Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T15:34:22.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Counts? How to use Different Sources of NGO Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Elizabeth A. Bloodgood,
Sarah S. StroupOpen the ORCID record for Sarah S. Stroup[Opens in a new window] and
Wendy H. Wong
Elizabeth A. Bloodgood*
Affiliation:
Concordia University, Montréal, Canada
Sarah S. Stroup*
Affiliation:
Middlebury College, Middlebury, USA
Wendy H. Wong*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
*
elizabeth.bloodgood@concordia.ca
sstroup@middlebury.edu
wendyh.wong@utoronto.ca
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The quantitative data sources for NGO scholars are increasing, introducing new possibilities for our understanding of the global NGO population. The most frequently used data sources tend to privilege larger NGOs located in more politically open countries. We highlight two developments. First, we introduce a new Global Nonprofit Registry of Data Sources (GRNDS) dataset. GRNDS documents the information that governments collect and release to reveal variations in the data environment. Second, new sources of information from social media and donation platforms avoid the filtering and curation of reports from nonprofit regulators. These include Twitter, Google Trends, and new data from #GivingTuesday. Together, this richer information on cross-national variation in reporting and quickly available digital data should help research build a richer picture of the global NGO sector.

Keywords

NGOsData sourcesGRNDS#GivingTuesdayTwitter

Information

Type
Research Papers
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2023, pp. 126 - 132
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

Alshaabi, T., David, R. D., Minot, J. R., Arnold, M. V., Adams, J. L., Danforth, C. M., & Peter, S. D. (2021). The growing amplification of social media: measuring temporal and social contagion dynamics for over 150 languages on Twitter for 2009–2020. EPJ Data Science, 10(1), 1–28. doi: 10.1140/epjds/s13688-021-00271-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anheier, H., Marlies, G., & Mary, K. (2001) Introducing global civil society. Global Civil Society Yearbook 2001. Oxford University Press, 3–22.Google Scholar
Appe, S. (2018) A critical perspective on counting and mapping nonprofit and voluntary organizations. In Eikenberry, A., Mirabella, R., and Sandberg, B., eds. Reframing nonprofit organizations: Democracy, inclusion, and social change, Melvin & Leigh.Google Scholar
Appe, S., & Telch, F. (2020). Grassroots international NGOs: Using comparative interpretive policy analysis to understand meanings in private development aid. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(1), 30–46.Google Scholar
Authors. (2019) Comparative data environments. Paper presented at the American political science association annual meeting, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Barberá, P., et al. (2019). Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. American Political Science Review, 113(4), 883–901. doi: 10.1017/S0003055419000352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkhout, J., et al. (2018). Making inference across mobilisation and influence research: Comparing top-down and bottom-up mapping of interest systems. Political Studies, 66(1), 43–62. doi: 10.1177/0032321717702400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkhout, J., & Hanegraaff, M. (2019). No borders, no bias? Comparing advocacy group populations at the national and transnational levels. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 8(3), 270–290. doi: 10.1057/s41309-019-00060-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloodgood, E. (2019). Primary data on NGOs: Pushing the bounds of present possibilities. In Davies, T. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of NGOs and international relations. Routledge. pp. 209–220. doi: 10.4324/9781315268927-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloodgood, E. A., Tremblay-Boire, J., & Prakash, A. (2014). National styles of NGO regulation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(4), 716–736. doi: 10.1177/0899764013481111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brass, J. N., Longhofer, W., Robinson, R. S., & Schnable, A. (2018). NGOs and international development: A review of thirty-five years of scholarship. World Development, 112, 136–149. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.07.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, S. S., & Jennifer, H. (2019). Density and decline in the founding of international NGOs in the United States. International Studies Quarterly, 63, 1133–1146. doi: 10.1093/isq/sqz061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cha, M., et al. (2010). Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy.. ICWSM, 10, 30.Google Scholar
Charity Navigator (n.d) (2020). What criteria must a charity meet to be rated? Retrieved 25 October, 2020, from https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=32Google Scholar
Conover, M. D., et al. (2011). Political polarization on twitter. ICWSM, 133(26), 89–96.Google Scholar
Davies, T. (2019). (ed.) Routledge handbook of NGOs and international relations. RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deibert, R. J. (2020). Reset: Reclaiming the internet for civil society. House of Anansi Press.Google Scholar
Development initiatives global humanitarian assistance report. (2020). Available at https://devinit.org/resources/global-humanitarian-assistance-report-2020/Google Scholar
Dipendra, K. C. (2019). Between rhetoric and action: Do NGOs go where they are needed?. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30, 1197–1211. doi: 10.1007/s11266-018-0024-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleeson, S., & Bloemraad, I. (2013). Assessing the scope of immigrant organizations: Official undercounts and actual underrepresentation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 346–370. doi: 10.1177/0899764011436105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, S., et al. (2016). The structural virality of online diffusion. Management Science, 62(1), 180–196. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grønbjerg, K. A. (2002). Evaluating nonprofit databases. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(11), 1741–1777. doi: 10.1177/0002764202045011007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadden, J., & Jasny, L. (2019). The power of peers: how transnational advocacy networks shape NGO strategies on climate change. British Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 637–659. doi: 10.1017/S0007123416000582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, N., Schmitz, H. P., & Dedmon, J. M. (2020). Transnational advocacy and NGOs in the digital era: New forms of networked power. International Studies Quarterly, 64, 159–167.Google Scholar
Heinrich, V. F. (2005). Studying civil society across the world: Exploring the thorny issues of conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Civil Society, 1(3), 211–228. doi: 10.1080/17448680500484749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollyer, J. R., Peter Rosendorff, B., & Vreeland, J. R. (2018). Information, democracy, and autocracy: Economic transparency and political (in)stability. Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/9781108355100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Human Rights Funders Network [HRFN]. Advancing Human Rights: The State of Global Foundation Grantmaking. https://humanrightsfunding.org/Google Scholar
King, G., Schneer, B., & White, A. (2017). How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas. Science, 358(6364), 776–780. doi: 10.1126/science.aao1100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, D.-J., Dreher, A., Nunnenkamp, P., & Thiele, R. (2009). Keeping a low profile: What determines the allocation of aid by non-governmental organizations?. World Development, 37(5), 902–918. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martens, K. (2002). Mission impossible? Defining nongovernmental organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13(3), 271–285. doi: 10.1023/A:1020341526691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, K. N. (2014). When do people pay attention? Violence and non-violence in political movements and the differential media attention provided. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 7(3), 394–410. doi: 10.1080/17539153.2014.954821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellon, J. (2013). Where and when can we use Google Trends to measure issue salience?. PS: Political Science and Politics, 46(2), 280–290.Google Scholar
Mitchell, G. E., Schmitz, H. P., & Bruno-van, V. (2020). Between power and irrelevance: The future of transnational NGOs. Oxford University Press10.1093/oso/9780190084714.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naoi, M., & Urata, S. (2013). Free trade agreements and domestic politics: The case of the Trans-Pacific partnership agreement. Asian Economic Policy Review, 8(2), 326–349. doi: 10.1111/aepr.12035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noakes, S. & Teets, J. C. (2018) Learning under authoritarianism: Strategic adaptations within international foundations and NGOs in China. Voluntas 1–21.Google Scholar
O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2014). Differences among NGOs in the business—NGO cooperative network. Business and Society, 53(1), 105–133. doi: 10.1177/0007650311418195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD, How DAC members work with civil society organizations. OECD DAC.Google Scholar
Pelc, K. J. (2013) Googling the WTO: What search-engine data tell us about the political economy of institutions. International Organization 629–655.10.1017/S0020818313000179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plummer, S., Hughes, M. M., & Smith, J. (2020). The challenges of organizational classification: A research note. Social Currents, 7(1), 3–10. doi: 10.1177/2329496519878469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripberger, J. T. (2011). Capturing curiosity: Using internet search trends to measure public attentiveness. Policy Studies Journal, 39(2), 239–259. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00406.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. (1999). America’s nonprofit sector: A primer (2nd ed.). The Foundation Center.Google Scholar
Sikkink, K. & Jackie, S. (2002) Infrastructures for change: Transnational organizations, 1953–93. In: Khagram, R., Sikkink (Eds). Restructuring world politics: Transnational social movements, networks, and norm. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J., & Dawn, W. (2012). Social movements in the world-system: The politics of crisis and transformation. Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Smith, D. H. (1997). The rest of the nonprofit sector: Grassroots associations as the dark matter ignored in prevailing ‘flat earth’ maps of the sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 114–131. doi: 10.1177/0899764097262002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statt, N. (2021) Twitter is opening up its full tweet archive to academic researchers for free, theverge.com.Google Scholar
Stroup, S. S. (2012) Borders among activists: international NGOs in the United States, Britain, and France. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Stroup, S. S., & Wong, W. H. (2017). The authority trap. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Tremblay-Boire, J., & Prakash, A. (2015). Accountability.org: Online disclosures by US nonprofits. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 693–719. doi: 10.1007/s11266-014-9452-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. doi: 10.1126/science.aap9559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, H. W. & Brown, P. A. (2013). E-bandits in global activism: WikiLeaks, anonymous, and the politics of no one. Perspectives on Politics 1015–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong Wendy, H., Ron, L., & Julia, D. (2017). The development of international human rights. In: L. Seabrooke, L. F. Henriksen (Eds). Professional networks in transnational governance, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Wong, W. (2012). Internal Affairs: How the structure of NGOs transforms human rights. Cornell University Press.10.7591/cornell/9780801450792.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Z. (2016). The effects of resources, political opportunities and organisational ecology on the growth trajectories of AIDS NGOs in China. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 2252–2273. doi: 10.1007/s11266-016-9686-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, M., & Proferes, N. J. (2014). A topology of twitter research: disciplines, methods, and ethics. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 250–261. doi: 10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. Public Affairs.Google Scholar