Six Blind Men and One Elephant: Proposing an Integrative Framework to Advance Research and Practice in Justice Philanthropy

IF 1.1 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs Pub Date : 2022-11-10 DOI:10.20899/jpna.8.3.349-374
L. Paarlberg, Marlene Walk, Cullen C. Merritt
{"title":"Six Blind Men and One Elephant: Proposing an Integrative Framework to Advance Research and Practice in Justice Philanthropy","authors":"L. Paarlberg, Marlene Walk, Cullen C. Merritt","doi":"10.20899/jpna.8.3.349-374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are growing calls that philanthropic foundations across the globe can and should advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice. Initial evidence indicates that foundations have indeed responded as evidenced by pledges to change practice, increased funding for racial justice, and the emergence of new networks to support equity and justice. However, there is also great skepticism about whether the field of foundations are, in fact, able to make lasting changes given numerous critiques of philanthropy and its structural limitations. In this article, we summarize these critiques that suggest factors that make institutional philanthropy resistant to calls for equity and justice. We posit that a core obstacle is a lack of conceptual coherence within and across academic and practitioner literature about the meanings of terms and their implications for practice. Therefore, we propose a transdisciplinary conceptual framework of justice philanthropy that integrates the fragmented literature on justice-related aspects of philanthropy emerging from different disciplinary traditions such as ethics, political theory and political science, social movement theory, geography, public administration, and community development.","PeriodicalId":43150,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.8.3.349-374","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are growing calls that philanthropic foundations across the globe can and should advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice. Initial evidence indicates that foundations have indeed responded as evidenced by pledges to change practice, increased funding for racial justice, and the emergence of new networks to support equity and justice. However, there is also great skepticism about whether the field of foundations are, in fact, able to make lasting changes given numerous critiques of philanthropy and its structural limitations. In this article, we summarize these critiques that suggest factors that make institutional philanthropy resistant to calls for equity and justice. We posit that a core obstacle is a lack of conceptual coherence within and across academic and practitioner literature about the meanings of terms and their implications for practice. Therefore, we propose a transdisciplinary conceptual framework of justice philanthropy that integrates the fragmented literature on justice-related aspects of philanthropy emerging from different disciplinary traditions such as ethics, political theory and political science, social movement theory, geography, public administration, and community development.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
六个盲人和一头大象:提出一个促进正义慈善研究与实践的综合框架
越来越多的人呼吁全球各地的慈善基金会能够也应该促进多样性、公平、包容和正义。初步证据表明,基金会确实做出了回应,承诺改变做法、增加对种族正义的资助,以及出现了支持公平和正义的新网络。然而,鉴于对慈善事业及其结构局限性的众多批评,人们也对基金会领域是否真的能够做出持久的改变表示怀疑。在这篇文章中,我们总结了这些批评,这些批评提出了使机构慈善事业抵制公平正义呼声的因素。我们认为,一个核心障碍是学术和从业者文献内部和之间缺乏关于术语含义及其对实践的影响的概念一致性。因此,我们提出了一个跨学科的正义慈善概念框架,该框架整合了来自不同学科传统的慈善正义相关方面的零散文献,如伦理学、政治理论和政治学、社会运动理论、地理学、公共管理和社区发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Empowerment or Exploitation? Ethical Engagement of Survivor Leaders in Anti-Trafficking Organizations Defining and Measuring Economic Development: A Literature Review and Outlook Unpacking the Volunteer Experience: The Influence of Volunteer Management on Retention and Promotion of the Organization Front Matter #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) Was Never About Officer Race
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1