Checking in on the State of Nonprofit Scholarship: A Review of Recent Research

The complexity and diversity of the nonprofit sector provide a rich landscape for academic scholarship; and, growing numbers of nonprofit scholars and their associated research publications have established the field of nonprofit research. Yet, it is unclear if this research has been applied appropriately to the evolving landscape of the sector. Although literature reviews have helped us to understand the status of academic scholarship in the field of nonprofit research, these reviews have primarily focused on particular topics without considering the field as a whole. Thus, in this study, we review all contemporary nonprofit scholarship (n=972) from three prominent nonprofit journals. The review documents the development of nonprofit research as presented in these journals over the last five years and offers recommendations for future research consideration.

related doctoral education, appropriate courses for future nonprofit scholars are often few. Jackson et al. (2014) provided an update to these findings and found that progress has been made in the nature and state of doctoral education in nonprofit and philanthropic studies, as seen in the seminars and consortiums that have evolved to accommodate doctoral studies in the field. There have also been a number of nonprofit-specific research centers and institutes that have emerged as sources of research production and sector engagement (Hall, 2013). Still, despite these improvements, Jackson and colleagues (2014) concluded that there remains a need for research and curricular development in nonprofit doctoral studies.
Reflecting on the diversity of the nonprofit field, Horton Smith (2013) documented more than 100 academic journals that incorporate elements of altruistic research. These journals include topics related to "civil society, third sector, social economy, philanthropy, social movements nonprofit organizations, participation and engagement" (Horton Smith, 2013, p. 654). More recently, Walk and Andersson (2020) uncovered 75 distinct journals relevant to nonprofit scholarship. It should be noted that many of the journals identified by Horton Smith (2013) and Walk and Andersson (2020) focus on specific nonprofit subfields, such as finance, and not solely on general nonprofit research.
There are three peer-reviewed journals, however, that have emerged with an emphasis specifically on the nonprofit form. These journals are NVSQ, NML, and Voluntas. Brudney and Herman (2004) describe these journals as the "three leading general purpose journals in the field of nonprofit sector studies" (p. 300). These journals were reaffirmed as the leading journals in the field by Walk and Andersson (2020). In their study, Walk and Andersson (2020) administered a survey to determine scholars' perceptions of high quality publication outlets in the nonprofit field. They found that scholars consistently ranked NVSQ, NML, and Voluntas as top journals, with NVSQ receiving nearly unanimous rating as a top tier publication outlet. Walk and Andersson (2020) also noted that these three journals and their subsequent rankings correspond to the Social Science Citation Index, which uses impact factor to rank and compare social science journals. Marberg et al. (2019, p. 5) also conducted a review of recent nonprofit literature. They found that although several journals published nonprofit literature, nonprofit research "in the non-specialty journals was not consistent with regard to time." Thus, they focused their study only on research published in NVSQ, NML, and Voluntas.
Horton Smith (2013) explains that the nonprofit sector became more organized in the 1970s, after the founding of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) and its associated research journal the Journal of Voluntary Action Research (JVAR), later renamed NVSQ. The establishment of a scholar community and an outlet for research provided a prototype for other types of associations and journals on the nonprofit and voluntary sector. NVSQ, however, was the first of its kind. Thus, prompting us to select it for our review. NVSQ is a pioneering academic journal in the field of nonprofit studies; and, it offers an interdisciplinary and research-based haven for the voluntary sector to learn, develop, and contribute to the growing conversation regarding the field.
Approximately 20 years after the development of NVSQ, two other journals arose simultaneously. According to editors Young and Billis (1990), NML was established as "a journal for the scholar and thoughtful practitioner devoted to advancing the theory and practice of management and leadership of private, nonprofit, and voluntary organizations" (p. 2). The aim of this journal was to bridge the gap between theory and practice on a variety of apropos topics such as the proliferation of the field, skills needed for nonprofit management and leadership, and working with funders and boards (Young and Billis, 1990).
At the same time, Voluntas, which is affiliated with the International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR), established its directive for an international scope on nonprofit research. Anheier and Knapp (1990) described Voluntas emerging from a desire for an interdisciplinary journal attentive to the global voluntary sector. Within ARNOVA and other international associations, Horton Smith (2013) estimated that more than 8,000 active researchers are involved in scholastic explorations of the altruistic field.
The diversity of the nonprofit sector and its related field of research has many accompanying challenges. Literature reviews, however, can be used as a methodological tool to sort this research, identify patterns and trends, and point to gaps and directions for future research. Although the nonprofit field has had its fair share of literature reviews, they have primarily been topical in nature. For example, there have been comprehensive literature reviews of nonprofit advocacy activities (Almog- Bar & Schmid, 2014), value creation (Chen, Ren, Knoke, 2014), volunteer performance (Englert & Helmig, 2018), nonprofit strategies (Laurett & Ferreira, 2018), fundraising (Lindahl & Conley, 2002), revenue structures (Lu, Lin, & Wang, 2019), and commercialization (Maier, Meyer, & Steinbereithner, 2016).
For the emerging nonprofit scholar, these reviews certainly provide insight into academic niches; however, there have only been two explorations of nonprofit research using samples derived from published work in peer reviewed journals. The first is a study by Ma and Konrath (2018). In this study they focused on bibliographical records and an individual publication's cited references. This study is impressive for the volume of literature that it considered (n=of 12,016 records in their initial dataset and n=311,312 associated references). Their study went as far back as 1925 and incorporated sophisticated data analytics to identify historical themes and patterns in nonprofit research. They examined sources, locations, topical themes, and networks of themes to indicate how streams of research connect (Ma & Konrath, 2018).
A relevant finding from Ma and Konrath (2018) was that several of the most cited references among their sample were in fact topical literature reviews. Despite the breadth of their study and analysis, they were limited in analyzing more in-depth topics, such as the research methods and theories employed. Indeed, since they feasibly could not read each full-text article in their sample, they were left to provide only a cursory review.
The other study by Marberg et al. (2019) relied on topic modeling of nonprofit research from 1990-2010. This study is useful because it highlights common themes and subtopics of nonprofit research over time with a specific focus on professionalization. However, the study did not depict other trends related to these studies, such as the methods employed or the context of the study.
Although it is not a literature review, it should be noted that Shier and Handy (2014) conducted a review of dissertation abstracts published between 1986-2010. They generated a sample of 3,790 dissertations focused on nonprofits. Through their descriptive study, they determined that there has been a 1,500% increase in dissertations with a nonprofit focus between the first year and the last year of their study. The dissertations included in their study were primarily published in the United States (US) and were narrowly defined in terms of topic (similar to the published results described above).
When examining other fields, including public administration where many nonprofit programs are housed (Mirabella & Wish 2000), literature reviews have also been used to make sense of research topics and fields. Houston and Delevan (1990), for example, explored the question of who publishes in the field of public administration. They found that most scholarly articles are single authored and come from current scholars in the field. They also discovered that public administration research is funded at a lower rate than other fields and that a major gap in the field is research that evaluates public policy (Houston & Delevan, 1990).
In the field of business administration, Gorman, Hanlon, and King (1997) conducted a literature review of entrepreneurship research and discovered that the field would benefit from the incorporation of more theories from outside of business in order to move the field's theoretical findings forward. Similarly, in marketing, Luchs, Swan and Creusen (2016) conducted a review of 252 articles on product design over a 14 year period and discovered many existing gaps in research including how differences between people, cultures, and other elements influence product design.
These literature reviews (from both within and beyond the nonprofit sector) have uncovered patterns, trends, and gaps regarding how topics have conceptually and theoretically been used in research. Following these studies, we conducted a descriptive content analysis (i.e., an inventory and analysis) of all articles published within a five year period (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013) in NVSQ, NML and Voluntas. In the section that follows, we explain our research methods and data sources. We then provide our findings and discuss the implications in an effort to identify gaps and bolster future research in the field.

Data and Method
To explore recent nonprofit research, we created a five-stage data collection process. At the first stage, we defined the sample for this study from the population of nonprofit research. Three prominent academic journals for nonprofit research were included based on the aforementioned rationale, NVSQ, NML, and Voluntas. We identified all articles published between 2013 to the first issue of 2018 (n=927). This sample included research articles, research notes, and theory pieces only. We excluded issue information, editor's notes, information for contributors, and book reviews. Table 1 provides a summary of the sample by year and journal.
At the second stage, we identified the data points that reflected our research interests. We then developed a data collection protocol for consistency. This protocol included step-by-step instructions and identified 16 data points for collection (summarized in Table 2). To identify these data points, the research team consulted prior studies of literature reviews from other fields (e.g., Hossain & Kauranen, 2016;Laurett & Ferreira, 2018;Suykens, De Rynck, & Vershuere, 2019). Specifically, we collected article title, author(s), publication information, country where the research occurred as well as the country that produced the research, type of research article and study, subsector of interest, keywords, theory used, and sources of data.
Information on article title and publication information was used to situate and identify the research. The location of the research was used to identify "where" the primary author was located (represented by the location of the university affiliation of the first author and the location of the research subject). This data point helps to identify which the countries are being studied in nonprofit research and in which countries more scholarly attention is warranted. Type of study refers to the method used in the study. This information helps identify the research design as well as the methods most prevalent in the field. We categorized type of study based on the four types methodologies identified by Laurett and Ferreira (2018). These were qualitative, theoretical, quantitative, and mixed.
Subsector refers to the nonprofit subsectors that have been studied. This data point is used to identify the subsectors that have been frequently researched by nonprofit scholars as well as those that have received less attention. Recurring themes were identified by the keywords included in the articles to help identify which subject areas have trended in nonprofit research as well as gaps If study relied on primary or both types of data, the primary method(s) were recorded. X X that exist in the nonprofit research field. Theories employed were also identified to provide insight into theory building among nonprofit research. These includes theories unique to the sector and those from outside the sector that have been applied to the nonprofit context. Lastly, we identified source(s) of data (i.e., either primary or secondary). For studies using data secondary sources, we made note of the source and created an inventory of data sources relevant to nonprofit research (see Appendix A).
The third stage in our methodological process was to implement data collection. Each of the authors was assigned journal volumes for data collection to ensure equal responsibilities for data collection. The articles from the three selected academic journals were downloaded from the library of North Carolina State University. The research team then identified data points from the articles by reading the entirety of each assigned article.
The fourth stage involved spot-checking the initial data collection. A preliminary spot-check of coding was necessary in order to ensure intercoder reliability across the full sample. All articles in the sample were confirmed. We developed a protocol for rechecking coding and included the data points identified in Table 2. To recheck the coding, articles were assigned to four members of the research team; and, these assignments were made in a way that ensured that no researcher rechecked (i.e., confirmed) data they had initially collected. If there was disagreement regarding any data point, research team members collectively decided on the outcome. In the final stage, analysis was undertaken. Prior to initiating the analysis, the research team conducted a final coding spot-check in order to ensure data integrity. Note: Countries that had more than 15 articles (>1.5% of the total sample) authored are specified in this table. For countries that had less than 15 articles authored, these are grouped as "other countries" and sub-labeled according to their continent.

Authors and their Location
The articles in the sample were primarily written by multiple authors with each article having on average approximately two authors. The number of authors ranged from one to eight. Single authored manuscripts accounted for approximately 31% of the articles in the sample (n=297). Of the multi-authored manuscripts, approximately 51% (n=342) were written by two authors. There were approximately 34% of manuscripts written by three authors (n=228); and, approximately 15% of manuscripts had four or more authors (n=102).
The United States (US) was the primary location of authors. This was followed by the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada. The US dominating as the country of the primary authors is not entirely surprising since NVSQ and NML are based in the US. Author locations comprising at least 1.5% of the total sample are summarized in Table 3. Authors represented 56 countries and spanned six continents. Not surprising given its mission and focus, Voluntas had the greatest international diversity with publications from 57 countries. During the study period, NVSQ published articles from 26 countries; and, NML published articles from 21 countries.

Research Location
The location of the research represented among the sample spanned 79 countries and six continents. Comparing the location of the researcher and their research, approximately 71% of the research was conducted in the same country as the author (n=689). Research locations are summarized according to their continent in Table 4.
Given various initiatives across the nonprofit academic community to be more inclusive, we also investigated the data to understand emerging diversity among nonprofit scholars. Specifically, Other Global 24 Multiple Continents 51 Unspecified 69 Note: "Multiple" is research conducted in multiple countries on the same continent. "Unspecified" is research conducted on a specific continent, but no specific country identified. "Global" is research conducted in unspecific global or international contexts. "Multiple Continents" is research conducted on more than one continent. Other "unspecified" is research with no location identified. total research by year was compared to the number of authors and research locations in the US (see Figure 1). Across the five years in the sample, the dominance of the US for authorship and research location appears to be steady, with a slight decline in 2017.

Type of Study
The articles in this study primarily represented quantitative research (n=495, approximately 51% of articles). This is followed by qualitative research (n=265, approximately 27% of articles). Articles identified as mixed methods accounted for 15% of the sample (n=146 articles). Articles that were either historical, theoretical, or otherwise non-empirical (e.g., conceptual) in nature comprised approximately 7% of the sample (n=66). Comparing journals, NML (at approximately 66%) and NVSQ (at 61%) published quantitative research more frequently than Voluntas (n= approximately 41% of articles) during the five-year period (see Figure 2).

Data Sources
The research represented among the articles primarily relied upon primary data sources (i.e., data the research team collected for the purpose of the research study) (n=391, 40.2%), followed by secondary sources (i.e., pre-existing data the research team used for the study) (n=343, 35.3%). Research relying on both primary and secondary sources of data accounted for 18.6% of the sample (n=181); and finally, 5.8% of the articles had no identifiable data source (n=56). Of the primary data collection methods employed by the studies, the most prevalent was interview research (n= 301; 31%). This was closely followed by survey research (n=297; 30.6%). Figure 3 provides a summary of the various primary data collection methods.
Focusing on the secondary data sources, document reviews were the most common source of secondary data (n=94, approximately 10%). Examples of document reviews include nonprofit websites, annual reports, and social media accounts. Secondary survey data of individuals, such as the US Current Population Survey was another common source of data (n=75, approximately 8% of studies relied on this data source). The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990 data, commonly collected by the National Center for Charitable Statistics, was the third most common source of secondary data (n=68; 7% of studies relied on this data source).
Of the research conducted in the US that relied on secondary data, approximately 18% (n=60)   another source identified as secondary data. Many secondary sources were specific to the research study and singularly used among the studies in this sample. In total, we identified over 100 different secondary sources (see Appendix A).

Subject of Study
To explore the focus of research represented in the sample, we first identified patterns emerging from the author-identified keywords. In an iterative process, we then noted recurring themes. The keyword "volunteers" was the most frequently identified keyword during this period (n=182; approximately 19% of studies). This was followed by "fund development" (n=141; approximately 15% of articles), and "accountability" (n=90; approximately 9% of articles) (see Figure 4).
We also explored the most salient topics in each of the journals based on keyword patterns. "Collaboration" (n=45; approximately 64% of articles), "volunteers" (n=101; approximately 56%  of articles) and "accountability" (n=37; approximately 64% of articles ) were most frequently used in Voluntas. "Fund development" was most frequently used in NVSQ (n=56; approximately 44% of articles). Among the four themes, NML was fairly balanced, with "accountability" being the most frequently used theme (n=22; approximately 24% of articles).
Next, using the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) "Major Groups," we identified the subsectors that provided the context for the research. 1 Over half of the research studies specified at least one subsector (n=661; 68%); and, of those specified "human services," "international," "health," and "education and research" subsectors were the most common (See Figure 5). Nearly 12% (n=116; approximately 12%) of all articles considered the nonprofit sector as a whole. There were 2.5% (n=24) of articles that referenced more than three subsectors. Some research (n=173; approximately 18%) was not focused on a subsector but instead considered an individual perspective (e.g., an individual donor or volunteer regardless of subsector).

Theory Salience in the Sector
To examine the degree of each article's use of theory, we identified which theories researchers applied in their studies. Over one-third of the studies did not explicitly identify any theory (whether underpinning the study or in terms of a theoretical contribution of the research) Of the theories identified in the articles, resource dependency was the most commonly tested and utilized theory (n=80, approximately 8% of studies somehow incorporated this theory). This was followed by institutional theory (approximately 7% of articles somehow incorporated).
We used the "other" category to capture theories that were referenced too few times to constitute a singular category. Figure 6 summarizes theories that were referenced by at least 15 articles or 1.5% of the sample. Table 5 sorts the theories among the three journals.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to provide a contemporary survey of nonprofit research from the field's three prominent journals. Our findings should be encouraging for those who study the nonprofit sector, those who prepare future nonprofit researchers and scholars, and those who provide outlets for publication for nonprofit research. This discussion overviews our findings.

US-Centric Research
Given the origins of the nonprofit academic community and associated outlets for academic publication, the dominance of the US as both country of primary author and location of research is not surprising. Yet, the steadiness of this dominance in the midst of special initiatives and emerging scholarly communities across the world may be a bit disappointing for some. This trend may reflect the US-centric orientation of the journals and their associated editorial boards as well as the expectations and norms for nonprofit scholarship considered for publication in these journals. Regardless, there is some need for concern that with limited outlets for publication of peer-reviewed nonprofit scholarship, the interests of promoting diverse scholars and research in diverse contexts may be hampered without more intentional and targeted initiatives.

Dominance of Quantitative Methods
Our findings confirm a commonly held assumption about the preference of nonprofit research toward a quantitative methodological orientation. This finding mirrors Ospina, Esteve, and Lee (2018), who conducted a review of research methods in six leading public administration journals between 2010-2014. In their study, they documented the dominance of quantitative research with qualitative research consisting of less than 8% of the research they reviewed. Ospina and colleagues (2018), therefore, advised that qualitative researchers be transparent in providing connections among the "epistemological and theoretical assumptions and their methodological consequences, on the one hand, and decisions about research design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, on the other" (p. 601).
Although there is certainly training in doctoral programs for quantitative inquiry, which may arise from post-positivist epistemological frames and a broad emphasis on generalizable findings, it should also be understood that the complexity of the nonprofit sector and its operations often necessitates the use of qualitative research designs. We acknowledge, however, that the remedy for balance between quantitative and qualitative research does not lie solely with journal editors and reviewers. The onus also falls upon authors to ensure the necessary rigor and trustworthiness to ensure research quality. Our intent here is not to evaluate qualitative research, but rather highlight that the nonprofit field has (at least in the recent past) disproportionately published quantitatively oriented research. Scholars, however, should be mindful that qualitative methods are often a path to theory advancement (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015).
A commonly held assumption in nonprofit research is the need for sector specific theory building. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) noted that qualitative designs often start with a theoretical position in order to adequately contribute to a conversation in the field and enhance theory building. Existing theory is the foundation for theory building but scholars must be "moved out of the laboratory and into natural contexts" in order to understand the phenomena (Lincoln, 1990, p. 78). Authors undertaking qualitatively oriented research should strive to demonstrate the empirical nature of their research, precisely define terms, clearly outline steps in data collection and analysis, and reference sources that have employed similar approaches or provide insights on the merits of qualitative research (Nowell & Albrecht, 2018).

Variety of Primary Data Collection Methods
The sample includes a diversity of primary data collection methods. This diversity signals a proficiency among nonprofit scholars to design and implement data collection protocols, navigate the requirements of Institutional Review Boards, and oversee complex research projects that span long durations. Academic programs intended to train future nonprofit scholars should, therefore, consider and teach students about the range of methodological tools that effective nonprofit researchers should have in their methodological tool kit. This should help in furthering the larger community's (i.e., practitioner and academic) understanding of the tools that are appropriate and necessary for nonprofit scholarship.

Broad Range of Secondary Data Sources
Given the assumed dominance of IRS 990 tax forms as the primary source of data for nonprofit scholarship in the US, the diversity of data sources represented in this research is interesting to note. Indeed, we identified over 100 secondary data sources, and many of these are publicly available (see Appendix A). We, therefore, see great opportunity for nonprofit scholars to think creatively about data sources that may help them answer their research questions. Given this broad diversity, there is little need to allow data sources to guide research interests.

Diverse Foci
The keywords in the sample also represent diversity of research interests. This diversity makes it challenging to summarize cohesive trends in nonprofit research. Although there is some clustering among topics identified from this analysis, it remains unclear if the commonalities are sufficient enough to represent a cohesive research stream or if it is merely a matter of common keywords and individualized interests of the authors.
One focus in particular, however, is interesting to note-that is, the volume of studies related to volunteers. This volume may be due to the growing professionalization of the nonprofit sector. Questions remain, though, whether this focus is a reflection of the available data and the origins of the sector or a contemporary need to understand the changing dynamics of the sector.

Limited Integration of Theory
With the roots of nonprofit scholarship sourced from many disciplines, the diversity of theories identified in the sample was no surprise. The large portion of the sample that did not integrate or reference a theory (nearly one-quarter of articles across all journals), however, (some while still purporting to be "theory-building") was surprising.
The role of theory in research is to help systematically predict, describe, and explain phenomena. Thus, with the neglect of theory among some articles in this sample, the question arises whether scholars hold too narrow a lens to contribute or integrate theory more broadly; and, for those who do, it is questionable whether their reference to theory is perfunctory as opposed to genuinely contributing to building theory. We should point out that we refrained from evaluating the authors' use and application of theory; and, a number of authors (n=15) described their research as grounded theory, implying they were constructing theory from their inductive research inquiry.

Divergent Research
Each article in the sample was unique, comprised of various authors, foci (i.e., keywords), locations, theory application, methods, and data sources. Although there was some cohesion among the research themes in this study, it should be noted that isolated inquiries can prove challenging when seeking to understand the intellectual structure of a research field. It is, therefore, important that nonprofit researchers and authors highlight practical considerations of their research (e.g., implications for future research) that often conclude research publications. This should help to foster more research to practice connections. Future research should also consider the use of topic modeling, as demonstrated by Marberg et al. (2019) in their analysis of nonprofit research, to investigate in-depth the convergence and divergence of contemporary nonprofit scholarship.

Research into the Sector's Fringes
The diversity uncovered in this study is, collectively, a strength, a challenge, and an opportunity for nonprofit scholarship. Although the diversity of the nonprofit sector is widely acknowledged, some researchers are challenged to think about their research in terms of generalizability and theoretical importance. In scanning the prevalence of nonprofit scholarship among the sector's many subsectors, we identified clustering in some areas while neglect in others.
Although we relied on the 10 broad categories of the NTEE to categorize articles in the sample, we realize that a broader diversity of subsectors would be represented if we attempted to match each article to the NTEE's 26 major groups (or the 400+ subcategories). Future should consider the full range of nonprofit subfields.

Precision in Terms
As trained scholars in the nonprofit field, we found ourselves in the midst of data coding challenged to interpret what some authors self-identified as characteristics of their research. This challenge could be the result of terminological confusion on the part of authors, an oversight, or missed components of the peer-review process. Beyond the challenge of self-reported theory mentioned previously, we sought (and sometimes did not find) precisely used terms that described the type of study, the methods, or the analytic process. Although beyond our study's scope, this issue may extend to the constructs the research is intent on investigating. Although we understand that this issue is not unique to our nonprofit field, it should be understood that precision in terms helps to foster cohesive bodies of knowledge.

Limitations
Given our unique and large sample, this study is not devoid of limitations. First, the data points are limited by the use of the authors' definitions. We relied on the definitions and information provided by the authors of the sampled articles to create the data points. This information may or may not be accurate in terms of some of the data points. For instance, what an author identified as theory may not necessarily be the appropriate use of theory in the article.
Secondly, the scope of the study is limited. We reviewed only three, out of many other nonprofitrelated journals available. The sample was also based on a 5-year period (2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018). Greater trends and diversity may be identified by reviewing additional journals and focusing on a broader segment of time.

Conclusion
With the diverse and complex nature of the nonprofit sector, this study advances the field by focusing attention on a broad sample of contemporary nonprofit research and evaluating trends over the last five years. This review improves our understanding of the scope of nonprofit research for existing scholars. It also informs emerging scholars about research trends and gaps that exist.
From the three prominent peer-reviewed nonprofit journals, we explored areas where nonprofit research has emerged, topics that have been prominent, nonprofit subsectors that have been studied, data sources that have been used, and methods and theories that have been employed. Using a sample of 972 articles, our data collection and analysis indicated that most articles were authored by multiple authors. This demonstrates the importance of collaboration within the field of nonprofit research. Authors represented approximately 56 countries across six continents. Conferences, trainings and seminars, where researchers converge and connect, should provide greater opportunities for future research collaborations.
Quantitatively-oriented research dominates recent nonprofit scholarship. This highlights the importance of (and opportunities for) training emerging nonprofit scholars in diverse research methods. Primary data sources dominated the sample, but we also found substantial diversity in the sources of data available to nonprofit-related inquiry (see Appendix A). A recurring theme in nonprofit research is volunteers; and, most research focuses on a single nonprofit subsector. Limited theoretical underpinnings may be an opportunity for future scholars to seek stronger grounding in theory so that the field can draw greater connections across research topics and also so that new theories specific to the sector can develop.
In sum, our analysis heartens us as emerging scholars in the growing field of nonprofit research. However, our analysis also illuminates where we might contribute to strengthening the direction of future nonprofit research.

Disclosure Statement
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest that relate to the research, authorship, or publication of this article.