This study examines how leading international development NGOs construct their public face of development through their social media representations of aid recipients and providers. Drawing on a critically oriented quantitative content analysis of 1037 Facebook and Twitter (now “X”) posts collected from four US-based global development NGOs, the study analyzes recurring visual and verbal patterns of representation. The findings reveal a persistent dominance of women and children depicted as passive recipients, juxtaposed against active and agentive providers, thereby reproducing colonial and gendered hierarchies between the global South and the global North. While negative imagery is largely absent, this avoidance does not resolve the ethical tensions embedded in dominant development discourses and the complex politics of NGO visibility in the digital space. The study calls for more reflexive and subversive NGO communication practices that foster equitable visibility and critically challenge the platformed politics underlying development representation in the digital age.
BellucciMManettiG (2017) Facebook as a tool for supporting dialogic accounting? Evidence from large philanthropic foundations in the United States. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal30(4): 874–905.
3.
BiccumAR (2005) Development and the ‘new’ imperialism: A reinvention of colonial discourse in DFID promotional literature. Third World Quarterly26(6): 1005–1020.
4.
BilginYKethüdaÖ (2022) Charity social media marketing and its influence on charity brand image, brand trust, and donation intention. Voluntas33: 1091–1102.
5.
BrionesRKuchBLiuB, et al. (2011) Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review37(1): 3–43.
ChouliarakiL (2010) Post-humanitarianism: Humanitarian communication beyond a politics of pity. International Journal of Cultural Studies13(2): 107–126.
8.
ChouliarakiL (2021) Victimhood: The affective politics of vulnerability. European Journal of Cultural Studies24(1): 10–27.
9.
ComfortSEHesterJB (2019) Three dimensions of social media messaging success by environmental NGOs. Environmental Communication13(3): 281–286.
10.
CooperG (2019) Reporting Humanitarian Disasters in a Social Media Age. London, UK: Routledge.
11.
CouldryN (2010) Why Voice Matter? Culture and Politics after Neoliberalism. London, UK: Sage Publications.
12.
CouldryNHeppA (2017) The Mediated Construction of Reality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
13.
DeloffreMZSchmitzHP (2019) International NGO legitimacy: Challenges and responses. In: DaviesT (ed) Routledge Handbook of NGOs and International Relations. New York, NY: Routledge, 606–620.
14.
DencikLAllanS (2017) In/visible conflicts: NGOs and the visual politics of humanitarian photography. Media, Culture and Society39(8): 1178–1193.
15.
DimitrovaDHeidenreichTGeorgievTA (2024) The relationship between humanitarian NGO communication and user engagement on Twitter. New Media & Society26(5): 2514–2534.
16.
DograN (2012) Representations of Global Poverty: Aid, Development and International NGOs. London, UK: I.B. Tauris.
17.
DongCZhangY (2024) NPOs' voice in CSR partnership: An exploratory study using topic modeling. International Journal of Business Communication6(2): 219–239.
18.
EdwardsM (2008) Have NGOs ‘made a difference?’ From Manchester to Birmingham with an elephant in the room. In: BeddingtonAHickeySMitlinD (eds) Can NGOs Make a Difference? The Challenge of Development Alternatives. London: Zed Books, 38–54.
19.
ElhosaryM (2025) Vulnerability or resilience tweets? A comparative analysis of media outlets versus non-governmental organizations visual representations of the 2023 Morocco earthquake survivors. International Communication Gazette87(3): 238–265.
20.
EnghelFDanielsonM (2019) Bad news: Seeing communication for and about development through an exposé of Swedish aid to Zambia. The Journal of International Communication25(2): 254–274.
21.
EnghelFNoske-TurnerJ (2018) Introduction. Communication in international development: Towards theorizing across hybrid practices. In: EnghelF.Noske-TurnerJ. (eds) Communication in international development: Doing good or looking good?Routledge, 1–18.
22.
EscobarA (1995) Encountering development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
FehrenbachHRodognoD (2015) A horrific photo of a drowned Syrian child”: Humanitarian photography and NGO media strategies in historical perspective. International Review of the Red Cross97(900): 1121–1155.
GuoCSaxtonGD (2018) Speaking and being heard: How nonprofit advocacy organizations gain attention on social media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly47(1): 5–26.
27.
HuntingK (2021) Critical content analysis: A methodological proposal for the incorporation of numerical data into critical/cultural media studies. Annals of the International Communication Association45(1): 39–58.
28.
IhmJ (2022) How individuals use nonprofit organizations’ social media pages: Understanding functions of and networks from individual posts for social change. Public Relations Review48: 102252.
29.
JenkinsHFordSGreenJ (2013) Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press.
30.
JoffeH (2008) The power of visual material: Persuasion, emotion and identification. Diogenes55(1): 84–93.
31.
Kim MD and Wilkins KG (2021) Representing 'development' on Instagram: Questioning 'what', 'who', and 'how' of development in digital space. The Journal of International Communication27(2): 192–214.
32.
Kim MD (2022) Advocating "refugees" for social justice: Questioning victimhood and voice in NGOs' use of Twitter. International Journal of Communciation16: 719–739.
33.
Kim MD (2025) Determinants and challenges of NGO social media communication: Explaining tensions around "looking cool" for social change. International Journal of Communication19: 1448–1467.
34.
KrippendorfK (2018) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 4th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
35.
LeeSYLimJRShiD (2022) Visually framing disasters: Humanitarian aid organizations’ use of visuals on social media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly101(3): 749–773.
36.
LewisDKanjiN (2009) Non-governmental organizations and development. London, UK: Routledge.
37.
LovejoyKSaxtonGD (2012) Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17(3): 337–353.
38.
MansellRManyozoL (2018) Introduction: The mediation of development. Development in Practice28(3): 325–331.
39.
ManzoK (2008) Imaging humanitarianism: NGO identity and the iconography of childhood. Antipode40(4): 632–657.
40.
MohantyC (1988) Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review30(1): 61–88.
41.
Moreno-CabanillasACastillero-OstioECastillo-EsparciaA (2024) Digital communication and social organizations: An evaluation of the communication strategies of the most-valued NGOs worldwide. Future Internet16(1): 26.
42.
NandyA (1983) The Intimate Enemy: The Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism. Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
43.
NikunenK (2019) Media Solidarities: Emotions, Power and Justice in the Digital Age. London, UK: Sage Publications.
44.
Nonprofit Tech for Good (2019) Global NGO technology report 2019. Funraise & Nonprofit Tech for Good.
45.
Noske-TurnerJSivaramNKalleyA, et al. (2024) Subversive recipes for communication for development and social change in times of digital capitalism. Social Sciences13(8): 93.
46.
Noske-TurnerJTacchiJPavaralaV (2018) Becoming visible: An institutional histories approach to understanding the practices and tensions in communication for development. In: EnghelFNoske-TurnerJ (eds) Communication in International Development: Doing Good or Looking Good?London, UK: Routledge, 99–117.
47.
OngenaertDJoyeSMachinD (2023) Beyond the humanitarian savior logics? UNHCR’s public communication strategies for the Syrian and Central African crises. International Communication Gazette85(2): 164–190.
48.
OrgadS (2013) Visualizers of solidarity: Organizational politics in humanitarian and international development NGOs. Visual Communication12(3): 295–314.
49.
OrgadSSeuIB (2014) The mediation of humanitarianism: Toward a research framework. Communication, Culture & Critique7(1): 6–36.
50.
PowellTBoomgaardenHDe SwertK, et al. (2015) A clearer picture: The contribution of visuals and text to framing effects. Journal of Communication65(6): 997–1017.
51.
RamamurthyA (2012) Absences and silences: The representation of the tea picker in colonial and fair trade advertising. Visual Culture in Britain13(3): 367–381.
52.
RideoutL (2011) Representations of the Third World in NGO advertising: Practicalities, colonial discourse and western understandings of development. Journal of African Media Studies3(1): 25–41.
53.
RodriguezNS (2016) Communicating global inequalities: How LGBTI asylum-specific NGOs use social media as public relations. Public Relations Review42(2): 322–332.
54.
ScottM (2014) Media and Development: Development Matters. London, UK: Zed Books.
55.
ShahinSDaiZ (2019) Understanding public engagement with global aid agencies on Twitter: A technosocial framework. American Behavioral Scientist63(12): 1684–1707.
56.
SmithMYanacopulosH (2004) The public faces of development: An introduction. Journal of International Development16(5): 657–664.
57.
SobolevaABurtonSDaellenbachK, et al. (2017) Tweets for tots: Using Twitter to promote a charity and its supporters. Journal of Consumer Marketing34(6): 515–523.
58.
SpivakG (1988) Can the subaltern speak? In: NelsonCGrossbergL (eds) Marxism and Interpretation of Culture. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 271–313.
59.
ThrallATSteculaDSweetD (2014) May we have your attention please? Human-rights NGOs and the problem of global communication. The International Journal of Press/Politics19(2): 135–159.
60.
TreréEBoniniT (2022) Amplification, evasion, hijacking: Algorithms as repertoire for social movements and the struggle for visibility. Social Movement Studies23(3): 303–319.
61.
TufekciZ (2013) Not this one”: Social movements, the attention economy, and microcelebrity networked activism. American Behavioral Scientist57(7): 848–870.
62.
United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty Series, vol. 1577.
63.
VelkovaJKaunA (2021) Algorithmic resistance: Media practices and the politics of repair. Information Communication and Society24(4): 523–540.
64.
VestergaardA (2014) Mediatized humanitarianism: Trust and legitimacy in the age of suspicion. Journal of Business Ethics120(4): 509–525.
65.
WallaceTBornsteinLChapmanJ (2007) The Aid Chain: Coercion and Commitment in Development NGOs. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing.
66.
WangYYangY (2020) Dialogic communication on social media: How organizations use Twitter to build dialogic relationships with their publics. Computers in Human Behavior104: 106183.
67.
WatersRDJamalJY (2011) Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations' Twitter updates. Public Relations Review37(3): 321–324.
68.
WilkinsKG (2016) Communicating Gender and Advocating Accountability in Global Development. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
69.
WilkinsKGModyB (2001) Reshaping development communication: Developing communication and communicating development. Communication Theory11(4): 385–396.
70.
WilsonK (2011) Race, gender and neoliberalism: Changing visual representations in development. Third World Quarterly32(2): 315–331.
71.
YanacopulosH (2015) International NGO Engagement, Advocacy, Activism: The Faces and Spaces of Change. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
