Tensions in the Field of Nonprofit and Philanthropic Studies

• In Event: Perspectives on the Field on Nonprofit & Philanthropic Studies

Abstract

This paper explores a central tension in the way scholars, faculty, administrators and students approach the implementation of nonprofit and philanthropic studies programs. This tension is between those who propose and advocate for a managerial, rationalist, capitalist and business centric approach (Bishop & Green, 2009; Buchanon, 2019; Blessett, Gaynor, Witt, & Alkadry, 2016; Evans et al., 2005; Jenkins & Nowell, 2010; Salm & Ordway, 2010; Zanetti & Adams, 2000). to the nonprofit enterprise and those that argue the future of the field should move toward critical theorist, radical democracy, anti-capitalist and social justice frameworks. (Mirabella & Nguyen 2019, Giridharadas, 2019, McGoey, 2015, Eikenberry, 2009; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Eikenberry & Mirabella, 2018; Graefe, 2006; Hasenfeld & Garrow, 2012; Hvenmark, 2013; Maier, Meyer,& Steinbereithner, 2016; Mirabella, 2013; Nickel & Eikenberry, 2009; Sandberg, 2013)

In general, the paper is agnostic toward either approach. Instead it centers on the various challenges that faculty, administrators and students are likely to face with the implementation of either of these broad perspectives. The goal is to articulate these challenges as trade-offs which successful programs must navigate. In addition, the paper will identify institutional and organizational factors to be considered when navigating this difficult process. Some examples follow;

As Mirabella and Nguyen (2019) advocate the move towards critical approaches in nonprofit and philanthropic education they recognize that changes in pedogogy from traditional professor centric teaching to collaborative classroom management can make students uneasy and uncomfortable. One strategy for overcoming this discomfort is to provide introductory seminars exampling where and how traditional learning approaches developed over time and clear articulation as to how non-traditional teaching approaches are required. Similarly, Mirabella and Nguyen and many other critical theorists contend that democrat and radical democratic frameworks must be placed at the center of nonprofit management education. However, a host of recent surveys and studies suggest that students are far more interested in day-to-day, practical, want to get a job skills than in experiments in radicial democracy, especially at non-elite colleges and universities. The paper will explore various ways to approach this seeming disconnect.

On the traditional managerial rationalist side, arguments are often made that society is improved when financial and managerial techniques from the business world are brought to the nonprofit endeavor (Buchanon, 2018). However, from a program manager perspective in search of scarce university resources it is often difficult to compete with better funded business school operations when the distinction between a business degree and a nonprofit degree is seen by senior administration and perspective students as non-existent (Ventriss 2010). Similarly, the rise of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise language into curriculum often ignores the “social” and collective action competent in favor of an individualistic and atomistic approach to societal problem solving (Mirabella and Ngyuen, 2019).

This paper will add a practical perspective to faculty seeking to understand how radical changes in curriculum can and will lead to challenges in program administration and management.

References
Bishop, M & Greene, M (2009) Philantropcapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World: Bloomsbury Press

Blessett, B., Gaynor, T. S., Witt, M., & Alkadry, M. G. (2016). “Counternarratives as critical perspectives in public
administration curriculum. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 38(4), 267–284.

Buchanon, P. & Walker D. (2018) Giving Done Right: Effective Philantropy and Making Every Dollar Count. Hachette Book Group

Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582–596.

Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public
Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.

Eikenberry, A. M., & Mirabella, R. M. (2018). Extreme philanthropy: Philanthrocapitalism, effective altruism, and
the discourse of neoliberalism. PS: Political Science and Politics, 51(1), 43–47.

Eikenberry, A. M., Mirabella, R. M., & Sandberg, B. (2019). Reframing nonprofit management: Democracy, inclusion and social change. Irvine, CA: Melvin and Leigh, Publishers.

Evans, B., Richmond, T., & Shields, J. (2005). Structuring neoliberal governance: The nonprofit sector, emerging
new modes of control and the marketisation of service delivery. Policy and Society, 24(1), 73–97.

Giridharadas, A. (2018) Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. Knopf

Graefe, P. (2006). Social economy policies as flanking for neoliberalism: Transnational policy solutions, emergent
contradictions, local alternatives. Policy and Society, 25(3), 69–86.

Hasenfeld, Y., & Garrow, E. E. (2012). Nonprofit human-service organizations, social rights, and advocacy in a neoliberal welfare state. Social Service Review, 86(2), 295–322.

Hvenmark, J. (2013). Business as usual? On managerialization and the adoption of the balanced scorecard in a
democratically governed civil society organization. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 35(2), 223–247.

Jenkins, P., & Nowell, B. (2010). Humanistic perspectives on the policy and praxis of disaster management:
Reflections on Freire and recovery post-Katrina. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 32(3), 431–437.

Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic
review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86.

Mirabella, R. (2013). Toward a more perfect nonprofit. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 35(1), 81–105.

Nickel, P. M., & Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). A critique of the discourse of marketized philanthropy. American
Behavioral Scientist, 52(7), 974–989.

Salm, J., & Ordway, J. L. (2010). New perspectives in public administration: A political process of education and
leadership through mediation. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 32(3), 438–444.

Sandberg, B. (2013). The road to market. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 35(1), 28–45.

Ventriss, C. (2010). The Challenge for Public Administration (and Public Policy) in an Era of Economic Crises …
or the Relevance of Cognitive Politics in a Time of Political Involution. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(3),
402–428.

Zanetti, L. A., & Adams, G. B. (2000). In service of the Leviathan: Democracy, ethics and the potential for administrative evil in the new public management. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 22(3), 534–554.

Author

• Matthew Hale, Seton Hall University