Examining the re-territorialisation of beneficiary accountability: Digitising nonprofit services in response to COVID-19
Kingston, Kylie, Luke, Belinda, Furneaux, Craig, & Alderman, Lyn (2023) Examining the re-territorialisation of beneficiary accountability: Digitising nonprofit services in response to COVID-19. The British Accounting Review, 55(5), Article number: 101199.
|
Accepted Version
(PDF 1MB)
127052383. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives 4.0. |
Description
This research explores change in accountability toward beneficiaries within nonprofit organisations (NPO) during the first wave of COVID-19; specifically, through the digitalisation of NPOs' services. COVID-19 was a time of great change, where chaos replaced a level of order and routine in organisations' established structures and systems. Accordingly, this research uses understandings from Deleuze and Guattari to explore territorial changes within two NPOs' regimes of beneficiary accountability as a result of COVID-19 and their actions in attempting to restore order. Findings suggest that although disruption was produced by COVID-19, responses by the NPOs resulted in digitised changes to service provision that predominantly saw positive experiences for beneficiaries in each NPO. Findings demonstrate how organisational responses to unanticipated change, through the digitalisation of service provision, impacted upon the beneficiary accountability regimes in ways that both expanded and restricted their territories. Here consideration is given to shifts in territory and emphasis on accounting for-the-self versus accounting for-the-other. A theoretical contribution is made toward understanding how NPOs might work to produce order in times of chaos through considering their territories of accountability.
Impact and interest:
Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloads:
Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
| ID Code: | 238511 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item Type: | Contribution to Journal (Journal Article) | ||||||
| Refereed: | Yes | ||||||
| ORCID iD: |
|
||||||
| Measurements or Duration: | 19 pages | ||||||
| Keywords: | Accountability, Beneficiaries, COVID-19, De/Re-territorialisation, Digitalisation, Nonprofit Organisations | ||||||
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.bar.2023.101199 | ||||||
| ISSN: | 0890-8389 | ||||||
| Pure ID: | 127052383 | ||||||
| Divisions: | Current > Research Centres > Centre for Future Enterprise ?? 1459460 ?? Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Business & Law Current > Schools > School of Accountancy |
||||||
| Funding Information: | Deleuze and Guattari's writings are helpful in this regard as they encourage awareness of organisational workings and their territorialising impacts. By way of illustration, a consideration of territorialisation framed understandings of the de-territorisalisation of socio-cultural values in the arts sector under new public management reforms, where a corresponding re-territorialisation of politico-economic values has arisen (Abdullah & Khadaroo, 2021). Furthermore, territorialisation of grassroots organisations through formalised governance structures and accounting processes resulted in the over regulation of organisational relations, ultimately changing the flow of funds (Martinez & Cooper, 2017). These studies illustrate the value of considering the territorialising role organisational operations and decisions, particularly those underpinned by neoliberal logics, have upon accountability and its effect on, and creation of, marginalised stakeholders.The first NPO is a locally based, Service Providing Organisation (hereafter referred to as SPO). SPO is a community centre promoting social inclusion for an ageing community. SPO is a medium-sized NPO (annual revenue between AUD 250,000 and 1,000,000) (Australian Charities & Not-for-profit Commission, 2020) community centre in a large regional Australian city. The mission of SPO focusses on advancing community participation and encouraging personal and social growth for beneficiaries (SPO, website). SPO began operations in the 1980s and is 90% government funded (SPO, website). Although services provided by the NPO are available to all age groups, older persons (aged 60 years and over) form the primary beneficiary demographic (SPO, Employee 2), with the majority being regular/repeat users of the NPO's services (SPO, Employee 3).In addition to services facilitating social inclusion, SPO offered services such as food donations, technology/computer support, a literacy tutoring program, and a tax-help program. The technology/computer support program helped beneficiaries to become confident and capable of using technology and was established because “a lot of seniors are very uncomfortable with computers” (SPO, Employee 3). Additional digital technologies included an iPad evaluation app for beneficiaries to use upon departure each day to give their feedback. The app involved beneficiaries selecting a happy or sad face to reflect their experience of the service that day and was considered by employees to be a useful means of data collection to report to government funders. Although appearing to be simple, a volunteer receptionist responsible for monitoring beneficiaries’ use of the iPad discussed the difficulty some beneficiaries had using the technology, to the extent that it was seen as frightening, indicating a reluctance felt by some beneficiaries to use digital technologies. Here digitalisation has the potential to disrupt order.The chaos revealed by COVID-19 entering SPO, which initially de-territorialised typical service provision, was swiftly responded to by the organisation to re-territorialise a digitalised ‘new normal’. This enabled a digital transformation (Mergel, Edelmann, & Haug, 2019) of SPO which impacted on beneficiaries' needs, allowing beneficiaries to remain supported through different forms of engagement. Here the return to situations that had previously caused beneficiaries to feel socially isolated no longer produced the same results. New digitised service provision mechanisms de-territorialised and restored beneficiaries' sense of social inclusion, regaining order. SPO now demarcated a territory where even though beneficiaries were at home, they were no longer isolated. This was a fundamental change not only to their service provision and their way of engaging with beneficiaries, but also to their beneficiary accountability regime.This research also suggests another story in relation to the receipt of income into each NPO and associated beneficiary voice (or lack of). Here, the government funded organisation (SPO) introduced new ways of operating in order to maintain connections with beneficiaries within a COVID-19 environment. In contrast, in the NPO largely funded by its members' fee payments (MBO), members previously requested new ways of operating, which were only introduced after being confronted with a COVID-19 environment. This finding is somewhat unexpected given the profile of MBO's members as fee-paying member-beneficiaries with typically increased agency (e.g., voting rights) versus the typical beneficiary profile within government funded organisations (such as SPO) as (seemingly) passive recipients of largely free or heavily subsidised services. | ||||||
| Copyright Owner: | 2023 British Accounting Association | ||||||
| Copyright Statement: | This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au | ||||||
| Deposited On: | 30 Mar 2023 01:09 | ||||||
| Last Modified: | 06 Mar 2025 23:14 |
Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX
Repository Staff Only: item control page