Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:47:49.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reflection on Critical Methodology: Accountability and Beneficiary Participative Evaluation in Third Sector Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Kylie L. KingstonOpen the ORCID record for Kylie L. Kingston[Opens in a new window],
Belinda Luke,
Craig Furneaux and
Lyn Alderman
Kylie L. Kingston*
Affiliation:
School of Accountancy and the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia
Belinda Luke*
Affiliation:
School of Accountancy, QUT, Brisbane, Australia
Craig Furneaux*
Affiliation:
Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, QUT, Brisbane, Australia
Lyn Alderman*
Affiliation:
University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia
*
k.kingston@qut.edu.au
deanacademictransformation@usq.edu.au
c.furneaux@qut.edu.au
DirectorAQU@usq.edu.au
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Enabled by the underpinnings of critical theory, this article discusses research methodology developed with the aim of empowering beneficiaries within Third Sector Organisations, through their participation in organisational evaluation processes. The discussion on methodology in this article occurs at three levels: conceptual, processual, and reflexive. The conceptual level explores ontological and epistemological assumptions that shape the critical approach. At the processual level, research methods are explored, drawing on case studies involving interviews with beneficiaries. In interviewing beneficiaries, Third Sector research becomes a means of representing this group. Finally, the reflexive level explores how findings from the processual level enable praxis through the development of approaches supporting beneficiaries’ participation in organisational evaluation processes. As such, Third Sector research can engage beneficiary participation, in order to promote more effective beneficiary participation organisationally.

Keywords

AccountabilityBeneficiariesCritical TheoryMethodologyEvaluation

Information

Type
Research Papers
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 33 , Issue 6 , December 2022, pp. 1148 - 1155
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alcoff, L. (1992). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, 20, 5–32. doi: 10.2307/1354221.Google Scholar
Awio, G., Northcott, D., & Lawrence, S. (2011). Social capital and accountability in grass-roots NGOs: The case of the Ugandan community-led HIV/AIDS initiative. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(1), 63–92. doi: 10.1108/09513571111098063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babbie, E. R. (2015). The Practice of Social Research (14 ed.). US: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Benjamin, L. M. (2020). Bringing beneficiaries more centrally into nonprofit management education and research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0899764020918662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berryman, D. R. (2019). Ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods: Information for librarian researchers. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 38(3), 271–279. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2019.1623614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinkmann, S. (2018). The Interview. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th edn.). Sage.Google Scholar
Catchpowle, L., & Smyth, S. (2016). Accounting and social movements: an exploration of critical accounting praxis. Accounting Forum, 40(3), 220–234. doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2016.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J., Dyball, M. C., & Harrison, G. (2019). Stakeholder salience and accountability mechanisms in not-for-profit service delivery organizations. Financial Accountability & Management, 36(1), 50–72. doi: 10.1111/faam.12217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiapello, E. (2017). Critical accounting research and neoliberalism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 43, 47–64. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2016.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, V., & Luke, B. (2018). NGO accountability to beneficiaries: examining participation in microenterprise development programs. Third Sector Review, 24(2), 77–104.Google Scholar
Connolly, C., & Hyndman, N. (2017). The donor–beneficiary charity accountability paradox: a tale of two stakeholders. Public Money & Management, 37(3), 157–164. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2017.1281629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordery, C., & Sim, D. (2018). Dominant stakeholders, activity and accountability discharge in the CSO sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 34(1), 77–96. doi: 10.1111/faam.12144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 1998(80), 5–23. doi: 10.1002/ev.1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, A. L. (2008). Orientations to Social constructionism: relationally responsive social constructionism and its implications for knowledge and learning. Management Learning, 39(2), 123–139. doi: 10.1177/1350507607087578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23–46. doi: 10.1177/146879410100100102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2016). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In Renz, D. O. & Herman, R. D. (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management. Wiley.Google Scholar
Freire, P. (2017). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Modern Classics.Google Scholar
Gendron, Y. (2018). On the elusive nature of critical (accounting) research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 50, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2017.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, J. C. (1997). Participatory evaluation. In Mabry, L. (Ed.), Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma. JAI Press. pp. 171–189.Google Scholar
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (3rd edn., pp. 195–220). SAGE.Google Scholar
Hertz, R. (1996). Introduction: ethics, reflexivity and voice. Qualitative Sociology, 19(1), 3–9. doi: 10.1007/BF02393245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, A., & Wilford, R. (2010). Listen first: a pilot system for managing downward accountability in NGOs. Development in Practice, 20(7), 797–811. doi: 10.1080/09614524.2010.508113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, D. (2019). The Inherently Contested Nature of Nongovernmental Accountability: The Case of HAP International. VOLUNATS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(6), 1393–1405. doi: 10.1007/s11266-019-00134-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilby, P. (2006). Accountability for empowerment: dilemmas facing non-governmental organizations. World Development, 34(6), 951–963. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2011). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Hayes, K., Steinberg, S. R., Tobin, K. (Eds.), Key works in critical pedagogy (pp. 285–326). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingston, K. L., Furneaux, C., de Zwaan, L., & Alderman, L. (2019). From monologic to dialogic: accountability of nonprofit organisations on beneficiaries’ terms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(2), 447–471. doi: 10.1108/aaaj-01-2019-3847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingston, K. L., Furneaux, C., de Zwaan, L., & Alderman, L. (2020). Avoiding the accountability ‘sham-ritual’: an agonistic approach to beneficiaries’ participation in evaluation within nonprofit organisations. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvale, S. (2008). Doing interviews. Sage.Google Scholar
Lather, P. (2013). Methodology-21: what do we do in the afterward?. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 634–645. doi: 10.1080/09518398.2013.788753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughlin, R. C. (1987). Accounting systems in organisational contexts: a case for critical theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(5), 479–502. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(87)90032-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, D. E., & Cooper, D. J. (2020). Seeing Through the Logical Framework. VOLUNATS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(6), 1239–1253. doi: 10.1007/s11266-020-00223-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathison, S. (2018). Does evaluation contribute to the public good?. Evaluation, 24(1), 113–119. doi: 10.1177/1356389017749278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercelis, F., Wellens, L., & Jegers, M. (2016). Beneficiary participation in non-governmental development organisations: a case study in Vietnam. The Journal of Development Studies, 52(10), 1446–1462. doi: 10.1080/00220388.2016.1166209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd edn.). SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Murtaza, N. (2012). Putting the Lasts First: The Case for Community-Focused and Peer-Managed NGO Accountability Mechanisms. VOLUNATS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(1), 109–125. doi: 10.1007/s11266-011-9181-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, M. D. (2009). Qualitative research in business & management. Sage.10.4135/9781036208417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th edn.). SAGE Publications, IncGoogle Scholar
Ponelis, S. R. (2015). Using interpretive qualitative case studies for exploratory research in doctoral studies: A case of information systems research in small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 535–550. doi: 10.28945/2339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rexhepi, J., & Torres, C. A. (2011). Reimagining critical theory. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(5), 679–698. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2011.596363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, J., & Johnson, C. W. (2020). Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative research: toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(4), 432–451. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2020.1722042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students (7th edn.). Pearson.Google Scholar
Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case study methodology. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th edn., pp. 341–358). SAGE.Google Scholar
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9–16. doi: 10.5539/elt.v5n9p9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. doi: 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, S. (2017). What's ontology got to do with it? on nature and knowledge in a political ecology of the'green economy'. Journal of Political Ecology, 24(1), 217–242. doi: 10.2458/v24i1.20802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Zyl, H., Claeyé, F., & Flambard, V. (2019). Money, people or mission? accountability in local and non-local NGOs. Third World Quarterly, 40(1), 53–73. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2018.1535893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, S. (2016). Obstacles to NGOs’ accountability to intended beneficiaries: the case of ActionAid. Development in Practice, 26(6), 706–718. doi: 10.1080/09614524.2016.1200537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedeen, L. (2010). reflections on ethnographic work in political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 13(1), 255–272. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.052706.123951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellens, L., & Jegers, M. (2016). From consultation to participation: the impact of beneficiaries on nonprofit organizations’ decision making and output. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(3), 295–312. doi: 10.1002/nml.21191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellens, L., & Jegers, M. (2017). Beneficiaries’ participation in development organizations through local partners: a case study in Southern Africa. Development Policy Review, 35(S2), 196–213. doi: 10.1111/dpr.12279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, M., Macklin, R., & Lewis, G. K. (2016). Researcher reflexivity: exploring the impacts of CAQDAS use. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(4), 385–403. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2015.1023964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C., & Northcott, D. (2019). Together we measure: Improving public service outcomes via the co-production of performance measurement. Public Money & Management, 39(4), 253–261. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2019.1592906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yasmin, S., Ghafran, C., & Haslam, J. (2020). Centre-staging beneficiaries in charity accountability: insights from an Islamic post-secular perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar