Advertisement

A Case for Philanthropic Informatics

  • Amy VoidaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 9)

Abstract

In this chapter, I argue that a focus on the design of information technologies for nonprofit organizations—or any institutional form for that matter—is too narrow a focus to support the full breadth of philanthropic activity and the full diversity of stakeholders in this domain. Instead, I challenge the research community to take up a more holistic unit of analysis, one that engages in the study and design of information and communication technologies to support any philanthropic work that is being done, in whatever context or contexts that might be. I draw from examples of previous research to make three related cases for why philanthropic informatics is a more fruitful and compelling perspective: nonprofit organizations are shapeshifters, nonprofit organizations have ill-defined boundaries, and organizational genres are increasingly blurred. From each case, I draw implications for the sociotechnical study of philanthropic work.

Keywords

Nonprofit Organization Nonprofit Sector Outreach Worker Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Philanthropic Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brudney, J. L. (1994). Designing and managing volunteer programs. In R. D. Herman (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 279–302). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor. (2012). Volunteering in the United States—2012. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/volun. df.
  4. Campbell, J. L. (2005). Where do we stand? Common mechanisms in organizations and social movements research. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organizational theory (pp. 41–68). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chadwick, A. (2007). Digital network repertoires and organizational hybridity. Political Communication, 24, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Clemens, E. S. (2005). Two kinds of stuff: The current encounter of social movements and organizations. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organizational theory (pp. 351–365). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Cunnyngham, K., Sukasih, A., & Castner, L. (2013). Empirical bayes shrinkage estimates of state supplemental nutrition assistance program participation rates in 2008–2010 for all eligible people and the working poor. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/Techpartrate2008-2010.pdf.
  10. della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Chapter 5: Individuals, networks and participation. In Social movements: An introduction. (2nd ed). Malder, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Dombrowski, L., Hayes, G. R., Mazmanian, M., & Voida, A. (2014). E-government intermediaries and the challenges of access and trust. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 21(2), Article 13.Google Scholar
  12. Dombrowski, L., Voida, A., Hayes, G. R., & Mazmanian, M. (2012). The social labor of service mediation: A study of the work practices of food assistance outreach. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2012). Austin, TX, May 5–12. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1977–1986.Google Scholar
  13. Farnham, S.D., & Churchill, E.F. (2011). Faceted identity, faceted lives: Social and technical issues with being yourself online. In Proceedings of CSCW 2011. New York: ACM Press, pp. 359–368.Google Scholar
  14. Gladwell, M. (2010). Twitter, Facebook, and social activism: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. New Yorker. October 4, 2010, from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/ 2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell
  15. Giving USA. (2013). Giving USA 2013: The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2012. A publication of the Giving USA Foundation™, researched and written by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.Google Scholar
  16. Goecks, J., Voida, A., Voida, S., & Mynatt, E.D. (2008). Charitable technologies: Opportunities for collaborative computing in nonprofit fundraising. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2008). San Diego, CA, November 8–12. New York: ACM Press, pp. 689–698.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, P. D. (1994). Historical perspectives on nonprofit organizations. In R. D. Herman (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. McAdam, D., & Scott, W. R. (2005). Organizations and movements. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organizational theory (pp. 4–40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. National Center for Charitable Statistics. (1999). National taxonomy of exempt entities. Retrieved October 24, 2103, from http://nccs.urban.org/classification/NTEE.cfm.
  21. O’Neill, M. (2002). Nonprofit nation: A new look at the third America. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Palen, L., & Liu, S. B. (2007). Citizen communications in crisis: Anticipating a future of ICT-supported public participation. In Proceedings of CHI 2007. New York: ACM Press, pp. 727–736.Google Scholar
  23. Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, S. W. (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (Vol. 2). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian.Google Scholar
  24. Til, J. V. (1994). Nonprofit organizations and social institutions. In R. D. Herman (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Tilly, C. (1995). Contentious repertoires in Great Britain, 1758–1834. Social Science History, 17(2), 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Voida, A. (2011). Shapeshifters in the voluntary sector: Exploring the human-centered–computing challenges of nonprofit organizations. Interactions (Nov/Dec).Google Scholar
  27. Voida, A., Dombrowski, L., Hayes, G. R., & Mazmanian, M. (in press). Shared values/conflicting logics: Working around e-government systems. In Proceedings of CHI 2014. Toronto, ON, April 26-May 1. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  28. Voida, A., Harmon, M.E., & Al-Ani, B. (2011). Homebrew databases: Complexities of everyday information management in nonprofit organizations. In Proceedings of CHI 2011. New York: ACM Press, pp. 915–924.Google Scholar
  29. Voida, A., Harmon, E., & Al-Ani, B. (2012). Bridging between organizations and the public: Volunteer coordinators’ uneasy relationship with social computing. In Proceedings of CHI 2012. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1967–1976.Google Scholar
  30. Zandi, M. (2008). A second quick boost from government could spark recovery. Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small%20Business_7_24_08.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Informatics and Computing & Lilly Family School of PhilanthropyIndiana University, IUPUIIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations