Abstract
The 2012 annual ARNOVA conference in Indianapolis will explore the issue: “What is philanthropy, and how do we encourage a broad and diverse approach to understanding philanthropy in theory and in practice?” NVSQ is and remains the premier outlet for articles in this area, and as editors we are looking forward to receiving your completed papers for an ongoing conversation in print on the nature and practice of philanthropy globally. This topic would include articles on the many ways of giving, in varied contexts, by all segments of the population. We invite your papers from all disciplinary (and interdisciplinary) perspectives at the local, national, and international levels.
We now turn to the articles in this issue of the journal.
In the first article, Bernd Helmig, Katharina Spraul, and Karin Tremp discuss “Replication Studies in Nonprofit Research.” Although replication studies are not often undertaken in nonprofit or other research in the social sciences, the authors present a framework for replication studies and demonstrate its value. The authors apply the framework to the topic of media publicity for nonprofit organizations. The results reveal similar patterns for nonprofit organizations in Zurich and New York based on a replication and original study, respectively.
In “Surplus Distribution in Microfinance: Differences Among Cooperative, Nonprofit and Shareholder Forms of Ownership,” Anais Perilleux, Marek Hudon, and Eddy Bloy examine the question of how microfinance institutions (MFIs) allocate their surplus to stakeholders. They find that the allocation process varies according to the ownership structure of the MFI. For example, nonprofit organizations and MFIs held by shareholders mainly keep their surplus within the MFI for self-financing purposes, such as reserve accounts and future investments, rather than transferring it to their clients in the form of an interest rate decrease, or to their employees as a salary increase. The article concludes with a discussion of the importance of these findings for the evaluation of MFIs by policy makers.
In their study of “Volunteer Motivations and Constraints Among College Students,” Richard L. Gage III and Brijesh Thapa examine both the Volunteer Function Inventory and leisure constraints models. The study investigated volunteering motivations, characteristics, scope of volunteerism, volunteer segments, and type of contributions, as well as constraints to participation. Based on data collected at a major university in the southeastern United States, the findings show that the majority of students were involved in volunteerism in some capacity. Among the students, human service organizations were the most important organizational type. The strongest motives for volunteering were related to the values and understanding dimension of the Volunteer Function Inventory, reflecting the need to help others and expand one’s own perspective on an issue. Structural constraints were found most likely to limit volunteerism.
Nonprofit board governance remains a popular topic in NVSQ and in other journals, with new theories and approaches emerging to aid understanding and prescription. In their article, Stijn Van Puyvelde, Ralf Caers, Cind Du Bois, and Marc Jegers strive to integrate agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. By combining agency theory with aspects of stakeholder theory, stewardship theory, and empirical literature on the governance and management of nonprofit organizations, the authors seek to provide a more comprehensive principal-agent theory of nonprofit organizations. Their research illustrates the importance of not only a recruitment policy to avoid internal agency problems in nonprofit organizations but also, more broadly, the utility of an approach that integrates different theoretical perspectives.
Thomas Rotolo and John Wilson investigate “State-Level Differences in Volunteerism in the United States.” They use hierarchical nonlinear modeling techniques to test demographic, institutional, and cultural theories to explain general, religious, and secular volunteering in the United States based on a nationally representative sample of nearly 300,000 respondents across the 50 states. Findings demonstrate that household composition, race heterogeneity, and the density of nonprofit organizations influence the general volunteering rate as well as the secular volunteering rate. Religious volunteering is influenced by household composition, race heterogeneity, the density of religious congregations, and the religiosity of the residents of the state.
The focus of the article by Mark A. Hager and Mary Kopczynski Winkler is “Motivational and Demographic Factors for Performing Arts Attendance Across Place and Form.” They take up an “old debate” concerning whether attendance at live performing arts events is driven primarily by demographics, such as the age or income of patrons, or by psychological motivations, such as an appreciation for beauty or the opportunity to socialize with others. The authors examine how demographic and motivation explanations for attendance fare empirically across three cities and for three different art forms. In general, Hager and Winkler find that demographic variables fare better overall than psychological motivations. Nevertheless, they caution that inconsistencies in effects between place and form suggest questions regarding whether results found in one or several sites can provide stable and useful generalizations for arts managers and marketers.
The final article in this issue is authored by Brenda K. Bushouse and Jessica E. Sowa. Their research note, “Producing Knowledge for Practice: Assessing NVSQ 2000-2010,” offers a challenge to authors to consider the implications of their research for practice and application. Based on articles published in NVSQ from 2000 to 2010, the article considers the extent to which authors explore the practice implications of their research. Bushouse and Sowa find that more work needs to be done in improving the applicability of our research for practice, while recognizing that some work is geared toward the advancement of basic knowledge in the field of nonprofit studies. They conclude that scholars engaging in research with direct relevance for practice should support “praxis,” that is, address the “so what” question for both scholars and practitioners—an issue that reaches beyond this journal and this field. Their conclusion is provocative, and we expect that it will occasion healthy and productive commentary and discussion among authors, readers, and the editors.