The Promise and Perils of Comparing Nonprofit Data Across Borders

Abstract

The movement to democratize data and the advent of virtual research teams provides a near-perfect opportunity for an explosion of comparative nonprofit research. This manuscript provides a useful framework for scholars interested in utilizing comparative nonprofit data. By documenting how the lived context of the data is influenced by governmental, institutional, and social forces, we illustrate how effective comparative data work will involve knowing both the how (data details) and the why (institutional history) of the data elements. We offer three extended examples to illustrate the complexity of comparative data: the definition of nonprofit, the concept of governance, and the definition of financial liability. This approach provides a thoughtful path of not only careful empirical work but also the route to theoretical improvements as well. Furthermore, comparative work also leads the researcher to question assumptions and document the processes which shape the data, even within their singular context.

International charitable connections: Variation in the countries of operation of overseas charities

“…One reason for the absence of causal claims is the varying time periods captured by some of the country-level covariates: for example, data on regime type are for 2018 (most recent year available), while the measure of civil society restrictions mainly refers to 2020 and more recent years. The lack of charity-level covariates – organisation age, programmatic foci, revenue sources – is a natural consequence of differences in the data collection practices and priorities of charity regulators (Searing et al, 2023); for instance, it would be valuable to have a granular, harmonised measure of type of charitable activity but this does not exist currently. Finally, we do not attempt to provide insight into the sum of charitable activity in a particular overseas country, since it does not include the activity of domestic charities or international organisations registered in other jurisdictions (e.g., New Zealand).…”

A Guide to the Canadian T3010 for Users of the U.S. Form 990

“…Beyond simply the knowledge of the T3010 and its applicability to modern research questions, this article can also serve as a generalizable guide to any large-N data curation project. We cannot overemphasize the importance of good data hygiene, especially when working with a new context: painstaking documentation during dataset assembly, the preservation of errors for research purposes, and the acknowledgment of different regulatory standards (that often have roots in different institutional and cultural standards; Searing et al, 2021). Researchers and data curators should also note extensively where there is ambiguity, such as the missing/zero data issue in the T3010.…”