Special Issue Introduction on Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations: Questions and Possibilities for the Next Era

In 2005, Management Communication Quarterly published an agenda-setting piece by Laurie Lewis that called for more research and theory building on issues critical to the civil society sector. At the time, virtually no essays had been published in MCQ examining the issues she underscored, and very little work by organizational communication and management scholars had been featured in other journals (cf. Ashcraft & Kedrowicz, 2002; Ganesh, 2003; Kramer, 2004; McComb, 1995). ¹ Shortly thereafter, we began our doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Austin where we were encouraged to explore and even deconstruct enduring assumptions of organizational forms, structures, and organizing processes. Quickly, I (Lacy) gravitated toward discourses of decision-making in religious and faith-based organizations, and I (Brittany) was drawn to membership experiences in involuntary organizations. From the start, our research questions pushed beyond the foci of “traditional” organizing. In 2012, as newly minted assistant professors, we collaborated on a study of nonprofits that were sustained by individuals we termed high-stakes volunteers (McNamee & Peterson, 2014, 2016). By that time, research on nonprofit and voluntary organizations (NPVOs) had increased exponentially.

Today, the scholarly attention to nonprofit communication dynamics is even more established. Since Lewis’s 2005 piece, MCQ alone has featured over 20 publications on volunteering and nonprofit organizing, including a forum with short essays in 2012. Still, as we began to pen the call for this special issue we pondered: What are we missing? Whose voices have been omitted, neglected, or silenced? How have we engaged in (or avoided) collecting and/or co-constructing knowledge about the sector and its members? Moreover, what theoretical constructs, methodological approaches, and axiological commitments have been elevated or ignored, and to what ends?

As we hoped, the interest in this call was resounding and far-reaching, with 40 submissions from within and outside of the communication field, across disparate geographic locations, among both academics and practitioners, and from emerging and seasoned scholars alike. To our minds, the articles featured in this special issue offer a glimpse into the larger body of excellent work reviewed. With such outstanding submissions, it was no easy task to select among them, but, in the end, four studies that each productively upend some implicit assumptions about nonprofit organizations and organizing rose to the top. In a forum that follows these essays, contributors Yannick Atouba, Sarah Dempsey, Matt Koschmann, Michael Kramer, and Kirstie McAllum take stock of where scholars studying NPVOs have been and how such scholarship might venture forward. Finally, Laurie Lewis offers an afterward reflecting on the last 15 years of work and advocates several paths for producing theoretically rich and relevant scholarship in the years to come. Collectively, the pages ahead speak to what is distinct and worthy of study, how NPVOs should be studied (differently), and why and to what ends we should study nonprofit organizations/organizing.

Lewis’ (2005) original think piece identified four issues ripe for exploration by communication and management scholars: “social capital; mission, effectiveness, and accountability; governance and decision making; and volunteer relationships” (p. 238). MCQ subsequently published scholarship on nonprofit legitimacy (Gill & Wells, 2014), volunteerism and volunteer roles (Kramer & Danielson, 2016; McAllum, 2014, White & Gilstrap, 2017), volunteer management tensions and professionalism (McAllum, 2018; McNamee & Peterson, 2014), tensions of transparency in NPVOs (Jensen & Meisenbach, 2015), and voluntary membership (Meisenbach & Kramer, 2014), to name a few. The research and commentary in this special issue, however, challenges us to further consider what the field might and should study. For example, Ehlers and her colleagues critically examine nonprofit engagement scholarship by focusing on honoring and sharing the voices of those living at the margins—who are often service beneficiaries—in contrast to the plurality of scholarship that largely represents the perspectives of service providers and volunteers. Likewise, Südkamp and Dempsey interrogate the contours of transparency and the hegemonic glorification of unpaid (volunteer) and underpaid labor in nonprofit work. In the forum, Dempsey and others question the (arbitrary) distinctiveness and boundaries of NPVOs and the nonprofit sector.

In addition to what is to be studied, the essays herein point to how we (should) go about studying and producing scholarship of/for NPVOs. Given the paradigmatic shifts in our field in recent years, it is perhaps unsurprising that few of the submissions we received relied fully on quantitative methods (15%). Along these lines, Lewis and several forum contributors acknowledged the trend of qualitative case studies and, more recently, critical approaches. In future research, Lewis suggests, we might focus on epistemological expansion, engage in more programmatic research, use larger data sets, and explore dynamics longitudinally. Some research included in this issue adopts these very approaches. For instance, in her contribution to this special issue, Cooper employs a longitudinal approach and applied tensional analysis (Mease, 2019) to study an interorganizational community collaboration. Ehlers et al. (this issue) adopts a culture-centered approach (CCA) to “critically interrogat[e] the theoretical construct of engagement by placing it within the everyday practices of participation at the margins,” and Foot and her colleagues share a multi-method comparative analysis of three large scale counter-human trafficking coalitions. Together, these studies stretch the predominant methodological boundaries that presently confine much of our NPVO scholarship.

Finally, the voices in this special issue speak to the question of why: Why should we study NPVOs? Or perhaps, a more direct question is, to what ends? Lewis (2011) tackled this question a decade ago by rebuffing the aim to “‘prove’ that nonprofits are unique and thus justify the study of them” (p. 186). Instead, she argued NPVO scholars should focus on “tackling problems, puzzles, and possibilities that those in practice would find relevant and important” (p. 187). In this issue, Lewis stresses that again and is joined by forum contributors who encourage scholars to commit more fervently to praxis and engage meaningfully in the world around us. In this respect, Foot and colleagues’ work stands out as they articulate extensive implications for coalition leaders alongside their rich theoretical discussion of constructive leadership practices, structures, and activities. Admirably, they also secured funding to make the findings of their work open access so that coalition leaders across the global can access the scholarship without having to overcome paywalls.

As we close, we endeavor one more question: What now? We produced this special issue at the precipice of a new existence in which COVID-19 has shuttered people in homes across the globe and where, in the United States, racism and political violence has rocked our relationships, communities, and institutions. How will the nonprofit and voluntary sector be shaped by these shifting tides? Perhaps the importance of the sector will be amplified as people find themselves with more drastically unmet needs. Will there be a shift in the power or purpose of the sector? Ultimately, we hope that this special issue prompts us all to consider: What is it we believe to be true about nonprofit and volunteer organizations and organizing practices, how have those beliefs shaped our theorizing, practice, and community engagement, and how might we consider our assumptions anew?