Initiatives to map nonprofit organizations encompass efforts to define the boundaries of the sector and understand its scope and scale. As new technologies make it possible to digitize and analyze information in new ways, further questions about mapping civil society emerge. We integrate nonprofit scholarship, critical work on computational methods, and reflection on our experiences using machine learning to map nongovernmental organizations in Ghana, to develop a critical framework for mapping civil society in the digital age. The issues we raise about computational methods are embedded within greater concerns about the taken-for-granted assumptions in mapping civil society, and mapping as a tool to control, manage, and manipulate civil society. We are particularly attentive to the power within mapping as a mode of knowledge production.
Adjei-BamfoP.Maloreh-NyamekyeT.AhenkanA. (2019). The role of e-government in sustainable public procurement in developing countries: A systematic literature review. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 142, 189–203.
2.
AnastasopoulosL. J.WhitfordA. B. (2018). Machine learning for public administration research, with application to organizational reputation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 491–510.
3.
AppeS. (2011). Civil society mappings by government. Journal of Civil Society, 7(2), 157–178.
4.
AppeS. (2012). What about who is mapping and its implications? Comments on Brent Never’s “The case for better maps of social service provision.”Voluntas, 23(1), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-011-9189-1
5.
AppeS. (2013). Deconstructing civil society “maps” and their meanings. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 35(1), 63–80.
6.
BanksN.HulmeD.EdwardsM. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort?World Development, 66, 707–718.
7.
BawoleJ. N. (2013). Local government and NGO relations in Ghana: The paradoxes, rhetoric and the isomorphic forces. [Doctoral Thesis, The University of Manchester].
8.
BawoleJ. N. (2018). Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and social protection in Ghana. In NoyooN.BoonE. (Eds.). Indigenous social security systems in Southern and West Africa (pp. 179–196). African Sun Press (Media).
9.
BrassJ. N. (2012). Why do NGOs go where they go? Evidence from Kenya. World Development, 40(2), 387–401.
10.
BurrellJ. (2016). How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–12.
11.
ChambersS.KymlickaW. (Eds.). (2002). Alternative conceptions of civil society. Princeton University Press.
12.
Corbett-DaviesS.GoelS. (2018). The measure and mismeasure of fairness: A critical review of fair machine learning. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00023
13.
CouleT. M.DodgeJ.EikenberryA. M. (2020). Toward a typology of critical nonprofit studies: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 0899764020919807.
14.
CramptonJ. W. (2001). Maps as social constructions: Power, communication and visualization. Progress in Human Development, 25(2), 235–252.
15.
ElishM. C.BoydD. (2018). Situating methods in the magic of Big Data and AI. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 57–80.
16.
FioramontiL.KononykhinaO. (2015). Measuring the enabling environment of civil society. Voluntas, 26(2), 466–487.
17.
FriedmanB.NissenbaumH. (1996). Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14(3), 330–347.
18.
FriedmanJ.HastieT.TibshiraniR. (2001). The elements of statistical learning (Vol. 1). Springer.
19.
FrutteroA. V.GauriV. (2005). The strategic choices of NGOs: Location decisions in rural Bangladesh. Journal of Development Studies, 41(5), 759–787.
20.
FyallR.MooreM. K.GugertyM. K. (2018). Beyond NTEE codes: Opportunities to understand nonprofit activity through mission statement content coding. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4), 677–701.
21.
GaryI. (1996). Confrontation, co-operation or co-optation: NGOs and the Ghanaian state during structural adjustment. Review of African Political Economy, 23(68), 149–168.
22.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of a theory of structuration. Polity.
23.
GillbornD.WarmingtonP.DemackS. (2018). QuantCrit: Education, policy, “Big Data” and principles for a critical race theory of statistics. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 158–179.
Government of Ghana (GOG) (2008). Electronic Transactions Act 2008 (Act 772). Assembly Press: Accra.
26.
GrønbjergK. A. (1994). Using NTEE to classify non-profit organisations: An assessment of human service and regional applications. Voluntas, 5(3), 301–328.
27.
HarrisM. (2001). The place of self and reflexivity in third sector scholarship. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(4), 747–760.
28.
HeinrichV. (2005). Studying civil society across the world: Exploring the Thorny issues of conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Civil Society, 1, 211–228.
29.
JamesG.WittenD.HastieT.TibshiraniR. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning (Vol. 112). Springer.
30.
KincheloeJ.McLarenP. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 138–157). SAGE.
31.
KitchenR. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14–29.
32.
Konadu-AgyemangK. (Ed.). (2001). IMF and World Bank sponsored structural adjustment programs in Africa: Ghana’s experience, 1983-1999. Ashgate.
33.
LampkinL.RomeoS.FinninE. (2001). Introducing the nonprofit program classification system: The taxonomy we’ve been waiting for. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(4), 781–793.
34.
LePere-SchloopM. (forthcoming). Nonprofit role classification using mission descriptions and supervised machine learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). SAGE.
37.
LitofcenkoJ.KarnerD.MaierF. (2020). Methods for classifying nonprofit organizations according to their field of activity: A report on semi-automated methods based on text. Voluntas, 31(1), 227–237.
38.
MaJ. (2021). Automated coding using machine learning and remapping the US nonprofit sector: A guide and benchmark. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(3), 662–687.
39.
MerriamS. B.GrenierR. S. (Eds.). (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
40.
Musah-SuruguI. J.BawoleJ. N.AhenkanA. (2019). The “Third Sector” and climate change adaptation governance in Sub-Saharan Africa: Experience from Ghana. Voluntas, 30(2), 312–326.
41.
NdegwaS. N. (1994). Civil society and political change in Africa: The case of non-governmental organizations in Kenya. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 35(1), 19–36.
42.
NeverB. (2011). The case for better maps of social service provision: Using the Holy Cross Dispute to illustrate more effective mapping. Voluntas, 22, 174–188.
43.
NickelP. M.EikenberryA. M. (2016). Knowing and governing: The mapping of the nonprofit and voluntary sector as statecraft. Voluntas, 27(1), 392–408.
44.
O’NeilC. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.
45.
OspinaS. M.EsteveM.LeeS. (2018). Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 593–605.
46.
RebalaG.RaviA.ChuriwalaS. (2019). An introduction to machine learning. Springer.
47.
RoudebushM. M.BrudneyJ. (2012). Making policy without parameters: Obtaining data on the nonprofit sector in a local community. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 3(1), Article 2.
48.
SachikonyeL. (1993). Bearing the brunt: Labour and structural adjustment in Zimbabwe. Southern Africa Report, 8(516), 16–17.
49.
SalamonL. M.AnheierH. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector crossnationally. Voluntas, 9(3), 213–248.
50.
SalamonL. M.SokolowskiS. W. (2016). Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. Voluntas, 27(4), 1515–1545.
51.
SchwandtT. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. SAGE.
52.
ScottJ. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.
53.
SmithD. H. (1997). The rest of the nonprofit sector: Grassroots associations as the dark matter ignored in prevailing “flat earth” maps of the sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 114–131.
54.
Soteri-ProctorA.AlcockP. (2012). Micro-mapping: What lies beneath the third sector radar?Voluntary Sector Review, 3(3), 379–398.
55.
StageF. K. (2007). Answering critical questions using quantitative data. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2007(133), 5–16.
56.
TaylorR. (2002). Interpreting global civil society. Voluntas, 13(4), 339–347.
57.
VakilA. C. (2018). A return to the classification problem: Revising a framework for studying NGOs. In KellowA.Murphy-GregoryH. (Eds.). Handbook of research on NGOs (pp. 95–113). Edward Elgar.
58.
Van TilJ. (1988). Mapping the third sector: Voluntarism in a changing social economy. The Foundation Center.
59.
WilsonJ. Q.KellingG. L. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29–38.
60.
WoodD. (2010). Rethinking the power of maps. Guilford Press.
61.
WoodJ. (2016). Unintended consequences: DAC governments and shrinking civil society space in Kenya. Development in Practice, 26(5), 532–543.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
