Community Leadership and Donor-Advised Funds: Navigating Logics of Donor Services and Community Leadership in Community Foundations

Abstract

The growth of donor-advised funds provides an increasingly robust source of philanthropic capital for community foundations, but its impact on their leadership roles remains unknown. To what extent do community foundations maintain community leadership amid increasing pressure to accommodate donor wishes? Drawing on the institutional logics perspective and historical accounts, I theorize that community foundations are hybrids—they operate by combining the field-level logics of donor services and community leadership at varying degrees. Through an exploratory mixed-methods design, I analyzed the text data from annual reports and administrative data from the 990 forms of 482 community foundations. The findings reveal a positive association between the logic of donor services and leadership practices; specifically, foundations with a strong donor service logic, as indicated by the ratio of donor-advised fund (DAF)-funded grants, tend to exhibit a broader range of leadership activities. This study reveals that these logics not only coexist but may also mutually reinforce each other within the community foundation field.

Keywords

institutional logics community leadership community foundations donor-advised funds semi-automated text analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anheier

H. K.

Leat

(2018). Performance measurement in philanthropic foundations: The ambiguity of success and failure. Routledge.

Ballard

C. S.

(2007). Community foundations and community leadership (Issue 1). CFLeads and Community Foundation Leadership Team, Council on Foundations. http://www.philanthropy.org/seminars/documents/CFLeads.pdf

Barman

(2007). An institutional approach to donor control: From dyadic ties to a field-level analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1416–1457. https://open.bu.edu/bitstream/handle/2144/1221/barman-ajs-200703.pdf?sequence=1

Barman

(2017). The social bases of philanthropy. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116

Barnes

C. M.

Dang

C. T.

Leavitt

Guarana

C. L.

Uhlmann

E. L.

(2018). Archival data in micro-organizational research: A toolkit for moving to a broader set of topics. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1453–1478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315604188

Battilana

Dorado

(2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440. https://about.jstor.org/terms

Battilana

Lee

(2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing–insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615

Beaton

Macindoe

Wang

(2021). Combining nonprofit service and advocacy: Organizational structures and hybridity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 372–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020959477

Berman

L. C.

(2015). Donor advised funds in historical perspective. Forum on Philanthropy and the Public Good, 1, 5–27. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=philanthropy-forum

10.

Bernholz

Fulton

Kasper

(2005). On the brink of new promise: The future of U.S. community foundations. Blueprint Research & Design and Monitor Company Group Ltd. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/monitor-institute/us-monitor-institute-on-the-brink-of-new-promise.pdf

11.

Besharov

M. L.

Smith

W. K.

(2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431

12.

Binder

(2007). For love and money: Organizations’ creative responses to multiple environmental logics. Theory and Society, 36(6), 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11186-007-9045-X/METRICS

13.

Boesso

Cerbioni

Menini

Parbonetti

(2017). The role of the board in shaping foundations’ strategy: An empirical study. Journal of Management & Governance, 21(2), 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-016-9348-2

14.

Brown

Ferris

J. M.

(2007). Social capital and philanthropy: An analysis of the impact of social capital on individual giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293178

15.

Bushouse

B. K.

Mosley

J. E.

(2018). The intermediary roles of foundations in the policy process: Building coalitions of interest. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 7(3), 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-018-0040-6

16.

Buteau

Chaffin

Buchanan

(2014). What donors value: How community foundations can increase donor satisfaction, reveals, and future giving. www.effectivephilanthropy.org

17.

Cai

Mountford

(2022). Institutional logics analysis in higher education research. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1627–1651. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1946032

18.

Campbell

J. L.

Quincy

Osserman

Pedersen

O. K.

(2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475

19.

Carman

J. G.

(2011). Understanding evaluation in nonprofit organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 34(3), 350–377. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576340302

20.

Chakrabarti

Frye

(1382). A mixed-methods framework for analyzing text data: Integrating computational techniques with qualitative methods in demography. Demographic Research, 37, 1351–1382. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.42

21.

Community Foundation for Mississippi. (2018). 2016-2017 annual report. https://formississippi.org/annualreport/

22.

Community Foundation of the Mahoning Valley. (2017). 2016 community report. https://issuu.com/communityfoundationofmv/docs/annual_report_2016

23.

Community Foundation of Tompkins County. (2018). 2017 annual report. https://www.cftompkins.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CFT_AR_2017_FINAL_WEB_LG.pdf

24.

Community Foundations Leadership Team. (2008). Framework for community leadership by a community foundation. https://cfleads.org/what-we-do/the-framework-for-community-leadership/

25.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T.

Day

(1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings (Vol. 351). Houghton Mifflin.

26.

Coule

Patmore

(2013). Institutional logics, institutional work, and public service innovation in non-profit organizations. Public Administration, 91(4), 980–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12005

27.

Easterling

(2011). Promoting community leadership among community foundations: The role of the social capital benchmark survey. The Foundation Review, 3(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.4087/FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D-11-00022

28.

Ebrahim

(2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7

29.

Ebrahim

(2016). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In Renz

Herman

R. D.

Renz

D. O.

(Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 102–123). Wiley/Jossey-Bass; Pfeiffer Imprints Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119176558.CH4

30.

Eikenberry

A. M.

Kluver

J. D.

(2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3542607.pdf?casa_token=XboU5vJ7AnwAAAAA:9h5bNbro7Tl3LL42N1HaqWXHukRYPh8DkP-Lil_wMzYMB0XkxYOlHMo25JA4VMms6kT7UhQkQcxJM5DwJgBnFTSKpk_OMbrWlsPnaiqxypIyKtVo113o

31.

Evans

Richmond

Shields

(2017). Structuring neoliberal governance: The nonprofit sector, emerging new modes of control and the marketisation of service delivery. Policy & Society, 24(1), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(05)70050-3

32.

Evers

(2007). Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations: Changes in the governance and provision of social services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9–10), 737–748. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-200067318

33.

Feldman

M. S.

Sköldberg

Brown

R. N.

Horner

(2004). Making sense of stories: A rhetorical approach to narrative analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh010

34.

Friedland

Alford

R. R.

(1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In Powell

W. W.

DiMaggio

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–266). University of Chicago Press.

35.

Gordon

T. P.

Khumawala

S. B.

Kraut

Neely

D. G.

(2010). Five dimensions of effectiveness for nonprofit annual reports. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(2), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.20021

36.

Graddy

E. A.

Morgan

D. L.

(2006). Community foundations, organizational strategy, and public policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 605–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006289769

37.

Graddy

E. A.

Wang

(2009). Community foundation development and social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 392–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008318609

38.

Greater Houston Community Foundation. (2019). 2018 annual report.

39.

Greenwood

Raynard

Kodeih

Micelotta

E. R. L.

Lounsbury

(2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.590299

40.

Guo

Brown

W. A.

(2006). Community foundation performance: Bridging community resources and needs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006287216

41.

Hammack

D. C.

(1989). Community foundations: The delicate question of purpose. In Magat

(Ed.), An agile servant: Community leadership by community foundations (pp. 23–50). The Foundation Center.

42.

Heist

H. D.

Farwell

M. M.

Cummings

B. F.

Cnaan

R. A.

Andrews

Shamash

(2022). Understanding the donor-advised fund giving process: Insights from current DAF users. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(2), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211011248

43.

Heist

H. D.

Vance-Mcmullen

(2019). Understanding donor-advised funds: How grants flow during recessions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(5), 1066–1093. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019856118

44.

Hill

A. D.

White

M. A.

Wallace

J. C.

(2014). Unobtrusive measurement of psychological constructs in organizational research. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(2), 148–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386613505613

45.

Irvin

R. A.

Kavvas

(2020). Mission change over time in U.S. family foundations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019866513

46.

Jarzabkowski

Smets

Bednarek

Burke

Spee

(2013). Institutional ambidexterity: Leveraging institutional complexity in practice. In Lounsbury

Boxenbaum

(Eds.), Institutional logics in action, part B (Vol. 39B, pp. 37–61). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0039A

47.

Johnson

J. M.

(2016). Necessary but not sufficient: The impact of community input on grantee selection. Administration & Society, 48(1), 73–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713509241

48.

Kaefer

Roper

Sinha

(2015). A software-assisted qualitative content analysis of news articles: Example and reflections. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 16(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-16.2.2123

49.

Kerlin

J. A.

Lall

S. A.

Peng

Cui

T. S.

(2021). Institutional intermediaries as legitimizing agents for social enterprise in China and India. Public Management Review, 23(5), 731–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1865441

50.

Knutsen

W. L.

(2012). Adapted institutional logics of contemporary nonprofit organizations. Administration & Society, 44(8), 985–1013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712438371

51.

Knutsen

W. L.

Brower

R. S.

(2016). Managing expressive and instrumental accountabilities in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A qualitative investigation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 588–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009359943

52.

Kraatz

M. S.

Block

E. S.

(2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In Greenwood

Oliver

Suddaby

Sahlin

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). Sage. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228619022

53.

Krippendorff

(2004). Measuring the reliability of qualitative text analysis data. Quality and Quantity, 38(6), 787–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11135-004-8107-7

54.

Lee

(2017). Sustainability of nonprofit human service organizations in a neighborhood context. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 28(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21264

55.

Leonard

(1989). Creating community capital: Birth and growth of community foundations. In Magat

(Ed.), An agile servant: Community leadership by community foundations (pp. 89–103). The Foundation Center.

56.

Lepere-Schloop

Walk

Paarlberg

L. E.

(2024). “We expected a revolution and got a slow burn”: Microfoundations of institutional change in the community foundation field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 53(1), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640231152240

57.

Liket

K. C.

Maas

(2015). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Analysis of best practices. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 268–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013510064

58.

Lin

Yang

Demirkan

(2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science, 53(10), 1645–1658. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0712

59.

Lounsbury

(2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289–307. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20159855.pdf?casa_token=cX1-jSfUW80AAAAA:FOM_zuanE8beQpDbuFmq8FGnyuokwBUGNEzXcdBACtAAnMTxNRcGUGlSqBG1EnBwFH76ovAqASZoIqVkZOyi3TSC-3-gE8qJc1X6lMfX2addpwUOheST

60.

MacIndoe

(2022). Understanding foundation philanthropy to human service organizations: Funding stratification in an urban grants economy. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 46(3), 202–223.

61.

March

J. G.

(1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2634940?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

62.

March

J. G.

Olsen

J. P.

(2004). The logic of appropriateness. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0024

63.

McMullin

Skelcher

(2018). The impact of societal-level institutional logics on hybridity: Evidence from nonprofit organizations in England and France. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(5), 911–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-9996-8

64.

Mcpherson

C. M.

Sauder

(2013). Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213486447

65.

Millesen

J. L.

Martin

E. C.

(2014). Community foundation strategy: Doing good and the moderating effects of fear, tradition, and serendipity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 832–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013486195

66.

Moore

M. H.

(2000). Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/089976400773746391

67.

National Philanthropic Trust. (2022). 2022 donor-advised fund report. https://www.nptrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022-DAF-Report.pdf

68.

Nickel

P. M.

Eikenberry

A. M.

(2009). A critique of the discourse of marketized philanthropy. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(7), 974–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764208327670

69.

Ocasio

Radoynovska

(2016). Strategy and commitments to institutional logics: Organizational heterogeneity in business models and governance. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015625040

70.

Onishi

(2019). Venture philanthropy and practice variations: The interplay of institutional logics and organizational identities. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(2), 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018819875

71.

Ostrander

S. A.

(2007). The growth of donor control: Revisiting the social relations of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764007300386

72.

Ostrander

S. A.

Schervish

P. G.

(1990). Giving and getting: Philanthropy as social relations. In Van Til

(Ed.), Critical issues in American philanthropy: Strengthening theory and practice (pp. 67–98). Jossey-Bass. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3f2/2670622aaee85c5a73da3bac57243bcee864.pdf

73.

Paarlberg

L. E.

Lepere-Schloop

Walk

Ming

(2020). Activating community resilience: The emergence of COVID-19 funds across the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(6), 1119–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020968155

74.

Paarlberg

L. E.

Yoshioka

(2016). The impact of local economic structure on community philanthropy. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/PUAR.12442

75.

Phillips

Bird

Carlton

Rose

(2016). Knowledge as leadership, belonging as community: How Canadian community foundations are using vital signs for social change. The Foundation Review, 8(3), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1314

76.

Powell

W. W.

Bromley

(2020). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. Stanford University Press.

77.

Powell

W. W.

Horvath

Brandtner

(2016). Click and mortar: Organizations on the web. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 101–120. https://woodypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Click-and-Mortar_May30-.pdf

78.

Paarlberg

L. E.

(2022). Community diversity and donor control: An empirical analysis of contributions to donor-advised funds at community foundations. Administration & Society, 54(5), 763–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211035721

79.

Rader

D. G.

(2010). Advancing community leadership through donor engagement. www.cof.org/

80.

Reay

Hinings

C. R.

(2014). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104803

81.

Reay

Jones

(2016). Qualitatively capturing institutional logics. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015589981

82.

Reich

(2019). Just giving: Why philanthropy is failing democracy and how it can do better. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77jz8

83.

Remmer

Ruth

(2015). Foundation and donor priorities: A search for synergy in community foundations. www.tpi.org

84.

Ressler

R. W.

Fulton

B. R.

Paxton

(2024). Activity and identity: Uncovering multiple institutional logics in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 53(2), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640231164375

85.

Reynolds

(2008). The balancing act: The roles of a community foundation. https://www.mott.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/CSMFPublication03.pdf

86.

Rooney

P. M.

(2017). Have donor-advised funds and other philanthropic innovations changed the flow of giving in the United States? Nonprofit Quarterly. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/have-donor-advised-funds-and-other-philanthropic-innovations-changed-the-flow-of-giving-in-the-united-states/

87.

Rupasingha

Goetz

S. J.

Freshwater

(2006). The production of social capital in US counties. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(1), 83–101.

88.

Sacks

(2014). The growing importance of community foundations. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/6364/the_growing_importance_of_community_foundations-final_reduce_file_size_2.pdf?sequence=1

89.

Saxton

G. D.

Kuo

J.-S.

Y.-C.

(2012). The determinants of voluntary financial disclosure by nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1051–1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011427597

90.

Scott

W. R.

(2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Sage. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Institutions_and_Organizations/7Y-0bDCw_aEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Institutions+and+Organizations+Ideas+and+Interests&pg=PR7&printsec=frontcover

91.

Short

J. C.

Broberg

J. C.

Cogliser

C. C.

Brigham

K. H.

(2010). Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA): An illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 320–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109335949

92.

Souder

(2016). A review of research on nonprofit communications from mission statements to annual reports. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(1), 2709–2733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9699-y

93.

Stewart

A. J.

Faulk

(2014). Administrative growth and grant payouts in nonprofit foundations: Fulfilling the public good amid professionalization? Public Administration Review, 74(5), 630–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/PUAR.12231

94.

Suarez

Husted

Casas

(2018). Community foundations as advocates: Social change discourse in the philanthropic sector. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 7, 206–232. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-018-0039-z

95.

Thomson

D. E.

(2023). Foundations of influence: Intervention pathways of foundation influence on city governance and policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52(5), 1260–1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221115653

96.

Thornton

P. H.

Ocasio

Lounsbury

(2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.

97.

Toepler

(2018). Toward a comparative understanding of foundations. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(13), 1956–1971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218773504

98.

Tracey

Phillips

Jarvis

(2010). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/ORSC.1090.0522

99.

Vermeulen

Minkoff

D. C.

Van Der Meer

(2016). The local embedding of community-based organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014558933

100.

Vickers

Lyon

Sepulveda

McMullin

(2017). Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing. Research Policy, 46(10), 1755–1768. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2017.08.003

101.

Williamson

A. K.

Luke

(2020). Agenda-setting and public policy in private foundations. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 11(1), 20190049. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2019-0049

102.

V. C. S.

(2021a). Community leadership as multi-dimensional capacities: A conceptual framework and preliminary findings for community foundations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 32(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21467

103.

V. C. S.

(2021b). The geography and disparities of community philanthropy: A community assessment model of needs, resources, and ecological environment. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(1), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00180-x

104.

V. C. S.

(2022). Exploring donor influence and public engagement: Computational and thematic analyses of social media messages. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 34(4), 813–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-022-00481-8

105.

V. C. S.

(2023). Beyond policy patrons: A “MADE” framework for examining public engagement efforts of philanthropic foundations on Twitter. Public Management Review, 25(3), 549–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1982328

106.

Yan

J. L. S.

Mccracken

Crowston

(2014). Semi-automatic content analysis of qualitative data. In iConference 2014 proceedings (pp. 1128–1132). iSchools. https://doi.org/10.9776/14399

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.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB