The Evolution of the Nonprofit Research Field: An Emerging Scholar Perspective

Abstract

This study takes an emerging scholar perspective to reflect critically on the evolution of the nonprofit research field, applying a mixed-methods design. Study 1 evaluated the evolution of nonprofit research through comparing the topics, theories, and methods in emerging nonprofit scholars’ dissertations (n = 3,023) to that of emerging scholars’ publications in nonprofit journals (n = 390). Study 2 examined through a survey of emerging nonprofit scholars (n = 141) how forces operating within the academic system influence scholars’ early career research. Results from Study 1 document a decreasing diversity in the body of scholarship from dissertations to journal articles and Study 2 highlights challenges experienced in an early career stage. The findings call for future reflection on the level of diversity, both in terms of research approaches and the composition of our scholarly community. Maintaining diversity will arguably be an important precondition to ensure continuous knowledge advancement in the field.

Keywords

nonprofit studies emerging scholars dissertations publication pressure research diversity

Introduction

“Where will we be in the next 50 years?” Answers to this overarching question of the Special Issue come from a wide range of different perspectives. Articles on a research field’s development notably include systematic topical literature reviews, reviews of specific journal outlets, or reflections on the history of the research community. In this study, we propose yet another new way to study the evolution of nonprofit research by focusing on emerging scholars within our field.

Our study is based on two core assumptions: (a) that the evolution of nonprofit research is influenced by the research agendas of the current generation of emerging scholars that will shape the body of future research and (b) that emerging scholars’ research agendas are influenced by forces within the contemporary academic system. For the purpose of this study, we define the term “emerging nonprofit scholar” broadly as any individual researching nonprofit organizations, voluntary action, civil society, or philanthropy at an academic or non-academic institution, while not (yet) having secured a permanent academic position (e.g., as a tenured professor/lecturer).

A handful of studies have investigated the state of nonprofit doctoral education (Allison et al., 2007; Jackson et al., 2014) and the research topics studied in doctoral dissertations (Shier & Handy, 2014; Yang & You, 2020), offering insights into the broad diversity of studied topics and disciplinary origins. This diversity is vital for the development of our field, as the challenging of prevailing assumptions, theories, and data gathering strategies are important elements for continuous knowledge advancement (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013). However, a problematic “funneling” may occur where due to systemic biases and structural barriers, those dissertations that are published do not adequately reflect the intellectual and methodological innovations displayed in dissertations. Indeed, studies in psychology and social work, related fields to nonprofit studies, reveal that only about a quarter of dissertation research is ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, therefore entering the broader knowledge base of a field (Evans et al., 2018; Maynard et al., 2014). Understanding the content of the dissertation work that is published in nonprofit journals versus the universe of dissertation work focusing on nonprofits is vital to any hypothesis regarding the future of nonprofit research. Therefore, the first goal of our study is to evaluate the evolution of nonprofit research through comparing the topics, theories, and methods in nonprofit dissertations to that of emerging scholars’ publications in nonprofit journals.

Critical discussions in other fields, such as management studies (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Cornelissen, 2017), psychology (Nosek et al., 2012), and education (Wellington & Nixon, 2005), reveal how characteristics of the contemporary academic system, including institutional constraints, pressures, or norms, may affect the diversity of published research and its societal relevance. These discussions illustrate two mechanisms that funnel research from dissertations to publications. First, norms and constraints within the academic system, including journal and community preferences, place limits on the type of research emerging scholars can publish in core nonprofit journals. Second, perceived pressures within the system may lead emerging scholars to strategically adapt their initial research choices toward research that increases their chances of publication. Coping with pressures is particularly complex for emerging scholars in interdisciplinary fields such as nonprofit studies because they frequently wrestle with managing expectations of their core discipline (such as sociology or political science) and the professional norms of nonprofit-focused research (Smith, 2013). Against this backdrop, the second goal of our study is to examine how forces operating within the academic system influence emerging scholars’ work as they navigate early career nonprofit research.

We used a simultaneous mixed-methods design (Teddie & Tashakkori, 2009) to address our two research goals. To examine how the research of emerging scholars’ dissertations differs from that of emerging scholars’ published work, we conducted content analyses drawing on the abstracts of 3,023 nonprofit dissertations and 390 research articles published by emerging scholars in core nonprofit journals (NVSQ, NML, and Voluntas) (Study 1). To accomplish our second goal, we contextualized and analyzed the findings of the first study with insights on personal and institutional factors identified through an online survey among 141 emerging nonprofit scholars (Study 2).

Amid growing concerns that academic systems limit the societal relevance, diversity, and innovation of research, our study contributes to understanding the development of the nonprofit research field. The nonprofit research community’s focus on fundamental social issues of our time highlighted by COVID-19, increasing inequality, and heightened violence toward racial/ethnic minority communities testify to the fact that concerns regarding diversity of topics, approach, and scholarly background should be taken seriously (Berrone et al., 2016). Accomplishing such a task holds implications for nonprofits and future research regarding our ability to tackle the fundamental social and environmental issues of our time (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013).

An Emerging Scholar Perspective on the Evolution of the Nonprofit Research Field

Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework for our study. The framework combines insights from the literatures on early career researchers (Van Dalen & Henkens, 2012; Waaijer et al., 2018), research on nonprofit doctoral dissertations (Shier & Handy, 2014; Yang & You, 2020), and critical perspectives on the relationship between the academic system and knowledge production (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013; Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Nosek et al., 2012; Wellington & Nixon, 2005). The fundamental premises of the framework are (a) that published research in core nonprofit journals only represents a fraction of the full initial research potential displayed in nonprofit-themed doctoral dissertations and (b) that the “selection effect” from dissertations to journal articles can, to some degree, be attributed not to the quality of the researcher or product, but to forces confronting emerging scholars within the academic system. As we will elaborate below, the framework can broadly be separated into three core components: (a) initial research potential, (b) forces within the academic system, and (c) published research and research community composition.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework on the evolution of the field from an emerging scholar perspective.

Although this framework is broader than what we can test empirically in our current mixed-methods study, we hope that it will inspire other nonprofit researchers to study the relationship between forces in the academic system and the evolution of the field.

Research Potential

We define “research potential” as all dissertation research conducted on nonprofit-related subjects covering a broad spectrum of topics, theories, and methodological approaches. Existing studies on doctoral dissertations in the nonprofit field describe a rapidly growing and diverse body of research (Jackson et al., 2014; Shier & Handy, 2014; Yang & You, 2020). Shier and Handy (2014) analyzed 3,790 nonprofit-related dissertations published between 1986 and 2010 and found an increasing number of academic disciplines and topics. While political science and economics were the dominant disciplines in the 1980s, by 2010, they found convergence in proportions of total dissertations across disciplines, indicating that nonprofit studies have become an established research area in many different disciplines. Similarly, the authors identified shifting research topics, including increasing interest in intraorganizational context (including leadership, management, and organizational culture). Recently, Yang and You (2020) showed a similar proliferation of nonprofit-themed theses in the Chinese context.

Forces in the Academic System

As emerging scholars navigate the academic system, they are exposed to institutional conditions, professional norms, and social contexts that may influence their research decisions and publishing chances (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013; Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Cornelissen, 2017; Nosek et al., 2012; Wellington & Nixon, 2005).

First, institutional conditions refer to how institutions within the academic system organize and value research. This includes the number, type, and quality of research positions available, as well as how institutions (including universities and funding bodies) assess the importance of different kinds of research and the academic performance of emerging scholars. Assessing eligibility for retention and promotion commonly entails a reliance on journal rankings as a standardized measure. As a result, many early career researchers perceive pressure to publish in highly reputed journals and/or pursue research that will move through the publication process with little resistance (Van Dalen & Henkens, 2012). Such strategies influence what methods emerging scholars pursue and ultimately later career methodological skills (Ritchie et al., 2003). These pressures will be particularly salient for groups of scholars who lack a sufficient support infrastructure from their personal networks, academic institution, or professional research associations as well as for minority scholars or those from non-traditional backgrounds (Alexander et al., 2014).

Second, the system is characterized by professional norms within the research community that are shaped by journal editors, reviewers, and professional societies. Journal editors and reviewers define and uphold “acceptable” approaches to conducting and reporting research. For instance, the widely shared preference for “incremental gap-spotting research” (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013; Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013) encourages researchers to demonstrate how their work fits into an established body of work. Although this norm may ensure incremental novelty, it can potentially constrain more disruptive research that challenges mainstream assumptions, theories, or methodological approaches; a necessary component of field development and relevancy.

Professional communities, including associations and mentors, also facilitate the enactment of various norms. Professional associations promote support networks that help emerging scholars navigate the challenging research system while also reinforcing disciplinary expectations or assumptions that might limit who is successful and what is perceived as successful. Emerging scholars receive feedback on their research at association conferences and through a variety of professional development workshops that may send signals on what is valued by the field. The existence of professional norms valuing mentorship of diverse scholars is particularly salient to those who might suffer under unfair or biased institutional forces (Ellington & Frederick, 2010).

Third, these institutional and professional forces interact with the social context. In a stratified system characterized by high levels of inequity (Downey & Condron, 2016), such as academia, social contexts may be particularly impactful during a researcher’s early career (Elder, 1998) and may shape publication choices and outcomes. Not only do power differentials exist between authors and journal editors (Wellington & Nixon, 2005), but also between individuals from different socio-economic groups, between emerging scholars and those in positions of authority in academic departments and institutions, and between graduate students themselves (Small, 2017). The so-called Matthew Effect describes that a mature scholar’s status may not be built solely on the long-term quality of their work but rather is based on perceptions that accrue from early publishing opportunities in key journals (Merton, 1968). Such early recognition, available to those who enter with the resources and networks to be successful early in their careers, provides cumulative long-term advantage (da Silva, 2021). Furthermore, the Matilda Effect describes a gender bias and the ways in which women’s accomplishments are under-recognized in academia (Rossiter, 1993).

Published Research and Research Community Composition

Finally, our framework suggests that the interrelated forces within the academic system influence the fraction of research ultimately published in nonprofit journals. Studies in psychology (Evans et al., 2018) and social work (Maynard et al., 2014) show that less than 30% of dissertations are ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals. A variety of reasons may account for this. Some emerging scholars target other disciplinary journals or other publication forms or choose to not publish at all. Some scholars’ dissertation work might not meet certain quality standards. Nevertheless, forces within the system outlined above can contribute to this “selection effect.” One theorized mechanism is that while journals are important institutions for quality control, they are also embedded in overlapping networks of editors and reviewers who act as gatekeepers that define key parameters of a field of study (Wellington & Nixon, 2005). The peer review process shapes what is selected for publication. A second mechanism may be that as emerging scholars interact more with senior scholars, peers, and mentors, they are socialized to adapt or strategically shift toward “acceptable” research methods and topics. Either through adopting the field’s professional norms or imitating other successful scholars, emerging scholars focus on “acceptable” research.

Ultimately, Figure 1 lays out a proposed pathway through which environmental, personal, and professional contexts shape the research of emerging scholars, and who is doing that research, which are both integral components of what will be nonprofit research over the next 50 years. Institutional conditions, professional norms, and the social context influence early scholars in ways that also reproduce status along a variety of dimensions, including race, gender, class, and reputation, shaping the research that is produced and published. In Study 2, we therefore pay analytic attention to variation in experiences by gender and minority groups, as biases and unfair opportunities and obstacles in academia are well-documented in the literature (Rivera, 2017).

Plan of Analysis

To understand how emerging scholars’ research will shape future nonprofit research, we were interested in both (a) the topics, theories, and methods emerging scholars use and (b) how personal and institutional drivers are perceived in a socially stratified world and shape research choices. We applied a simultaneous mixed-methods design, using a main study (Study 1) with a supplemental study (Study 2) (Morse, 2010). Study 1 used content analysis to describe research; while the survey in Study 2 allowed us to critically explore emerging scholars’ perceptions of their experience and perspectives that were unavailable through content analysis.

Study 1: Content Analyses of Dissertation Abstracts and Journal Articles

Data Collection

Dissertations

In August 2020, we conducted a search of the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database to obtain dissertations written on nonprofit topics. Using similar search terms as prior studies (Jackson et al., 2014; Shier & Handy, 2014), we screened doctoral dissertation titles and abstracts to generate the full population of dissertations relevant for the purpose of our study. Our search included the terms non-profit, not for profit, not-for-profit, nonprofit, philanthrop*, NGO, nongovernmental organization*, and charitable organization*. We chose January 1, 2015, and 31 July, 2020, as our study period, because it usually takes at least 5 years after PhD completion to reach tenure. This way, the population of scholars in the dissertation database provides a good match with the population for the article analysis and the survey (see details further below). We identified 3,041 doctoral dissertations with at least one of our search terms in the dissertation title and/or abstract. We deleted 18 duplicates, leading to a final sample of 3,023. These dissertations are evenly spread over the different years with 526 dissertations published in 2015, 556 in 2016, 599 in 2017, 557 in 2018, 528 in 2019, and 257 until August 1, 2020.

Journal articles

As our second data source, we gathered data from articles published by emerging scholars in the three core journals in the nonprofit research community NVSQ, NML, and Voluntas (Ma & Konrath, 2018; Minkowitz et al., 2020; Walk & Andersson, 2020). Our population included all articles and research notes (excluding book reviews and editorials) these three journals published in issues between 2017 up to all online first articles until August 1, 2020 (n = 838). We conducted Google searches on all authors for each of the 838 articles to identify articles with authorship by at least one emerging scholar. Rank information was obtained through various sources, including university websites, LinkedIn profiles, personal websites, CVs, Google scholar, or Researchgate profiles. We considered as emerging scholars all individuals who were assistant professors, postdoctoral researchers, or doctoral students.¹ In the process, we gathered each emerging scholar’s name, their rank, their authorship position on the article, and an email address (collected for the following survey, see study 2). Through this procedure, we identified 390 articles with at least one emerging scholar among the authors. In total, we identified 407 unique individuals, 72 of whom published more than one article within our selected time frame and journals.² While assistant professors make up the largest group (52.8%), the number of doctoral students who successfully published an article was also considerable (24.4%). We present a detailed overview of the sample in Table A1 in the Supplemental Materials.

Data Analysis

To identify research topics, theories, and methods in the dissertations and articles, we employed different variants of quantitative content analysis. To analyze dissertation abstracts, we applied automated content analysis using a rule-based coding approach (Grimmer & Stewart, 2013; Litofcenko et al., 2020). We cleaned the data by removing spaces, punctuations, and numbers and turning all text into lower case. Each abstract was then coded based on the appearance of a word/phrase in our dictionary. To construct the dictionary for coding abstracts, we drew upon research methods textbooks to identify methodological and analytical approaches (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) and earlier studies of nonprofit research to identify theories (Ma & Konrath, 2018; Minkowitz et al., 2020). Grimmer and Stewart (2013) note that validating results is a vital part of automated content analysis. We, therefore, went through an iterative process of reading select dissertation abstracts, comparing the automated coding results with our own human assessment. In the process, we adjusted several dictionary terms and successively added additional terms to the syntax.

Like our dissertation analysis, we conducted a content analysis on all 390 published journal articles. As journal abstracts are shorter and provide less detail than the dissertation abstracts, we employed manual human coding on whole articles instead of the automated rule-based coding approach used for the dissertation abstracts. Coding was implemented by two researchers on the author team and two trained research assistants. To ensure intercoder reliability, we followed a sequential procedure in which we started with each coder coding the same articles. Whenever there was disagreement on coding, we made collective decisions and adapted the coding scheme (available upon request) whenever necessary. Joint discussions were held until the first 50 articles were coded.

Results of Study 1

Research topics

To compare research topics, we applied automated text analysis using a stemming approach, counting the frequency that words appeared in journal abstracts/keywords and dissertation abstracts/keywords.³ Please note that by applying a stemming approach key terms were reduced to word stems. For instance, the term “volunt” then captures all instances of volunteer, volunteering, or voluntary. Table 1 displays the 25 most frequently mentioned words in both dissertations and journals. There are words that are commonly used across both sources, such as nonprofit, volunteer/voluntary, and organization. However, while the nonprofit journals are more likely to publish pieces that focus on macro concepts, such as civil society/citizen, and philanthropic practices, such as fundraising, dissertations are more heavily focused on specific field contexts, such as health, education, environment, and organizational leadership. We also observe a greater diversity in dissertation keywords, whereas journal articles are more highly concentrated around core concepts/phenomena.

Table 1.

Most Frequent Words in Dissertation Abstracts/Keywords and Journal Article Abstracts/Keywords.

Dissertations		Journal articles
Keyword	N	Keyword	N
social	5,859	nonprofit	716
nonprofit	5,228	social	604
organ	4,858	organ	516
develop	3,495	volunt	419
educ	3,432	organiz	229
community	2,899	give	177
leadership	2,812	servic	171
scienc	2,354	societi	169
provid	2,165	develop	168
institut	2,165	sector	167
work	2,135	differ	162
program	2,121	govern	153
practic	2,114	relat	148
health	2,079	engag	147
public	2,013	relationship	145
state	1,993	manag	143
manag	1,977	civil	137
chang	1,909	public	136
relationship	1,876	influenc	134
servic	1,866	associ	134
organiz	1,814	theori	130
govern	1,801	donat	130
leader	1,772	provid	122
polici	1,718	behavior	118

Theories

As for theories, we considered all theories identified through the article content analysis (140 theories in total). All theories were subsequently included in the dictionary for automated dissertation coding. We were able to identify at least one theory in 66% of the articles and in 29% of the dissertation abstracts. Figure 2 compares the top 15 theories in dissertations and journal articles by frequency of all dissertations/articles for which we successfully identified at least one theory. The figure reveals two important insights. First, we can observe a higher concentration around core theories in the journal articles than in dissertations, notably around resource dependency theory and institutional theory. Second, while several theories feature prominently on both lists (including resource dependency theory, institutional theory, or stakeholder theory), notable differences exist. While leadership theory is the most frequently used lens in the dissertations, we identified only three instances of leadership theory in the articles. Similarly, critical theories are a popular lens used in dissertations but much less common in journal articles.

Figure 2.

Theory comparison between dissertations and journal articles.

Methodological approach

In terms of the overall research approach, we examined the balance between quantitative and qualitative approaches across dissertations and articles. Figure 3 compares the methodological approaches used based on (a) the full sample of journal articles (n = 390), (b) the subsample of single-authored journal articles (n = 87), and (c) dissertation abstracts for which an approach could be determined (n = 2,305). We find for the full article sample a larger share of quantitative studies (53.08%) than qualitative studies (31.79%). This closely matches a finding by Minkowitz et al. (2020), who found that 51% of all articles published within the three journals between 2013 and 2018 were quantitative. By contrast, in dissertations, qualitative approaches are more common than quantitative approaches. As can be inferred from Table A2 in the Supplemental Materials, the prevalence of qualitative research in dissertations is to a large extent due to the application of case study methodology and it is noteworthy that single-authored journal articles are in fact more frequently based on qualitative methods (see Figure 3). We suspect, therefore, that single-authored journal articles by emerging scholars, in contrast to co-authored articles, are more frequently based on dissertation research, although this claim needs further investigation in future research.

Figure 3.

Methodological approach comparison between dissertations and journal articles.

Finally, we were interested in the methodological innovations emerging scholars bring into nonprofit journals. What stood out in the article analysis with respect to qualitative methods were fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analyses and cognitive mapping. In terms of quantitative methods, novel approaches included science mapping, sentiment analysis, web scraping, machine learning, spatial analysis, text mining, and topic modeling.

Identification of matches

As a final step of Study 1, we focused explicitly on those scholars who appear in both the dissertation and the article database. Therefore, we matched author names from both databases and identified 41 individuals, a match of about 10%. Of these 41 individuals, 35 are now assistant professors. The characteristics of the 55 journal articles written by these individuals are quite like our full population of journal articles: Among the 55 journal articles published by our matched individuals, 56% used a quantitative and 31% a qualitative research approach. However, we do not find that the dissertations written by these individuals are predominantly qualitative as suggested by the full dissertation sample. Among the identified approaches through our coding syntax, 38% of the dissertations by the matched individuals are quantitative, 41% used mixed methods, and only 21% used qualitative approaches. Hence, data on these matched scholars’ dissertations show that they already lean somewhat more toward quantitative and mixed-methods approaches.

Taken together, Study 1 illustrates several notable differences between dissertations and articles in terms of diversity in research topics and theories, and the balance between quantitative and qualitative research methodology. Study 2 will provide additional insights from the perspective of emerging scholars themselves to contextualize the findings of Study 1.

Study 2: Emerging Scholar Survey and Forces in the Academic System

Data Collection and Sample

In fall 2020, we conducted an online survey among emerging nonprofit scholars. Question construction relied on Likert-type-scale assessments as well as open-ended questions of institutional conditions, professional norms, and social context (see Figure 1), along with a few demographic questions. Institutional conditions included publication pressure, job market pressure, and methodological positioning, professional norms relate to the selection of research topics and experiences within the community support system, and questions regarding social context touched upon barriers and opportunities related to scholars’ individual circumstances.

In addition to the 390 email addresses we gathered through the journal article analysis, we also sent our survey to the membership of two nonprofit professional associations: the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) and the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP). This effort identified a population of 480 emerging scholars. We contacted all scholars by email, although the scholars identified through the ARNOVA membership list were contacted by ARNOVA staff on our behalf. After one follow-up email, we received 144 surveys, a satisfying 30% response rate. After eliminating three respondents from the sample because they only answered the introductory questions and then aborted, the final sample consists of 141 respondents.

Appendix 1 shows the sample characteristics demonstrating substantial variation in age, disciplinary background, and type of position. Although our sample is not generalizable to all emerging nonprofit scholars, it is interesting to note that 84 respondents are female (59.6%) and 48 are male (34.0%). This imbalance might reflect the gendered nature of nonprofit work more generally (Themudo, 2009), a gender bias in responding to surveys, or a strong female presence within the emerging nonprofit research community. As we continue to lack representative data on the demographics of the nonprofit research community, future research should more effectively evaluate these observational results.

Data Analysis

In our data analysis, we examined scholars’ responses to both Likert-type scale items and open-ended questions on their lived experience within the academic system to identify the mechanisms underlying the funneling of topics, theories, and methods observed in Study 1. For all measures, we display the mean (all measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 “strongly disagree” and 7 “strongly agree”), as well as the proportion of respondents that selected the top two options (6 and 7). When possible, we compared Likert-type scale responses for our core constructs by gender and minority status. Finally, we performed a predictive analysis to explain which emerging scholars intend to stay in academia.

Results of Study 2

Findings related to institutional conditions

Emerging scholars’ perceived pressure

As shown in Table 2, we find that emerging scholars perceive very high publication and job market pressure (M = 6.34 and M = 6.23, respectively). Among different variants of publication pressure on which we probed our respondents, publishing in top ranked journals in the researcher’s core discipline and publishing quickly received higher mean pressure scores than publishing in leading nonprofit journals.

Table 2.

Survey Results on Perceived Publication and Job Market Pressure.

Pressure	M			Top 2
Pressure	Full sample	Female	Minority	Full sample (%)	Female (%)	Minority (%)
At the moment, I feel a lot of pressure to . . .
Publish in top ranked (A) journals in my discipline.	5.72	5.76	5.69	65	65	61
Publish in leading nonprofit journals (e.g., NVSQ, Voluntas, NML).	4.93	5.18	5.19	44	50	50
Publish my work quickly.	5.40	5.67	5.69	52	59	67
Overall, publication pressure in academia is high.	6.34	6.51	6.17	83	90	78
Job market pressure
Secure external third-party funding.	4.67	4.80	5.17	39	43	50
Perform service for the academic community (e.g., as reviewer, program director, in a research association).	4.49	4.45	4.81	27	28	31
Specialize in a specific research method.	3.78	3.82	4.39	15	18	25
Win research awards.	4.09	4.22	4.53	26	28	33
Win teaching awards.	3.52	3.66	4.19	14	17	22
Overall, job market pressure in academia is high.	6.23	6.36	6.08	83	88	78

Note. Measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. NVSQ = Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

As one respondent described, publication pressure begins early:

Pressures have affected my priorities whilst finishing my PhD. Primarily, based on feedback from my supervisors and other academics in my discipline, I have been told that it helps my future career if I have one paper published in a high ranked journal by/around the end of my PhD. (Emerging Scholar A, Female, UK)

Perceived pressure and methodological positioning

As suggested in our conceptual framework, we next tested whether research choices are related to pressure. Correlation results (Appendix 2) show that while pressure is not associated with positioning as a qualitative or quantitative scholar, pressure does correlate positively and significantly with the use of primary data. That is, scholars who prefer collecting original data face higher levels of publication pressure. Appendix 2 also confirms the finding from Study 1 that qualitative scholars are often more likely the ones who collect primary data. The emerging scholar above goes on to problematize this trend with the following statement:

I’d like to see more primary data collection of qualitative research. When it comes to philanthropy, we have a tendency to rely on secondary data sources (because it is so hard to access philanthropic individuals or institutions) or to use quantitative surveys in order to cover a larger data set. In doing so, we lose a lot of the possible richness of insights that qualitative research can provide.

A separate open-ended question explicitly asked respondents to reflect on if and how these pressures influenced their work. Many respondents reported that a high pressure to publish pushes them to pursue projects that can be accomplished quickly and that have a high likelihood of receiving favorable reviews. Several respondents assert that this pressure has had a negative impact on nonprofit scholarship more broadly, as these examples demonstrates:

I feel as though I need to rush everything. Need to finish gathering data, need to write it up, need to respond to reviews, etc. This constant state of rushing can really hurt scholarship and prevent deeper research and analysis. (Emerging Scholar B, Male, U.S.)

Yes, I pursue publishable research questions rather than questions that would directly affect nonprofits. (Emerging Scholar C, Female, U.S.)

In addition to publication and job market pressure, Figure 4 summarizes the descriptive statistics for the statement “When I decide on my method and data, a very important consideration is . . .” Three factors drive a scholar’s choices: Access to the target population (70% agreement), followed by the state of theory and knowledge, and thus potential contributions to the literature (58.3%), and data availability (55.4%).

Figure 4.

Results on drivers for methods and data.

The survey also suggests a high level of openness of emerging scholars to apply mixed-methods approaches (see Table A5). Although identification as a mixed-methods scholar (M = 4.58) falls below both identifying as a qualitative (M = 4.97) and quantitative (M = 4.89) researcher, using both quantitative and qualitative approaches depending on the research question received the highest level of agreement overall (M = 5.23). As with the dissertations, our respondents are more likely to identify as qualitative scholars.

Findings related to professional norms

Emerging scholars’ disciplinary choices

While our survey does not incorporate a comprehensive list of questions about how emerging scholars reproduce norms and their socialization within the nonprofit academic system, our descriptive results suggest that primary discipline and the nonprofit research field are rated nearly equally important. On the item “I identify as both a nonprofit researcher and as a researcher of my primary discipline” we find a mean value of M = 5.44. In contrast, we find a mean value of M = 5.55 for identifying as a researcher in a primary discipline, and a mean of M = 5.45 for identifying as a nonprofit researcher. Overall, 57% of the respondents (n = 81) report that they already identify as a nonprofit researcher, and 43% answer that they would like to identify themselves “as a nonprofit researcher in the future.”

The tension of balancing dual identities is reflected in our respondents’ open-ended comments regarding publishing in multidisciplinary contexts. Several emerging scholars critiqued the difficulty they perceived in publishing interdisciplinary and novel work in specifically nonprofit journals and highlight how these considerations affect them both as an author and a reviewer. One respondent notes, “[Nonprofit] reviewers do not understand alternative epistemological positions.”

Emerging scholars’ perceived community support

Despite high perceptions of pressure, we find that emerging scholars value the collegiality and supportiveness of the nonprofit research community but also indicate that there is considerable room for improved services. A 26-year-old male from the United States states,

I am a member of ARNOVA and I feel as that association has been integral to my success as a junior scholar; however, I will share that I wish there were other opportunities spread across the year to convene with colleagues and take part in professional development opportunities to strengthen research and practice.

Two other emerging scholars compliment the community work of more senior scholars, saying “I particularly benefit from being a part of a philanthropy research center at my University,” and “I think the field does a good job of fostering connection, and most senior scholars I’ve met at conferences are kind and genuinely supportive (yes, this really matters).” Both these scholars, however, qualify their statements with a desire for more interdisciplinary collaboration and investment in mentorship programs.

Our survey measures for community support reflect this tension between appreciation of current services and desire for more investment. None of our community support measures (see Table 3) achieved an average of 5 or greater, with networking opportunities averaging at M = 4.77, and overall community support averaging M = 4.23 out of 7. Of the areas where the most improvement might be possible, there is a perceived lack of funding opportunities from third parties and for scholarships or conferences. This lack of funding opportunities may shape perceptions of the difficulties in using primary data sources and access to research sites.

Table 3.

Survey Results on Constraints and Community Support.

ConstraintsWhat are constraints you are facing in the context of reaching academic career goals?	M			Top 2
	Full sample	Female	Minority	Full sample (%)	Female (%)	Minority (%)
My teaching load is too high.	3.65	3.53	3.89	16	13	22
I struggle to maintain a healthy work life balance.	4.92	4.92	5.39	42	43	47
The COVID-pandemic has made being productive more challenging than it otherwise would be.	5.20	5.46	5.36	51	59	53
There is a lack of sufficient research funding.	5.15	5.14	5.36	47	46	56
My unit does not value nonprofit research.	3.49	3.33	3.28	20	16	17
There is a lack of networks.	3.29	3.30	3.42	8	11	17
There is a lack of data.	4.20	3.86	4.78	32	25	42
Community support How would you rate the following opportunities and services in the nonprofit community to advance your career goals?
The quality of professional academic career development opportunities is high.	4.40	4.40	4.47	27	29	33
The quality of mentoring programs is high.	4.26	4.20	4.53	24	22	39
The networking opportunities among nonprofit researchers are adequate.	4.77	4.77	4.69	33	35	39
Opportunities to receive third-party funding are sufficiently available.	3.03	2.94	2.86	3	2	6
Funding support/scholarships (e.g., for conferences) are sufficiently available.	3.53	3.62	3.58	12	13	17
Overall, I rate the quality of the community support system as high.	4.23	4.25	4.33	17	19	17

Note. Measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Social context

Constraints and barriers

Table 3 shows our findings on obstacles and needed support for research by emerging scholars for the overall sample and for females alone. For both groupings, although some constraints received moderately high levels of agreement, such as struggling to maintain a healthy work life balance (M = 4.92) and lacking sufficient research funding (M = 5.15), these obstacles do not appear to be as salient as maintaining scholarly productivity in the wake of the current COVID-19 pandemic (M = 5.20) (see Supplemental Materials, Table A4). Importantly, though, female respondents more frequently agreed or strongly agreed with the pandemic interrupting their productivity than the sample overall (59% vs. 51%). Teaching, which is often discussed as a primary barrier to conducting research, actually scores relatively low for our respondents (M = 3.65).

To investigate these potential gender differences further, we constructed linear regression models predicting survey respondents’ future career aspirations, including gender interactions with two items that measure pressure and community supports. Models contained controls for current position (an indicator for assistant professor), discipline (a categorical variable with business/law, social sciences, and other), methodological identity characteristics, years spent researching, desire to publish in nonprofit journals, and minority identification (see Tables A6 and A7 in the Supplemental Materials for question and item wording, descriptive statistics, and regression models). For gender, results indicated significant differences in the prediction of non-academic career paths and are exemplified by the results for the “professional manager” question, which is displayed in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Results of the regression and interaction analysis for gender.

For male-identified respondents, experiencing high levels of pressure and high levels of support (low = 1 standard deviation below the mean, high = 1 standard deviation above) are both associated with an increased likelihood of having future career aspirations in nonprofit management. For female-identified scholars, in contrast, the experience of higher levels of pressure and support lead to decreased aspirations of a nonprofit management career.

Although a deep dive into racial/ethnic variability among emerging career scholars was beyond the scope of our study, we opted to include a general question in our survey, asking respondents “Do you identify as an ethnic and/or cultural minority?” Similar to our treatment of gender, we grouped respondents who answered in the affirmative to this question and compared their average responses to select questions, as well as investigated potential interaction effects. Minority scholars, as we have operationalized in our sample, more frequently identify as quantitative researchers (64%). This group is also less likely to engage in non-empirical research (3%) and use primary data (61%). Encouragingly, minority scholars report higher agreement that there are adequate mentoring programs (39%), but also report the lowest average levels of perceived opportunities for third-party funding (M = 2.86). Our limited interaction results for minority respondents indicate that experiencing high levels of support is significantly more predictive of a career aspiration for a disciplinary tenured position than it is for non-minority respondents (see Figure 5).

Although we did not explicitly ask for racial or ethnic experiences in the academic system, some scholars indicated in their open-ended questions on pressures and community support the relevance of race/ethnicity in these processes:

My feeling of pressure is compounded by my identity as a black woman. There were many unspoken norms in academia that I didn’t fully understand . . . I’m also a parent to children, who are all learning remotely at home, so my time is severely limited . . . We are literally reinventing higher education, but are expected to publish as well. (Emerging Scholar D, Female, U.S.)

Finally, open-ended responses regarding career aspirations help to illuminate the tension between professional training in an academic setting with real-world observations regarding the likelihood of a tenure-track career. One respondent, for example, states,

I am very open regarding future aspirations. Happy to evolve towards multiple roles in academia or outside of academic. For now am focusing on the present and my focus is on publishing. For later we will see!! (Emerging Scholar E, Female, France)

We ended our survey with the question “If you had one wish for your career aspiration, what would it be?” Answers reveal that emerging scholars are aware of the limited opportunities available to them in academia. Several emerging scholars responded with short answers simply wishing for more jobs, and others like those discussed above specifically desire more training on non-academic career paths. Even within the academic path, respondents desire more time to focus on the research that matters to them, rather than research that will help them to “get ahead.” Relatedly, several respondents desired an academic evaluation system that valued the impact of their research as much as its publication:

[I would wish for] a shift away from single focus on publication to holistic assessment of value and impact. (Emerging Scholar F, Male, Germany)

Discussion

This research project has offered a first attempt in the nonprofit literature to conceptualize the evolution of the nonprofit research field as a function of the interplay between systemic forces and research as emerging scholars navigate the academic system (see Figure 1). Our results illuminate three themes we believe are important for conceptualizing around emerging scholar research realities and for moving the field forward.

First, Study 1 illustrates that journal articles display a lower level of diversity compared to doctoral dissertations, both in terms of topics and in terms of theories. On one hand, this can reflect a natural selection, in that our dissertation sample likely includes scholars who use the nonprofit sector as a research setting rather than as the focal research object. These scholars might target other publishing outlets. On the other hand, the noted loss in diversity can be problematic, if understudied topics relevant to nonprofit studies or practice that challenge prevailing views do not find their way to publication due to journal or reviewer preferences. For instance, we find in line with Coule et al. (2020), few instances of critical theory in nonprofit journals. However, critical theory is one of the most popular lenses in nonprofit-themed dissertations. Critical research challenges the assumption of the dominating positivistic epistemology, yet as Coule et al. (2020, p. 23) note: “Early career scholars may adopt publication strategies that avoid critical work altogether, or normalize critical research accounts to achieve conformance to mainstream quality criteria.” Survey responses by our emerging scholars support this assertion, given that several scholars indeed raised concerns about a shift away from studying what “really matters to them” in an attempt to publish and publish quickly.

Second, while confirming the dominance of quantitative research methods in nonprofit journals recently noted by Minkowitz et al. (2020), our two studies jointly illustrate that this trend stands in contrast to the methodological preferences of many emerging scholars. Study 1 showed that dissertations are predominantly based on qualitative methods (and especially case studies) and in Study 2 many scholars indicated a preference for using both qualitative and/or quantitative methods depending on the specific research question. While numerous reasons could account for the discrepancy between qualitative dissertations and quantitative journal publications (including journal and reviewer preferences, the ability for scholars to publish quantitative work more quickly, issues with qualitative research meeting quality criteria, access to research sites, or publication page limits), the findings indicate that some scholars feel pushed to strategically shift toward more “publishable” research approaches. As qualitative research is an important component of theory advancement, the nonprofit research community needs to reflect on whether the current system allows sufficient theory-building (Minkowitz et al., 2020). Theory-building frequently involves collecting original data in natural settings. However, our survey shows that scholars using primary data perceive more pressure to publish and publish quickly (Appendix 2). In the long run, this pressure may push scholars toward greater reliance on secondary data, particularly given that technological advancements (e.g., machine learning, big data) have increased such opportunities (Johnston, 2017). Strong reliance on secondary data could potentially decrease the amount of research concerned with “on the ground” issues of nonprofit organizations and hence diminish the relevance of scholarly output for nonprofit practice (Bushouse & Sowa, 2012).

Third, our research highlights the importance of achieving geographical and cultural diversity of perspectives in both published research and the research community at large (Ma & Konrath, 2018; Minkowitz et al., 2020). Our results show that the United States is by far the most represented country in our article analysis both regarding the location of articles’ first author institution and regarding the research context of empirical articles. This dominance of U.S. scholarship is, however, a bit smaller when it comes to the study context, showing that scholars at U.S. institutions also conduct research on other nonprofit sectors (especially China). Yet, Africa and South America are minimally represented in either of the two variables. Within our survey sample, by contrast, only 47 of the 141 respondents were from and working in the United States. Increasing racial/ethnic and cultural diversity among emerging nonprofit scholars may act as a mechanism to increase the diversity of topics and theoretical perspectives. Predominant social science research suggests that an early scholar’s identity and corresponding location in our stratified cultural systems will be intimately intertwined with their career aspirations, and perhaps more importantly the opportunities and obstacles they encounter along the way (Collins, 2002). A dearth of research and insight into the diversity of experiences in the nonprofit sector is a particular symptom of a larger problem concerning the invisibility of race in organizational research overall (Ray, 2019). When pushed to incorporate an international context as we do here, the limitations of critical theory in nonprofit research are particularly apparent. The quick timeline and international reach of this research introduced unique challenges for measuring diversity among emerging scholars, and constructing a survey measure to adequately capture diversity internationally among emerging scholars in a meaningful and useful way would require time and expertise we did not marshal here. Nevertheless, the importance of diversity in nonprofit research for moving the field forward still emerged from our findings. Not only will attention to critical race, ethnicity, and cultural topics strengthen nonprofit research and scholarship, such efforts can help to move the nonprofit sector as a whole to better confront and overcome pressing issues of inequality over the next 50 years.

Our study is subject to several noteworthy limitations that offer interesting opportunities for future research. First, as we focused on the development of the nonprofit field, we did not explore individual career trajectories of emerging scholars. Drawing a random sample of dissertations and tracking those individuals to see if/where they publish (Evans et al., 2018; Maynard et al., 2014) may lead to a better understanding of career trajectories. It would also help answer the questions of which and how many scholars write nonprofit-themed dissertations but target other disciplinary journals for publication of their dissertation research. Surveying individuals who leave academia during or after completion of a PhD and chose to not publish their research would also offer further insights into the underlying reasons and motivations for completing the PhD and academic career ambitions (Carpenter, 2016). Our conceptual framework acknowledges that the outlined forces in the academic system affect the future composition of the research community. But this area in particular would benefit from more targeted future work and alternative sampling approaches of emerging scholars (including those who have exited the system). Second, we only included into our analysis nonprofit-themed dissertations written in English (based on a limited set of search terms) and our publication analysis is limited to the three “core” journals, although nonprofit research is in fact published in a wide range of different outlets and for different national contexts (Smith, 2013). Accounting for a broader range of journals could contribute to a better understanding of the process from doctoral research to journal publication, for example by matching more individuals between dissertations and articles globally. Study 2 also illuminated the potential importance of gender in the future of nonprofit studies, and future work could further explore that importance in the publication process. Although not without its own methodological constraints, researchers could exploit recent innovations in text processing to assign a gender to emerging nonprofit scholar’s names and further unpack variation in topic and methodological diversity between nonprofit dissertations and publications by the gender of the emerging researcher.

Moving forward, we believe the challenges faced by emerging scholars outlined in this study require attention by various actors within our field. First, nonprofit journals should combine their desire for specialized aims and scopes on one hand with an openness toward novel topics and theories with potential for knowledge advancement on the other hand. Evidently, this openness would not only be required by editorial boards, but also by the community of reviewers at large. Second, research associations, like ARNOVA, ISTR, or ERNOP, could increase their efforts to ensure access to and improve these programs for emerging scholars from diverse backgrounds. This includes opportunities for professional development, research consortia, or networking (Allison et al., 2007; Jackson et al., 2014), especially for those who may lack institutional support. In fact, our survey may underestimate the level of support needed among the emerging scholar community because our respondents naturally represent those emerging scholars who had the time, availability, institutional network, and personal identification necessary to answer our recruitment request. Third, universities need to invest in designing their doctoral programs in a way that they ensure students are prepared for heterogeneous career trajectories, not just typical tenure track positions. It is clear that as the private sector continues to employ more PhDs than institutions, the academy is slow to respond to demand for more secure and stable research-based positions, as well as growing pressures to provide non-academic career advising and institutional support (Opsomer et al., 2021). Finally, we encourage emerging scholars themselves to more prominently advocate on their own behalf. Many more emerging scholars in our sample desire a nonprofit research career than there are traditional opportunities available. Cross-sector collaboration has always been an important component of nonprofit research, and extending those connections into the early career phase for emerging nonprofit researchers may be one way to successfully advocate for and secure increased investment in the success of all emerging nonprofit scholars in achieving their research agendas. We argue that such efforts and the impacts they will have on the richness and diversity of nonprofit research are essential to maintaining the relevancy and importance of nonprofit research over the next 50 years.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-nvs-10.1177_08997640221078824 – Supplemental material for The Evolution of the Nonprofit Research Field: An Emerging Scholar Perspective

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-nvs-10.1177_08997640221078824 for The Evolution of the Nonprofit Research Field: An Emerging Scholar Perspective by Peter Schubert, Robert W. Ressler, Laurie E. Paarlberg and Silke Boenigk in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 2.

Correlation Between Pressure and Methodological Positioning.

Variable	Qualitative researcher	Quantitative researcher	Mixed-methods researcher	Method depending on research question	Use of primary data	Use of secondary data	Pressure disciplinary journals	Pressure nonprofit journals	Pressure publish quickly	Publication pressure overall	Job market pressure overall
Qualitative researcher	1
Quantitative researcher	−.557**	1
Mixed-methods researcher	.250**	.261**	1
Method depending on research question	.207*	.311**	.740**	1
Use of primary data	.431**	−.197*	.287**	.228**	1
Use of secondary data	−.190*	.323**	.070	.065	−.326**	1
Pressure disciplinary journals	.049	.021	.165	.063	.179*	−.004	1
Pressure nonprofit journals	.044	.028	.147	.202*	.041	.008	.464**	1
Pressure publish quickly	−.011	.050	.132	.145	.223**	.051	.555**	.430**	1
Publication pressure overall	.119	−.026	.103	.147	.365**	−.109	.500**	.252**	.459**	1
Job market pressure overall	.149	−.045	.110	.177*	.384**	−.152	.419**	.261**	.320**	.737**	1

Note. *p(t) < .05. **p(t) < .01 (two-tailed).

Authors’ Note

We would like to thank Lilly Murmann and Philip Sander for their support in the data collection process of this study. We also thank the editors and participants of the author workshop for the NVSQ 50th Anniversary Special Issue held in November 2020. Finally, we thank the three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback and suggestions for improvement on earlier versions of this article.

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 iDs

Peter Schubert

Robert W. Ressler

Laurie E. Paarlberg

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Peter Schubert currently works as a project manager at ZiviZ im Stifterverband, a Berlin-based think tank for civil society research. He completed his PhD in Nonprofit Management at the University of Hamburg in 2020. His past research focused primarily on nonprofit financial management and accountability.

Robert W. Ressler currently works as a senior research associate for the Institute of Child, Youth and Family Policy at Brandeis University focusing on community organizations and childhood opportunities. They received their PhD in Sociology from the University of Texas in Austin in 2019.

Laurie E. Paarlberg is a professor of philanthropic studies at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). She serves as the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation Chair on Community Foundations. Her research focuses on the changing structure of local philanthropic systems, particularly community foundations.

Silke Boenigk is a professor of Nonprofit Management at Universität Hamburg. Her research interests include nonprofit strategy, fundraising, charitable giving, blood donor management, and refugee integration.

References

Alexander

Entwisle

Olson

(2014). The long shadow: Family background, disadvantaged urban youth, and the transition to adulthood. Russell Sage Foundation.

Allison

Chen

Flanigan

S. T.

Keyes-Williams

Vasavada

T. S.

Saidel

J. R.

(2007). Toward doctoral education in nonprofit and philanthropic studies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4_suppl), 51S–63S.

Alvesson

Gabriel

(2013). Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity in organizational research and publications. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(2), 245–263.

Alvesson

Sandberg

(2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128–152.

Benoit

Watanabe

Wang

Nulty

Obeng

Müller

Matsuo

(2018). Quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), Article 774.

Berrone

Gelabert

Massa-Saluzzo

Rousseau

H. E.

(2016). Understanding community dynamics in the study of grand challenges: How nonprofits, institutional actors, and the community fabric interact to influence income inequality. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1940–1964.

Bushouse

B. K.

Sowa

J. E.

(2012). Producing knowledge for practice: Assessing NVSQ 2000-2010. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 497–513.

Carpenter

H. L.

(2016). Preferences for a professional doctorate in philanthropy program. The Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 6(3), 224–242.

Collins

P. H.

(2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

10.

Cornelissen

J. P.

(2017). Preserving theoretical divergence in management research: Why the explanatory potential of qualitative research should be harnessed rather than suppressed. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 368–383.

11.

Coule

T. M.

Dodge

Eikenberry

A. M

. (2020). Toward a typology of critical nonprofit studies: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020919807

12.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fifth edition). SAGE.

13.

da Silva

J. A. T

. (2021). The Matthew effect impacts science and academic publishing by preferentially amplifying citations, metrics and status. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5373–5377.

14.

Downey

D. B.

Condron

D. J.

(2016). Fifty years since the coleman report rethinking the relationship between schools and inequality. Sociology of Education, 89(3), 207–220.

15.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1–12.

16.

Ellington

R. M.

Frederick

(2010). Black high achieving undergraduate mathematics majors discuss success and persistence in mathematics. Negro Educational Review, 61(1–4), 61–84.

17.

Evans

S. C.

Amaro

C. M.

Herbert

Blossom

J. B.

Roberts

M. C.

(2018). “Are you gonna publish that?” Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology. PLOS ONE, 13(2), Article e0192219.

18.

Grimmer

Stewart

B. M.

(2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297.

19.

Jackson

Guerrero

Appe

(2014). The state of nonprofit and philanthropic studies doctoral education. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 795–811.

20.

Johnston

M. P.

(2017). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(3), 619–626.

21.

Litofcenko

Karner

Maier

(2020). Methods for classifying nonprofit organizations according to their field of activity: A report on semi-automated methods based on text. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(1), 227–237.

22.

Konrath

(2018). A century of nonprofit studies: Scaling the knowledge of the field. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(6), 1139–1158.

23.

Maynard

B. R.

Vaughn

M. G.

Sarteschi

C. M.

Berglund

A. H.

(2014). Social work dissertation research: Contributing to scholarly discourse or the file drawer? British Journal of Social Work, 44(4), 1045–1062.

24.

Merton

R. K.

(1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

25.

Minkowitz

Twumasi

Berrett

J. L.

Chen

Stewart

A. J.

(2020). Checking in on the state of nonprofit scholarship: A review of recent research. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 6(2), 182–208.

26.

Morse

J. M.

(2010). Simultaneous and sequential qualitative mixed method designs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 483–489.

27.

Nosek

B. A.

Spies

J. R.

Motyl

(2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631.

28.

Opsomer

Chen

Chang

Foley

(2021). U.S. employment higher in the private sector than in the education sector for U.S.-trained doctoral scientists and engineers: Findings from the 2019 survey of doctorate recipients. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21319

29.

Ray

(2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53.

30.

Ritchie

Lewis

Nicholls

C. M.

Ormston

. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. SAGE.

31.

Rivera

L. A.

(2017). When two bodies are (not) a problem: Gender and relationship status discrimination in academic hiring. American Sociological Review, 82(6), 1111–1138.

32.

Rossiter

M. W.

(1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341.

33.

Shier

Handy

(2014). Research trends in nonprofit graduate studies a growing interdisciplinary field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 812–831.

34.

Small

M. L.

(2017). Someone to talk to. Oxford University Press.

35.

Smith

D. H.

(2013). Growth of research associations and journals in the emerging discipline of altruistics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(4), 638–656.

36.

Teddie

Tashakkori

(2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. SAGE.

37.

Themudo

N. S.

(2009). Gender and the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 663–683.

38.

Van Dalen

H. P.

Henkens

. (2012). Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1282–1293.

39.

Waaijer

C. J.

Teelken

Wouters

P. F.

van der Weijden

I. C.

(2018). Competition in science: Links between publication pressure, grant pressure and the academic job market. Higher Education Policy, 31(2), 225–243.

40.

Walk

Andersson

F. O.

(2020). Where do nonprofit and civil society researchers publish? Perceptions of nonprofit journal quality. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 6(1), 79–95.

41.

Wellington

Nixon

(2005). Shaping the field: The role of academic journal editors in the construction of education as a field of study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(5), 643–655.

42.

Yang

You

(2020). Research trends in nonprofit graduate studies in China: An inside perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(1), 175–197.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB