Loading…

Accountability Theory in Nonprofit Research: Using Governance Theories to Categorize Dichotomies

Nonprofit accountability research has garnered much attention in recent years, greatly expanding our understanding of the field. Yet, this focus has resulted in a complex and oftentimes fragmented body of research, which has made it difficult to navigate and effectively study nonprofit accountabilit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Voluntas (Manchester, England) England), 2023-06, Vol.34 (3), p.585-599
Main Authors: Pilon, Marc, Brouard, François
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-ae0ba2fffce54aa4c4dd4e3f2ce1561d9e0ea9533080e0b47588381b6d5be4373
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-ae0ba2fffce54aa4c4dd4e3f2ce1561d9e0ea9533080e0b47588381b6d5be4373
container_end_page 599
container_issue 3
container_start_page 585
container_title Voluntas (Manchester, England)
container_volume 34
creator Pilon, Marc
Brouard, François
description Nonprofit accountability research has garnered much attention in recent years, greatly expanding our understanding of the field. Yet, this focus has resulted in a complex and oftentimes fragmented body of research, which has made it difficult to navigate and effectively study nonprofit accountability. To address this concern, this article uses characteristics of accountability and articulates the dynamic interaction between the various accountability dichotomies found in the literature through a theory-based typology. In summary, this article argues that a narrow conception of accountability, focused on resource dependence, public interest and agency theories, can be seen as a functional process (“how”) to meet the imposed requirements (“for what”) of upward principals (“to whom”). In contrast, a broad conception of accountability, focused on stewardship, democratic, and stakeholder theories, can be seen as a strategic process (“how”) to provide information that is based on felt responsibility (“for what”) to downward stakeholders (“to whom”).
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11266-022-00482-7
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2831112646</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2831112646</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-ae0ba2fffce54aa4c4dd4e3f2ce1561d9e0ea9533080e0b47588381b6d5be4373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKt_wFPAczSfm6y3UrUKoiDtOWbT2XZLu6nJVqi_3tQVvHkahnnel-FB6JLRa0apvkmM8aIglHNCqTSc6CM0YEoLoo0xx2hAS6WJ0YU6RWcprSilomDlAL2PvA-7tnNVs266PZ4uIcQ9blr8EtptDHXT4TdI4KJf3uJZatoFnoRPiK1rPfR4Awl3AY9dB4u8fQG-a_wydGGTL-fopHbrBBe_c4hmD_fT8SN5fp08jUfPxAtWdsQBrRyv69qDks5JL-dzCaLmHpgq2LwECq5UQlBDMyq1MkYYVhVzVYEUWgzRVd-bn_7YQersKuzyl-tkuRHs4EcWmeI95WNIKUJtt7HZuLi3jNqDSdubtNmk_TFpD9WiD6UMtwuIf9X_pL4By2x36g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2831112646</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accountability Theory in Nonprofit Research: Using Governance Theories to Categorize Dichotomies</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</source><source>Springer Nature</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Pilon, Marc ; Brouard, François</creator><creatorcontrib>Pilon, Marc ; Brouard, François</creatorcontrib><description>Nonprofit accountability research has garnered much attention in recent years, greatly expanding our understanding of the field. Yet, this focus has resulted in a complex and oftentimes fragmented body of research, which has made it difficult to navigate and effectively study nonprofit accountability. To address this concern, this article uses characteristics of accountability and articulates the dynamic interaction between the various accountability dichotomies found in the literature through a theory-based typology. In summary, this article argues that a narrow conception of accountability, focused on resource dependence, public interest and agency theories, can be seen as a functional process (“how”) to meet the imposed requirements (“for what”) of upward principals (“to whom”). In contrast, a broad conception of accountability, focused on stewardship, democratic, and stakeholder theories, can be seen as a strategic process (“how”) to provide information that is based on felt responsibility (“for what”) to downward stakeholders (“to whom”).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0957-8765</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7888</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11266-022-00482-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Accountability ; Governance ; Management ; Nonprofit organizations ; Political Science ; Public interest ; Research Papers ; Social Policy ; Social Sciences ; Stakeholders ; Theory</subject><ispartof>Voluntas (Manchester, England), 2023-06, Vol.34 (3), p.585-599</ispartof><rights>International Society for Third-Sector Research 2022</rights><rights>International Society for Third-Sector Research 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-ae0ba2fffce54aa4c4dd4e3f2ce1561d9e0ea9533080e0b47588381b6d5be4373</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-ae0ba2fffce54aa4c4dd4e3f2ce1561d9e0ea9533080e0b47588381b6d5be4373</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8012-9298 ; 0000-0001-7717-6811</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2831112646/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2831112646?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,12847,21394,21395,27344,27924,27925,33223,33611,33774,34530,36060,43733,44115,44363,74221,74639,74895</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pilon, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brouard, François</creatorcontrib><title>Accountability Theory in Nonprofit Research: Using Governance Theories to Categorize Dichotomies</title><title>Voluntas (Manchester, England)</title><addtitle>Voluntas</addtitle><description>Nonprofit accountability research has garnered much attention in recent years, greatly expanding our understanding of the field. Yet, this focus has resulted in a complex and oftentimes fragmented body of research, which has made it difficult to navigate and effectively study nonprofit accountability. To address this concern, this article uses characteristics of accountability and articulates the dynamic interaction between the various accountability dichotomies found in the literature through a theory-based typology. In summary, this article argues that a narrow conception of accountability, focused on resource dependence, public interest and agency theories, can be seen as a functional process (“how”) to meet the imposed requirements (“for what”) of upward principals (“to whom”). In contrast, a broad conception of accountability, focused on stewardship, democratic, and stakeholder theories, can be seen as a strategic process (“how”) to provide information that is based on felt responsibility (“for what”) to downward stakeholders (“to whom”).</description><subject>Accountability</subject><subject>Governance</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Nonprofit organizations</subject><subject>Political Science</subject><subject>Public interest</subject><subject>Research Papers</subject><subject>Social Policy</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Stakeholders</subject><subject>Theory</subject><issn>0957-8765</issn><issn>1573-7888</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKt_wFPAczSfm6y3UrUKoiDtOWbT2XZLu6nJVqi_3tQVvHkahnnel-FB6JLRa0apvkmM8aIglHNCqTSc6CM0YEoLoo0xx2hAS6WJ0YU6RWcprSilomDlAL2PvA-7tnNVs266PZ4uIcQ9blr8EtptDHXT4TdI4KJf3uJZatoFnoRPiK1rPfR4Awl3AY9dB4u8fQG-a_wydGGTL-fopHbrBBe_c4hmD_fT8SN5fp08jUfPxAtWdsQBrRyv69qDks5JL-dzCaLmHpgq2LwECq5UQlBDMyq1MkYYVhVzVYEUWgzRVd-bn_7YQersKuzyl-tkuRHs4EcWmeI95WNIKUJtt7HZuLi3jNqDSdubtNmk_TFpD9WiD6UMtwuIf9X_pL4By2x36g</recordid><startdate>20230601</startdate><enddate>20230601</enddate><creator>Pilon, Marc</creator><creator>Brouard, François</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8012-9298</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7717-6811</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230601</creationdate><title>Accountability Theory in Nonprofit Research: Using Governance Theories to Categorize Dichotomies</title><author>Pilon, Marc ; Brouard, François</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-ae0ba2fffce54aa4c4dd4e3f2ce1561d9e0ea9533080e0b47588381b6d5be4373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Accountability</topic><topic>Governance</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Nonprofit organizations</topic><topic>Political Science</topic><topic>Public interest</topic><topic>Research Papers</topic><topic>Social Policy</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Stakeholders</topic><topic>Theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pilon, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brouard, François</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Voluntas (Manchester, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pilon, Marc</au><au>Brouard, François</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accountability Theory in Nonprofit Research: Using Governance Theories to Categorize Dichotomies</atitle><jtitle>Voluntas (Manchester, England)</jtitle><stitle>Voluntas</stitle><date>2023-06-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>585</spage><epage>599</epage><pages>585-599</pages><issn>0957-8765</issn><eissn>1573-7888</eissn><abstract>Nonprofit accountability research has garnered much attention in recent years, greatly expanding our understanding of the field. Yet, this focus has resulted in a complex and oftentimes fragmented body of research, which has made it difficult to navigate and effectively study nonprofit accountability. To address this concern, this article uses characteristics of accountability and articulates the dynamic interaction between the various accountability dichotomies found in the literature through a theory-based typology. In summary, this article argues that a narrow conception of accountability, focused on resource dependence, public interest and agency theories, can be seen as a functional process (“how”) to meet the imposed requirements (“for what”) of upward principals (“to whom”). In contrast, a broad conception of accountability, focused on stewardship, democratic, and stakeholder theories, can be seen as a strategic process (“how”) to provide information that is based on felt responsibility (“for what”) to downward stakeholders (“to whom”).</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s11266-022-00482-7</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8012-9298</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7717-6811</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0957-8765
ispartof Voluntas (Manchester, England), 2023-06, Vol.34 (3), p.585-599
issn 0957-8765
1573-7888
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2831112646
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest); Springer Nature; Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); Sociology Collection; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Accountability
Governance
Management
Nonprofit organizations
Political Science
Public interest
Research Papers
Social Policy
Social Sciences
Stakeholders
Theory
title Accountability Theory in Nonprofit Research: Using Governance Theories to Categorize Dichotomies
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T02%3A41%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accountability%20Theory%20in%20Nonprofit%20Research:%20Using%20Governance%20Theories%20to%20Categorize%20Dichotomies&rft.jtitle=Voluntas%20(Manchester,%20England)&rft.au=Pilon,%20Marc&rft.date=2023-06-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=585&rft.epage=599&rft.pages=585-599&rft.issn=0957-8765&rft.eissn=1573-7888&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11266-022-00482-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2831112646%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-ae0ba2fffce54aa4c4dd4e3f2ce1561d9e0ea9533080e0b47588381b6d5be4373%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2831112646&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true