Reforming accountability in international NGOs: making sense of conflicting feedback

Davis, Thomas W.; Macdonald, Kate; Brenton, Scott

doi:10.1080/09614524.2012.696093

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ebrahim's (2003) work draws on the work of Edwards and Hulme (1995) as well as Hulme and Edwards (1997), and the academic literature on INGO accountability is substantial, including, for example, being considered in Atack (1999), Wallace et al . (2007), Davis et al . (2012), Crack (2013a, 2019), Rubenstein (2015), Walton et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Work on INGO accountability has also been at the forefront of the broader third sector thinking on charity accountability: Ebrahim's (2003) work on INGO accountability is the second most cited reference on organizational accountability across all 'nonprofit studies' according to Ma andKonrath (2018, p. 1152). Ebrahim's (2003) work draws on the work of Edwards and Hulme (1995) as well as Hulme and Edwards (1997), and the academic literature on INGO accountability is substantial, including, for example, being considered in Atack (1999), Wallace et al (2007), Davis et al (2012), Crack (2013aCrack ( , 2019, Rubenstein (2015), Walton et al (2016) and Gibson (2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Epistolizing accountability: a critical exploration of INGO annual report leaders' letters

Abnett¹

2023

AAAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper explores how INGOs communicate their activities and achievements. In doing so, the study seeks to increase our understanding of INGOs' accountability practices.Design/methodology/approachThis paper uses thematic analysis to analyse 90 ‘leaders’ letters' (the letters that many charities include at the beginning of their Annual Reports and Accounts), published by 39 INGOs between 2015 and 2018.FindingsThis paper argues that within the Annual Report letters under consideration, INGOs' accountability practices focus on quantitative, process-driven, output reporting. In doing so, it is the actions and agency of INGOs that are primarily emphasised. INGO constituents are largely excluded from representation. Donors are presented only as contributors of financial capital. Drawing on field theory, the paper argues that this representational practice means INGO constituents are almost irrelevant to INGOs' representational and accountability communication practices.Originality/valueThis paper is indebted to previous important work and, building on such scholarship, seeks to contribute to the ongoing conversation about INGO accountability. While reinforcing some prior knowledge, the findings here also differ in the understanding of how donors are portrayed. The paper extends previous analyses by using field theory to show that the INGO field as considered here is a space in which representations of accountability are based on organisational and transactional factors, and does not value the humanity of INGOs' constituents. This connects to operations of power, between donors, INGOs, and constituents, and reinforces inequitable power within the development system.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistolizing accountability: a critical exploration of INGO annual report leaders' letters

Abnett¹

2023

AAAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Accountability as a practice: a case study of a nongovernmental development programme in Tanzania

Berghmans¹

2022

Development in Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NGO Accountability: A Conceptual Review across the Engaged Disciplines

Kaba

2021

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are pivotal actors in international affairs. They manage billions of dollars in funding, work all around the world, and shape global policies and standards. It thus comes as no surprise that the subject of accountability has drawn the interest of an increasing number of scholars across disciplines. Though there seems to be agreement about its desirability, accountability is also described as chameleon-like and ambiguous. And despite calls for more cross-disciplinary learning and conceptual clarity, there does not exist a comprehensive review of accountability conceptualizations across and within disciplines, or how the different meanings relate to each other. Based on the conceptual review of 217 research articles published within the last twenty years, this study identifies and analyzes conceptualizations of accountability in the major journals of five engaged disciplines: accounting, development studies, international relations and political science, organization studies and management, and public administration. Integrating this broad scholarship reveals that: (1) there exist 113 different conceptualizations of accountability, 90 of which are rarely used and appear in less than 5 percent of all analyzed articles, (2) scholars have used forty-three different conceptualizations in 2019 compared to seventeen conceptualizations in 2009, (3) many conceptualizations refer to same phenomena by different name (duplication), and different phenomena by the same name (conflict), and that (4) conceptual ambiguity contributes to ambiguity among the forty different terms used to measure and operationalize accountability. These findings illustrate a lack of cross-disciplinary learning and accumulation of knowledge, and suggest that new conceptualizations be introduced only if one or more of the 113 existing ones don't already capture an idea sufficiently. The purpose of this article is to serve as a concept map for scholars when debating and charting new directions for the study of accountability.

show abstract

Reforming accountability in international NGOs: making sense of conflicting feedback

Cited by 5 publications

References 9 publications

Epistolizing accountability: a critical exploration of INGO annual report leaders' letters

Epistolizing accountability: a critical exploration of INGO annual report leaders' letters

Accountability as a practice: a case study of a nongovernmental development programme in Tanzania

NGO Accountability: A Conceptual Review across the Engaged Disciplines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About