How do nonspecialists of nonprofit practice, law, and scholarship conceptualize the third sector? This article explores the everyday meanings of nonprofit organization and action empirically by reporting on a survey-based exercise in which research participants coded statements describing qualitatively different interactions between various types of entities. The survey, drawing on Crawford and Ostrom’s grammar of institutions, allows for an examination of how lay observers make sense of the sectoral boundaries that occupy specialists’ attention. We find that research participants are less prone to code interactions consistently with the nominal sectors of the organizations presented to them and more inclined to code the interactions based on the types of actions organizations take and their rationale for those actions. We argue that understanding the everyday meaning of nonprofit has important implications for theory and practice.
BattilanaJ.LeeM. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing–insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
2.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.
BrandsenT.Van de DonkW.PuttersK. (2005). Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9–10), 749–765.
5.
BromleyP.MeyerJ. W. (2017). “They are all organizations”: The cultural roots of blurring between the nonprofit, business, and government sectors. Administration & Society, 49(7), 939–966.
6.
BuhrmesterM. D.TalaifarS.GoslingS. D. (2018). An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 149–154.
7.
ChildC.WitesmanE. M.BraudtD. B. (2015). Sector choice: How fair trade entrepreneurs choose between nonprofit and for-profit forms. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(4), 832–851.
8.
ChildC.WitesmanE. M.SpencerR. (2016). The blurring hypothesis reconsidered: How sector still matters to practitioners. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1831–1852.
9.
CoppockA.McClellanO. A. (2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research & Politics, 6(1), 2053168018822174.
10.
CowanD. (2004). Legal consciousness: Some observations. The Modern Law Review, 67(6), 928–958.
11.
CrawfordS. E. S.OstromE. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600.
12.
DeckC.JahediS. (2015). The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments. European Economic Review, 78, 97–119.
13.
DeesJ. G.AndersonB. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit. Society, 40(4), 16–27.
14.
DesimoneL. M.Le FlochK. C. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 1–22.
15.
EglestonB. L.MillerS. M.MeropolN. J. (2011). The impact of misclassification due to survey response fatigue on estimation and identifiability of treatment effects. Statistics in Medicine, 30(30), 3560–3572.
16.
EwickP.SilbeyS. S. (1991). Conformity, contestation, and resistance: An account of legal consciousness. New England Law Review, 26, 731–749.
17.
FarwellM. M.ShierM. L.HandyF. (2019). Explaining trust in Canadian charities: The influence of public perceptions of accountability, transparency, familiarity and institutional trust. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 768–782.
18.
FischerR. L.WilskerA.YoungD. R. (2011). Exploring the revenue mix of nonprofit organizations: Does it relate to publicness?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 662–681.
19.
GarfinkelH. (1988). Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. In and as of the essential quiddity of immortal ordinary society, (I of IV): An announcement of studies. Sociological Theory, 6(1), 103–109.
20.
HandyF.SetoS.WakarukA.MerseyB.MejiaA.CopelandL. (2010). The discerning consumer: Is nonprofit status a factor?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 866–883.
21.
JacksonP. M. (2006). Nonprofit risk management & contingency planning: Done in a day strategies. John Wiley.
22.
KnutsenW. L.BrockK. L. (2014). From a closed system to an open system: A parallel critical review of the intellectual trajectories of publicness and nonprofitness. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(5), 1113–1131.
23.
LouisG. (2021). Unlocking progressive corporate governance: The black and brown HDFC key. Law Review Article. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3855558
24.
MaynardD. W.ClaymanS. E. (1991). The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 17(1), 385–418.
25.
McGinnisM. D. (2011). An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop: A simple guide to a complex framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 169–183.
26.
MitchellC. E. (2016). When worlds collide: Bringing the native/indigenous transnational nonprofit leader to the conversation (Publication Number 10128131) [Doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
27.
MitchellR. K.WeaverG. R.AgleB. R.BaileyA. D.CarlsonJ. (2016). Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 252–275.
28.
MoultonS.EckerdA. (2012). Preserving the publicness of the nonprofit sector: Resources, roles, and public values. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 656–685.
29.
O’NeillM. (2009). Public confidence in charitable nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(2), 237–269.
30.
OstromE. (2009). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton university press.
31.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188.
32.
PermutS. E. (1981). Consumer perceptions of nonprofit enterprise: A comment on Hansmann. The Yale Law Journal, 90(7), 1623–1632.
33.
PutnamR. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
34.
ReiserD. B. (2010). Blended enterprise and the dual mission dilemma. Vermont Law Review, 35, 105–116.
35.
RobichauR. W.FernandezK.KraegerP. (2015). An integrated framework of inter-sectorality: Nonprofitness and its influence on society and public administration programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(3), 315–336.
SalamonL. M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government: Toward a theory of government-nonprofit relationship in the modern welfare state. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16, 30–48.
38.
SalamonL. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford University Press.
39.
SalamonL. M.SokolowskiS. W.ListR. (2004). Global civil society: An overview. In SalamonL. M.SokolowskiS. W., & Associates (Eds.), Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (Vol. 2, pp. 3–60). Kumarian Press.
40.
Sánchez-HernándezM. I.CarvalhoL.RegoC.LucasM. R.NoronhaA. (2021). Social innovation and entrepreneurship in the fourth sector. In Sánchez-HernándezM. I.CarvalhoL.RegoC.LucasM. R.NoronhaA. (Eds.), Social innovation and entrepreneurship in the fourth sector: Sustainable best-practices from across the world (pp. 1–5). Springer.
41.
SaratA. (1990). The law is all over: Power, resistance and the legal consciousness of the welfare poor. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 2, 343–379.
42.
ScottW. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). SAGE.
43.
ShankD. B. (2016). Using crowdsourcing websites for sociological research: The case of Amazon Mechanical Turk. The American Sociologist, 47(1), 47–55.
44.
SiddikiS.WeibleC. M.BasurtoX.CalanniJ. (2011). Dissecting policy designs: An application of the institutional grammar tool. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 79–103.
45.
SilbeyS. S. (2005). After legal consciousness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 323–368.
46.
SkelcherC.SmithS. R. (2015). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433–448.
47.
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.
48.
SteinbergR. (2006). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In PowellW. W.SteinbergR. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 117–139). Yale University Press.
WitesmanE. M. (2016). An institutional theory of the nonprofit: Toll goods and voluntary action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 97S–115S.
51.
YoungD. R. (1983). If not for profit, for what? A behavioral theory of the nonprofit sector based on entrepreneurship. Lexington Books.
52.
ZolinR.KroppF. (2008). Public or private by genetics or design? A case study of organizational design decisions for new public ventures. International Public Management Review, 9(1), 130–147.
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.
