governmental organisations set themselves up for failure on the ground. World Development 54: 273–287.Google Scholar
  2. Banks, N., D. Hulme, and M. Edwards. 2015. NGOs, states and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort? World Development 66: 707–718.Google Scholar
  3. Baur, D., and H. Schmitz. 2012. Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics 106 (1): 9–21.Google Scholar
  4. Brannick, T., and D. Coghlan. 2007. In defence of being ‘native:’ The case for insider research. Organisational Research Methods 10 (1): 59–74.Google Scholar
  5. Burawoy, M. 1998. The extended case method. Sociological Theory 16 (1): 4–33.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Clegg, S., J. Vieira da Cunha, and M. Pina e Cunha. 2002. Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations 55 (5): 483–503.Google Scholar
  8. Conklin, J. 2005. Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Dar, S. 2014. Hybrid accountabilities: When western and non-western accountabilities collide. Human Relations 67 (2): 131–151.Google Scholar
  12. Dempsey, S. 2007. Negotiating accountability within international contexts: The role of bounded voice. Communication Monographs 34 (3): 311–322.Google Scholar
  13. Dempsey, S. 2009. NGOs, communicative labor, and the work of grassroots representation. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 6 (4): 328–345.Google Scholar
  14. Dempsey, S. 2012. Nonprofits as political actors. Management Communication Quarterly 26: 147–151.Google Scholar
  15. Dutta, M. 2011. Communicating social change: Structure, culture, and agency. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Edwards, M. 2000. NGO rights and responsibilities: A new deal for global governance. London: The Foreign Policy Centre.Google Scholar
  17. Edwards, M., and D. Hulme. 1992. Scaling up NGO impact on development: Learning from experience. Development in Practice 2 (2): 77–91.Google Scholar
  18. Escobar, A. 2001. Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localisation. Political Geography 20: 139–174.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Frumkin, P. 2002. On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Ganesh, S., and H. Zoller. 2012. Dialogue, activism, and democratic social change. Communication Theory 22 (1): 66–91.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Habermas, J. 1987. The theory of communicative action (volume 2): Lifeworld and system. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hesketh, C. 2016. The survival of non-capitalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34 (5): 877–894.Google Scholar
  26. Hoffman, J. 2017. Talking into (non)existence: Denying or constituting paradoxes of Corporate Social Responsibility. Human Relations 71 (5): 668–691.Google Scholar
  27. Idemudia, U. 2017. Environmental business–NGO partnerships in Nigeria: Issues and prospects. Business Strategy and The Environment 26 (2): 265–276.Google Scholar
  28. Iivonen, K. 2018. Defensive responses to strategic sustainability paradoxes: Have your Coke and drink it too! Journal of Business Ethics 148: 309–327.Google Scholar
  29. Jalili, R. 2013. Financing empowerment? How foreign aid to southern NGOs and social movements undermines grassroots mobilisation. Sociology Compass 7 (1): 55–73.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Jay, J. 2013. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organisations. Academy of Management Journal 56: 137–159.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. McKague, K., C. Zietsma, and C. Oliver. 2015. Building the social structure of a market. Organisation Studies 36 (8): 1063–1093.Google Scholar
  36. Nair, S. 2013. Governance, representation and international aid. Third World Quarterly 34 (4): 630–652.Google Scholar
  37. Putnam, L., and G. Fairhurst. 2015. Revisiting ‘organisations as discursive constructions’: Ten years later. Communication Theory 25 (4): 375–392.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Quinn, R., and K. Cameron. 1988. Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organisation and management. Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Roth, S. 2015. The paradoxes of aid work: passionate professionals. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Schad, J., and P. Bansal. 2018. Seeing the forest and the trees: How a systems perspective informs paradox research. Journal of Management Studies (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. Schemeil, Y. 2013. Bringing international organisation in: Global institutions as adaptive hybrids. Organisation Studies 34 (2): 219–252.Google Scholar
  46. Seckinelgin, H. 2006. The multiple worlds of NGOs and HIV/AIDS: Rethinking NGOs and their agency. Journal of International Development 18: 715–727.Google Scholar
  47. Sharma, G., and P. Bansal. 2017. Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial–social paradox. Organisation Studies 38 (3): 341–364.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, W. 2014. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal 57: 1592–1623.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Tvedt, T. 2006. The international aid system and the Non-Governmental Organisations: A new research agenda. Journal of International Development 18 (5): 677–690.Google Scholar
  53. Wadham, H., and R. Warren. 2014. Telling organisational tales: The extended case method in practice. Organisational Research Methods 17 (1): 5–22.Google Scholar
  54. Wicks, A., D. Gilbert, and E. Freeman. 1994. A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (4): 475–498.Google Scholar
  55. Wrangel, C. 2017. Recognising hope: US global development discourse and the promise of despair. Environment and Planning D 35 (5): 875–892.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. Yin, R. 2012. Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, All Saints CampusManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations