Resurrecting and Appending Identities: The Role of Nonprofits in Managing Stigmatized Identity

Abstract

Homelessness is an issue that impacts more than half a million people in the United States every day. Nonprofits are often on the front lines of efforts to aid individuals without homes. In this study, we focus on an area underexplored in the nonprofit literature, stigma, to explore the nonprofit’s role as a critical catalyst in managing stigma within and among client beneficiaries. Based on our interpretive analysis of interviews and observations of the nonprofit Running for Change (RFC), we delineate how RFC created conditions under which beneficiaries without homes could resurrect former identities and append new identities for themselves as part of the stigma management process. Our work carries implications for prior research on nonprofit organizing related to constituent participation and beneficiary empowerment and opens up new pathways for nonprofit partitioners to think about the agentic capacities of beneficiaries.

Keywords

stigma homelessness nonprofit organizing identity membership negotiation

On any given night more than half a million people live without a permanent residence. Sixty nine percent of these individuals are sheltered in residential programs (Henry et al., 2015). As the price of food, lodging, and health care continues to rise, so does the likelihood that an individual may experience homelessness. For instance, since 2007, the percentage of individuals spending more than half of their income on housing alone has risen by nearly 25% (Henry et al., 2015).

A tacit assumption regarding people individuals experiencing homelessness is that they are homeless as a product of their own volition—the so-termed culture of poverty ideology. As a consequence, individuals experiencing homelessness have long endured the effects of their ascribed stigmatized identities and are especially vulnerable due to their lack of agency and voice. Indeed, the image of the “disheveled” or “disoriented” person on the street is still deeply embedded in the cultural narrative of the United States. Because of this dominant metanarrative about homelessness, it is often difficult for individuals experiencing homelessness to reintegrate into society; as they struggle, for instance, to find employment. In this manuscript, we argue that participation with nonprofits may act as a scaffold in helping individual to manage their stigmatized identities.

Scholarship has explored the stigma management process from several vantage points. First, scholars have explored the ways in which people individually understand and manage their own perceived stigma (e.g., Meisenbach, 2010; Smith, 2007). Second, scholars have investigated how organizations manage stigma with respect to external audiences (e.g., see Benoit’s, 1995 work on image repair) with studies examining, for instance, how hidden (and often stigmatized) organizations managed stigma (e.g., Scott, 2013; Wolfe & Blithe, 2015). A third, and lesser examined, approach to studying the stigma management process looks at the role organizations play in helping individuals manage their own stigma (c.f., Jensen, 2018). It is within this third approach where we seek to make a contribution to the nonprofit and organizational literature—exploring what role the nonprofit plays in helping individuals experiencing homelessness manage their stigmatized identities. Specifically, we seek to contribute to the scholarship at the nexus of stigma management (e.g., Jensen, 2018; Meisenbach, 2010; Smith, 2007) and membership negotiation (e.g., McPhee & Zaug, 2000; Scott & Myers, 2010), by illustrating the ways in which one nonprofit advanced membership negotiation practices to communicatively facilitate the reconstruction of stigmatized identities.

Given this, we were guided in this research by the following broad research question:

Research Question 1: How does a nonprofit employ membership negotiation practices to help individuals experiencing homelessness manage their stigmatized identities?

Ultimately, our findings speak to the unique role that a nonprofit organization can play in membership negotiation and stigma management processes for service beneficiaries. Furthermore, our work answers calls to position beneficiary voices more centrally into nonprofit research and management (Benjamin, 2021).

We begin by synthesizing the literatures on the stigmatization of homelessness and membership negotiation. Subsequently, we offer interpretative field data and interview data as a way to understand the complexity of managing stigmatized identities. Next, we describe two identity negotiation strategies afforded within and through one particular organization’s, Running for Change (RFC), membership negotiation practices, which arguably helped individuals experiencing homelessness recast their stigmatized identities by creating conditions under which beneficiaries could resurrect former identities and append new identities. We conclude with applied and theoretical implications for scholars and practitioners and speak to the import of constituent participation and beneficiary empowerment as it relates to member identity and stigma (e.g., Benjamin & Campbell, 2015; Guo & Musso, 2007).

The Stigmatization of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness

To date, scholarship has illuminated the (oft negative) consequences associated with societal discourses about homelessness. Schneider and Remillard (2013) found that public statements about individuals experiencing homelessness often serve to reinforce stigma and inequality because they assume that to be worthy of assistance—there must be a recognizable commensurability between the deserving and undeserving. This type of discourse sets up the problematic bifurcation between the “deserving” and “undeserving.” These cases illustrate how stigma discredits individuals, marking them as other, often serve to discredit an individual’s self-worth (Boydell et al., 2000), and take away their dignity (see Jensen, 2018).

We align ourselves with Goffman (1963) believing stigma to be “a language of relationships” that is intersubjectively created and maintained (p. 3); thus, we position stigma as a fundamentally communicative process. In this vein, Smith (2007) offered the first theoretical distillation of stigma communication wherein she delineated the content and attributes of stigma communication as well as the emotions that stigma messages evoke. Building on Smith’s (2007) foundational work, Meisenbach (2010) explicated a theory of stigma management communication, arguing that stigma is part and parcel of human experience. According to stigma management communication, individuals may negotiate stigma through six strategies which are based on (a) whether the potentially stigmatized accepts or challenges the public understanding of the stigma and (b) whether the potentially stigmatized accepts or challenges the notion that the stigma applies to self. These authors acknowledged the importance of individual stigma management and its role in everyday life.

Other scholars, however, have taken up this mantle, attending to the role organizations play in managing their own stigma with respect to external audiences and broader societal discourses. For instance, Benoit’s (1995) foundational work on image repair has guided scholars in understanding how organizations respond when the experience threats to their image, often from crises of their own making (i.e., denial, evasion of responsibility, reduction of offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification). Others have investigated how stigmatized or hidden organizations (Scott, 2013) manage their identities amid unfavorable societal perceptions, including Wolfe and Blithe (2015) who explored how Nevada’s legal brothels embraced their commitment to legal practices while downplaying aspects of their identity that were laden with societal stigma.

Thus, extant scholarship has predominantly examined the stigma management process from two different angles: first, exploring how individuals manage their own stigmatized identities and second, investigating how organizations posture and pivot as they craft messages and engage in image management—often to resist the dominant societal scripts imposed upon them. A third approach to understanding stigma management, and the focus of the present study, is to look at the role of the organization plays in helping or supporting individuals as they manage their own stigma. Jensen’s (2018) study offers one such exemplar, wherein individuals experiencing homelessness managed the dual stigma of homelessness and mental illness acknowledging that organizational culture based in humor played a role in helping them manage their stigmatized identities. Next, we turn next to the literature on membership negotiation, paying special attention to the role organizations play in (re)shaping vulnerable members’ identities to train out our argument that organizations have the capacity to aid individuals in the stigma management process. This coupling of the membership negotiation literature with the stigma management literature opens up previously unexplored space to theorize and practice communication research in nonprofit settings.

Membership Negotiation, Identity Management, and the Role of Nonprofits

Acknowledging a lack of scholarship on membership associations within nonprofit studies, Tschirhart and Gazley (2014) led a special issue in NVSQ which collected scholarship on intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal membership associations. This collection applauded current scholarship for enlarging understandings of the reciprocal relationship between members and organizations, while still acknowledging that there is much work to be explored. As an answer to this call, we introduce the theoretical concept of membership negotiation as consequential to the relationship between members and nonprofits—particularly concerning the management of stigmatized identities.

Membership negotiation is, “a set of ongoing processes (intentional and unintentional) through which knowledgeable individuals and focal organizations engage, disengage, and accomplish reciprocal—but still asymmetrical—influence over the intended meanings for an individual’s participation in organizational functions” (Scott & Myers, 2010, p. 80). Membership negotiation, then, is viewed as an engaged process where individuals and organizations meaningfully co-construct what it means to be a member in the organization—meanings which are “constituted, reconstituted, and transformed over time” (p. 80). To date, membership negotiation has drawn scholarly attention to the ongoing and reciprocal nature of membership (see McPhee & Zaug, 2009), and the challenges inherent, for individuals existing in organizations—including nonprofits (e.g., Gailliard & Davis, 2009) and even involuntary organizations (e.g., Peterson & McNamee, 2016). Of particular interest to this piece is Scott and Myers’ (2010) claim that

In becoming an organizational member, we can be exploited, but we also can acquire influence and experience personal growth, insight into ourselves, and an opportunity for personal expression and achievement—resources that may benefit the individual as much or more than the organization. (p. 89–90)

We take seriously Scott and Myers’ (2010) assertion that in the midst of membership negotiation processes, individuals’ identities can be transformed. While previous studies within the nonprofit sector perceptively attended to identity management within and among volunteers (i.e., McNamee & Peterson, 2015), nested identities and identification sources (Meisenbach & Kramer, 2014), volunteer role negotiation and identification (Tornes & Kramer, 2015), as well as organizational identity more broadly (Chenhall et al., 2016; Sharp, 2018), this study seeks to explore the ways in which nonprofits can foster the reshaping of stigmatized identities through membership negotiation practices (Scott & Myers, 2010).

Indeed, our social identities, stigmatized or otherwise, are inherently tied to our organizational memberships or to the social groups to which we belong. When negative social identities emerge, “individuals will strive either to leave their existing group and join some more positively distinct group and/or to make their existing group more positively distinct” (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, p. 16). In light of these theoretical principles, it is unsurprising stigmatized individuals might seek out ways to redefine or resist their stigmatized social identities through other more positive group memberships or organizational affiliations. As a case in point, Jensen’s (2018) scholarship has demonstrated that nonprofits have the capacity to help individuals experiencing homelessness manage and recast their stigmatized identities by creating a culture of dignity “grounded in local practices and nuanced relationships” (p. 21). Likewise, we posit that reshaping identity can occur within the broader processes associated with membership negotiation, which include “role expectations (clarity, ambiguity), group and organizational norms, formal structure, socialization from external and indirect sources, identity and identification, power relations, and socializing and ongoing interaction” (Scott & Myers, 2010, p. 90). Herein we seek to explore how membership negotiation processes supported and advanced by the nonprofit—intentionally and unintentionally—might play a role in helping individuals recursively shape their own member identities.

In summary, we have posited that individuals experiencing homelessness regularly face issues of stigma, and the opportunity to reframe their identities as “homeless” is often challenging. Accordingly, these individuals might affiliate with varied partner organizations that can support them and consequently help them manage the stigmatized identities associated with their present circumstances. We suggest that these recursive shifts in identity—fostered within membership negotiation processes—have the potential to be particularly appreciable for individuals seeking to manage their stigmatized identities, as well as the nonprofits who may serve them. Thus, in this project, we build on the meaningful work that has been done on membership negotiation and explore how nonprofits collaboratively negotiate membership, attending to the role of the organization and the communicative processes therein, in an effort to assuage the negative effects stigma.

Methodology

Organizational Background

To explore the interrelatedness between nonprofit organizing, managing stigmatized identities, and membership negotiation, the first author engaged in an ethnographic study to explore the research question:

Research Question 2: How does a nonprofit employ membership negotiation practices to help individuals experiencing homelessness manage their stigmatized identities?

Running for Change (RFC) began in 2012 in the southeastern United States with the mission of aiding adults living without homes. The first author observed and participated with the organization from the first day of programming. At that time there were two founders and two unpaid volunteers. Today, the organization is a designated 501(c)(3) organization that operates with five permanent staff, and nine board members. Since its founding, RFC has provided long-term housing for 125 neighbors, secured employment for 140 neighbors, and logged more than 4,500 volunteer hours.

During biweekly meetings, volunteers and neighbors (i.e., the term RFC used to identify beneficiaries who were experiencing homelessness) participated in runs ranging in length from 3 to 5 miles and subsequently participated in a group activity. Neighbors who were unable to physically run 3 to 5 miles were still invited to participate by walking. On average, 10 to 12 people (volunteers and neighbors) were present at each run. Socialization into the group was informal and fluid, with membership looking different at nearly every meeting. RFC provided donated, unworn shoes, shirts, shorts, and socks to first-time neighbors. After attending four sessions neighbors were able to keep their clothing and provided a storage locker.

Data Collection

After obtaining IRB approval, the first author engaged in a year-long ethnographic study case study (Yin, 2018) of the RFC organization, which included multiple sources of data including interviews and participant observation. According to Yin (2018), a case study approach using ethnographic methodology is appropriate if the researcher seeks to answer questions related to how or why something happens. In addition, it allows for an in-depth study of the behaviors of specific individuals or groups of individuals to offer rich description of difficult or sensitive topics. The first author collected a total of 37 pages of double-spaced field notes, 212 pages of single-spaced interview data, and spent a total of 92 hr of observation in which she engaged in runs, group discussions, and special events with participants. Due to the unique nature of the field site, where the first author often found herself engaging with participants quite literally “on the run,” the first author dictated her notes into an audio recorder and then later transcribed them verbatim. In total, the first author collected eight interviews with RFC members, which included founders, volunteers, and neighbors. For clarification we list here the participants and their connection to the organization using their given pseudonyms: Molly (founder); Katherine (founder); Pam (volunteer); Jeremy (volunteer); Cyril (neighbor); Trevor (neighbor); Trent (neighbor); and Oscar (neighbor). Interviews ranged in length from 27 to 89 minutes, and asked participants questions including: Why did you decide to join RFC? Can you tell me about a meaningful moment you have had with RFC? Interviews took place in various locations, including a private room at RFC and at local coffee shops.

Every effort was made to protect and maintain the confidentiality of participants. Due to this unique field site, where members were often transient, the first author obtained consent from each interview participant before conducting the interview. In addition, the first author announced her identity as a researcher every time she attended RFC meetings. All observations were conducted in public locations (i.e., runs through city streets). Pseudonyms were used to protect the identities of participants. In addition, noting the vulnerability of the population, the first author, when possible, conducted member checks in an effort to ensure credibility of the research and ensure verisimilitude. For instance, when able to speak with a participant after interviewing them, she asked that participants read excerpts from their transcripts and asked, “do you think this accurately represents what you were trying to say?”

Data Analysis

The second author was brought on to assist with coding, analysis, and writing. Our analytic process drew upon what Richardson and St. Pierre (2005) described as a Creative Analytic Process (CAP) ethnography. This process “displays the writing process and the writing product as deeply intertwined” (p. 962). Together we conducted an iterative analysis in line with Tracy’s (2013) suggestions for coding. The authors started by engaging in a “data immersion phase” conversing and “marinat[ing] in the data” to see what inclinations, impressions, and perspectives came to light (p. 188). These initial conversations took place via email with one author emailing the other commenting on anything striking in the data (e.g., email excerpt: “the posturing, rationalizing, and self-affirming behaviors in light of their membership is really prominent”). Next, we engaged “primary-cycle coding,” immersing ourselves in the data and assigned “words or phrases that capture their essence” (Tracy, 2013, p. 189). Themes included disciplining the body, (dis)empowering, negotiating identity, and state of being vs. who they are.

Next, we engaged “secondary-cycle” coding, making sense of and structured initial themes and interpretations (Tracy, 2013, p. 194). Here, we specifically honed-in on how the organization acted as a vessel through which to facilitate individual stigma management strategies. For example, the first author noted that many neighbors volunteered at road running races, to which the second author acknowledged that participation in such events might represent organizationally facilitated stigma management. Finally, the authors engaged in a final collaborative conversation to “explain, theorize, and synthesize” the codes and elevate them to a higher level of interpretation (Tracy, 2013, p. 194). We strove to meet the criteria for excellence in qualitative research (Tracy, 2010) through credibility (i.e., rich description and explicit detail), sincerity (i.e., transparency, acknowledging privileged positions), data triangulation (i.e., interviews and observations), researcher triangulation, and worthy topic (i.e., research is timely and relevant) (Tracy, 2013).

Findings

In response to our research question, we identified two means through which RFC helped facilitate the managing of stigmatized identities among individuals experiencing homelessness. To be clear, we are not suggesting that RFC intentionally tried to help individuals manage their stigmatized identities; in fact, at times, consequential organizational actions may have gone unrecognized by founders and volunteers. Rather, through our analysis, we identified two identity management strategies that individuals employed through their membership negotiation practices and affiliation with the organization itself. Thus, we maintain that the organization, through its membership negotiation practices, helped to vicariously facilitate stigma management, but not that they did so intentionally. This is in line with Scott and Myers’ (2010) assertion that membership negotiation is not necessarily intentional on the part of the organization but can be an ongoing process through which an individual’s participation may be understood. First, we found that through their membership negotiation practices, RFC facilitated a resurrection of latent identities, and second, an appending of new identities to already existing identities. We proceed by presenting exemplars of each of these strategies while speaking to the role RFC’s membership negotiation practices played in facilitating their enactment among members.

Resurrecting Latent Identities

The first way RFC’s membership negotiation practices facilitated stigma identity management in its members was through resurrecting of latent identities. This occurred when the organization stirred up already-existing abilities and experiences of members. We found that by recognizing these latent identities in organizational practices, RFC helped to provide members an alternative to a “homeless” identity. We ultimately recognized this act of membership negotiation being consequential insofar as it had the potential to help neighbors manage their stigmatized (homeless) identities by highlighting alternative identities that may be emphasized instead.

As part of its membership negotiation practices, RFC instilled—and neighbors engaged in—the reinvigorating of identities associated with physical activity. RFC accomplished this through various membership negotiation processes identified by Scott and Myers (2010) including fostering role expectations, socializing and on-going interaction, and conveying organizational norms. For example, RFC helped resurrect the identity of athlete or military personnel. This was evident in the stories shared during interviews, in every day conversations, and in educational and skill-building sessions.

Take, for instance, neighbor Oscar, a lifelong soccer player and Sudanese refugee. In an interview, Oscar spoke about how RFC reinforced values he had cultivated as a soccer player in his home country. When asked why he was attracted to RFC, Oscar explained that being part of RFC helped to make him “ready” for other life goals: “To me [being] physically very ready for any kind of goal, like job, housing, and [visa] card. It’s kind of a great opportunity for me to be in this running program.” Thus, through membership negotiation practices (i.e., establishing role expectations), RFC helped resurrect already existing identities to aid members in navigating away from their stigmatized identities, while acknowledging their pasts.

In fact, this athletic identity became so prominent that several members of RFC either became, or already were, simultaneously members of Street Soccer USA, a nonprofit whose mission is to “fight poverty and empower underserved communities through soccer.” As part of its startup efforts RFC strategically partnered with Street Soccer’s local affiliate to recruit members. During the first author’s time with the organization, members competed in a championship playoff in New York City with Street Soccer. Through this membership negotiation practice fostered by this organizational partnership (i.e., ongoing socialization and interaction), this athletic identity was even more keenly reinforced.

In addition, RFC worked alongside several members with previous military experience, resurrecting retired or forgotten identities associated with physical strength and discipline. As a former Marine, neighbor Cyril explained,

Military was the only time I really did sports. When I joined the Marine Corp back in ’97, I never played a sport. I never was athletic. I was all academics. I loved academics. So, it was just amazing to see why did I choose the military. And the Marines of all that, where it’s like physical fit and all that, and the uniform, you know, and all those things that’s part of that. So, RFC kind of brought that passion back.

Cyril took this identity seriously. During group runs, he would lead military-style chants such as “mama, mama can’t you see, running works it works for me . . .” For its part, RFC built upon Cyril’s past military identity and reinforced the values espoused within military membership. Thinking of identities and values associated with military membership, discipline is certainly called prominently to mind. So too is this commitment reflected in RFC leadership. As founder Molly explained in an interview:

I love the discipline [of the group] and that’s what, when you say the most rewarding aspect is, seeing them become disciplined again, you know? Like learning to be disciplined. They know what day it is. They know what time it is. They know where they’re supposed to be.

These kinds of chants and commitments to discipline became deeply embedded organizational norms and as such continued to shape neighbor’s membership negotiation process. In this way, through membership negotiations (i.e., conveying organizational norms), RFC provided a context to help resurrect and make salient Cyril’s past military identity.

By providing the context for resurrecting the latent identities of athlete or Marine, we argue that RFC aided members in addressing stigmatized identities by allowing them to focus on alternative identities that are often deemed more socially acceptable, as well as emphasize skills and abilities that may have been formally lost or deemphasized by current circumstance. Cyril and Oscar’s descriptions of past identities as a military veteran and soccer athlete situate the resurrection of past identities as a new strategy of bolstering/focusing (see Benoit, 1995; Meisenbach, 2010). What makes the resurrection strategy unique in these instances is that the organization is working to allow the individuals to manage their own stigma. Still, sometimes the membership negotiation practices that helped resurrect latent identities were not enough to manage stigma. Consequently, in addition to resurrecting existing identities, RFC also helped members to append to their current identities to aid in managing stigma.

Appending Identities

In addition to resurrecting past identities through membership negotiation practices, RFC also helped individuals co-construct new identities, which we term appending identities. In contrast to resurrecting past identities, appending identities had an additive effect. Through membership negotiation practices (i.e., setting organizational norms for attire, adding new operational objectives to the formal structure, and considering/recasting role expectations), the organization encouraged members to think about, and provided avenues for, performing their identities in new ways. In other words, instead of performing familiar behaviors and exhibiting pre-existing traits, RFC facilitated the development of new behaviors and cultivated new traits.

Most fundamentally, RFC created the opportunity for neighbors to append the identity of runner to their existing identity. Neighbor Trent explained it in this way, stating that RFC helped to

get homeless people off the streets by running, you know, by feeling good about themselves . . . I mean, it makes people feel better, you know—that they’re doing something productive. Instead of thinking about homelessness, they’re thinking about, oh yeah, I’m going to run that extra mile, you know?

RFC facilitated and helped neighbors append a runner identity through several different membership negotiation practices. First, they provided neighbors with the physical items needed to adopt a runner identity—highlighting the membership negotiation process of organizational norms for attire (Scott & Myers, 2010). RFC initially loaned out, and ultimately transferred ownership of running shoes, shirts, shorts, and socks to neighbors. RFC outfitted neighbors as runners, providing them with name-brand running shoes (Saucony, Brooks, and others), DriFit shirts and socks, and athletic shorts, further aiding in the appending of new identity to their already existing identities, often before the neighbors even internalized themselves as runners. The act of “dressing the part” was integral to member participation. So much in fact that shoe brand became an oft-discussed topic of conversation between the first author and participants. So much so the first author earned the nickname “banana split” with participants due to her bright yellow running shoes.

Many participants commented that they never thought of themselves as runners prior to joining RFC. Trent went on to explain in his interview that his affiliation with RFC and his subsequent runner identity helped him to think of himself as a “productive person” and “not a couch potato.” This is significant because by becoming members of RFC, the neighbors were seen as capable, able-bodied, and “productive” members of society—rather than dependent on others for assistance. The outfitting of neighbors with running clothing aided them in carrying out a convincing performance of runner. To the public eye as volunteers and neighbors would run through city streets together, it would be difficult to discern the housed from the unhoused.

Relatedly, through membership negotiation practices, RFC helped to foster opportunities for neighbors to append a new identity—that of community volunteer. Once neighbors were invested in the mission of RFC, they often offered up their free time to help the organization and other community organizations. In fact, this emphasis on volunteering as an operational objective was built into the formal structure of the organization (Scott & Myers, 2010), making it part of the membership negotiation process. During the course of fieldwork for this project, for example, neighbors participated in a Maxwell House project where members worked to build a garden at a local charity organization. In another example, neighbors worked at a race station to provide water to other runners during a race. In this way, as part of the membership negotiation process (i.e., adding new operational objectives to the formal structure), RFC provided opportunities for neighbors to append a new identity, that of volunteer, to their self-understanding. This volunteer identity notably shifted the narrative to portray an image of an altruistic mind and an able body, capable of aiding others, recasting attention toward thinking of the neighbors as advocates and helpers, rather than those in need of assistance.

Finally, RFC provided opportunities for neighbors to append new professional identities. Neighbor Cyril explained that RFC provided training for members and enabled them to utilize their new skills and find what Cyril termed their “niche.” Cyril was surprised yet excited that RFC provided a space for him to find his, “new career path” where he would “step out on faith and not fear.” This was accomplished through his role as blogger for the RFC website. RFC created opportunities for Cyril to write a blog and discover “a new way of bringing in revenue to support myself, my son, come up out the situation.” In this way, RFC participated in Cyril’s membership negotiation process by helping him to recast his role expectations (Scott & Myers, 2010) as a blogger for the organizational website. Cyril expressed the impact this opportunity had on his life in an interview, relating that

It’s inspired me to say, okay, I can write . . . what I’ve learned over the years, and I’m only 35 years of age, but I’m learning that every day there may be a new challenge, there may be new things on life’s road. The question is, did you learn from it yesterday in order to how to deal with today.

The data illustrated that RFC not only provided opportunities for the appending of new identities through membership negotiation practices but also molded and supported neighbors as they adopted them.

In summary, our findings showed how RFC partnered alongside neighbors throughout the membership negotiation process (i.e., fostering role expectations, socializing and on-going interaction, conveying organizational norms, setting organizational norms for attire, adding new operational objectives to the formal structure, and considering/recasting role expectations) to support two different identity management strategies facilitated by the organization (resurrecting and appending), to help individuals manage stigmatized identities. RFC helped individuals experiencing homelessness shift their gaze away from the negative, stigmatized reflections of their respective identities toward more positive, meaningful definitions of self. These strategies have theoretical implications for membership negotiation and stigma management literature as well as applied implications for nonprofits which we discuss in turn below.

Theoretical Contributions

Findings from the present study offer two main theoretical contributions. First, the present study extends scholarship on stigma management processes by illustrating the role that nonprofits can play in helping individuals manage their stigmatized identities. Second, it extends scholarship on membership negotiation by “specifying models of specific membership negotiation processes that balance individual action and organizational constraint” (Scott & Myers, 2010, p. 99), as well as provides in situ examples of the enacted practices fostered and encouraged by RFC and employed by individuals experiencing homelessness. We speak to each of these contributions, and their consequentiality for nonprofits, in turn below.

Theoretical Implications for Stigma Management Communication

As aforementioned, past scholarship has attended to stigma management in at least three prominent ways: (a) how individuals manage their own stigma (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2007; Meisenbach, 2010; Smith, 2007), (b) how organizations manage their stigma with respect to public perceptions and dominant societal scripts (e.g., Benoit, 1995; Jensen & Meisenbach, 2015; Scott, 2013; Wolfe & Blithe, 2015), and to a far lesser extent, and (c) how organizations help individuals manage their own stigma (e.g., Jensen, 2018). We addressed this additional space, situating the organization and its attendant membership negotiation processes as a critical catalyst in helping individuals manage their stigmatized identities.

Specifically, we distinguished two identity management strategies facilitated by the organization during the membership negotiation process to aid neighbors in managing their stigmatized identities: resurrecting latent identities and appending new identities. This attention to organizationally facilitated membership negotiation practices augments the rich existing scholarship on stigma management communication which is predominantly focused on individual stigma management strategies or on organizational stigma management efforts.

The first strategy, resurrecting latent identities, emphasizes meeting members where they are, and working with them to find new ways to express these buried identities. In other words, the organization, through membership negotiation practices, helps facilitate a scaffold to strengthen an already existing identity. This strategy can be understood as a type of bolstering strategy in that it encourages individuals to pivot the focus from stigmatized to non-stigmatized aspects of their identities (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Benoit, 1995; Meisenbach, 2010). Resurrecting latent identities is a particularly unique type of bolstering strategy because of who or what is engaged in the shifting process. In the present study, it was not an individual effort to shift the public’s gaze away from the stigma—which is the case for most previous research—but rather, the organization who identified these previously latent identities and helped to draw them out through membership negotiation practices. The organizational attempts to reinvigorate past identities consequently affords neighbors opportunities to buffer against their stigmatized “homeless” identities.

The second strategy, appending identities, represents the organizational efforts to communally co-construct a new identity for neighbors. Instead of looking to see if they could build upon past identities, as was the case in with the previous strategy, RFC looked to help members recast their identities afresh. Specifically, RFC encouraged neighbors to think about themselves in new ways and also provided the avenue for performing these novel identities. Not only is this finding consistent with social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), in that neighbors sought out positive group memberships, it also builds on Meisenbach’s (2010) logical denying strategy where individuals attempt to behave in ways that contradict ascribed stigma. Herein we saw neighbors “behaving like a runner” to combat the stigma of what it means to be “a homeless person.” This was the case when neighbors would put on running gear, thus performing the role of runner. Our findings augment Meisenbach’s (2010) work by emphasizing that neighbors did not simply perform familiar behaviors or exhibit pre-existing traits, but rather, with the help of RFC’s membership negotiation practices, they cultivated new behaviors and traits to logically deny their stigmatized identities.

In addition to augmenting and challenging a few specific stigma management communication strategies, the findings from this study complexify the two criteria that Meisenbach’s (2010) offered in her stigma management communication model. The first criterion purports that individuals discern whether to “accept the status quo or seek to challenge public understanding about a particular stigma’s existence” (p. 277). We advance that the individual, as well as the organization, might play a meaningful role in this criterion. For instance, we saw the organization providing opportunities for and encouraging neighbors to alter public opinion through membership negotiation practices such as encouraging volunteering at running races and offering blogging work within the organization. By building practices such as these into the very structure of the organization, it is not the individual who is necessarily accepting or denying the status quo, but rather, we suggest that the organization plays a key role in stigma management communication as well. While we do not necessarily suggest that the organization in this case overtly tried to remove individuals’ stigmatized identities, we do offer that nonprofits like RFC provide opportunities for stigmatized identities to be managed, augmented, and resisted. In this way, these nonprofit organizations act as a scaffold for stigma to be managed through membership negotiation practices.

The second criterion in stigma management communication focuses on the whether or not an individual believes a given stigma applies to self (Meisenbach, 2010). Here, it is possible to envision a situation where the individual might accept that the stigma applies to self, but the organization might deny that the stigma applies to their members (or in this case neighbors) or vice versa. Considering these (possible) differing perspectives deepens and complicates our understanding of stigma management communication and the strategies available to and used by both members and organizations. These findings are particularly meaningful for nonprofit organizations, given that they often craft their mission statements with an eye toward aiding and supporting their beneficiaries. What happens, then, when a nonprofit’s vision of support differs from that of a beneficiary? In other words, how do nonprofits best work with beneficiaries (and volunteers) when beneficiary understanding of the own identities or goals differ from the nonprofit? In the case of RFC, the nonprofit defines itself as “a values-led, mentorship-based organization which seeks to help elevate the mental and physical well-being of the most vulnerable in the community.” What if neighbors (service recipients) do not align with the nonprofit’s values? Or if they do not view their mental well-being (or stigmatized identity) as in need of revision or “elevation”?

Theoretical Implications for Membership Negotiation

In this study, we sought to extend scholarship on membership negotiation by exploring the membership experiences of individuals experiencing homelessness as they negotiated their membership within a nonprofit, Running for Change. In doing so, we worked from the premise that organizations and individuals mutually co-construct and transform meanings of membership over time. In this way, the present study answers Tschirhart and Gazley’s (2014) special issue call for more scholarship in the area of membership-based organizations. Articles in the special issue attended to varied levels of analysis including (a) the individual level where scholars explored how individuals engaged with these nonprofits (e.g., Hager, 2014), (b) the organizational level where scholars examined the relationship between the nonprofit’s capacity dimensions and the achievement of their goals (Doherty et al., 2014), and finally (c) the societal discourse level where scholars explored national characteristics of associational activity (Johnson, 2014). Together scholars aimed to “advance understanding of how institutional characteristics matter in explaining individual action” (Tschirhart & Gazley, 2014, p. 5s). In line with this call, in the present study, we examined the relationship between institutional behaviors and individual action at the organizational level and focused on the concept of membership negotiation as one way that nonprofits may (intentionally and unintentionally) help individuals manage stigma. More specifically, given previous scholarship on the relationship between members and their nonprofit organizations, we were particularly interested in exploring the capacity of membership negotiation practices—and the role of a nonprofit—to shape and reconstitute individuals’ stigmatized identities.

Of the seven different membership negotiation practices articulated by Scott and Myers (2010), at least five were visibly present in these data and played a role in shaping member identity: role expectations, group and organizational norms, formal structure, power relations, and socializing and ongoing interaction. The most recurrent membership negotiation practices fostered by the organization were establishing role expectations and shaping organizational norms. RFC made strategic attempts to encourage members to dress (i.e., outfitted as runners) and act (i.e., take part in group runs, trail runs, etc.) in particular ways—as part of the membership negotiation process—which, perhaps inadvertently, aided in the recasting of members’ stigmatized identities.

We posit that membership negotiation is especially relevant for nonprofits that work alongside individuals experiencing homelessness, given the unique relationships between volunteers and beneficiaries in these stigmatized spaces. Arguably, these efforts enacted by RFC may have been well-received by neighbors given the altruistic nature of the organization’s mission and the neighbors’ authentic belief that RFC and its volunteers wanted what was best for them, which is not always the case in traditional for-profit organizations where the bottom line often comes ahead of concern for members. In this way, neighbors might have been more receptive to reshaping their own identities, given the perceived support of the nonprofit.

Moreover, because of the membership negotiation processes facilitated by RFC, and the absence of extreme power differentials between volunteers and neighbors, RFC members created their own social networks outside of the group’s meeting times. Neighbors framed their participation as voluntary, not compulsory, in nature, and often referred to the group as a “social group” to help them combat the challenges of living without a home. In this case, RFC facilitated an identity shift through its membership negotiation processes of socializing and ongoing interactions and created space for members to transform their identities. As such, these findings lend tentative support to Scott and Myers’ (2010) claim that “in becoming an organizational member . . . we also can acquire influence and experience personal growth, insight into ourselves, and an opportunity for personal expression and achievement” (p. 89–90). Indeed, neighbors experienced personal growth in the form of identity transformation as RFC helped them draw on membership negotiations to resurrect past identities and append new ones.

Theoretical Contributions for Nonprofit Research

We also position membership negotiation practices as complimentary to the literature on the evolving role of beneficiaries in nonprofit organizing. Since the 1960s, scholars have noted that beneficiary (or client) actions have an effect on the functions, activities, and outcomes of nonprofit organizations (see Benjamin, 2021)—acknowledging the role that beneficiaries play in coproduction (i.e., people are not just recipients but also cocreators of services, see Ostrom & Ostrom, 1977) and value cocreation (i.e., “value is determined by the beneficiary in the course of their experience with organization” Benjamin, 2021, p. 10, see also Grönroos, 2008) as partial members (i.e., although client beneficiaries are not staff, but their participation still matters). However, these impacts have not always been studied with rapt attention (see Benjamin, 2021 for a full review).

In recent years, scholars called on nonprofit organizations to embrace these forms of participatory representation by involving constituents, including clients and beneficiaries, in organizational decision-making processes (Guo & Saxton, 2010, see also Guo & Musso, 2007) to make empowerment practices more effective (Hardina, 2003). Still, few studies have gone so far as to position clients as active agents in nonprofit organizations who ultimately play a meaningful role in shaping the organizational processes (Benjamin & Campbell, 2015). Thus, in an effort to study the agentic capacities of beneficiaries, Benjamin and Campbell (2015) developed the construct “co-determination work,” as one where clients and staff, together, move toward “(a) establishing a relationship, (b) working out an agenda, and (c) taking action” (Benjamin & Campbell, 2015, p. 995).

Indeed, the present study aligns with Benjamin and Campbell’s (2015) view that “clients are not simply passive program recipients but active agents who partner with staff to craft service options” (p. 1001). Findings from our study illustrate a new type of co-determination work that occurred between RFC staff/volunteers and neighbors (i.e., service recipients), one that afforded the reshaping of stigmatized identities. Herein, we argued that the nonprofit staff/volunteers and the client beneficiaries mutually co-constructed and transformed meanings of membership over time. This, we posit, extends current nonprofit theorizing on beneficiary agency and co-determination work by focusing on the interrelationship that is co-constructed between beneficiaries and nonprofit organizations within and through communicative acts of membership negotiation, such as establishing role expectations and member norms.

Practical Implications

In line with Benjamin’s (2021) call for more managerial training on the ways in which beneficiaries affect the structure and impact of the nonprofit writ large, we offer several practical implications. First, our work highlights the recursive nature of the interactions between beneficiaries and nonprofits in shaping, maintaining, and resisting identities. As such, it is important for nonprofit leaders to attend to the impact their presence, whether consciously or unconsciously, may have on those they serve.

For nonprofit practitioners, we recommend being intentional with staffing decisions to reflect the need to create a space where differences may interact. Nonprofit organizers should look for common ground in terms of background and interests to facilitate this meeting of difference. For example, while RFC brought together people of different SES backgrounds, they did not start from square one. They employed membership negotiation strategies to build upon commonalities, such as an interest in sport. In this way, RFC exemplified responsive strategies to represent the interest of members. As Guo and Musso (2007) argued, there are various dimensions related to nonprofit representation of constituent interests. RFC, through building upon the already existing identities of members through membership negotiation practices exemplifies a substantive representation, which “acts in the interest of its constituents and in a manner responsive to them” (Guo & Musso, 2007, p. 312). Successful execution of this recommendation would involve listening to the life stories of service beneficiaries and recruiting volunteers in who can best meet the needs of those constituents.

Limitations

While we have spent the majority of the article highlighting the positive ways in which organizational membership practices may help manage stigma, we also remain vigilant to acknowledge how these practices may actually serve to reinforce stigma (Henson & Olson, 2010). For instance, by emphasizing an identity centered around “productivity,” it is possible that RFC is actually reinforcing a problematic binary between productive and unproductive, suggesting that productive bodies are more deserving of support than others. This discourse has the capacity to exclude bodies marked as disabled or immobile.

While a critical examination was outside the scope of this current project, we also recognize the ways in which the results reflect implications related to race, class, and power. For example, what are the implications of RFC leadership (who are mainly White, upper class) providing assistance in this way? How did neighbors experience issues of materiality, agency, and ownership particularly given the dominant oppressive societal scripts that “beggars can’t be choosers” and that “the homeless should be grateful” for what they are given? Thus, we urge future scholars to examine the ways in which nonprofits may present unequal power dynamics and perhaps perpetuate hegemonic organizing practices.

As with any research study, this project was unable to address all of the important communicative dynamics experienced by individuals experiencing homelessness or partnering organizations like RFC. In addition to the limitations noted above, we acknowledge that the study would have been richly enhanced had we had the opportunity to talk with more neighbors and perhaps even follow up with neighbors regularly to see if their view of their own identity shifted over time. In addition, given that we did not set out to study identity or stigma—these constructs emerged in the data—we did not have any questions that explicitly addressed either construct in the interview guide, a step which likely would have enhanced our analysis and strengthened our claims.

Conclusion

In this study, we sought to explore the role an nonprofit plays in helping individuals experiencing homelessness manage their stigmatized identities. In doing so, we contributed to extant scholarly conversations and theorizing about stigma management within the nonprofit realm. First, we extended theorizing on stigma management processes by focusing on the ways in which a nonprofit can facilitate opportunities for individuals to manage stigma—an area underexplored in scholarly literature (c.f., Jensen, 2018) which largely favors examining individual practices (e.g., Meisenbach, 2010; Smith, 2007) or organizational image repair campaigns (e.g., Benoit, 1995). Second, to investigate the nonprofit’s role as a critical catalyst in individual stigma management processes, we brought in the membership negotiation literature (e.g., McPhee & Zaug, 2000; Scott & Myers, 2010), and identified two stigma management strategies (at times unintentionally) facilitated by the nonprofit (i.e., resurrecting latent identities and appending new identities). Thus, by exploring this space in the middle, where nonprofits’ membership negotiation strategies shape or make possible individual practices, we offered an answer to Tschirhart and Gazley’s (2014) call to “advance understanding of how institutional characteristics matter in explaining individual action” (p. 5s). Moreover, by centering the nonprofit’s membership negotiation processes, we made strides to better understand how organizational membership, particularly within a volunteer-based organization, may ultimately help buffer against the effects of stigmatized identities.

Ultimately, we submit that attending to the nonprofit’s role in the membership negotiation and stigma management processes is an important step in exploring the cultivation of what Jensen (2018) referred to as a “culture of dignity,” which he defined as “a communicative space in which stigmatized and unstigmatized individuals are able to interact in a way that disrupts traditional social dynamics” (p. 15). As one neighbor, Trent, eluded about experiencing homelessness “What I think people need to know about homelessness is . . . just because somebody’s homeless doesn’t mean they’re a bad person. . . . We should all be treated like human beings.” Through the interpretative methods afforded in this present scholarship, we hope we humanized the process by which individuals became stigmatized by highlighting in situ examples, remaining ever mindful that we all are deserving of being treated as human beings, and that within difference we may also find commonality.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr. Chao Guo for his valuable feedback and guidance throughout the review process, the anonymous reviewers, and Dr. Maggie Quinlan for her mentorship.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kristen E. Okamoto

Author Biographies

Kristen E. Okamoto (PhD, Ohio University) is an Assistant Professor at Clemson University where she specializes in health and organizational communication within underrepresented communities. She researches the lived experience of individuals living at the margins, specifically within nonprofit contexts.

Brittany L. Peterson (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an Associate Professor in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio University where she explores issues of membership within in/voluntary organizations. She investigates how individuals communicatively craft (counter) narratives to navigate, reshape, and resist their (oft stigmatized) identities.

References

Ashforth

B. E.

Kreiner

G. E.

(1999). “How can you do it?” Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 413–434.

Ashforth

B. E.

Kreiner

G. E.

Clark

M. A.

Fugate

(2007). Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for countering occupational taint. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 149–174.

Benjamin

L. M.

(2021). Bringing beneficiaries more centrally into nonprofit management education and research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020918662

Benjamin

L. M.

Campbell

D. C.

(2015). Nonprofit performance: Accounting for the agency of clients. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(5), 988–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014551987

Benoit

W. L.

(1995). Accounts, excuses, apologies: A theory of image restoration discourse. State University of New York Press.

Boydell

K. M.

Goering

Morrell-Bellai

T. L.

(2000). Narratives of identity: Re-presentation of self in people who are homeless. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 26–38. http://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118228

Chenhall

R. H.

Hall

Smith

(2016). Managing identity conflict in organizations: A case study of one welfare nonprofit association. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015597785

Doherty

Misener

Cuskelly

(2014). Towards a multidimensional framework of capacity in community sports clubs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(Suppl. 2), 124S–142S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013509892

Gailliard

B. M.

Davis

C. W.

(2017). To be known, accepted, and involved: Investigating organizational assimilation in Christian churches. Southern Communication Journal, 82(3), 117–128.

10.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster.

11.

Grönroos

(2008). Service logic revisited: Who creates value? And who co-creates? European Business Review, 20(4), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340810886585

12.

Guo

Musso

J. A.

(2007). Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 308–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006289764

13.

Guo

Saxton

G. D.

(2010). Voice-in, voice-out: Constituent participation and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 1(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2202/2154-3348.1000

14.

Hager

M. A.

(2014). Engagement motivations in professional associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(Suppl. 2), 39S–60S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013502582

15.

Hardina

(2003). Linking citizen participation to empowerment practice: A historical overview. Journal of Community Practice, 11(4), 11–38. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v11n04_02

16.

Henry

Shivji

de Sousa

Cohen

(2015). The 2015 annual homeless assessment report to congress. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Planning.

17.

Henson

J. R.

Olson

L. N.

(2010). The monster within: How male serial killers discursively manage their stigmatized identities. Communication Quarterly, 58(3), 341–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2010.503176

18.

Jensen

P. R.

(2018). Undignified dignity: Using humor to manage the stigma of mental illness and homelessness. Communication Quarterly, 66(1), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2017.1325384

19.

Jensen

P. R.

Meisenbach

R. J.

(2015). Alternative organizing and (in)visibility: Managing tensions of transparency and autonomy in a nonprofit organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(4), 564–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915600577

20.

Johnson

E. W.

(2014). Toward international comparative research on associational activity: Variation in the form and focus of voluntary associations in four nations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(Suppl. 2), 163S–181S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013484091

21.

McNamee

L. G.

Peterson

B. L.

(2015). High stakes volunteer commitment: A qualitative analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(2), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015581055

22.

McPhee

R. D.

Zaug

(2009). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. In Putnam

L. L.

Nicotera

A. M.

(Eds.), Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 21–47). Routledge.

23.

Meisenbach

R. J.

(2010). Stigma management communication: A theory and agenda for applied research on how individuals manage moments of stigmatized identity. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(3), 268–292. http://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2010.490841

24.

Meisenbach

R. J.

Kramer

M. W.

(2014). Exploring nested identities: Voluntary membership, social category identity, and identification in a community choir. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914524059

25.

Ostrom

(1977). Public goods and public choices. In Savas

E. S.

(Ed.), Alternatives for delivering public services: Toward improved performance (pp. 7–49). Westview Press.

26.

Richardson

St Pierre

E. A.

(2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). SAGE.

27.

Schneider

Remillard

(2013). Caring about homelessness: How identity work maintains the stigma of homelessness. Talk and Text, 33(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0005

28.

Scott

(2013). Anonymous agencies, backstreet businesses, and covert collectives: Rethinking organizations in the 21st century. Stanford Business Books.

29.

Scott

Myers

(2010). Toward an integrative theoretical perspective on organizational membership negotiations: Socialization, assimilation, and the duality of structure. Communication Theory, 20(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01355.x

30.

Sharp

(2018). Existential angst and identity rethink: The complexities of competition for the nonprofit. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4), 767–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018760399

31.

Smith

R. A.

(2007). Language of the lost: An explication of stigma communication. Communication Theory, 17(4), 462–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00307

32.

Tajfel

Turner

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson Hall.

33.

Tornes

Kramer

M. W.

(2015). The volunteer experience in temporary organizations: Volunteer role negotiation and identification in a pop-culture convention. Communication Studies, 66(5), 590–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2015.1073165

34.

Tracy

S. J.

(2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. http://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

35.

Tracy

S. J.

(2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell.

36.

Tschirhart

Gazley

(2014). Advancing scholarship on membership associations: New research and next steps. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(Suppl. 2), 3S–17S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013517052

37.

Wolfe

A. W.

Blithe

S. J.

(2015). Managing image in a core-stigmatized organization: Concealment and revelation in Nevada’s legal brothels. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(4), 539–563. http://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915596204

38.

Yin

R. K.

(2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.