Abstract
Enabled by the underpinnings of critical theory, this article discusses research methodology developed with the aim of empowering beneficiaries within Third Sector Organisations, through their participation in organisational evaluation processes. The discussion on methodology in this article occurs at three levels: conceptual, processual, and reflexive. The conceptual level explores ontological and epistemological assumptions that shape the critical approach. At the processual level, research methods are explored, drawing on case studies involving interviews with beneficiaries. In interviewing beneficiaries, Third Sector research becomes a means of representing this group. Finally, the reflexive level explores how findings from the processual level enable praxis through the development of approaches supporting beneficiaries’ participation in organisational evaluation processes. As such, Third Sector research can engage beneficiary participation, in order to promote more effective beneficiary participation organisationally.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alcoff, L. (1992). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, 20, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/1354221
Awio, G., Northcott, D., & Lawrence, S. (2011). Social capital and accountability in grass-roots NGOs: The case of the Ugandan community-led HIV/AIDS initiative. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(1), 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571111098063
Babbie, E. R. (2015). The Practice of Social Research (14th edn.). US: Cengage Learning.
Benjamin, L. M. (2020). Bringing beneficiaries more centrally into nonprofit management education and research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020918662
Berryman, D. R. (2019). Ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods: Information for librarian researchers. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 38(3), 271–279.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brinkmann, S. (2018). The Interview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th edn.). Sage.
Catchpowle, L., & Smyth, S. (2016). Accounting and social movements: an exploration of critical accounting praxis. Accounting Forum, 40(3), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2016.05.001
Chen, J., Dyball, M. C., & Harrison, G. (2019). Stakeholder salience and accountability mechanisms in not-for-profit service delivery organizations. Financial Accountability & Management, 36(1), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12217
Chiapello, E. (2017). Critical accounting research and neoliberalism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 43, 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2016.09.002
Chu, V., & Luke, B. (2018). NGO accountability to beneficiaries: examining participation in microenterprise development programs. Third Sector Review, 24(2), 77–104.
Connolly, C., & Hyndman, N. (2017). The donor–beneficiary charity accountability paradox: a tale of two stakeholders. Public Money & Management, 37(3), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2017.1281629
Cordery, C., & Sim, D. (2018). Dominant stakeholders, activity and accountability discharge in the CSO sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 34(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12144
Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 1998(80), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1114.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2008). Orientations to Social constructionism: relationally responsive social constructionism and its implications for knowledge and learning. Management Learning, 39(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607087578
Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100102
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7
Ebrahim, A. (2016). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In D. O. Renz & R. D. Herman (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management. Wiley.
Freire, P. (2017). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Modern Classics.
Gendron, Y. (2018). On the elusive nature of critical (accounting) research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 50, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.11.001
Greene, J. C. (1997). Participatory evaluation. In L. Mabry (Ed.), Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma (pp. 171–189). JAI Press.
Guba, E., Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin Y., S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (3rd edn., pp. 195–220). SAGE.
Hertz, R. (1996). Introduction: ethics, reflexivity and voice. Qualitative Sociology, 19(1), 3–9.
Jacobs, A., & Wilford, R. (2010). Listen first: a pilot system for managing downward accountability in NGOs. Development in Practice, 20(7), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2010.508113
Kennedy, D. (2019). The Inherently Contested Nature of Nongovernmental Accountability: The Case of HAP International. VOLUNATS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(6), 1393–1405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00134-3
Kilby, P. (2006). Accountability for empowerment: dilemmas facing non-governmental organizations. World Development, 34(6), 951–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.009
Kincheloe, J. L., McLaren, P. (2011). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In K. Hayes, S. R. Steinberg, K. Tobin (Eds.), Key works in critical pedagogy (pp. 285–326). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6.
Kingston, K. L., Furneaux, C., de Zwaan, L., & Alderman, L. (2019). From monologic to dialogic: accountability of nonprofit organisations on beneficiaries’ terms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(2), 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-01-2019-3847
Kingston, K. L., Furneaux, C., de Zwaan, L., & Alderman, L. (2020). Avoiding the accountability ‘sham-ritual’: an agonistic approach to beneficiaries’ participation in evaluation within nonprofit organisations. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102261
Kvale, S. (2008). Doing interviews. Sage.
Lather, P. (2013). Methodology-21: what do we do in the afterward? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 634–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.788753
Laughlin, R. C. (1987). Accounting systems in organisational contexts: a case for critical theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(5), 479–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(87)90032-8
Martinez, D. E., & Cooper, D. J. (2020). Seeing Through the Logical Framework. VOLUNATS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(6), 1239–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00223-8
Mathison, S. (2018). Does evaluation contribute to the public good? Evaluation, 24(1), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389017749278
Mercelis, F., Wellens, L., & Jegers, M. (2016). Beneficiary participation in non-governmental development organisations: a case study in Vietnam. The Journal of Development Studies, 52(10), 1446–1462. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1166209
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis : A methods sourcebook (3rd edn.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Murtaza, N. (2012). Putting the Lasts First: The Case for Community-Focused and Peer-Managed NGO Accountability Mechanisms. VOLUNATS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-011-9181-9
Myers, M. D. (2009). Qualitative research in business & management. Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods : Integrating theory and practice (4th edn.). SAGE Publications, Inc
Ponelis, S. R. (2015). Using interpretive qualitative case studies for exploratory research in doctoral studies: A case of information systems research in small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 535–550. https://doi.org/10.28945/2339 .
Rexhepi, J., & Torres, C. A. (2011). Reimagining critical theory. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(5), 679–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2011.596363
Rose, J., & Johnson, C. W. (2020). Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative research: toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(4), 432–451.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students (7th edn.). Pearson.
Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case study methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th edn., pp. 341–358). SAGE.
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
Sullivan, S. (2017). What’s ontology got to do with it? on nature and knowledge in a political ecology of the’green economy’. Journal of Political Ecology, 24(1), 217–242.
van Zyl, H., Claeyé, F., & Flambard, V. (2019). Money, people or mission? accountability in local and non-local NGOs. Third World Quarterly, 40(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2018.1535893.
Walsh, S. (2016). Obstacles to NGOs’ accountability to intended beneficiaries: the case of ActionAid. Development in Practice, 26(6), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2016.1200537.
Wedeen, L. (2010). reflections on ethnographic work in political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 13(1), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.052706.123951
Wellens, L., & Jegers, M. (2016). From consultation to participation: the impact of beneficiaries on nonprofit organizations’ decision making and output. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21191
Wellens, L., & Jegers, M. (2017). Beneficiaries’ participation in development organizations through local partners: a case study in Southern Africa. Development Policy Review, 35(S2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12279
Woods, M., Macklin, R., & Lewis, G. K. (2016). Researcher reflexivity: exploring the impacts of CAQDAS use. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(4), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1023964
Yang, C., & Northcott, D. (2019). Together we measure: Improving public service outcomes via the co-production of performance measurement. Public Money & Management, 39(4), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1592906
Yasmin, S., Ghafran, C., & Haslam, J. (2020). Centre-staging beneficiaries in charity accountability: insights from an Islamic post-secular perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102167
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge and thank the Special Issue guest editors Paloma Raggo and Mirae Kim for their feedback and editing insights which have improved the quality of this paper. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and very helpful reviews.
Funding
This research has been funded by the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), through the School of Accountancy’s Accelerate Scholarship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Kylie Kingston and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics Approval and Consent
Research explored within this manuscript followed procedures in accordance with ethical standards including receiving informed consent from all research participants; Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Ethics Approval Number: 1700000820.
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
Kingston, K.L., Luke, B., Furneaux, C. et al. A Reflection on Critical Methodology: Accountability and Beneficiary Participative Evaluation in Third Sector Research. Voluntas 33, 1148–1155 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00395-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00395-x