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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Voluntas (Manchester, England) England), 2023-06, Vol.34 (3), p.585-599 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
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 |