Introduction

The term “mapping” has garnered a lot of attention in civil society research and nonprofit studies. Conversations across various journals have presented and discussed challenges and debates to mapping or data collection on civil society/nonprofit sector, including the Journal of Civil Society (Heinrich 2005, 2006; Sokolowski and Salamon 2005, 2006), Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (Frumkin 2006; Grønbjerg et al. 2010; Smith 1997), Development and Change (Biekart 2008), American Behavioral Scientist (Grønbjerg 2002; Lampkin and Boris 2002) and of course Voluntas (Anheier 2007; Fowler 2002; Taylor 2002). These important contributions have often focused on definitional issues, what to include and not include, what the data is intended for, and measurement challenges. However, the implications of who is mapping is often neglected in these discussions.

Brent Never’s (2011) recent piece in Voluntas also falls victim to this neglect and has prompted this response to discuss the phenomena of mapping civil society and nonprofit organizations. His piece on mapping social service provision is situated in the complex case of the Holy Cross Dispute in Ireland. He presents interesting recommendations and contributes to issues surrounding the mapping of nonprofit organizations and their services. However, while arguing a need for more maps and “more thorough understanding of sector maps” (p. 176), he avoids discussing the process of mapping, i.e., the who is mapping? This issue is an important gap in his analysis and recommendations. Never is not the only contributor to gloss over this issue. As a research community, we are not discussing the dynamics of who maps and its possible implications within the phenomena of mapping.

Never’s Contributions

Before I argue the need to examine who maps, it is important to highlight Never’s several contributions to the discussion. Never pushes us beyond just needing to map for mapping’s sake and argues why and how funders and policymakers benefit by having more information for effective and efficient fund allocation. He has identified a path to better maps that includes information on organizations working in a given context; what and who these organizations serve; and, connecting this information to problems on the ground and when organizations are able to provide services for these problems. He argues that this more robust information can help target funding to current public problems in real time. These characteristics also enable a more balanced focus on the supply side of service provision and its demand side. His analysis of media coverage in the case of the Holy Cross Dispute supports the value of tracking needs throughout a conflict. And finally, his argument for more local level mapping is compelling in that, once again, it enables funders and policymakers to effectively and efficiently direct funds for services at an appropriate geographic scale. Through these contributions, Never pushes us to think more about mapping, its potential and challenges.

Missing: Who is Mapping and Its Implications

Left unanswered in Never’s piece and elsewhere is: Who is mapping? Mapping civil society is an effort to gather, collate, compile, and/or create information on civil society and the nonprofit sector. This information may (or may not) be available publicly or targeted to specific audiences. It seems that everyone wants a piece of the action surrounding mapping civil society and the nonprofit sector; that is, a role in determining what we understand as civil society and nonprofit organizations and their functions. This is a deeply relevant question that has not been asked and discussed in most articles, much less answered. Who does or should do the mapping? How do their objectives vary? What implications does this have on the sector and service provision?

My current research has led me to examine various mapping projects; and specifically, the variation across who is conducting the mappings and their objectives. While not exhaustive, I have identified several types of civil society mappers and their objectives (see Table 1). The first and second types of mappers have an academic objective. Type 1 maps what has been called “global civil society” to capture a civil society that is not confined by national or regional borders (see, for example, Anheier et al. 2001). Type 2 includes mapping by researchers in specific contexts, generally at the national level, to subsequently compare civil societies across contexts by their composition (Salamon and Associates 2004) and also by their strength and impact (Heinrich 2007; Heinrich and Fioramonti 2008). Type 3 includes mappings that are performed by donor and international institutions often to determine possible partnerships with civil society (UNDP 2006; World Bank 2005). Type 4 has garnered less attention but is increasingly relevant: governments at national and sub-national levels conducting mapping projects for goals that include data collection, regulation, and/or fostering collaboration (Appe forthcoming). And finally, Type 5 are civil society organizations creating their own maps, while sometimes limited in scope, to increase public legitimacy and foster self-regulation regimes.

Table 1 Four types mappers of civil society, objectives, and examples
Full size table

Perhaps, the most reflection and debate related to the who is mapping has been within the Research Community (Type 1 & 2). Anheier (2007) situates civil society mapping within the “standard social science practice” of “using descriptive, operational definitions to ‘map and measure’ contours of an empirical phenomena not yet well understood” (p. 4). Researchers argue that mapping is needed in order to see civil society and nonprofit organizations as legitimate players in policy (Salamon and Associates 2004). Criticisms of these mappers have often been based on definitional issues. For example, the Global Civil Society Yearbook’s definition of civil society has been considered too descriptive (Taylor 2002) and “Western” (Biekart 2008); and, John Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project’s definition has been cited as too rooted in social and economic policy debates that inform much of the nonprofit studies scholarship in the U.S. (Fowler 2002; Heinrich 2005). Concerns beyond definition have centered on methodology. For example, CIVICUS’ mapping is based on a participatory research approach at the local level in order to improve the state of civil society through local capacity building and empowerment. Such action research designs have been considered a means to address social problems while also contributing to social science, using participative approaches (Coghlan and Brannick 2001; Hale 2008; Susman and Evered 1978). Susman and Evered (1978) added a third dimension to the pragmatic and academic understanding of action research, to also include fostering capacities of people experiencing social realities under investigation. CIVICUS seeks is to strengthen civil society in specific contexts by “bridg[ing] the gap between research on the health of civil society and action by civil society stakeholders to improve that health” (Heinrich 2002, p. 4). CIVICUS seeks to empower participants and allows researchers flexibility that accounts for local and political contexts (Heinrich 2002). This has given considerable discretion to local mappers in each context causing some to question whether or not data are comparable (Howard 2005).

The Donor and International Institutions (Type 3) also posits questions related to who maps. If donors create maps, particularly in the case of foreign funding, do conflicts emerge as donors’ recognition of potential service providers might be distinct from that of local actors? Regional institutions that maintain registries of civil society organizations for partnerships fall into this type of mapper. The Organization of American States (OAS) has tracked civil society organizations in Latin America since 1999 and has become a de facto accreditation process for participation in OAS activities.Footnote 1 It should also be noted that donor and international institutions not only influence our understanding of civil society through their maps. For example, some have noted potential conflicts when the international donors play a role in funding mapping projects by the research community such as The John Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project and CIVICUS (Biekart 2008; Fowler 2002).

Government (Type 4) might provide an example of Never’s ideal map; a map that presents the supply and demand of services at the local level to inform funding decisions.Footnote 2 For example, in Bogotá, Colombia, government authorities at the sub-national level with the help from civil society organizations are creating a “social map” of the city (Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá 2006). First called The District Network of Cooperation for Development (RED)Footnote 3 and now the Information System for Cooperation (SICO),Footnote 4 the project has championed itself as a source of information to inform policy by collecting data on civil society organizations. The mapping includes the creation of an information system to highlight the actions of various entities working in social development—to identify needs, problems, and projections for public policy in Bogotá. The information is also intended to determine the services to be delivered by public entities and by civil society organizations (Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá 2006; Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá 2010). Bogotá’s “social map” provides a good case to test Never’s ideal map as it seeks to capture both the supply and the demand of services in Bogotá. However, the case of Bogotá enables insights about who maps and illuminates challenges to government as mappers. Its implementation has been challenged by a lack of sustained funding and the uncertainty in housing it within a particular department of the government.Footnote 5 Government mapping reveals issues related to what is included (and excluded) on a map as well as the role of political will and its relationship to the sustainability of such projects by government over time. In addition, we can understand mapping efforts by government as constructing Scott’s (1998) “maps of legibility.” That is, mapping civil society makes (certain) civil society organizations legible to government officials but only offers a portion of reality as it is through the lens of the “official observer” (Scott 1998). Given this, it calls for a careful examination of government’s role in conducting mapping and its implications.Footnote 6

Civil Society and Nonprofit Organizations (Type 5) is perhaps less obvious, but this type of mapper is increasingly receiving more attention in the civil society and nonprofit literature. Here, nonprofit organizations in various contexts are assuming the act of mapping. This might be an effort by civil society organizations to control and maintain their own discourse on civil society and its role within a specific context. It is frequently a result of nonprofit organizations feeling threatened by government regulation (Sidel 2009; Gugerty 2008; Prakash and Gugerty 2010). It can be in response by nonprofit organizations to government mapping (Type 4) as well as an effort to organize themselves in order to seek greater public legitimacy (Brown 2007; Gugerty 2008; Jordan and vanTuijl 2006; Prakash and Gugerty 2010). Concerns with this type of mapping are that it often includes only a small sample of organizations and, more often than not, reflects organizations with a higher level of professionalization and institutionalization (Bies 2010; Prakash and Gugerty 2010), thus not representative of the entire sector. Consistent with the other mappers, issues of exclusion and inclusion are inherently woven into this model of a map. The “mappers,” in any of the above “types” have the power to include and exclude within both the supply side and demand side—i.e., the public problems to be considered for service provision by organizations. As we push forward with seeking or needing better maps, these issues and possible conflicts cannot be neglected.

Pushing the Mapping Conversation Forward

Mapping civil society and the nonprofit sector can have many benefits—for funders and policymakers (as argued by Never), community members, social scientists, and the organizations. Indeed, the discussion is active and encourages the empirical study and comparison of civil society and nonprofit organizations. Academics, donor and international institutions, governments—which is my own research interest—as well as civil society organizations themselves are mapping. As the Bogotá case demonstrates, governments might be in a good position to construct maps that include the components of Never’s ideal map, but as observed, challenges exist and implications of such maps need more attention.

As I briefly lay out above, inclusion and exclusion will be decided by who is doing the mapping. As Never and others mention, definition is one of the biggest challenges to mapping in addition to its high costs and several methodological concerns. When we map, we are constructing contours around a concept. Through their maps, mappers of civil society and nonprofit organizations illuminate the multiple realities that exist (Berger and Luckmann 1966; see also Scott 1998). Interpretive research and social construction literature can frame the inquiry into civil society mapping and its implications (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Schneider and Sidney 2009; Yanow 1999, 2007). These literatures help us understand that is a bit shortsighted to think that a map could capture everything as the mappers subjectively construct maps based on their own realities and interpretations. Never suggests in his conclusion that an ideal map can capture Smith’s (1997) concept of “dark matter” in the sector. This is not a convincing argument unless contextualized by who is undertaking the mapping and thereby understanding the various objectives in the process and their subsequent implications.