The Evolution of Nonprofit Governance Research: Reflections,Insights,and Next Steps

The Early Years: The 1970s and 1980s

The early years are summarized in the review by Melissa Middleton (1987) that analyzes prior work, some of which dated back to the 1950s and the 1960s. The review, however, is primarily based on nonprofit board research that was developing in the 1970s and the 1980s. A good share of the literature was practice-oriented prescriptive writing. Most lacked empirical or theoretical grounding (although agency theory was implicit in much due to its relevance to legal accountability). The board typically was the unit of analysis for this era, and much research conceived of boards as boundary-spanning entities functioning in both environment and organization. The focus was largely on intra-board practices, including linkages among board composition, decision-making, and board and member power in organization-community dynamics. Also addressed were board–management relationships, which Middleton famously characterized as “strange loops and tangled hierarchies” (p. 149)—a phrase that continues to ring true! The theoretical bases of this early era work generally were agency theory and resource dependence theory (given the focus on organization–environment boundary-spanning and environmental uncertainty).

The Field Gains Traction: The 1990s and Early 2000s

Nonprofit governance research began to gain momentum in important ways in the 1990s and the early 2000s, with growing enthusiasm for deepening the research. Both Ostrower and Stone (2006) and Saidel (2002) report in their reviews that boards of unitary organizations were the usual focus of the era, especially the internal characteristics of boards and how they work. In spite of recognition of heterogeneity among boards, most studies still took a “one size fits all” orientation that lacked attention to context or variation in structure. Both reviews highlight that the research focused largely on board and member roles and responsibilities, especially the nature and implications of board composition, as well as board capacity and development, the complexity of the board–executive relationship, and the relationship between board effectiveness and organizational effectiveness. In spite of the launch of a major initiative to identify new and more effective ways for boards to function (i.e., the “Governance Futures: New Perspectives on Nonprofit Governance” project), no fundamentally new approaches to governance were identified (Chait et al., 2004). Chait and colleagues did reconceptualize governance and underscored how board composition could affect board focus, role performance, and decision tendencies. And several studies of this era affirmed the generally positive relationship between board effectiveness and organizational effectiveness, but without establishing any direct causal relationship one way or another (Saidel, 2002, p. 75). The research of this era typically employed cross-sectional designs (essentially none employed a longitudinal approach) and most relied on small relatively homogeneous samples of organizations’ boards that did not reflect the full variation in the sector. Notably, in 2005, Ostrower conducted the only representative sample study ever of the boards of registered U.S. public charities; her findings addressed board structure and composition, board practices and performance, and the impact of executive professionalization on board performance (Ostrower, 2007).

Nonprofit Governance in a Time of Major Public Sector Change: The Mid- to Late-2000s

The key reviews of this era (Cornforth, 2012, and Stone & Ostrower, 2007) highlight two particular streams of the research developing through the 2000s. One stream, as Cornforth explains, extended the work of the prior era, with its focus on board composition, board roles and responsibilities, board–staff (especially chief executive) relations, and board effectiveness. However, a second and exceptionally significant stream of inquiry emerged concurrent with and fueled by the impact of extensive changes to government functioning due to the “New Public Management” (NPM) movement. NPM advocated dramatic changes in government roles, resulting in a “hollowing out of the state” that forced many nonprofits to assume increasingly instrumental roles and relationships with government as they took responsibility for delivery of front-line services previously the work of governmental agencies. The studies of this stream of inquiry explored NPM’s implications for board and organizational performance, including for governance structures and board characteristics, as well as how systems of governance related to stakeholders and accountability (Cornforth, 2012).

Stone and Ostrower (2007), in a hybrid assessment of both nonprofit and public governance literature, exhorted nonprofit researchers to examine these dynamics and consider the implications of public sector governance research for nonprofits. While nonprofit governance research of the era focused on board composition, board–staff relations, and the board effectiveness–organizational effectiveness relationship, the public governance research focused more on the relationship between governance and accountability and performance, governance as a nested or multi-layered concept (i.e., governance occurring at several interrelated levels of analysis, involving multiple actors), and both the formal and informal authority relationships inside and outside public hierarchies (Stone & Ostrower, 2007, p. 424). Noteworthy for this era, as well, was Jegers’ (2009) review of how well and in what ways the empirical and theoretical literature of economics (especially of corporate governance) related to nonprofit governance. This became a small but substantive line of inquiry; his review helped set the stage for further exploration of how economics could contribute to the understanding of nonprofit governance.

While lamenting continued reliance on a narrow set of dominant designs and research methodologies, Cornforth (2012) acknowledged the research of the era included a growing stream of theoretical, conceptual and review articles employing a greater range of theories and increased interest in a (basic but useful) contingency orientation (p. 1127)—a harbinger of productive work to come.

The Field Gains Substantial Breadth and Depth: The 2000s

Nonprofit governance research grew and developed substantially in the 2000s, as multiple reviews from across the world documented, and the field more fully explored, a substantially wider range of topics using a similarly wide range of theoretical perspectives and research approaches. Renz and Andersson (2014) report research had developed considerably, looking beyond the basics of intra-board demographics and structural characteristics to explore the larger systems and processes of governance (even, to a degree, looking beyond unitary organizations) and how these change over time. They found the field engaged most of the levels and units of analysis relevant to the governance process.

This also is the era in which systematic reviews began to more carefully and narrowly differentiate the general domain of nonprofit governance, and many focused more narrowly within the domain of nonprofit organizations. Shcoenberg et al. (2016), for example, presented a definitive review of studies of intragroup dynamics in nonprofit sport organization boards. Moi et al. (2014) engaged in a systematic review of the literature in which they examined 68 studies to compare studies of nonprofit and corporate (for-profit) sector boards. They found about 70% of these studies examined North American nonprofits (vs. 12% European and 13% Australian [p. 140]), and employing Gabrielsson and Huse’s (2004) framework to categorize study types, they summarized Input/Output Studies (13% of studies), Contingency (external context) Studies (18%), Behavioral Studies (behavior, decision-making, and relationships within and outside the board—about 65%), and Evolutionary Studies (linking contingency and behavioral characteristics to explain change processes—but only about 4%). They found nonprofit studies tended to emphasize the behavioral orientation (versus corporate studies, which tended to employ an Input/Output orientation). And in an extensive systematic review of 110 studies from 17 nations, Wellens and Jegers (2014) employed a stakeholder theory orientation to distill insights on the relationship between nonprofit governance effectiveness and stakeholder expectations.

Multiple studies of this era examined the relationship of context and governance, and reviews began to highlight how researchers (notably, Bradshaw, 2009; Ostrower & Stone, 2010) developed contingency frameworks to explain variations in governance structures and practices, including how and why they vary, and how they are influenced by (as well as exercise influence over) contextual factors (both environmental and internal). While often more implicit than explicit, a notable share of the research of this era focused explicitly on governance in nonprofit charities (e.g., Callen et al., 2010; Herman & Renz, 2000, 2004).

Furthermore, as encouraged by earlier writers (e.g., Cornforth, 2012; Hambrick et al., 2008), researchers of this era began to exhibit greater interest in the behavioral structures and processes as they began to more deeply explore the “black box” of nonformal interactions and dynamics and how they impact governance. Exemplary of the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological breadth that coalesced during this era is the volume on nonprofit governance edited by Cornforth and Brown (Cornforth, 2014). The Renz and Andersson (2014) review itself served as a foundational chapter, but the book as a whole quite comprehensively reflected the state of the field in 2014, with greater differentiation of charities from other nonprofit forms.

To support its expansion in focus during this era, the field employed a broader array of theories and perspectives. Looking beyond the mainstream theories (resource dependence, institutional, stewardship, stakeholder and, especially, agency theories), the field increasingly employed

This breadth of theoretical orientations both encouraged and demanded the use of a wider range of research approaches and methods as well.

Enriching the Depth and Breadth of the Field: 2010 to 2020

Nonprofit governance research continued to grow dramatically in the 2010s, resulting in a substantially larger number of governance articles (in an expanding field of nonprofit journals) than ever before. Furthermore, as chronicled by Van Puyvelde (2016), this literature reflected exceptional growth in the mix of empirical and conceptual articles; with empirical articles employing (a) qualitative methods, such as case studies, discourse analysis, or grounded theory; (b) quantitative methods, such as regression analysis, network analysis, or discrete choice experiments; or (c) mixed-methods approaches combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Importantly, while still limited, this era of nonprofit governance research produced a noteworthy number of studies from around the world (including analysts from and writing about governance systems in indigenous and marginalized settings; Van Puyvelde, 2016, p. 9).

This body of work reflected even more fully the inclusion of and (often) a synthesis of an increasingly broad array of theoretical perspectives, from long-standing governance-linked theories (i.e., agency, stakeholder, stewardship, resource dependence, and institutional theories) to a growing number of management, organization, sociological, and psychological theories. Illustrative of this, Van Puyvelde’s (2016) article reviewed an extensive body of “regular” nonprofit governance research (albeit limited to consideration of governance of unitary organizations), but, further, it expanded our understanding by synthesizing governance studies with perspectives rarely employed in nonprofit governance research. Using a multi-theoretical approach that articulated and analyzed the ambiguities, paradoxes, and dilemmas associated with the existing mélange of theories, he offers a more inclusive theory-based framework for nonprofit governance than had been available to date. While highlighting paradoxical concerns and competing theoretical conceptions, he advocates (consistent with Cornforth, 2014) that the field not seek to reconcile divergent theoretical frameworks, instead suggesting they can permanently co-exist—each valued for its utility in understanding one or more specific dimensions of nonprofit governance (Van Puyvelde, 2016, p. 38).

From the vantage point of 2022, we recognize the field has benefited greatly from the increasingly integrative and inclusive orientation of numerous wide-ranging and unique reviews. Drawing on studies from across the world, especially Europe, Australia, and North America, and employing a wide range of theoretical and disciplinary perspectives, these reviews illustrated that our research had become much more multifaceted and nuanced, with the complexity we are learning is essential to truly understanding nonprofit governance (Åberg et al., 2019; Van Puyvelde, 2016). As Donnelly-Cox et al. (2021) observe, the field has come to understand governance as a multi-level phenomenon; as polycentric and engaged with highly complex economic systems that extend beyond the nation-state; and as a combination of organization governance, governance in networks, and systems of co-governance.

A Framework for Defining the Domain of Nonprofit Governance Research

The framework we find useful to describe and assess the state of the field builds on a framework Hambrick et al. (2008) employed in a special corporate (business) governance issue of Organization Science. Their framework was adapted from Zajac and Westphal (1998), and employs a 2 × 3 matrix to categorize research in terms of two general categories of units of analysis: macro (from the organization outward) and micro (from the organization inward), coupled with formal structure, behavioral structure, and behavioral process categories. Consistent with Hambrick et al., we define “structure” in the sociological sense, and “behavioral structure” refers to the nonformal yet recurrent or patterned practices and arrangements that guide or influence (and limit) the choices and opportunities available to actors in the system. “Process” refers to the non-patterned behaviors and dynamics (actions and responses) exhibited in the system.

We find the categories of formal and behavioral structures and processes useful. But we also consider it important, at this stage in the development of the field, to bring more nuance to the macro–micro dichotomy. Thus, we elaborated the Hambrick et al. framework to identify five distinct levels of analysis:

The result, with examples for each cell, is presented as Figure 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

A framework for categorizing research on nonprofit governance (adapted from Hambrick et al., 2008).

The framework is a useful heuristic tool that helps us more fully identify and classify research activity and determine which areas of nonprofit governance have received relatively greater attention and which have received little or none. It is important to note that, while the framework depicts levels and categories as discrete, studies often bridge categories and engage multiple levels of analysis. Indeed, many contemporary studies regularly do so, with much value (e.g., studies of board relations with individual executives such as CEOs). The next section uses the level of analysis in Figure 1 to organize our discussion of the current state of nonprofit governance. The discussion is informed by the reviews discussed earlier, augmented with examples from the literature we find illustrative of each level.

Key Themes in Research on Individual Actors

There is a long-standing recognition that we need to better understand the behavior of individual actors, including board members, officers, and executive leaders (Heemskerk et al., 2015; Van Ees et al., 2009) in regard to task engagement and fulfillment. This stream of research recognizes the individual is embedded in a group, which operates within an organization (Nicholson et al., 2012), and seeks to understand the factors (individual, interpersonal, group, and organizational) that explain and predict behavior of individuals and in particular the tendency of board members to fulfill governance tasks. As reflected in Figure 1, it is important to consider formal structures as well as behavioral processes to explain behavior. A recurring theme in governance reviews (e.g., Moi et al., 2014) has been the need to do more to unpack the “black box” of board processes to understand factors that influence individual participation and engagement. The motivation comes from assertions that weak, ineffectual, or unethical behavior of governance actors is the root of many organizational failures (Smallman et al., 2010). Furthermore, group-level concerns include the potential for collective ignorance (Westphal & Bednar, 2005), a tendency to withhold information that can result in sunk cost decision-making (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Sleesman et al., 2012), and overall lack of task fulfillment by board members.

Structural research considers questions of how to ensure the appropriate information and resources are available at the right time and to the right decision-makers (Cronin et al., 2011). This includes meeting management practices, agenda setting, committee reporting practices, and clarity of decision authority among committees, boards, and staff (Useem, 2006). There is a body of work that examines how group composition influences individual behavior. For instance, female directors (notwithstanding their minority status in many boardrooms) may exert an influence on the actions of other directors (Boutchkova et al., 2021). Also, clarity regarding board members’ roles and responsibilities is important (Bernstein et al., 2015); role ambiguity contributes to significant variance in board member performance as it influences how and what board members perceive as their responsibilities and, hence, their propensity to exert effort (Brown, 2014; Doherty & Hoye, 2011). Furthermore, director interactions change with the nature of board governance tasks confronted (Pugliese et al., 2015).

The capacity of individuals to fulfill governance roles has received a fair amount of research attention (Engle & Brown, 2019). It is recognized that board members must have the time, skills and experience to do the job (Cornforth, 2001). Balduck et al. (2010) found that cognitive (e.g., long-term vision, professionalism), emotional (e.g., being reliable, being honest), and social intelligence (e.g., listening to others, are nice to be with) are necessary to be perceived as an outstanding board member. Fundamentally, the gap between board task needs and board task performance is often explained by board demographic characteristics (Huybrechts et al., 2016). Research supports that training (Millesen & Carman, 2019), feedback (Harrison & Murray, 2015), and formal structures can foster individual engagement and performance (Jonnergård & Stafsudd, 2011).

An increasing number of studies consider how behavioral factors influence individual task engagement and performance. Van Puyvelde (2016) explores these ideas and synthesizes findings from several studies to summarize what we know and suggests theoretical approaches for future research. Studies consider a number issues, including: one’s sense of safety and trust among members (Huse & Zattoni, 2008; Nicholson et al., 2012), group norms about participation and conflict (Abd Kadir et al., 2018), cohesion among group members (Schoenberg et al., 2016), shared mental models (Solansky et al., 2008), individual commitment to the organization and governance functions (Minichilli et al., 2009), and power dynamics and structural features regarding informal group patterns such as coalitions and fault lines (Barroso-Castro et al., 2020). Task-related fault lines on boards can have strong negative effect on participation (Kaczmarek et al., 2011).

Implicit is the role of leaders, paid staff and volunteer, and how they create the climate and opportunity for individuals to participate (Guerrero et al., 2014). This includes effective facilitation that allows appropriate conflict while managing dominant members. The complex nature of intragroup conflict demonstrates the need to identify intensity in task, processes, and relationship conflict (Kerwin et al., 2011). Conflict can be both functional and dysfunctional and effective leadership creates an opportunity to draw in individual perspectives while building consensus (Willems et al., 2017). Group norms regarding conflict and effort are important to the quality of group decision-making processes as well as tendency for groupthink (Postmes et al., 2001). Many recent studies have focused on the role of board chair, including their relationships with executives and the board (Iecovich & Bar-Mor, 2007), and they generally confirm the impact of chairs is highly variable. Chair effectiveness is substantially a function of interpersonal and leadership skills, and chair level of engagement with members impacts perceived satisfaction with the chair’s performance (Harrison et al., 2013).

Research on group and board member identities (Ashforth et al., 2011; Hillman et al., 2008) suggests that the way board members perceive themselves influences their propensity to participate and engage (Beck, 2014). This includes role identity which refers to the conceptions of ourselves in relation to the roles that we fulfill (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Research shows how organizational identity (the members’ shared beliefs about the central, enduring, and distinctive characteristics of the organization) influences the construction and enactment of the director’s role and shapes interactions among board members and managers (Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997). Motivations for service and how those individual motivations interact with group members is also an area of potential exploration (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Inglis & Cleave, 2006). One study found three individual drivers (need for achievement, need for identification, and self-serving motivation) moderate the relationship between pro-organizational motivation and cooperation and engagement in board roles (Guerrero & Seguin, 2012). Understanding behavior involves a complex inter-play of multiple factors such personalities, abilities, motivations, and supportive structures (Schoenberg et al., 2016; Trost et al., 2016).

Key Themes of Research on Boards and Analogous Governance Entities

A substantial share of nonprofit governance research has, of course, focused explicitly on governing boards and analogous governance entities, and this work has developed substantially in nuance and sophistication over time. That said, prior studies have focused largely on unitary nonprofits, especially the larger and more affluent, and this limits our understanding of the overall domain of nonprofit governing boards. We also have not to any significant degree undertaken longitudinal research; the best approximation we have achieved is a few repeated surveys of boards (e.g., BoardSource, 2017). Unfortunately, we still know quite little about boards of smaller and community-based organizations, as well as multi-tiered and non-unitary organizations, and we are still in the early stages of understanding boards of nonprofits outside of North America, Europe, and Australia—although there has been notable growth in studies from around the globe (Renz & Andersson, 2014; Van Puyvelde, 2016). The following sections highlight the state of our understanding with regard to composition, roles, practices, performance, and the development of nonprofit boards and governance.

Key Themes in Organization-Level Governance Research

Organization-level governance studies generally bridge levels of analysis, especially the governing entity level and the organizational level, but studies also have examined the individual (board member) and organization levels. There is extensive evidence of an important and positive relationship between board effectiveness and organizational effectiveness, although only Jackson and Holland (1998) document a causal link between board performance and organizational effectiveness. There is broader evidence of a linkage between perceptions of board performance and perceptions of organizational performance (many studies have used perceptions of chief executives and perceptions of board chairs and/or board members). Green and Griesinger (1996) reported board activities that strongly correlated with organizational effectiveness included policy formation, strategic planning, program monitoring, financial planning and control, resource development, board development, and dispute resolution. The Du Bois et al. (2007) review examined this from a different perspective by categorizing studies in terms of whether they considered board effectiveness or organization effectiveness to be the dependent variable; on balance, they concluded, the evidence in support of claiming causality in one direction or the other was equivocal and therefore no firm empirical basis affirms either. Renz and Andersson (2014, pp. 32–33) identified a number of studies that documented a positive relationship, but their designs lacked the capacity to assess causality (i.e., do effective boards lead to effective organizations, or vice versa, or both?).

Several studies from across the world suggest a relationship between board composition and organizational performance, including between donors on boards or finance committees and organizational efficiency (Callen et al., 2010; Jegers, 2009) and board characteristics (size, membership, and committee structure) and efficiency (Andres-Alonso et al., 2006). The relationship between boards and executives also is relevant (e.g., Kreutzer & Jacobs, 2011).

Another area of study considers the impact of various actors inside and outside nonprofit organizations, and how such actors relate to issues of control, accountability, power, strategy, efficiency, and performance. These actors have been given different labels—such as principals, agents, stakeholders, and claimants—and examined using a variety of theoretical lenses, including agency, stakeholder, institutional, and resource dependency theories (Renz & Andersson, 2014; Van Puyvelde, 2016). The emphasis on inside and outside actors has contributed to greater understanding and appreciation of governance beyond boards. Studies of the plurality of governance actors also have increased appreciation for the wider governance system and the more complex governance structures of many nonprofits (e.g., Freiwirth, 2014).

A third theme of prominence advocates a contingency approach to understanding nonprofit governance (Bradshaw, 2009). Ostrower and Stone (2010) reported relationships among internal organizational characteristics, board attributes, external organization environment, and board roles and responsibilities, and argue nonprofit scholars therefore should approach governance as a “conditional phenomenon” (different governance features are influenced by different contingencies and the same contingency may in some cases affect the same governance elements differently) (p. 919).

Key Themes of the Research on the Networks and Alliances Level

Nonprofits have for decades been active in interorganizational relationships but, in recent years, we have seen significant growth in the number and complexity of these relationships (Renz, 2020). This growth has spurred some researchers to examine the unique governance needs and dynamics of these networks and alliances. In fact, in such cases, the network itself is the organization to study (Bradshaw & Toubiana, 2014; Stone et al., 2010). The “network as organization” perspective both informs and challenges our efforts to understand governance in different and sometimes complementary organizational forms because, while alliances and networks usually have individual organizations as members, they also require their own system of governance apart from the organizational level. Provan and Kenis (2008), arguing for examination of the network and its governance as a discrete level and unit of analysis, document a relationship between governance and network effectiveness and identify four key factors that influence a network’s form of governance (trust, number of participants, degree of goal consensus, and need for network-level competencies), and highlight three fundamental tensions of network governance (efficiency versus inclusion, internal versus external legitimacy, and flexibility versus stability).

Importantly, these networks often are hybrids of nonprofit and government (and even business) entities, with implications similar to those noted earlier. In their review, Bryson et al. (2015) offer a very comprehensive discussion of governance in nonprofit-public sector networks, identify four elements are key to governance and network success (external environment, governance structure, governance processes, and governance interactions), and report that contingencies likely to influence governance are network focus, partner power balance, and variation among members’ institutional logics—and highlight the challenge of competing logics because “actions, processes, norms and structures that are seen as legitimate from the vantage point of one institutional logic may be seen as less legitimate or even illegitimate from the perspective of another logic” (p. 50).

Key Themes of the Research on the Ecosystem Level

The ecosystem level seeks to identify and understand how industry trends and societal forces impact governance of nonprofit organizations. Renz and Andersson (2014) recognize in their review the need for a more explicit, nuanced, and sophisticated contingency perspective that recognizes operating context. As noted in the earlier discussion of organizational level, Ostrower and Stone (2010) reported relationships among internal organizational characteristics, board attributes, external organization environment, and board roles and responsibilities and highlighted that external factors (e.g., legal, institutional, and funding environments) and internal factors (e.g., age, size, degree of professionalization, life stage) are key contingency factors. Thus, they consider governance a “conditional phenomenon” in which different governance features are influenced by different contingencies and, in some cases, the same contingency may affect the same governance elements differently (p. 919). Similarly, Van Puyvelde (2016) recognized research that explored the importance of environmental dependence and how those concerns are related to organizational survival, organizational legitimacy, and social capital. Indeed, these are integral to the orientation of population ecology, such as addressed by Bielefeld and Andersson (2021) in their discussion of relationship between nonprofit governance and organizations’ environments.

Work to understand the theoretical assumptions and approaches used in governance research could be included as well. Many critical theoretical perspectives relate to work at this level; for example, Coule (2015) provides a critique regarding the assumptions of accountability mechanisms. They argue that expressive, values-based accountability is seen as a source of legitimacy and can produce complex relationships, which challenge the instrumental orientation that principal-agent theory assumes. This critique challenges societal assumptions regarding governance functions and seeks to explore alternative narratives that explain function and dysfunction in governance practices. Explaining the socio-political narratives on nonprofit and charity governance may provide insight into practices carried out by the organizational population, as a whole, or within various subareas (arts organizations, foundations, etc.). This provides an important area of research that moves beyond individual organizational practices to understand variation across types and regions.

Some research considers how mission category affects governance practices across the levels of analysis presented in the framework. Findings about individuals and structures in a governance system may be very different depending on whether the organization’s mission is health care, or arts, or human services. An interesting example is a review that focuses specifically on a particular mission area. Schoenberg et al. (2016) studied intragroup dynamics, but with a very specific focus on nonprofit sport organizations. While some of their findings are instructive for all nonprofits, there likely are variations that we will not differentiate until comparable reviews are conducted with regard to nonprofits in other mission categories.

In addition, governmental context (i.e., variations in laws of different nations and states) is certainly likely to be associated with certain differences found at each level of analysis. This is especially relevant to the differentiation of charities from other nonprofit forms. This also can extend to consideration of the roles of nonprofits in public governance (e.g., Zimmer & Smith, 2021). And Stone and Ostrower (2007) compare and contrast nonprofit governance with broader concepts of public governance and conclude that incorporating a broader public governance perspective could help enrich and expand nonprofit governance research.

The Governance Research Community’s Take on Future Research

To gain insight on what those who are actively engaged with nonprofit governance research consider to be important and promising topics for future research, we invited governance research colleagues of ARNOVA ² to participate in a brief two-stage online Delphi survey process during the summer and fall of 2020. In Round 1 of the process, respondents were asked to offer from three to five responses to the question, What are the most pressing, promising, and/or new and innovative topics that scholars could or should pursue to advance the field of nonprofit board and governance research? Twenty-nine responded, identifying 108 overlapping topics. We combined and clustered similar topics to produce a list of 14 categories. For Round 2 of the process, the list of 14 categories (with listing of all topics included in each category) was sent to all people who participated in Round 1 (29 responded, although a few categories garnered 27 or 28 responses). Each was asked to rate (via online survey), on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 is very low and 10 is very high) their assessment of each of the 14 categories, with regard to two questions: (a) How pressing or important is this category for our field to address in our next generation of nonprofit governance research? and (b) How innovative and promising is this category for our field to address in our next generation of nonprofit governance research? Finally, the respondent was asked (yes or no), If we were to choose only five categories to highlight for future study, would you rank this category as one of the top five ? Mean scores were calculated for each category for each question, as was a “synergy rating” for each category (i.e., the product of the mean scores for each category, yielding a rating from 1 to 100). The top results of Round 2, ranked in order of percentage of respondents that rated each category among the top five overall, are presented in Table 3 (the complete list of all categories, topics, responses, and ratings are presented in Online Appendix C).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Summary of Delphi Process Results.

Ranked summary of rating results: Governance research Delphi process (N = 29)
Rated in top five? (%)	Research category	Pressing/important (A)(1–10)	Innovative/promising (B)(1–10)	Synergy rating (A × B)(1–100)
71	Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Nonprofit Governance	8.1	7.4	60.0
67	Nonprofit Governance Under Conditions of Disruption/Crisis	7.4	7.3	54
59	Governance of Collaboratives, Networks, Alliances	7.0	6.9	48.3
54	Alternative Models of Nonprofit Governance	6.9	7.0	48.3
46	Relationship of Nonprofit Governance to Organizational Performance and Effectiveness	7.1	5.9	41.9
38	Implications of Context for Nonprofit Governance	7.0	6.4	44.8
19	Alternative Orientations and Approaches to Nonprofit Governance Research	5.8	6.7	38.9

Note. Bolded values indicate top five rated categories for each column.

Respondents identified the following (listed in priority order) as the five most significant categories for future research:

When considered in combination, three categories were rated highly for both importance and promise: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Nonprofit Governance, Governance Under Conditions of Disruption/Crisis, and Governance of Collaboratives, Networks, and Alliances. Two categories were rated as pressing/important but somewhat less promising and innovative: Relationship of Nonprofit Governance to Organizational Performance and Effectiveness and Implications of Context for Nonprofit Governance. Rated of lesser importance yet still among the top five categories with regard to promise and innovation were Alternative Models of Nonprofit Governance and Alternative Orientations and Approaches to Governance Research (i.e., research methods)—although it should be noted that only 19% of respondents included Alternative Orientations and Approaches . . . among their top five categories.

While the categories listed above are the most highly ranked, none of the categories in our Delphi process earned a mean score of less than 5.6 (on the scale of 1–10) for either question. This may not be surprising given that all of these were identified in Round 1 as topics that would be important and/or promising, and it does suggest that all of the categories were recognized as having value in the next generation of nonprofit governance research.

Our Perspective on Future Directions for the Field

The topics identified via the Delphi survey resonate well with us and we share our respondents’ enthusiasm for them as we consider future nonprofit governance research. Given the conclusions, we draw from our use of the framework (i.e., Figure 1) and where we see gaps and opportunities, coupled with the insights generated by the Delphi process, we suggest the following additional topics and approaches are likely to be especially fruitful for future researchers to address.

Limitations

While every effort was made to identify and categorize relevant reviews for this review, and we have a high degree of confidence in the completeness of this review, there certainly are limitations and constraints that impact the results of this essay. Because this is a domain review of “mainstream” reviews, each of which inherently reflects the dominant research orientations and biases of its era, such biases inherently contribute to a bias in this essay’s observations. Furthermore, as we noted earlier, much of the early nonprofit governance research and reviews examined U.S.-based nonprofits, so our review reflects that sample bias as well. We also must acknowledge that some relevant reviews may have been overlooked as a result of our choice of search keywords, abstract contents, or the limitations of the search engines we used.

By definition, our process also was limited by sole reliance upon English-language resources—both in the use of the search engines and in the actual review of the reviews themselves—and so we have not considered reviews published in languages other than English. We consider this especially significant with regard to reviews about East Asian and certain African and South American nations. Likewise, our Delphi process for gathering and rating research topics was conducted in English, and the polled networks are those that have chosen to be affiliated or connected with either ARNOVA or one or more of the authors and their institutions. In spite of the global breadth of ARNOVA’s membership, this approach certainly has the potential to fail to include others whose opinions and insights would add substance and value.