Nonprofit Studies: Are We an Academic Discipline?

1 Introduction

Interest in donations, volunteering, helping the needy, seeking justice, organizing charitable efforts, and similar activities have existed for thousands of years, as evidenced in religious texts and archaeological discoveries. To our knowledge, nonprofit organizations have been part of human societies since ancient Egypt or even before, initially as religious institutions and later expanding to vocational and ethnic organizations. However, modern universities gave these topics little scholarly attention until the 1970s (Hall 1992, 2006]).

A pivotal shift occurred in 1973 when, following media reports of philanthropic misconduct and subsequent congressional hearings, the U.S. government established the “Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs” (known as the Filer Commission). The Commission’s mandate was to study philanthropy and the private sector’s role in American society and to recommend measures to increase voluntary giving. Within two years, the Commission sponsored more than 86 research projects examining philanthropy and the nonprofit sector’s role in the United States (Filer 1975). These findings of the Filer Commission were published in seven comprehensive volumes in 1977 and provided “a multidisciplinary survey of every aspect of charitable tax-exempt organizations,” analyzing their roles as employers, as sources of essential health, educational, education, welfare, and culture, and as forces in political life (Hall 1992, p. 411). Hall further suggested that the Filer Commission played a pivotal role in shaping the perception of the nonprofit sector as a cohesive and unified entity. As Hall stated, in some ways, the commission “invented” the nonprofit sector. This conceptualization not only reflected but may have also contributed to the emergence of nonprofit studies as a distinct research field. Over time, scholars increasingly focused on cross-sectoral issues rather than limiting their analyses to specific types of nonprofit organizations, such as foundations, hospitals, universities, arts institutions, and religious organizations.

The Commission’s work and recommendations elevated nonprofit organizations, generosity, and philanthropy to mainstream topics in the United States. It provided scholars with unprecedented access to data and established the foundation for systematic nonprofit studies. While scholars had previously examined these topics, their research was limited and scattered across various disciplinary journals. Several scholars have suggested that the Filer Commission’s 1975 report marked the emergence of nonprofit studies as a distinct research field (Barman 2017; Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs 1977; Hall 1992; Powell and Steinberg 2006; Weber and Brunt 2022). Yet, many researchers studying the nonprofit sector hesitate to classify nonprofit studies as an academic discipline. This commentary examines whether it is time to recognize our domain of study, nonprofit studies, as an academic discipline.

By the term nonprofit studies, I mean what Smith (2016) referred to as voluntaristics. He explained that voluntaristics,

… has developed out of nonprofit and voluntary sector studies, philanthropy studies, civil society studies, third sector studies, nonprofit management studies, social and solidarity economy studies, social movement studies, cooperatives research, self-help/mutual aid group studies, and related fields that have emerged since 1970 (p. 1).

I began researching volunteering, social service NPOs, religious congregations, and faith-based NPOs more than a decade after the publication of the Filer report, unaware of the small community of scholars already engaged in this field. During a visit to the University of Pennsylvania in 1986, Jon Van Til encouraged me to join the Association of Voluntary Scholars (AVAS) and attend its upcoming meeting in Kansas City, MO. Since then, I have attended nearly every annual AVAS/ARNOVA conference. I am continually impressed by the growth and development of this field of research. In the years following my involvement with AVAS, it was common to hear jokes about the study of not-for-profit organizations, as most academic institutions viewed nonprofit research as less serious. However, that perception has shifted. Today, when I mention this as my area of study, people generally understand and are eager to learn more.

My Dean at the time warned me that studying a niche topic like NPOs would likely hinder my academic career. He suggested I focus on a more traditional social work topic and even arranged for me to work with a local community mental health agency to keep me on track. I enjoyed working with the agency and published around ten related articles, but nonprofit studies remained my true passion. Twenty years later, another Dean at my school told a new hire to focus exclusively on publishing in nonprofit journals, as promotion would be assessed based on contributions to this field. This gave me the realization that I am no longer on the margins but at the heart of a growing, academically accepted field – nonprofit studies.

With nearly forty years of scholarly experience, I have witnessed the changes that have taken place and have asked: “Are we, as a field, a legitimate academic discipline?” No one can deny that we are highly interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary, but so are fields like social work, communication, gender studies, and environmental studies, to name a few. An academic discipline can be multidisciplinary and still have its own core academic domain. While it is clear that we have made significant progress within American and global universities, many still feel uncomfortable with the idea of calling ourselves an academic discipline.

In this commentary, I aim to review where we are now and where we were when we began. With a few exceptions, my starting point is 1970, in the decade that preceded the Filer Commission report and the significant rise in nonprofit scholarship. I will draw on both empirical data and personal experience to conduct this assessment. The commentary will begin with a brief review of what the term “academic discipline” means, followed by an overview of the field from 1970 to 2020 in terms of what constitutes an academic discipline. I will conclude with an attempt to answer the question: “Are we, or are we not, an academic discipline?”

2 Defining an Academic Discipline

The concept of discipline defies a simple definition. The term’s etymology traces to the Latin words: discipulus (pupil) and disciplina (teaching). While commonly used in religious contexts – as in ‘disciples of Jesus’ – its verb form implies instruction to follow restrictive commands or exhibit high-level self-control. Foucault (1991) examined ‘discipline’ as a political force and practice imposed on individuals to produce ‘docile bodies’ and minds, implemented for economic exploitation and political subjugation. However, in our context, we consider discipline as a noun paired with ‘academic.’

At its most basic, an academic discipline is a subject taught within formal education. Over time, it has evolved into a technical term describing the organization of learning and the systematic production of new knowledge. After reviewing multiple definitions, I have selected Krishnan’s (2009) rigorous framework. For a field of study to qualify as an academic discipline, Krishnan argues it must meet all or most of these characteristics:

1. A particular object of research (e.g. law, society, politics), though this may overlap with other disciplines,

2. An accumulated body of specialist knowledge specific to the field and not generally shared with other disciplines,

3. Theories and concepts that effectively organize the accumulated specialist knowledge,

4. Specific terminology or technical language adjusted to the research object,

5. Specific research methods developed according to research requirements, and

6. Institutional manifestation through university subjects, academic departments, and related professional associations.

Krishnan further noted that a new academic discipline is usually founded by creating a professorial chair devoted to it at an established university which subsequently forms new academic units. As I will show below, nonprofit studies readily meet this criterion, with numerous endowed chairs across many universities.^[1] A synthesis of other sources yields a simpler definition: an academic discipline is a branch of knowledge, taught and researched in higher education. Scholars’ disciplines are typically defined by their university affiliations, their department title, and academic journals where they publish research.

The following sections evaluate these criteria concerning nonprofit studies, though not in strict sequential order or with equal emphasis. I begin with the field’s most visible characteristics: research volume and formal organizations. While some observations draw from my four decades of involvement in nonprofit studies, most rely on scholarly findings. We’ll examine the expansion of research, nonprofit academic associations, conferences, journals, and university-based degree programs – all demonstrating significant academic growth and maturity.

3 Research Expansion in the Nonprofit Field

Academic disciplines generate relevant research with core themes and theories through substantial scholarly contributions. This section demonstrates how nonprofit research productivity has increased significantly since the Filer Commission report, matching or exceeding the growth rate of other academic disciplines.

3.1 Growth in Academic Publications

The proliferation of academic publications indicates a field’s development toward disciplinary status. Ma and Konrath’s (2018) analysis of nonprofit literature from 1925 to 2015 revealed that scholars have actively built a considerable literature base and solid intellectual foundation. They conclude that between 1925 and 2015, “Quantitative results suggest that scholars in this field have been actively generating a considerable amount of literature and a solid intellectual base for developing this field toward a new discipline” (p. 1139).

Using Web of Science, Ai (2024) compiled the most comprehensive database of nonprofit-related articles published between 1899 and 2020, identifying 60,684 relevant articles. Using 188 different singular, bigram,^[2] or paired words, Ai created an inclusive dataset of nonprofit academic publications. As illustrated by the following figure, her findings, produced specifically for this commentary, demonstrate exponential growth in nonprofit publications, particularly from 1960 onward. This growth parallels trends in science generally, where publication numbers double approximately every 12 years (Wang and Barabási 2021). Thus, nonprofit studies’ publication growth aligns with patterns seen across established academic disciplines.

4 Nonprofit Academic Associations and Conferences

5 Journals

Schaffner (1994) emphasized the critical role of academic journals in fostering scholarly communities by building collective knowledge bases, validating research quality, and, most importantly, establishing coherence within scientific communities. Since the 1970s, nonprofit studies have made significant progress in developing an academic identity, including through the growth of its journal ecosystem.

Bushouse, Witkowski, and Abramson (2023) noted that the establishment of the Journal of Voluntary Action Research (JVAR) marked a pivotal moment for the field. However, in its early years, JVAR faced numerous challenges common to nascent academic journals. Contributions often needed to be actively solicited, as the small and emerging scholarly community had limited output compared to more established disciplines. This scarcity of submissions frequently delayed publication schedules, leaving JVAR an issue or two behind. Initially, the journal lacked a professional publisher; articles were typewritten, Xeroxed, and stapled – an amateurish beginning that survived largely due to the dedication and determination of its organizers. At that time, many scholars preferred to publish their work in journals aligned with their primary academic disciplines, making it difficult for JVAR to attract high-quality submissions (Katz 1999).

Over the subsequent five decades, the landscape of nonprofit academic publishing transformed dramatically. Walk and Andersson (2020) surveyed leading North American and European scholars and educators, asking them to identify journals they considered the most viable outlets for publishing nonprofit and civil society research. Respondents identified a total of 75 journals. The late David Horton Smith compiled a list of 120 journals, which included several non-English publications, though his list is unfortunately no longer accessible. Regardless of the precise count, it is evident that nonprofit studies publications have flourished, multiplied, and greatly enhanced knowledge dissemination in the field.

Walk and Andersson highlighted that only three core nonprofit journals are currently indexed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI): Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (NVSQ), Nonprofit Management & Leadership (NML), and Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-Profit Organizations. Among these, Voluntas received the most mentions in their survey (69), followed closely by NVSQ (68 mentions) and NML (62 mentions). NVSQ, however, was consistently rated as the premier publication outlet in nonprofit studies.

Beyond the SSCI-indexed journals, numerous other publications primarily or significantly focus on nonprofit studies. Examples include Nonprofit Policy Forum (NPF), Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs (JPNA), Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership (JNEL), Voluntary Sector Review (VSR), Journal of Civil Society, Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing (NPSM), and Public Administration Review (PAR). While some of these journals are cross-listed with other disciplines, particularly public administration, Walk and Andersson identified at least 20 journals that primarily focus on nonprofit studies.

The evolution of nonprofit academic journals reflects the maturation of the field. From its modest beginnings, nonprofit studies now boast a robust network of scholarly publications that have cemented its role as a vital area of academic inquiry.

As an inherently interdisciplinary field, nonprofit studies naturally borrows concepts and theories from a range of academic disciplines. However, a less-explored phenomenon is the increasing citation of nonprofit-focused journals by journals outside the core of nonprofit studies. LePere-Schloop and Nesbit (2022) examined this trend between 1999 and 2019 with a focus on Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (NVSQ), Nonprofit Management & Leadership (NML), and Voluntas. They observed that “a variety of scientific domains and social science disciplines are engaged in nonprofit research, underscoring the multidisciplinary nature of nonprofit studies.”

Despite this cross-disciplinary engagement, the growth of nonprofit-related articles in journals outside the nonprofit core has been modest, whereas the exponential rise of such articles within core nonprofit journals demonstrates their increasing prominence. This trend suggests that nonprofit journals now serve as the primary outlets for scholars in the field, marking a significant shift from the past, when publishing in such journals was viewed as detrimental to an academic career. LePere-Schloop and Nesbit further noted that “a substantial portion of [Web of Science] articles with nonprofit terms in their title and keywords neither cite the three core journals nor include more than two citations of nonprofit sources.” This observation could be interpreted as neglect of the field or as a reflection of lower-quality work published in outlets where the standards of review by top nonprofit scholars are absent. LePere-Schloop and Nesbit concluded that “much of the nonprofit research in [Web of Science] is superficial and fails to engage with nonprofit scholarship in a meaningful way; scholarship that does engage more deeply with the nonprofit literature is merely keeping pace.” I concur with this assessment, which highlights the need for greater integration and rigor in nonprofit research published outside the core journals.

For the past two decades, conferences such as ARNOVA and ISTR have consistently included sessions such as “Meet the Editors” or “How to Publish in Nonprofit Journals.” These sessions are especially popular among early-career scholars, who recognize the career benefits of publishing in respected nonprofit journals that are increasingly valued by their home institutions.

The evidence presented above underscores the maturity of nonprofit studies as a distinct academic field. It boasts a coherent set of core disciplinary journals complemented by a wide array of interdisciplinary outlets that welcome nonprofit research. This development reflects the growing credibility and impact of the field within the broader academic community.

6 Educational Programs

7 Thematic Coherence in the Field

Several commentators have argued that nonprofit studies cannot yet be considered an academic discipline. Two recurring themes in their critiques are that the field is still too young and lacks internal coherence. For instance, Gazley (2022) begins her analysis of the use of systematic literature reviews in nonprofit studies by stating, “Voluntary and nonprofit sector studies are relatively young and still seeking common intellectual ground” (p. 1256). This perspective is echoed by others, including Corry (2010) and Knutsen and Brock (2014), who argue that the modern study of the sector is relatively young and has not yet achieved what Thomas Kuhn (1970) termed “normal science,” characterized by broadly accepted “principal logics” or paradigms.

It is important to distinguish between Kuhn’s concept of a paradigmatic field of study and the definition of an academic discipline. For example, social work is widely regarded as an established academic discipline, despite not being classified as a paradigm. Thus, the debate around nonprofit studies focuses on its status as an academic discipline rather than its adherence to Kuhn’s criteria for paradigmatic science.

Mirabella et al. (2007) and Mirabella (2021) highlighted the diversity of academic programs in nonprofit studies, noting the absence of common core courses. Furthermore, these programs vary significantly across continents, underscoring the lack of global uniformity.

Despite these critiques, research suggests that nonprofit studies have developed a degree of thematic coherence. For example, Ma and Konrath’s (2018) review of a century of nonprofit scholarship indicates that:

Thematic analyses suggest that knowledge production in this field is also growing in cohesion – several main themes have been formed and actively advanced since the 1980s, and the study of volunteering can be identified as a unique core theme of this field (p. 1139).

Similarly, Kang, Baek, and Kim (2022) employed structural topic modeling (STM) to analyze shifts in nonprofit sector scholarship over nearly half a century (1972–2019) within the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. They identified 37 themes, 29 of which maintained consistent prominence over time, showing little influence from the disciplinary backgrounds of editors. Their findings suggest thematic stability in the field, which the authors emphasized with the phrase “Thematic Stability Across Years and Editors” in their title. These studies indicate that nonprofit studies are a coherent and well-organized area of inquiry.

Some scholars have argued that nonprofit studies has matured enough to be considered both an academic discipline and a profession. Evans and Kinoti (2017) applied Pugh’s (1989) six traits of a profession – self-awareness, a corpus of theory and knowledge, a social ideal, ethical standards, formal organizations to promote its interests, and recognition of outstanding leaders (“a hall of fame”) – to nonprofit management. They concluded that nonprofit management meets all these criteria, arguing that it constitutes a distinct profession separate from public administration.

In summary, while critiques of nonprofit studies as an academic discipline persist, evidence of thematic coherence, scholarly maturity, and professional distinction suggests that the field has achieved significant intellectual and institutional development.

8 Conclusions: Do We Have What It Takes to Be an Academic Discipline?

The question of whether a field of study qualifies as an academic discipline is not unique to nonprofit studies. One of the earliest explorations of this issue can be traced back to Hatfield’s (1924) address to the American Accounting Association, titled An Historical Defense of Bookkeeping. In his speech, Hatfield offered a thoughtful and compelling defense of accounting as a discipline. Decades later, John C. Fellingham revisited the same question in a 2007] paper, yet he too was unable to arrive at a definitive conclusion regarding accounting’s disciplinary status. Similarly, Henry (1964) proposed that physical education could be considered an academic field. More recently, Reis et al. (2022) suggested that while physical education practices may vary among practitioners, the field is grounded in an academic discipline. Such inquiries are also common across many emerging domains of knowledge.

In his 2016 paper, David Horton Smith addressed this issue directly in the context of voluntaristics, asserting:

After more than four decades of expansion, voluntaristics now qualifies as a new, global, integrative academic discipline in the socio-behavioral sciences and related social professions, not just as one of many interdisciplinary research fields, according to six defining criteria for a discipline.

While Smith’s conclusion is definitive, the debate remains open. Some nonprofit scholars are likely to remain unconvinced. These scholars may approach the topic cautiously or even with skepticism, continuing to publish in nonprofit-focused journals while maintaining stronger affiliations with their traditional academic disciplines. This ongoing discussion reflects the complex and evolving nature of academic disciplines, particularly in emerging fields such as nonprofit studies.

It is impossible to provide a definitive answer to the question posed in this paper. A lot of it is in the eye of the beholder. However, based on the findings above and the criteria used to define an academic discipline, nonprofit studies can be legitimately recognized as an academic discipline. Over the past half-century, the field has evolved from a small group of individuals interested in grassroots organizations and voluntary action to a robust community of scholars who publish in their journals, attend the same conferences, collaborate across universities, cite each other’s work, and are increasingly hired into academic programs that offer nonprofit-related degrees. Still, one might wonder when an emerging academic field reaches full maturity.

Earlier in this commentary, I outlined Krishnan’s six criteria for defining what academic discipline is. To summarize: First, we possess a distinct object of research that addresses a significant aspect of society – specifically, Nonprofit Organizations (NPOs). Second, we have a body of specialized knowledge that is unique to the nonprofit sector. Third, we have developed theories and concepts that effectively structure our understanding of this sector. Fourth, we utilize a specialized terminological language and conceptual framework unique to the nonprofit field. Fifth, while our research shares similarities with other academic disciplines, it also features distinct variations. Finally, our presence is established in numerous universities, with dedicated programs and faculty specializing in nonprofit studies. Given these factors, as previously discussed by Krishnan and others, the criteria for academic discipline maturity appear to have been met.

Based on the findings in this paper and my personal experience, I believe nonprofit studies have reached the status of an academic discipline. For those who disagree, I would argue that the mere fact we are asking whether or not we are an academic discipline is itself a significant accomplishment in 50–60 years. Those who were active in the field before 2000 would have never considered such a question – it was simply beyond anyone’s horizons. Given the evidence presented, if we are not yet considered an academic discipline today, we will undoubtedly be one in the next decade or two. Most importantly, considering our remarkable growth, we are here to stay for the long term.