Can voluntary and nonprofit research be helpful for local community associations (CAs) seeking to respond to organizational challenges and problems? This article builds on a study of an organizational crisis in an English CA to explore this question. The events that precipitated and prolonged the crisis seemed inexplicable to outside observers. Yet the study found that much of what occurred could be explained in the light of earlier theories and research. The article concludes that voluntary and nonprofit scholarship, as well as generic organizational theories, has the potential to be helpful for community association members and activists in anticipating and responding to organizational problems. But scholars need to do more to disseminate existing research findings, to make them accessible and to adapt them to the distinctive needs and real-world problems of community associations.
AnheierA.KendallJ. (2002). Interpersonal trust and voluntary associations: Examining three approaches. British Journal of Sociology, 53, 343-363.
2.
BergB. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Pearson Education.
3.
BillisD. (1984). Welfare bureaucracies: Their design and change in response to social problems. London, England: Heinemann.
4.
BillisD. (1993). A theory of the voluntary sector. In BillisD. (Ed.), Organising public and voluntary agencies (pp. 156-171). London, England: Routledge.
5.
BillisD. (Ed.). (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
BulmerM. (1986). Neighbours: The work of Philip Abrams. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CairnsB.HarrisM.CarrollM. (2007). Action research: Professional researchers in the community. In CnaanR.MilofskyC. (Eds.), Handbook of community movements and local organizations (pp. 378-394). New York, NY: Springer.
8.
CairnsB.HutchisonR.AikenM. (2010). “It’s not what we do, it’s how we do it”: Managing the tension between service delivery and advocacy. Voluntary Sector Review, 1(2), 193-208.
9.
ChaskinR. (2003). Fostering neighborhood democracy: Legitimacy and accountability within Loosely-Coupled Systems. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 161-189.
10.
CnaanR.MilofskyC.HunterA. (2007). Introduction: Creating a frame for understanding local organizations. In CnaanR.MilofskyC. (Eds.), Handbook of community movements and local organizations (pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Springer.
11.
DiMaggioP.PowellW. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
12.
EnjolrasB.WaldahlR. H. (2010). Democratic governance and oligarchy in voluntary sport organizations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 10(2), 215-239.
13.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.
14.
GranovetterM. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.
15.
HannanT.FreemanJ. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
16.
HustinxL. (2010). I quit, therefore I am? Volunteer turnover and the politics of self-actualization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 236-255.
17.
KelemanM.BansaiP. (2002). The conventions of management research and their relevance to management practice. British Journal of Management, 13, 97-108.
18.
KnokeD.PrenskyD. (1984). What relevance do organization theories have for voluntary associations?Social Science Quarterly, 65(1), 3-20.
19.
KreutzerK.JagerU. (2011). Volunteering versus managerialism: Conflict over organizational identity in voluntary associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 634-661.
20.
LeonardR.OnyxJ. (2003). Networking through loose and strong ties: An Australian qualitative study. Voluntas, 14, 189-204.
21.
LindblomC.CohenD. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
MichelsR. (1962). Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York, NY: Free Press.
MilofskyC. (2008). Smallville: Institutionalizing community in twenty-first century America. Lebanon, NH: Tufts University Press.
25.
NettingE. (2007). Including and excluding volunteers: Challenges of managing groups that depend on donated talent. In CnaanR.MilofskyC. (Eds.), Handbook of community movements and local organizations (pp. 410-426). New York, NY: Springer.
26.
NydenP.WiewelW. (1992). Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between researcher and practitioner. The American Sociologist, 23(4), 43-55.
27.
OnyxJ.KennyS.BrownK. (2012). Active citizenship: An empirical investigation. Social Policy and Society, 11, 55-66.
28.
PaarlbergL.VardaD. (2009). Community carrying capacity: A network perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 597-613.
29.
PaikA.Navarre-JacksonL. (2011). Social networks, recruitment, and volunteering: Are social capital effects conditional on recruitment?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 476-496.
30.
ParsonsT. (1956). Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations-1. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 63-85.
31.
PutnamR. (2000). Bowling alone. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
32.
RochesterC. (2006). Making sense of volunteering: A literature review. London, England: The Commission on the Future of Volunteering.
33.
RothschildJ.LeachD. (2007). Avoid, talk or fight: Alternative cultural strategies in the battle against oligarchy in collectivist-democratic organizations. In CnaanR.MilofskyC. (Eds.), Handbook of community movements and local organizations (pp. 346-361). New York, NY: Springer.
34.
SchneiderJ. (2007). Small nonprofits and civil society: Civic engagement and social capital. In CnaanR.MilofskyC. (Eds.), Handbook of community movements and local organizations (pp. 74-88). New York, NY: Springer.
35.
SchumanC.AbramsonA. (2000). Collaborating for usable knowledge. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 11-23.
36.
SirianniC. (2009). Investing in democracy: Engaging citizens in collaborative governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.
37.
SkocpolT. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life: Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
38.
SmithD. H. (2000). Grassroots associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
SmithS. R. (in press). Accountability and the nonprofit sector. In BovensM.SchillemannsT.GoodinP. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on public accountability (pp. 339-353). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
Stadelman-StettenI.FreitagM. (2011). Making civil society work: Models of democracy and their impact on civic engagement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 526-551.
41.
TaylorM. (2011). Public policy in the community (2nd ed.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
TaylorT.MallinsonC.BlochK. (2008). “Looking for a few Good Women”: Volunteerism as an Interaction between two organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 389-410.
43.
TschirhartM. (2006). Nonprofit membership associations. In PowellW.SteinbergR. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 523-541). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
TurnerB. (2001). The erosion of citizenship. British Journal of Sociology, 52, 189-209.
45.
Van de VenA. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
46.
Van WartM. (2013). Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of leaders. Public Administration Review, 73, 553-565. doi:10.1111/puar.12069
47.
WalkerE.McCarthyJ.BaumgartnerF. (2011). Replacing members with managers? Mutualism among membership and nonmembership advocacy organizations in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1284-1337.
48.
WollebaekD.SelleP. (2002). Does participation in voluntary associations contribute to social capital? The impact of intensity. Scope and Type Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 32-61.
