Many thanks to our generous hosts — René Bekkers (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Center for Philanthropic Studies), Michaela Neumayr (WU Vienna, Institute for Nonprofit Management & Governance), and Oonagh Breen (UCD Sutherland School of Law) — for convening this year’s ERNOP PhD Workshop. And thanks to all participants: your openness, critical questions, and collegial support turned the day into a true laboratory of ideas.
What made the event so enriching was the variance — both thematically and methodologically — across the contributions. Some projects dug deep into cultural or historical contexts of giving; others employed quantitative and qualitative research designs, ranging from survey experiments and econometric modelling to interviews and case studies, and even activists approaches. This diversity reminded us that philanthropy research resists a single paradigm: it thrives on the plurality of methods and perspectives, from historical reflection to robust empirical testing. The academic diversity of the hosts helped us to feel this broadness.
A few abstracted takeaways stood out:
- Clarity of research questions matters — not only to position a paper academically but also to ensure the design can truly answer it.
- Robustness and transparency travel well across methods: fixed effects, invariance testing, attention to self-report bias, and clear documentation all increase credibility.
- Generalizability has limits — results rooted in one country’s nonprofit landscape rarely travel untested to another.
- Above all, causal humility: much of what we present is associational. Being precise in language strengthens trust with readers and practitioners alike.
I also presented my working paper on nonprofit brand equity and donations in Austria. The feedback I received — especially from René Bekkers — was both generous and challenging: sharpen the research question, avoid creeping causal language, anchor constructs in theory, and document data/methods transparently for others to scrutinize and replicate.
Taken together, the workshop underscored the value of critical, constructive dialogue: we don’t only present results — we co-create better designs for the next round of studies. I’m grateful to our hosts and colleagues for the energy and ideas we shared, and I’m looking forward to continuing these conversations within the ERNOP community and beyond.
Diss-Tance 