Grassroots associations (GAs) are the “keepers” of collective local knowledge yet uncovering that local knowledge remains challenging for nonprofit researchers. In this study, we propose the utility of reflexivity for nonprofit scholars conducting research aimed at accessing local knowledge within GAs and illustrate its use in practice through collaborative autoethnography (CAE). From block clubs to mutual aid groups, grassroots associations provide a space for members to come together, share insights, build community, and are important repositories of local knowledge. However, GAs remain the “dark matter” of the nonprofit sector—understudied and undertheorized. We discuss the difficulties nonprofit researchers face in accessing the local knowledge of resident within grassroots associations. We then present our CAE methodology and conclude by recommending that scholars interested in accessing local knowledge engage in reflexive praxis attuned to power and positionality. This study contributes to expanding our work with and knowledge of grassroots associations within nonprofit studies.
AlvarezR.VasquezE.MayorgaC.FeasterD.MitraniV. (2006). Increasing minority research participation through community organization outreach. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 28(5), 541–560.
2.
BarberK.HaneyT. J. (2016). The experiential gap in disaster research: Feminist epistemology and the contribution of local affected researchers. Sociological Spectrum, 36(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2015.1086287
3.
BarbourR.SchostakJ. (2005). Interviewing and focus groups. In SomekhB.LewinC. (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 41–48). Sage.
4.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
5.
BrodkeyL. (1996). I Site. -An essay from a personal narrative that the author has written about herself as a writer and reader. Open Letter: Australian Journal for Adult Literacy Research and Practice, 6(2), 17–30. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.970909191
6.
ChangH. (2013). Individual and collaborative autoethnography as method: A social scientist’s perspective. In AdamsE.JonesS.EllisC. (Eds.), Handbook of autoethnography (pp. 107–122). Routledge.
7.
ChangH.NgunjiriF.HernandezK. A. C. (2016). Collaborative autoethnography. Routledge.
8.
ChenK. K.LuneH.QueenE. L. (2013). How values shape and are shaped by nonprofit and voluntary organizations: The current state of the field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(5), 856–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013480273
9.
ChetkovichC. A.KunreutherF. (2006). From the ground up: Grassroots organizations making social change. ILR Press/Cornell University Press.
10.
CnaanR.MilofskyC.HunterA. (2007). Introduction: Creating a frame for understanding local organizations. In CnaanR.MilofskyC. (Eds.), Handbook of community movements and local organizations in the 21st century (pp. 1–19). Springer.
11.
CohenR. L. (2015). Towards a quantitative feminist sociology: The possibilities of a methodological oxymoron. In McKieL.RyanL. (Eds.), An end to the crisis of empirical sociology? Trends and challenges in social research. sociological futures (pp. 117–135). Routledge.
12.
CollettC. (2023). The hustle: How struggling to access elites for qualitative interviews alters research and the researcher. Qualitative Inquiry, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231188054
13.
ColwellM. A. C. (1997). The potential for bias when research on voluntary associations is limited to 501(c)3 organizations (Nonprofit Sector Research Fund Working Paper Series). Aspen Institute.
14.
ContiJ. A.O’NeilM. (2007). Studying power: Qualitative methods and the global elite. Qualitative Research, 7(1), 63–82.
15.
CorburnJ. (2003). Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making: Improving urban planning for communities at risk. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), 420–433.
16.
CramerK. J.ToffB. (2017). The fact of experience: Rethinking political knowledge and civic competence. Perspectives on Politics, 15(3), 754–770.
17.
CrichlowW.FaulknerE.LeachK. (2021). LGBTQ access to mental health services. In MullingsD. V.ClarkeJ.BernardW. T.EsteD.GiwaS. (Eds.), Africentric social work (pp. 184–198). Fernwood.
18.
DanleyS. (2018a). Community elites or community elitism? The democratic challenge of empowering community. In CnaanR.MilofskyC. (Eds.), Handbook of community movements and local organizations in the 21st century (pp. 79–94). Springer.
19.
DanleyS. (2018b). Pragmatic urban protest: How oppression leads to parochial resistance. Sociological Research Online, 23(2), 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780418757538
20.
DanleyS.BlessettB. (2022). Nonprofit segregation: The exclusion and impact of white nonprofit networks. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(3), 507–526.
21.
DeanJ. (2017). Doing reflexivity: An introduction. Policy Press.
22.
DeanJ.WileyK. (2022). Critical theory, qualitative methods and the non-profit and voluntary sector: An introduction to the special issue. Voluntary Sector Review, 13(1), 11–17.
23.
EliasophN. (2009). Top-down civic projects are not grassroots associations: How the differences matter in everyday life. Voluntas, 20(3), 291–308.
24.
Ellard-GrayA.JeffreyN. K.ChoubakM.CrannS. E. (2015). Finding the hidden participant: Solutions for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5), 1–10.
25.
EllisC.AdamsT. E. (2014). The purposes, practices, and principles of autoethnographic research. In LeavyP. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 254–276). Oxford University Press.
26.
EmirbayerM.DesmondM. (2012). Race and reflexivity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(4), 574–599.
27.
EnglandK. V. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80–89.
28.
GaileyJ. A.ProhaskaA. (2011). Power and gender negotiations during interviews with men about sex and sexually degrading practices. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 365–380.
29.
GinwrightS. A. (2007). Black youth activism and the role of critical social capital in Black community organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207306068
30.
GleesonS.BloemraadI. (2013). Assessing the scope of immigrant organizations: Official undercounts and actual underrepresentation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 346–370.
31.
HarrisM. (2001). The place of self and reflexivity in third sector scholarship: An exploration. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(4), 747–760.
32.
HerodA. (1999). Reflections on interviewing foreign elites: Praxis, positionality, validity, and the cult of the insider. Geoforum, 30(4), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00024-X
LeachK. A. (2018). Cross-sector community partnerships and the growing importance of high-capacity nonprofits in urban governance: A case study of Camden, New Jersey. In NickelsA. E.RiveraJ. D. (Eds.), Community development and public administration theory (pp. 211–28). Routledge.
35.
LeRouxK. (2009). The effects of descriptive representation on nonprofits’ civic intermediary roles: A test of the “racial mismatch” hypothesis in the social services sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(5), 741–760.
36.
LokotM. (2021). Whose voices? Whose knowledge? A feminist analysis of the value of key informant interviews. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920948775
37.
MaherF.TetreaultM. K. (2001). The feminist classroom: Dynamics of gender, race, and privilege. Rowman & Littlefield.
38.
MaréchalG. (2010). Autoethnography. In MillsA. J.DureposG.WiebeE. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 2, pp. 43–45). Sage.
39.
MarxM. (2002). Invisibility, interviewing, and power: A researcher’s dilemma. Resources for Feminist Research, 28(3–4), 131–154.
40.
McDougleL. (2015). The accuracy of the core files for studying nonprofit location: How many nonprofits are there?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(3), 609–624.
41.
McKinnonR. (2017). Allies behaving badly: Gaslighting as epistemic injustice. In PohlhausG.Jr.KiddI. J.MedinaJ. (Eds.), Routledge handbook on epistemic injustice (pp. 243–253). Routledge.
42.
MeyerS. J.DaleE. J.WillisK. K. M. (2022). “Where my gays at?” The status of LGBTQ people and queer theory in nonprofit research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(3), 566–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211021497
MilofskyC. (2018). Systemic theories of associations: Macro and meso approaches. In CnaanR.MilofskyC. (Eds.), Handbook of community movements and local organizations in the 21st century (pp. 109–125). Springer.
45.
MuhammadM.WallersteinN.SussmanA.AvilaM.BeloneL.DuranB. (2015). Reflections on researcher identity and power: The impact of positionality on community based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1045–1063.
46.
NickelsA. E.ClarkA. (2019). Framing the flint water crisis: Interrogating local nonprofit sector responses. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 41(3), 200–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1621653
O’NeillM. (1994). Philanthropic dimensions of mutual benefit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764094231002
49.
OnwuegbuzieA.LeechN.CollinsK. (2008). Interviewing the interpretive researcher: A method for addressing the crises of representation, legitimation, and praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4), 1–17.
50.
PillowW. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196.
51.
RiveraJ. D.NickelsA. E. (2014). Social capital, community resilience, and faith-based organizations in disaster recovery: A case study of Mary queen of Vietnam catholic church. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 5(2), 178–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12050
52.
SmithD. H. (1997). Grassroots associations are important: Some theory and a review of the impact literature. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(3), 269–306.
53.
SmithD. H. (2000). Grassroots associations. Sage.
54.
SmithD. H. (2017). Differences between nonprofit agencies and membership associations. In FarazmandA. (Ed.), Global Encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance (pp. 1–9). Springer.
55.
SmithD. HStebbinsR. A. (2016). Introduction. InSmithD. H.StebbinsR. A.GrotzJ. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of volunteering, civic participation, and nonprofit associations (pp. 1–20). Springer.
56.
SolórzanoD. G.YossoT. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
57.
StaplesL. (2012). Community organizing for social justice: Grassroots groups for power. Social Work with Groups, 35(3), 287–296.
58.
StoutM. (2010). Climbing the ladder of participation: Establishing local policies for participatory practice. Public Administration and Management, 15(1), 45–97.
59.
ToeplerS. (2003). Grassroots associations versus larger nonprofits: New evidence from a community case study in arts and culture. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(2), 236–251.
60.
WellsR.AnastiT. (2020). Hybrid models for social change: Legitimacy among community based nonprofit organizations. Voluntas, 31, 1134–1147.
61.
WestmarlandN. (2001). The quantitative/qualitative debate and feminist research: A subjective view of objectivity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-2.1.974
62.
WilliamsC.WilliamsH. B. (1984). Contemporary voluntary associations in the urban Black church: The development and growth of mutual aid societies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 13(4), 19–30.
63.
YanowD. (2004). Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries. British Journal of Management, 15(Special Issue), S9–25.
64.
ZamoraS.OsujiC. (2014). Mobilizing African Americans for immigrant rights: Framing strategies in two multi-racial coalitions. Latino Studies, 12(3), 424–448.
