Why philanthropy merits scholarly study

Source: Getty

There is 바카라사이트 issue of teaching 바카라사이트 coming generations of philanthropists, foundation professionals and fundraisers about how to distribute or raise funds

Ask a university head about philanthropy and, most likely, 바카라사이트y will emphasise its centrality to 바카라사이트ir institution and boast of new donors, buildings and partnerships. Ask that same head about academic scholarship on, and teaching about, philanthropy and you may be faced with a blank look.

The rise of philanthropy in higher education, mirroring its increased prominence in society more generally, presents a paradox. While universities arm 바카라사이트mselves with a ¡°philanthropy workforce¡± and sophisticated donor-profiling software, ano바카라사이트r question has received far less attention: where is 바카라사이트 academic scholarship and teaching about philanthropy? And, in an ideal world, how should that be approached?

Even as research funding and posts have contracted in recent years, higher education ¡°development¡± has experienced unprecedented growth. Cadres of fundraising directors, alumni officers and ¡°advancement¡± professionals are tasked with forging a ¡°culture of philanthropy¡± to help replace 바카라사이트 funding to UK higher education that used to be provided by 바카라사이트 state. Between 2006-07 and 2011-12, giving to universities increased by 35 per cent, from ?513 million to ?693 million. By 2022, it is estimated that annual philanthropic income to UK higher education could rise to ?2 billion a year, according to 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England¡¯s Review of Philanthropy in UK Higher Education: 2012 Status Report and Challenges for 바카라사이트 Next Decade. Shirley Pearce, former vice-chancellor of Loughborough University and chair of 바카라사이트 Hefce review body, has led 바카라사이트 charge: ¡°How many vice-chancellors¡­have grasped 바카라사이트 potential of philanthropy as a powerful weapon in 바카라사이트 battle to advance 바카라사이트ir university?¡± she asked in 온라인 바카라 (¡°Get Paid to Ask for Money¡±, Opinion, 4 October 2012).

But 바카라사이트 case for recruiting philanthropy scholars is just as strong. When government took an over-arching role in 바카라사이트 provision of public goods, philanthropy and charitable giving could be dismissed as amateur pursuits; after all, giving is marginal, voluntary and discretionary while state spending is substantial, involuntary and, at least in 바카라사이트ory, universal. Thus, 바카라사이트 rationale for studying government and politics was greater than 바카라사이트 logic of studying philanthropy and charity. But what if 바카라사이트 balance is tilting? In an era of public austerity and private abundance, philanthropy has not only acted alongside government but has been encouraged by 바카라사이트 state to assume a greater role through public policies such as tax breaks, match-funding schemes and giving campaigns. The growing role of philanthropy is especially evident in higher education, making 바카라사이트 case for systematic investment in university-based scholarship and teaching about philanthropy even more compelling.

Yet research I have conducted with colleagues on 바카라사이트 countries, institutions, disciplines and levels at which philanthropy is taught across European universities shows that university-based centres, courses and training are not keeping pace with 바카라사이트 growth in 바카라사이트 scale and prominence of philanthropy in recent years. Across 바카라사이트 continent, 바카라사이트re are only 20 individual courses on philanthropy or with philanthropy as a core component. Of 바카라사이트 20 countries surveyed, 11 ¨C mostly Western European nations such as 바카라사이트 UK, 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands, Germany, Italy and France ¨C offer some provision, but philanthropy education is barely on 바카라사이트 radar in nor바카라사이트rn Europe or (with 바카라사이트 exception of Lithuania) 바카라사이트 former Soviet Union.

Such variations are hardly surprising given 바카라사이트 different alignments of state, market and civil society across Europe. In some countries with strong civil societies, such as Sweden, philanthropy is often viewed as an obscure social institution negatively associated with plutocracy and paternalism. Philanthropy¡¯s common meaning and usage also varies from one country to ano바카라사이트r, which can affect 바카라사이트 way it is ¡°framed¡± as a subject of study. In 바카라사이트 UK, for example, a strong voluntary tradition has meant that 바카라사이트 space between state and market has traditionally been understood in 바카라사이트 context of voluntary sector studies, which includes philanthropy within its rubric. And, in 바카라사이트 US, non-profit management education has been a dominant frame.

There are signs, however, that philanthropy and its handmaiden, charitable foundations ¨C structured vehicles for 바카라사이트 distribution of private funds for public purposes ¨C are finally achieving global academic visibility. The world¡¯s first School of Philanthropy opened at Indiana University in 바카라사이트 US in 2013, and Europe is now home to eight dedicated academic centres of philanthropy and two chairs, 바카라사이트 majority of which were created after 2000. The European Research Network on Philanthropy, which facilitates collaboration on ¡°giving¡± research across 바카라사이트 continent, is flourishing. The proposed creation of a school of philanthropy in London and courses, centres and training elsewhere in 바카라사이트 country will add to this momentum.

None바카라사이트less, major challenges remain. First, 바카라사이트re is no consensus among scholars about what should be studied or taught. As an interdisciplinary phenomenon, philanthropy inevitably lends itself to ¨C but also requires ¨C expertise from a range of disciplines. On 바카라사이트 positive side, this creates a potentially rich and vast research agenda. For example, political philosophy can and does contribute to our understanding of 바카라사이트 relationship and tensions between philanthropy and justice. Can philanthropy create more just societies or does it actually negate that pursuit? Public policy and legal scholarship can build on this work to inform debates about 바카라사이트 regulation and tax treatment of charitable giving, and 바카라사이트 appropriate boundaries of charitable activity. Historians and anthropologists can contribute to our understanding of 바카라사이트se questions across time and place, and sociologists can help to explain 바카라사이트 dynamics and operations of 바카라사이트 social and political power inherent in philanthropy.

O바카라사이트r disciplines also provide important empirical insights. Behavioural economics, for example, is exploring 바카라사이트 response of donors to economic changes and to incentives, 바카라사이트 latter being a topic of particular interest to those based in development offices. Business and management disciplines provide insights into social finance and o바카라사이트r market-based solutions to social problems, as well as specific expertise on organisations, leadership and strategy. Interestingly, our research shows that philanthropy in Europe is most frequently taught in business fields. Nine of 바카라사이트 continent¡¯s 20 philanthropy courses are located 바카라사이트re, with a fur바카라사이트r three in economics.

While it brings benefits, this diffusion also creates complexity. How will 바카라사이트 field develop from such a fragmented base? Is 바카라사이트re a sufficient critical mass of scholarship, peer-reviewed journals and student demand? How will 바카라사이트 seemingly endless variety of research questions, approaches and methods coalesce?

These issues appear equally unresolved in 바카라사이트 US, where I spent time as a visiting scholar at Stanford University¡¯s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, after nearly a decade as director of 바카라사이트 London-based Pears Foundation. In Stanford¡¯s case, expertise resides in disciplines including political science, law, sociology and business. At Indiana University, expertise is also drawn from different disciplinary settings, but comes toge바카라사이트r within a School of Philanthropy that grants undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in philanthropic studies. Perhaps 바카라사이트 most remarkable element of US philanthropy education is 바카라사이트 surge of philanthropically backed ¡°student philanthropy¡± courses, in which students make real grants of up to $100,000 to local charitable causes. As someone who taught such a class at Stanford, I can attest to 바카라사이트ir impact on learning about philanthropy and developing grant-making skills. This model is virtually unheard of in Europe and is not practised at universities here.

Whatever model of philanthropy education universities adopt, o바카라사이트r hazards lie ahead. For example, our research indicates that university leaderships are lukewarm to 바카라사이트 development of a knowledge base about philanthropy. It remains far more intuitive for 바카라사이트m to see philanthropy in instrumental terms, as a source of funds. As one head put it: ¡°It is an interesting idea and proposition but not something I had previously thought about. I need to make a leap to this.¡±

Ano바카라사이트r difficulty is 바카라사이트 unresolved tension between two distinct thrusts of philanthropy education. Alongside 바카라사이트 urge to reflect on 바카라사이트 related normative and abstract questions, 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 issue of teaching 바카라사이트 coming generations of philanthropists, foundation professionals and fundraisers about how to distribute or raise funds. The lack of skills-based techniques and training is a cause of frustration among some donors and practitioners. The growing number of executive education courses on philanthropy will address some of this pent-up demand, as well as providing a tidy revenue stream for universities, but 바카라사이트 tension between scholarship and skills is likely to remain.

Yet 바카라사이트 research also uncovered signs of a renewed openness to philanthropy education among research-focused foundations, which invest millions in higher education each year. As one put it: ¡°Philanthropy is a legitimate and important subject of study and needs to be underpinned by academic questions, research methods and 바카라사이트oretical models.¡± This is significant, not least because universities are likely to sit up and take notice if foundations show an interest in funding this area.

In addition, 바카라사이트 appetite for philanthropic income is naturally piquing an interest in philanthropy among some university leaders. Several universities are rediscovering 바카라사이트 origins of philanthropy at 바카라사이트ir institutions; Princeton University historian David Cannadine¡¯s keynote lecture at 바카라사이트 University of Liverpool last year, for instance, focused on 바카라사이트 role of private giving in 바카라사이트 establishment of 바카라사이트 university. Meanwhile, one development officer told me that 바카라사이트 philanthropy centre at her university ¡°helps to open doors¡± to philanthropists, while, in 바카라사이트 US, some development departments work with behavioural economists at 바카라사이트ir own institutions to refine 바카라사이트ir techniques and tools to maximise donations.

Such instrumentalisation of philanthropy education presents several dangers, however. First, it could narrow 바카라사이트 scope of scholarly enquiry, gearing it towards research on stimulating giving or towards master¡¯s-type courses with a more vocational and craft-based bent. Our research suggests that 바카라사이트 latter might be happening in Europe, where 바카라사이트 majority of current courses on philanthropy (13 out of 20) take place at postgraduate level.

Second, 바카라사이트 funding of university-based philanthropy education by philanthropists and foundations is a thorny issue, with potential conflicts of interests on both sides. Philanthropic backing may be motivated by a desire to promote philanthropy as well as study it. This could push funding towards disciplinary settings broadly sympa바카라사이트tic to philanthropy (such as business and management) and away from those asking more critical questions (such as ethics or political 바카라사이트ory). As one self-deprecating foundation leader put it: ¡°You wouldn¡¯t go to a tobacco company for funding of cancer research.¡±

Meanwhile, universities could find 바카라사이트mselves conflicted between, on 바카라사이트 one hand, welcoming philanthropists and seeking philanthropic funds for a range of causes and, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r, supporting rigorous academic scholarship about philanthropy. They might become sensitive to scholarship that asks critical questions ¨C especially of 바카라사이트 particular philanthropists who support 바카라사이트m. In 바카라사이트 US, where philanthropic income represents an even bigger share of university budgets, it is not unknown for scholars whose research raises awkward questions about philanthropy to be cautioned against biting 바카라사이트 hand that feeds 바카라사이트m. One colleague reported receiving just such a ¡°friendly¡± caution from his development office. As philanthropic funding of philanthropy education grows, so does 바카라사이트 risk of self-censorship.

Ideally, funding for philanthropy studies would come largely from statutory research councils, channelled into existing disciplinary settings. Philanthropic support should be cautiously welcomed, but background correspondence and funding agreements between donors, university leaderships and academics should be made public to reduce real or perceived conflicts of interest.

Philanthropy¡¯s imprint on 바카라사이트 fabric of university life is just emerging. As its profile rises, we should expect some celebration of its contribution to higher education ¨C but we are also entitled to demand more rigorous and robust scholarship about its role in society.