Abstract
Civil society refers to social institutions outside of the confines of households, the market and the state. Such institutions provide a wide range of facilities and services in communities and society, generate employment, and create significant economic value through direct, indirect and induced expenditure. Notwithstanding this, voluntary, social and community organisations are rarely included in indices seeking to measure digital progress in society. Digital technologies can transform how civil society organisations operate and interact with their stakeholders. This chapter defines civil society, discusses the role they play in society, and the opportunities and challenges for digital adoption and use in civil society.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
5.1 Introduction
‘Civil society’ is a term increasingly used to refer to social institutions outside of the confines of households, the market and the state. Such social institutions are typically characterised by varying degrees of self-governance, voluntarism, and not-for-profit operation (Salamon et al., 1999). Civil society includes a wide range of voluntary, social and community organisations including charities, social and sports clubs, political parties, religious bodies amongst others (see Table 5.2). These civil society organisations (CSOs) often play an integral role in rural society providing an important underlying social fabric in a community and addressing issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed by the market or state. Like commercial and indeed government institutions, digital technologies have the potential to transform organisational capacity and stakeholder engagement in and with civil society institutions yet CSOs are rarely included in indices seeking to measure digital progress in society.
The remainder of this chapter defines civil society and discusses the role of CSOs in the context of rural communities. The opportunities and challenges for the digital transformation of CSOs are then discussed followed by a discussion of extant attempts to measure digital adoption and use by civil society.
5.2 Defining Civil Society
‘The Third Sector’, ‘the independent sector’, ‘the nonprofit sector’, and CSOs are just a few of the terms used loosely to refer to civil society (United Nations, 2003). In many respects there are broad and narrow perspectives to defining civil society. Anheier et al. (2001, p. 21) define civil society as:
the sphere of ideas, values, institutions, organizations, networks, and individuals located between the family, the state, and the market and operating beyond the confines of national societies, polities, and economies.
In this respect, they conceive civil society as a broad, global and somewhat abstract concept, which has been critiqued as lacking in rigor and precision (Taylor, 2002). In contrast, Salamon and Anheier (1998, p. 216) define civil society as a collection of entities that share five characteristics:
-
organisations, i.e., institutionalised to some meaningful extent;
-
private, i.e., institutionally separate from government;
-
non-profit -distributing, i.e., not returning profits generated to their owners or directors;
-
self-governing, i.e., equipped to control their own activities; and,
-
voluntary, i.e., involving some meaningful degree of voluntary participation.
While providing specific criteria for inclusion in a civic society or nonprofit ‘sector’, this definition is also sufficiently broad. As such, it encapsulates a wide range of organisations including those involved in culture and recreation, education and research, health, social services, education, environmental protection and conservation, human rights advocacy, religion, and politics, amongst others. Furthermore, as an operational definition, it clearly distinguishes between households, the market, and the private sector, the other three economic units defined in the System of National Accounts by the United Nations (United Nations, 2003). Internationally, civil society both varies in presence, composition, financing and scale with specific CSO categories more or less prominent depending on context (Salamon et al., 1999). Notwithstanding this, education and research, health, social service, and culture and recreation are historically dominant in most countries (Salamon et al., 1999; Indecon, 2018). Given that many of these activity categories are influenced by government, Salamon et al.’s (1999) five defining organisational characteristics serve to distinguish CSOs from facilities and services provided from entities other than households, the market or the state.
5.3 The Role of Civil Society
A number of theories have been posited to explain the pattern of civil society growth in a given region (Salamon, 1999). These are summarised in Table 5.1. Although the most common and prevalent theory is the market failure/government failure theory, it does not fully explain the patterns for growth although the remaining anomalies can be explained by a combination of other theories, namely supply-side and social origins theory (Salamon, 1999).
At a practical level, civil society institutions play a number of important roles. Firstly, CSOs play an important role in the context of society. They play a key role in not only encouraging community involvement but promoting citizenship values, skills and attitudes and motivating citizens to use in the public interest (Salamon, 1997; Edwards & Foley, 2001). Secondly, they play a representative and contestory role for presenting and advocating distinct interests and diverse points of view (Ben-Ner & Van Hoomissen, 1992; Salamon, 1997; Edwards & Foley, 2001). Thirdly, they perform a variety of public and quasi-public functions through service delivery (Salamon, 1997; Edwards & Foley, 2001). These roles are reflected in the wide range of activities they perform and are summarised in Table 5.2. As discussed, education and research, health, social service, and culture and recreation are historically dominant CSO activities in most countries (Salamon et al., 1999; Indecon, 2018).
Secondly, the nonprofit sector is a significant employer. For example, recent data suggests that the sector is the third largest employer in the US with 12.5 million paid workers (Salamon & Newhouse, 2020). Similarly, in Europe the sector employs 28.3 million full-time equivalent (FTE) workers (paid and volunteer) in the EU28+ countries, accounting for c. 13% of the European workforce (Salamon & Sokowlowski, 2018). Thirdly, in addition to social impacts and employment, these institutions create significant economic value through expenditure. Even in relatively small countries the impact can be significant. For example, a recent report on the social and economic impact of the nonprofit sector in Ireland estimated that charities in Ireland resulted in direct, indirect and induced expenditure of €24.98 billion in 2017 (Indecon, 2020). Significantly, the economic value of volunteering alone was estimated at €649 million per year driven by more than 300,000 volunteers working over 67 million hours in 2017 (Indecon, 2020).
Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the nonprofit sector. As well as rising demand for services pre-pandemic, CSOs have experienced an increase and intensification of demand resulting from the pandemic (Pro Bono Economics, 2020, 2021; EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020). Service delivery and fundraising were adversely impacted by increased demands from other service closures and exacerbated by social distancing requirements (EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020; Pro Bono Economics, 2020, 2021). Unsurprisingly, many CSOs have had to reduce their workforce due to COVID-19 restrictions (Salamon & Newhouse, 2020; EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020; Pro Bono Economics, 2020, 2021). At the same time, CSOs have reported lower income levels due to COVID-19 restrictions while also encountering difficulties in reaching and engaging volunteers and supporters (EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020; Pro Bono Economics, 2020, 2021).
5.4 Digital Technologies and Civil Society
Information and communication technologies (ICT) are used widely in civil society reflecting, albeit lagging, commercial organisations as a whole. There is a long established body of literature on the topic, often referred to as ICT4D (Walsham, 2017).
5.4.1 Mainstream Technologies
Like commercial organisations, CSOs can generate value and exploit the same opportunities from mainstream digital technologies improved organisation capacity and stakeholder engagements, cost savings, process efficiencies, new revenue generation, and improved quality of service (Dufft & Kreutter, 2018; O’Grady & Roberts, 2019; Ehnold et al., 2020; Walker et al., 2020). Indeed, there is pressure on nonprofit organisations to adopt the methods and values of the market (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004). Increasingly, this includes the adoption of digital technologies and platforms. Furthermore, ICT, and internet-based technologies more specifically, are changing how civil society organisations organise themselves locally, regionally and globally (Williams, 2018). As can be seen from Table 5.3, there is a well-established literature on the use of digital technologies by nonprofit organizations for information sharing and promotion, community building, fundraising, recruitment, and advocacy. This literature cites a wide range of potential advantages including increasing organisation capacity (Sun & Asencio, 2019), improved transparency (Dumont, 2013), access to market and targeting (Shier & Handy, 2012; Saxton & Wang, 2014), message amplification and reach (Saxton & Wang, 2014; Briones et al., 2011), faster service delivery (Briones et al., 2011), and payment (donation) efficiency (Shier & Handy, 2012). Notwithstanding these benefits, academic literature suggests goals and overall organisational capacity are significant barriers to adoption, and specifically leadership, skills and training, privacy concerns, and budgetary constraints (see, for example, Campbell et al., 2014; Sun & Asencio, 2019; Mogus & Levihn-Coon, 2018; Ehnold et al., 2020).
More recently there have been a number of surveys by private organisations seeking to benchmark use of digital technologies. Notwithstanding the promise of digital technologies, extant literature published prior to COVID-19 suggested that digital adoption by CSOs is limited (Dufft & Kreutter, 2018), with a substantial focus on the use of digital technologies for communication (Ehnold et al., 2020; Dufft & Kreutter, 2018; Skills Platform, 2019). In their 2019 survey of 5721 NGOs, Nonprofit Tech for Good (2019) found that NGOs used a wide range of digital technologies including websites, emails, online payment systems, social media, paid advertising, customer relationship management (CRM) systems, internal communications and project management tools. However, usage varied across regions and by level of intensity and sophistication. For example, only 40% use a CRM and while 68% utilise recurring/monthly giving, only 31% use some form of crowdfunding. Similarly, while 90% use social media, respondents overwhelmingly use Facebook with less than 30% using LinkedIn, WhatsApp or YouTube.
Like most organisations and society as a whole, CSOs shifted their approach to service delivery and fundraising online during the COVID-19 pandemic (EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020; CharityComms, 2021). In response to social distancing and increased service demand, CSOs significantly expanded their use of digital technologies for communication and collaboration, marketing and fundraising including virtual events (Techsoup Global Network, 2021; EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020). The widespread adoption of web conferencing and collaboration technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic unsurprisingly led to an increase in cloud computing adoption. However, extant surveys do not provide insights in wider and more sophisticated use of the cloud. Notwithstanding this, a survey of 11,758 nonprofit decision makers from 135 countries suggests a significant proportion of CSOs are unlikely to adopt more sophisticated digital technologies in the near future including customer relationship management (CRM), donor management, marketing automation, project management, and data analytics tools (Techsoup Global Network, 2021). A number of reasons are cited for this adoption hesitance. Few CSOs have a digital strategy in place (Techsoup Global Network, 2021). Most have limited funding and small IT teams, often relying on volunteers for the most part (Techsoup Global Network, 2021). In particular, while there are many benefits to remote working, there would seem to be some evidence that it contributes to employee dissatisfaction and burnout, particularly in the charity sector (Skills Platform, 2021). Furthermore, even where digital technologies were available, skill levels are a significant barrier to successful adoption and use (Techsoup Global Network, 2021; EFA and Salesforce.org, 2020; Skills Platform, 2021). It is important to note that while this chapter is looking at adoption and use of digital technologies from the supply side, digital inclusion is also an important consideration for civil society actors. For example, the Skills Report notes that 22% of UK charities cancelled services during the COVID-19 pandemic because their users didn’t have the skills or technology to avail of them (Skills Platform, 2021).
5.4.2 Frontier Technologies
Different parts of civil society are using and/or funding frontier technologies to a greater or lesser degree (see Table 5.4). As well as being innovation catalysts within civil society organisations, they may be catalysts for social entrepreneurship or indeed become substitutes for service delivery. In some cases, as we will discuss in the next section, these technologies may become the focus of civil society organisations e.g., in the context of advocacy.
5.4.3 Digital Inclusion and Exclusion
It is well established that digital technologies can change both how organisations operate and who can participate in civil society. In particular, there are numerous studies that suggest they can play an important role in mitigating social exclusion for those most vulnerable in society including those with disabilities (Manzoor & Vimarlund, 2018), the elderly (Biniok et al., 2016), immigrants and ethnic minorities (Maya-Jariego et al., 2009), the displaced (Benton & Glennie, 2016; Lynn et al., 2021), and other disadvantaged groups (Phipps, 2000). Despite these benefits, it is important to note that, as per Chap. 2, digital divides do exist. Many segments of society, especially the poorest in society, do not have the skills or access to avail of these technologies. In seeking to exploit digital technologies, civil society organisations must be cognizant of inclusion and exclusion, from both a social and digital perspective. While both mainstream and frontier technologies offer substantial benefits, they come with significant challenges, not least upskilling and governance. As well as leveraging these technologies, civil society will play a significant role in the governance of many of these technologies including advocating for the equality of access and protection of human rights (UNCTAD, 2021).
5.5 Measuring Digital Civil Society
As can be seen in Sect. 5.4, organisations such as Techsoup Global Network and Nonprofit Tech for Good have attempted to provide insights into the adoption and use of digital technologies by civil society. These surveys, however, suffer from a number of methodological constraints. They are typically cross-sectional, self-reported and are sometimes compiled across multiple time periods. They use inconsistent definitions of what constitutes a civil society entity, what technologies should be measured, and what scales should be used for measurement. More pertinently in the context of this book, the lens is typically at a country or regional level and not city- or town levels of granularity. As such, it does not allow comparison with other entities in society or academic studies.
Despite the significant role CSOs play in society and their contribution to the economy in terms of employment, expenditure and value added, neither civil society nor CSOs are typically measured as discrete entities in existing frameworks and composite indices for measuring digital society or the digital economy. While there are indices to measure digital social innovation, for example the DSI Index (Bone et al., 2018), these indices typically focus specifically on innovation or social entrepreneurship ecosystems rather than the use of digital technology more generally by civil society, and specifically CSOs, in their day to day activities. Again, such indices are often at a country- or city-level, and rarely include town or more general rural-level measurement. Indeed, the G20 Digital Economy Task Force (DETF) note that not only is the number of indicators produced jointly with other actors of civil society limited, where it is produced, it is nearly exclusively related to infrastructure (DETF, 2018). The DETF goes on to call for “interactions among government, business and other actors of civil society to strengthen the evidence base and complement official statistics, improving the design of frameworks that facilitate and allow a better use of data” (DETF, 2018, p. 10). While this call was reiterated in the recent DETF roadmap toward a common framework for measuring the digital economy, specific indicators for civil society organisations were not proposed (DETF, 2020). The nonprofit sector overlaps both the private sector and public sector in terms of activities; however CSOs have distinctive characteristics which should be reflected in measurement frameworks. Supporting indicators can then be used by policymakers and the nonprofit sector to inform strategy and actions for improvement.
5.6 Conclusion
Civil society plays a significant role in communities and performs a number of valuable functions that address unmet public needs. Digital technologies can support voluntary, community and social organisations in achieving and maintaining sustainability and fulfilling their missions more efficiently and effectively. Given the role and impact of civil society on society and economies as a whole, there is a clear need to measure the digital progress of this important part of society on a consistent and ongoing basis to enable comparison with other parts of society.
References
Ahani, N., Andersson, T., Martinello, A., Teytelboym, A., & Trapp, A. C. (2021). Placement optimization in refugee resettlement. Operations Research.
Anheier, H., Glasius, M., & Kaldor, M. (2001). Introducing global civil society. In Global civil society, 2001 (pp. 3–22).
Bassett, K., Carriveau, R., & Ting, D. K. (2015). 3D printed wind turbines part 1: Design considerations and rapid manufacture potential. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 11, 186–193.
Bellucci, M., & Manetti, G. (2017). Facebook as a tool for supporting dialogic accounting? Evidence from large philanthropic foundations in the United States. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30, 874–905.
Ben-Ner, A., & Van Hoomissen, T. (1992). An empirical investigation of the joint determination of the size of the for-profit, nonprofit and government sectors. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 63(3), 391–415.
Benton, M., & Glennie, A. (2016). Digital humanitarianism: How tech entrepreneurs are supporting refugee integration. Report for Migration Policy Institute.
Bertot, J. C., Butler, B. S., & Travis, D. M. (2014, June). Local big data: The role of libraries in building community data infrastructures. In Proceedings of the 15th annual international conference on digital government research (pp. 17–23).
Bingley, S., Burgess, S., & Sellitto, C. (2011, July). Website adoption by local sporting bodies in Australia and New Zealand. In PACIS (p. 28).
Biniok, P., Menke, I., & Selke, S. (2016). Social inclusion of elderly people in rural areas by social and technological mechanisms. In Ageing and technology (pp. 93–118). transcript-Verlag.
Bone, J., Cretu, C., & Stokes, M. (2018). A theoretical framework for the DSI index. European Commission.
Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–319.
Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 37–43.
Celino, I., Calegari, G. R., & Fiano, A. (2016, September). Towards Talkin’Piazza: Engaging citizens through playful interaction with urban objects. In 2016 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2) (pp. 1–5). IEEE.
Charbit, C., & Desmoulins, G. (2017). Civic crowdfunding: A collective option for local public goods? OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2017(2), 1.
CharityComms. (2021). Digital Comms in 2020-2021 - What the CharityComms Digital Benchmark tells us about charities’ digital response to the coronavirus. Available at https://www.charitycomms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Digital-Comms-2021-21.pdf
Claudino, J. G., de Oliveira Capanema, D., de Souza, T. V., Serrão, J. C., Pereira, A. C. M., & Nassis, G. P. (2019). Current approaches to the use of artificial intelligence for injury risk assessment and performance prediction in team sports: A systematic review. Sports Medicine-Open, 5(1), 1–12.
Corsini, L., Aranda-Jan, C. B., & Moultrie, J. (2020). The impact of 3D printing on the humanitarian supply chain. Production Planning & Control, 1–13.
G20 Digital Economy Task Force (DETF). (2018). G20 toolkit for measuring the digital economy. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/g20/summits/buenos-aires/G20-Toolkit-for-measuring-digital-economy.pdf
G20 Digital Economy Task Force (DETF). (2020). A roadmap toward a common framework for measuring the digital economy. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/sti/roadmap-toward-a-common-framework-for-measuring-the-digital-economy.pdf
Guo, J., & Li, B. (2018). The application of medical artificial intelligence technology in rural areas of developing countries. Health Equity, 2(1), 174–181.
Di Lauro, S., Tursunbayeva, A., & Antonelli, G. (2019). How nonprofit organizations use social media for fundraising: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Business and Management, 14(7), 1–22.
Dommett, K. (2019). The Rise of Online Political Advertising. Political Insight, 10(4), 12–15.
Dorn, A. W. (2019). Eliminating hidden killers: How can technology help humanitarian demining? Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 8(1).
Duberry, J. (2019). Global environmental governance in the information age: Civil society organizations and digital media. Routledge.
Dufft, N., & Kreutter, P. (2018). Digitization in non-profit organizations: Strategy, culture and skills in digital change. In Future-oriented foundation management (pp. 105–115). Springer Gabler.
Dumont, G. E. (2013). Transparency or accountability? The purpose of online technologies for nonprofits. International Review of Public Administration, 18(3), 7–29.
Edwards, B., & Foley, M. W. (2001). Civil society and social capital: A primer. In B. Edwards, M. W. Foley, & M. Diani (Eds.), Beyond Tocqueville, civil society and the social capital debate in comparative perspective (pp. 1–14). University Press of New England.
EFA & Salesforce.org. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on nonprofits in Europe. https://efa-net.eu/resources/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-nonprofits-in-europe
Ehnold, P., Faß, E., Steinbach, D., & Schlesinger, T. (2020). Digitalization in organized sport – Usage of digital instruments in voluntary sports clubs depending on club’s goals and organizational capacity. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-10-2019-0081
Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.
Franceschi, J., Rothkop, J., & Miller, G. (2014). Off-grid solar PV power for humanitarian action: From emergency communications to refugee camp micro-grids. Procedia Engineering, 78, 229–235.
Guan, C., Mou, J., & Jiang, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence innovation in education: A twenty-year data-driven historical analysis. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 4(4), 134–147.
Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 57–79.
Guo, S., Qiang, M., Luan, X., Xu, P., He, G., Yin, X., … Li, B. (2015). The application of the Internet of Things to animal ecology. Integrative Zoology, 10(6), 572–578.
Howson, P. (2021). Crypto-giving and surveillance philanthropy: Exploring the trade-offs in blockchain innovation for nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(4), 805–820.
Indecon. (2018). Registered Irish charities – Social and economic impact report 2018. https://www.charitiesregulator.ie/media/1564/indecon-social-and-economic-impact-report-2018.pdf
Indecon. (2020). Investment Appraisal of Upskilling of Employees in the Non-Profit Sector. Report Submitted to The Wheel. https://www.wheel.ie/sites/default/files/media/file-uploads/2020-12/Investment%20Appraisal%20of%20Upskilling%20-%20Indecon.pdf.
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268.
Johansson, H., & Scaramuzzino, G. (2019). The logics of digital advocacy: Between acts of political influence and presence. New Media & Society, 21(7), 1528–1545.
Johansson, H., Scaramuzzino, R., & Wennerhag, M. (2019). Social Movements and Interest Groups Compared. How Organisational Type Matters for Explaining Swedish Organisations’ Advocacy Strategies. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 12(2), 353–381.
Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2004). Nonprofit organizations’ use of the World Wide Web: Are they sufficiently fulfilling organizational goals? Public Relations Review, 30(3), 279–284.
Kaur, K., Kumar, S., & Baliyan, A. (2020). 5G: a new era of wireless communication. International Journal of Information Technology, 12(2), 619–624.
Kingston, L. N., & Stam, K. R. (2013). Online advocacy: Analysis of human rights NGO websites. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 5(1), 75–95.
Lee, S., Azfar Yaqub, M., & Kim, D. (2020). Neighbor Aware Protocols for IoT Devices in Smart Cities—Overview, Challenges and Solutions. Electronics, 9(6), 902.
Liu, X., Yang, T., & Yan, B. (2015). Internet of Things for wildlife monitoring. In 2015 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China-Workshops (CIC/ICCC). IEEE.
Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337–353.
Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318.
Lucas, E. (2017). Reinventing the rattling tin: How UK charities use Facebook in fundraising. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(2), e1576.
Lynn, T., Rosati, P., & Fox, G. (2020). Smart streets: Definition, principles, and infrastructural elements. In ICDS 2020: The fourteenth international conference on digital society (pp. 1–10).
Lynn, T., Fowley, F., Fox, G., Endo, P. T., Rosati, P., & Ogunsanya, L. (2021). Nanojobs: Towards an open crowd working platform for refugees and displaced persons. 2021 IEEE International Humanitarian Technology Conference (IEEE IHTC 2021).
Manzoor, M., & Vimarlund, V. (2018). Digital technologies for social inclusion of individuals with disabilities. Health and Technology, 8(5), 377–390.
Martinez-Martin, E., Escalona, F., & Cazorla, M. (2020). Socially assistive robots for older adults and people with autism: An overview. Electronics, 9(2), 367.
Maya-Jariego, I., Cruz, P., Molina, J. L., Patraca, B., & Tschudin, A. (2009). ICT for integration, social inclusion and economic participation of immigrants and ethnic minorities: Case studies from Spain. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), European Commission, Joint Research Center. EUR, 51774.
Milan, S., & Almazor, M. G. (2015). Citizens’ media meets big data: The emergence of data activism. Mediaciones, 11(14), 120–133.
Mogus, J., & Levihn-Coon, A. (2018). What Makes Nonprofit Digital Teams Successful Today?. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
Morgan, H., & Costas Battle, I. (2019). ‘It’s borderline hypocrisy’: Recruitment practices in youth sport-based interventions. Journal of Sport for Development, 13(7), 1–14.
Muñoz, R. F. (2019). Harnessing psychology and technology to contribute to making health care a universal human right. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2019.07.003
Nansen, B., van Ryn, L., Vetere, F., Robertson, T., Brereton, M., & Dourish, P. (2014, December). An internet of social things. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: the Future of Design (pp. 87–96).
Nichols, G. S., & James, M. (2017). Social inclusion and volunteering in sports clubs in Europe; findings for policy makers and practitioners in England and Wales.
Nonprofit Tech for Good. (2019). Global NGO technology report 2019. https://assets-global.website-files.com/5d6eb414117b673d211598f2/5de82e1550d3804ce13ddc75_2019-Tech-Report-English.pdf
O’Grady, J., & Roberts, P. (2019). The digital transformation of Irish non-profit organisations. In AICS (pp. 388–399).
Paek, H. J., Hove, T., Jung, Y., & Cole, R. T. (2013). Engagement across three social media platforms: An exploratory study of a cause-related PR campaign. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 526–533.
Panic, K., Hudders, L., & Cauberghe, V. (2016). Fundraising in an interactive online environment. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(2), 333–350.
Papadopoulos, I., Lazzarino, R., Miah, S., Weaver, T., Thomas, B., & Koulouglioti, C. (2020). A systematic review of the literature regarding socially assistive robots in pre-tertiary education. Computers & Education, 155, 103924.
Phillips, R., Musikanski, L., Manson, M., Bradbury, J., Fraizer, L., Rakova, B., & Smart, A. (2020). Introduction to the Special Issue: Intersections of Artificial Intelligence and Community Well-Being. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 3(4), 425–435.
Phipps, L. (2000). New communications technologies – A conduit for social inclusion. Information, Communication & Society, 3(1), 39–68.
Poisson, A. C., McCullough, I. M., Cheruvelil, K. S., Elliott, K. C., Latimore, J. A., & Soranno, P. A. (2020). Quantifying the contribution of citizen science to broad-scale ecological databases. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(1), 19–26.
Pro Bono Economics. (2020). November 15–20 Covid charity tracker survey results. https://www.probonoeconomics.com/november-15-20-covid-charity-tracker-survey-results
Pro Bono Economics. (2021). PBE charity tracker – May 2021. https://www.probonoeconomics.com/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=0a8d6fb3-e555-457e-8469-d4a9b948a99d
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Simske, S., & Treiblmaier, H. (2021). Humanitarian drones: A review and research agenda. Internet of Things. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2021.100434
Salamon, L. M. (1997, January 16). Holding the center: America’s nonprofit sector at a crossroads. Nathan Cummings Foundation.
Salamon, L. M. (1999). America’s nonprofit sector. New York: The Foundation Center.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213–248.
Salamon, L. M., & Newhouse, C. L. (2020). The 2020 nonprofit employment report. Nonprofit Economic Data Bulletin no. 48. Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, W. (2018). The size and composition of the European third sector. In The Third Sector As A Renewable Resource for Europe (pp. 49–94). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K., List, R., Toepler, S., & Sokolowski, S. W. (1999). Global civil society.
Salido-Andres, N., Rey-Garcia, M., Alvarez-Gonzalez, L. I., & Vazquez-Casielles, R. (2021). Mapping the field of donation-based crowdfunding for charitable causes: Systematic review and conceptual framework. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(2), 288–302.
Saxton, G. D., & Wang, L. (2014). The social network effect: The determinants of giving through social media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 850–868.
Scanlan, J., Flynn, D., Lane, D. M., Richardson, R., Richardson, T., & Sóbester, A. (2017). Extreme environments robotics: Robotics for emergency response, disaster relief and resilience.
Schmitz, H. P., Dedmon, J. M., Bruno-van Vijfeijken, T., & Mahoney, J. (2020). Democratizing advocacy?: How digital tools shape international non-governmental activism. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(2), 174–191.
Schönböck, J., Raab, M., Altmann, J., Kapsammer, E., Kusel, A., Pröll, B., Retschitzegger, W., & Schwinger, W. (2016). A survey on volunteer management systems. In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 767–776). IEEE.
Shier, M. L., & Handy, F. (2012). Understanding online donor behavior: The role of donor characteristics, perceptions of the internet, website and program, and influence from social networks. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(3), 219–230.
Silva, F., Proença, T., & Ferreira, M. R. (2018). Volunteers’ perspective on online volunteering – A qualitative approach. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 15(4), 531–552.
Singh, C., Zhao, L., Lin, W., & Ye, Z. (2021). Can machine learning, as a RegTech compliance tool, lighten the regulatory burden for charitable organisations in the United Kingdom?. Journal of Financial Crime.
Skills Platform. (2019). The charity digital skills report 2019.
Skills Platform. (2021). The charity digital skills report 2021.
Sun, R., & Asencio, H. D. (2019). Using social media to increase nonprofit organizational capacity. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(5), 392–404.
Taylor, R. (2002). Interpreting global civil society. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13(4), 339–347.
Taylor, N., Hurley, U., & Connolly, P. (2016, May). Making community: the wider role of makerspaces in public life. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on human factors in Computing systems (pp. 1415–1425).
Techsoup Global Network. (2021). Data handling and digital readiness in civil society – Global study 2020. https://pages.techsoup.org/hubfs/Downloads/data-handling-survey-2021.pdf?hsCtaTracking=765fc28f-bb2f-42d3-9912-725122e398fb%7Caf37af40-d4fe-47b0-94d3-312f6291f519
Tuckman, H. P., Chatterjee, P., & Muha, D. (2004). Nonprofit Websites: Prevalence, usage and commercial activity. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 12(1), 49–67.
UNCTAD. (2021). Technology and innovation report 2021. United Nations Publications.
United Nations. (2003). Handbook on non-profit institutions in the system of national accounts (Vol. 91). United Nations Publications.
United Nations. Statistical Division. (2008). International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities (ISIC) (No. 4). United Nations Publications.
Vandemeulebroucke, T., de Casterlé, B. D., & Gastmans, C. (2018). How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging & Mental Health, 22(2), 149–167.
Waddingham, J. (2013). The future of Facebook fundraising. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 18(3), 187–191.
Walker, T., Esmene, S., Colebrooke, L., Leyshon, C., & Leyshon, M. (2020). Digital possibilities and social mission in the voluntary sector: The case of a community transport organisation in the UK. Voluntary Sector Review, 11(1), 59–77.
Walsham, G. (2017). ICT4D research: Reflections on history and future agenda. Information Technology for Development, 23(1), 18–41.
Waters, R. D. (2008). Applying relationship management theory to the fundraising process for individual donors. Journal of Communication Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540810854244
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106.
Williams, K. C. (2018). Intersections of technology and civil society. UK Department for International Development.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lynn, T., Rosati, P., Conway, E., Curran, D., Fox, G., O’Gorman, C. (2022). Digital Technologies and Civil Society. In: Digital Towns. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91247-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91247-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91246-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91247-5
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)