1. Summary of Dissertation Topic
This dissertation explores the impact of branding on non-profit organisations (NPOs) in Austria, with a particular focus on how branding influences resource acquisition, including financial donations, volunteer engagement and other support mechanisms, i.e. blood donations. The research aims to provide practical guidance to NPO practitioners on how to improve branding strategies to enhance resource mobilisation in a rapidly evolving societal context. It will be carried out by analysing existing data from surveys and reports and by collecting additional data, followed by experiments to prove the hypotheses.
The concept of a brand is a mental image of a product or service in the mind of the consumer. It clearly distinguishes and differentiates these otherwise interchangeable goods by adding additional emotional and rational qualities. Brand equity is the additional value, and therefore revenue, that can be derived from these brand attributes. Various theories also explain brand equity in terms of non-financial mechanisms such as awareness, loyalty or perceived quality.
My dissertation examines the relationship between brand equity in Austrian non-profit organisations and their donations and volunteer recruitment. It also examines whether the concept can be transferred easily from the for-profit product and service sector to the non-profit sector without modification. The aim is to provide non-profit managers with a good basis for brand management and fundraising by examining and explaining these interdependencies. It also explores whether corporate branding ideas and strategies can be adapted to the unique needs of NPOs, highlighting the differences and challenges between the two sectors.
The research will also examine how branding affects different groups associated with NPOs, such as the people they serve, donors and volunteers, to better understand the relationships involved. The differences between different types of NPOs may also be relevant, so I will focus on these in my research.
2. The Purpose of Science
The purpose of science – if there is one – is to deepen our understanding of the natural and social world through the systematic application of valid and reliable methods from relevant scientific fields. Relevance is generated by the perspective of the particular stakeholder and is therefore highly subjective (Watzlawick, 2005; Foerster, 2016). Science is not only about the application of existing methods to generate knowledge; it also involves the creation, refinement and validation of new methods to address new questions and challenges. This dual focus on discovery and methodological advancement ensures the continued progress and adaptability of science. The process is not only progressive. The knowledge generated by these processes, or marked as irrelevant and therefore erased from the canon of the scientific field, serves multiple purposes. It enriches the academic and practical discourse within particular fields, providing insights that shape how we perceive, analyse and interact with the world. This discourse is not static; it evolves as new insights, frameworks and theories emerge, creating a dynamic intellectual environment that constantly redefines the context for subsequent research.
In addition, science operates within a broader societal framework, contributing to problem solving, innovation and informed decision making. The knowledge it generates provides the basis for addressing complex issues, from environmental challenges to social inequalities, and facilitates the development of technologies, policies and solutions that benefit humanity. Sometimes, however, the problems themselves are caused by science, as perspectives are also negotiated between social subsystems.
Beyond the functionalist perspective of science as a tool for understanding and addressing societal challenges, science itself exists as a social field within society. Borrowing from Pierre Bourdieu’s (1992, 2018) framework, science can be seen as a space where symbolic battles are fought – an arena where scientists engage in defining the internal structures, rules and priorities of their disciplines. These battles are not merely academic; they shape the boundaries of what is considered valid knowledge, influence the allocation of resources, and determine the trajectories of entire fields. Last but not least, they define what ‘science’ is in the first place.
In this sense, science is not a purely objective pursuit of truth, but also a socially constructed domain in which power, authority and prestige play a significant role. Scientists do not operate in a vacuum; they are embedded in a system where recognition, reputation and symbolic capital are essential currencies. The ‚game‘ of science involves negotiating these elements in order to establish credibility, gain influence, and shape the paradigms that govern a particular field or sub-field. This dynamic is evident in debates over methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and even the definition of what constitutes a legitimate research question.
Science thus becomes both a producer of knowledge and a producer of itself. Like „art for art’s sake“, science exists not only to serve society, but also to maintain and develop its own structures (Kuhn, 1996). The production of knowledge feeds back into the scientific field, reinforcing or challenging its dogmatic rules and hierarchies. This self-referential nature ensures that science remains vibrant and adaptable, capable of reinventing itself in response to internal and external pressures.
3. Reflection on Scientific Practice
Why My Work is Science
This research is rooted in a constructivist paradigm (Beck et al, 2019; Berger&Luckmann, 2013;Lyotard, 2009; Welsch, 2008), which recognises that knowledge is socially constructed and influenced by the researcher’s context. It uses systematic mixed methods, including both qualitative and quantitative analysis, to explore branding in the NPO sector and compare it with its applications in commercial industry. Unlike journalism, which primarily describes phenomena for readers without necessarily creating new methodologies, generating new knowledge or transferring knowledge between fields, my scientific research follows a more rigorous and structured approach.
Having reviewed the state of the art in brand equity and nonprofit-management research by collecting peer-reviewed articles and systematic literature reviews in the relevant field – now figuratively standing ‚on the shoulders of giants‘ – I am ready to move on to the next steps. Based on these foundational studies, I will develop hypotheses about the interdependencies between different variables of brand equity and their effects on donations and volunteer engagement. I will test these hypotheses with the data from the field, explicitly articulate the researcher’s perspectives on and embeddedness into the field, the methods chosen, and the results, and thereby contribute to the broader academic discourse. While journalistic or literary works often try to avoid lengthy introductions or the repetition of known findings, scientific methodology – especially in the social sciences – emphasises triangulation, i.e. the integration of several, often lengthy, different references and perspectives in order to arrive at robust and reliable results, which then form the quantitatively smallest part of any publication.
By operating within the boundaries of nonprofit management research (Meyer et al, 2022) in terms of the methodological approach used, the academic sources referenced, and the language and narratives used, which are controlled by my supervisor on the one hand and the dissertation committee on the other, there is also an external institutional approval that guarantees that my work – to put it in Bourdieu’s terms – is a legitimate manoeuvre in the game of science.
How to Identify the ‘Truth’
Truth, as a concept, is complex and nuanced in the social sciences, differing significantly from its treatment in natural sciences. In the natural sciences, truth often aligns with objectivity and empirical verification, where phenomena can be observed, measured, and replicated under controlled conditions. At the beginning, social sciences tried to inspect “fait sociale” (Durkheim, 1919) as looking through the microscope from outside to the society, but this approach is not working any longer. However, in the social sciences, and particularly within a constructivist paradigm, truth is less about objective reality and more about shared understandings and socially constructed realities.
In particular, in the constructivist paradigm there is an approach to concepts of shared perspectives on phenomena, on the effects of inputs and outputs on complex non-trivial machines or social systems, and on causality. In this framework, truth is not a universal or absolute concept, but emerges from collective agreement on perspectives and interpretations of phenomena. What is true is what we collectively hold to be true within a domain. For example, the understanding of a ’social system‘ or ‚institution‘ is shaped by the meanings ascribed to it by individuals and groups within that system, which may differ across contexts. This approach also emphasises the study of the relationships between inputs, processes and outputs within complex systems, be they organisations, societies or networks.
In this view, truth becomes a fluid and provisional construct, co-created by researchers and participants through dialogue, reflection, and interpretation. It is not about reaching a singular or final „truth,“ but about developing deeper, context-sensitive understandings of social phenomena that can inform and enrich discourse within the field.
Nevertheless, achieving results that approximate „truth“ in a way that is scientifically rigorous requires a commitment to methodological transparency and reproducibility. My approach emphasizes the careful and systematic gathering of data, allowing others to critically evaluate, replicate, or refine my findings. By clearly articulating the steps taken in the research process, including data collection, analysis, and interpretation, I aim to ensure that my conclusions are both traceable and open to scrutiny.
Additionally, within the paradigm of nonprofit-management research, it is essential to frame findings in a manner that allows for falsifiability—a cornerstone of scientific inquiry. This means presenting results that can be tested, challenged, or invalidated by subsequent data or alternative interpretations. In doing so, I aim to position my work not as a definitive or absolute statement, but as a contribution to an ongoing and evolving conversation within the academic community. By balancing the constructivist understanding of truth as socially constructed with the rigor of empirical methods, my research seeks to provide reliable and meaningful insights that advance knowledge in a transparent and ethically grounded manner.
Objectivity, impartiality and neutrality in Research
Objectivity is traditionally rooted in positivist paradigms, where the goal is to produce results that are independent of the influence of the observer. From a constructivist social science perspective, however, absolute objectivity is not possible. A researcher embedded in a social field cannot produce completely objective results in the same way that tools in the natural sciences, such as thermometers or tachometers, which work independently of human interpretation, can.
In constructivist research, multidimensional triangulation of data and its sources is crucial. This approach helps to produce results that are reproducible, transparent and understandable within the scientific field. Such results can be critically discussed and provide a basis for falsifying hypotheses or refining conclusions.
In my research, reality serves as the context within which non-profit organisations operate. This reality (mistakenly perceived as objective by some nonprofit decision-makers) includes commonly accepted phenomena such as human suffering, natural disasters and environmental degradation. These contextual elements provide the rationale and legitimacy for the actions of nonprofit organisations. However, the socio-cultural construction of perspectives on these realities shapes the narratives that nonprofits present, and not all social actors today agree on all of these perspectives. These narratives, in turn, are fundamental to how their purposes are perceived and understood by their target audiences.
A critical aspect of this recognition process is the concept of brand equity and the variables that influence it. The way in which NPOs frame their brand equity – shaped by socio-cultural constructions of reality – affects their ability to connect with stakeholders, garner support and fulfil their missions.
As a nonprofit manager embedded in Austria’s largest NPO, the Austrian Red Cross, for more than 30 years, it is impossible to completely separate my perspective, socialisation and networks from my research, they are essential part of my life, my perspective and of the research process. From this perspective, there is no such thing as a purely neutral view of Austrian non-profit organisations. Even as an academic researcher with no direct connection to a nonprofit organisation, it would be impossible to achieve neutrality towards the causes and activities of nonprofit organisations. Even as an ordo-liberal economist from the Hayek Institute who has never donated to an Austrian NPO, one would have a biased perspective on them because one’s relatives need ambulance services, kindergartens or are active in sports or cultural organisations. Both science and NPOs are deeply embedded in their respective social and cultural contexts, which makes neutrality and impartiality less relevant as goals.
Instead, it becomes essential to focus on alternative approaches. By reflexively examining my position, being open about my limitations, and critically addressing my biases and assumptions, I can strive to mitigate their influence on my work. My research aims to explore these dynamics through triangulation and transparency, ensuring that the findings are rigorous and meaningful. However, I recognise that it cannot be entirely objective, impartial or neutral.
This recognition underscores the importance of adhering to ethical principles in my research. Ethical considerations at multiple levels guide my efforts to produce credible, responsible and impactful results, not only by balancing the complexities of my embeddedness in the field with the need for scientific integrity.
References:
Beck, Ulrich; Giddens, Anthony; Lash, Scott (2019): Reflexive Modernisierung. Eine Kontroverse. 1. Auflage. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (Edition Suhrkamp, 1705 = N.F., 705).
Berger, Peter L.; Luckmann, Thomas (2013): Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie. With assistance of Helmuth Plessner, Monika Plessner. 25. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl. (Fischer, 6623).
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992): Homo academicus. 1. Auflage. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Verl. (Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft, 1002).
Bourdieu, Pierre (2018), Homo academicus, Vol. 1002, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Durkheim, Émile (1919): Les Règles de la méthode sociologique, Paris: Alcan.
Foerster, Heinz von (2016): Einführung in den Konstruktivismus. 16. Auflage. München, Berlin, Zürich: Piper (Veröffentlichungen der Carl-Friedrich-von-Siemens-Stiftung, 5).
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996): The structure of scientific revolutions. 3. ed. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Lyotard, Jean-François (2009): Das postmoderne Wissen. Ein Bericht. 6., überarb. Aufl. Wien: Passagen-Verl. (Passagen Forum).
Meyer, Michael; Simsa, Ruth; Badelt, Christoph (Hg.) (2022): Handbuch der Nonprofit-Organisation. Strukturen und Management. Fachverlag für Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht Schäffer. 6. Auflage. Freiburg: Schäffer-Poeschel.
Watzlawick, Paul (2005): Wie wirklich ist die Wirklichkeit? Wahn, Täuschung, Verstehen. Taschenbuchsonderausg. München, Zürich: Piper (Piper, 4319).
Welsch, Wolfgang (2008): Unsere postmoderne Moderne. 7. Aufl. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
List of aids:
| Tool used | Type of use | Section | Documentation |
| DeepL | DeepL was used to translate the first English-language texts back into German in order to check the semantics and concretise the statements. | All | Deepl.com |
| DeepL write | In deepL Write, the English-language paragraphs were then optimised in terms of their linguistic level, without adding new content concepts. | All | https://www.deepl.com/de/write#en/ |
| NotebookLM | Test the final text against the template | All | https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/d63c65f9-743a-4503-be0c-f524b9da486e |
Diss-Tance 