This study takes an emerging scholar perspective to reflect critically on the evolution of the nonprofit research field, applying a mixed-methods design. Study 1 evaluated the evolution of nonprofit research through comparing the topics, theories, and methods in emerging nonprofit scholars’ dissertations (n = 3,023) to that of emerging scholars’ publications in nonprofit journals (n = 390). Study 2 examined through a survey of emerging nonprofit scholars (n = 141) how forces operating within the academic system influence scholars’ early career research. Results from Study 1 document a decreasing diversity in the body of scholarship from dissertations to journal articles and Study 2 highlights challenges experienced in an early career stage. The findings call for future reflection on the level of diversity, both in terms of research approaches and the composition of our scholarly community. Maintaining diversity will arguably be an important precondition to ensure continuous knowledge advancement in the field.
AlexanderK.EntwisleD.OlsonL. (2014). The long shadow: Family background, disadvantaged urban youth, and the transition to adulthood. Russell Sage Foundation.
2.
AllisonL.ChenX.FlaniganS. T.Keyes-WilliamsJ.VasavadaT. S.SaidelJ. R. (2007). Toward doctoral education in nonprofit and philanthropic studies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4_suppl), 51S–63S.
3.
AlvessonM.GabrielY. (2013). Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity in organizational research and publications. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(2), 245–263.
4.
AlvessonM.SandbergJ. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128–152.
5.
BenoitK.WatanabeK.WangH.NultyP.ObengA.MüllerS.MatsuoA. (2018). Quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), Article 774.
6.
BerroneP.GelabertL.Massa-SaluzzoF.RousseauH. E. (2016). Understanding community dynamics in the study of grand challenges: How nonprofits, institutional actors, and the community fabric interact to influence income inequality. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1940–1964.
7.
BushouseB. K.SowaJ. E. (2012). Producing knowledge for practice: Assessing NVSQ 2000-2010. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 497–513.
8.
CarpenterH. L. (2016). Preferences for a professional doctorate in philanthropy program. The Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 6(3), 224–242.
9.
CollinsP. H. (2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.
10.
CornelissenJ. P. (2017). Preserving theoretical divergence in management research: Why the explanatory potential of qualitative research should be harnessed rather than suppressed. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 368–383.
11.
CouleT. M.DodgeJ.EikenberryA. M. (2020). Toward a typology of critical nonprofit studies: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020919807
12.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fifth edition). SAGE.
13.
da SilvaJ. A. T. (2021). The Matthew effect impacts science and academic publishing by preferentially amplifying citations, metrics and status. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5373–5377.
14.
DowneyD. B.CondronD. J. (2016). Fifty years since the coleman report rethinking the relationship between schools and inequality. Sociology of Education, 89(3), 207–220.
15.
ElderG. H.Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1–12.
16.
EllingtonR. M.FrederickR. (2010). Black high achieving undergraduate mathematics majors discuss success and persistence in mathematics. Negro Educational Review, 61(1–4), 61–84.
17.
EvansS. C.AmaroC. M.HerbertR.BlossomJ. B.RobertsM. C. (2018). “Are you gonna publish that?” Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology. PLOS ONE, 13(2), Article e0192219.
18.
GrimmerJ.StewartB. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297.
19.
JacksonS.GuerreroS.AppeS. (2014). The state of nonprofit and philanthropic studies doctoral education. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 795–811.
20.
JohnstonM. P. (2017). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(3), 619–626.
21.
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: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(1), 227–237.
22.
MaJ.KonrathS. (2018). A century of nonprofit studies: Scaling the knowledge of the field. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(6), 1139–1158.
23.
MaynardB. R.VaughnM. G.SarteschiC. M.BerglundA. H. (2014). Social work dissertation research: Contributing to scholarly discourse or the file drawer?British Journal of Social Work, 44(4), 1045–1062.
24.
MertonR. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.
25.
MinkowitzH.TwumasiA.BerrettJ. L.ChenX.StewartA. J. (2020). Checking in on the state of nonprofit scholarship: A review of recent research. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 6(2), 182–208.
26.
MorseJ. M. (2010). Simultaneous and sequential qualitative mixed method designs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 483–489.
27.
NosekB. A.SpiesJ. R.MotylM. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631.
28.
OpsomerJ.ChenA.ChangW.FoleyD. (2021). U.S. employment higher in the private sector than in the education sector for U.S.-trained doctoral scientists and engineers: Findings from the 2019 survey of doctorate recipients. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21319
29.
RayV. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53.
30.
RitchieJ.LewisJ.NichollsC. M.OrmstonR. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. SAGE.
31.
RiveraL. A. (2017). When two bodies are (not) a problem: Gender and relationship status discrimination in academic hiring. American Sociological Review, 82(6), 1111–1138.
32.
RossiterM. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341.
33.
ShierM.HandyF. (2014). Research trends in nonprofit graduate studies a growing interdisciplinary field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 812–831.
34.
SmallM. L. (2017). Someone to talk to. Oxford University Press.
35.
SmithD. H. (2013). Growth of research associations and journals in the emerging discipline of altruistics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(4), 638–656.
36.
TeddieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. SAGE.
37.
ThemudoN. S. (2009). Gender and the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 663–683.
38.
Van DalenH. P.HenkensK. (2012). Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1282–1293.
39.
WaaijerC. J.TeelkenC.WoutersP. F.van der WeijdenI. C. (2018). Competition in science: Links between publication pressure, grant pressure and the academic job market. Higher Education Policy, 31(2), 225–243.
40.
WalkM.AnderssonF. O. (2020). Where do nonprofit and civil society researchers publish? Perceptions of nonprofit journal quality. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 6(1), 79–95.
41.
WellingtonJ.NixonJ. (2005). Shaping the field: The role of academic journal editors in the construction of education as a field of study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(5), 643–655.
42.
YangL.YouF. (2020). Research trends in nonprofit graduate studies in China: An inside perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(1), 175–197.
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.
