Between nonprofit welfare and evidence

Abstract

Previous research supports the notion that the distinctiveness, diversity, and freedom of choice characterizing nonprofit initiatives are somewhat at odds with a scientific and professional logic as expressed in evidence-based practice (EBP) and knowledge-based management. In the long term, this potentially threatens public funding for nonprofit welfare. This article combines this research with new epistemological analyses of how science is operationalized in some of EBP’s central techniques, such as randomized controlled trials and guidelines. In such analyses, it becomes clear that the contradiction between the distinctive nature of the nonprofit sector and a scientific logic is based on certain ”universalist” assumptions that are not necessary. By introducing alternative perspectives on causality, validity, and objectivity, the article proposes a broader view of scientific rigor and EBP that aligns better with the ”particularist” distinctiveness of the nonprofit sector. According to this analysis, nonprofit welfare represents a view of knowledge and quality that has the potential to enhance welfare operations regardless of their organizational structure, post-EBP.