@article{nowell_albrecht_2019, title={A Reviewer's Guide to Qualitative Rigor}, volume={29}, ISSN={["1477-9803"]}, DOI={10.1093/jopart/muy052}, abstractNote={Institutions are useful for advancing methodologies within disciplines. Through required coursework, doctoral students are indoctrinated into basic guidelines and frameworks that provide a common foundation for scholars to interact with one another. Lacking such forums in many of our doctoral granting institutions (Stout 2013), the field of public management continues to struggle with an ambivalence toward qualitative approaches. Lack of shared understanding concerning basic tenets of qualitative methodology abounds. This article is intended for qualitative consumers, those not formally trained in qualitative methods but who serve as peer reviewers, content experts, and advisors in arenas where qualitative methods are encountered. Adopting a postpositivistic stance dominant in the field, we seek to offer a pragmatic perspective on qualitative methods with regards to some basic tenets of rigor appropriate (and inappropriate) for assessing the contribution of qualitative research. We argue that the first step in this effort is to stop conflating data type (qualitative versus quantitative) with inductive versus deductive modes of inquiry. Using deductive modes as the basis for comparison, we discuss both common, as well as, diverging criteria of quality and rigor for inductive modes of inquiry. We conclude with a discussion of rigor in emerging methods which utilize qualitative data but from within a deductive, mixed, or hybrid mode of inquiry.}, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND THEORY}, author={Nowell, Branda and Albrecht, Kate}, year={2019}, month={Apr}, pages={348–363} }
 @article{albrecht_2018, title={Institutional Logics and Accountability: Advancing an Integrated Framework in Nonprofit-Public Partnerships}, volume={4}, ISSN={["2381-3717"]}, DOI={10.20899/jpna.4.3.284-305}, abstractNote={Public and nonprofit management literature has focused more on formal accountability and less on emerging informal structures that are present in the pilot stages of partnerships. This study uses a phenomenological approach to examine the institutional logics of partner organizations and offers an integrated framework for how these logics may translate into accountability structures in a nonprofit—public partnership (NPPP). This framework advances a basis for the mechanisms present when an individual organization’s or agency’s institutional logics must be reconciled in the context of accountability. The analysis points to emerging challenges and cross pressures within the NPPP that are driving a need for comprehensive evaluation measures, established processes for business planning, and written agreements such as memorandums of understanding to provide clear definitions of partnership roles. Public managers designing or joining pilot partnerships need to be aware that mismatched institutional logics and perceptions of accountability can occur, and these dynamics may lead to a variety of hybrid measures to ensure future sustainability of interorganizational relationships.}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AND NONPROFIT AFFAIRS}, author={Albrecht, Kate}, year={2018}, pages={284–305} }
 @article{albrecht_varkey_colville_clerkin_2018, title={Perceptions of nonprofits and for-profit social enterprises: Current trends and future implications}, volume={8}, DOI={10.18666/jnel-2018-v8-i3-9134}, abstractNote={Nonprofits and for-profits use the term entrepreneurial to describe the mind-sets, be-haviors, and strategies they employ to achieve organizational goals. Relatively little analysis has been conducted about public perception of the differences between non-profit organizations (NPOs) and for-profit social enterprises (FPSEs) and how these perceptions influence the behavior of potential investors, donors, employees, and vol-unteers. This study explores how Gen Z respondents (those born in the early 1990s) perceive NPOs and FPSEs along multiple dimensions, including values, motivations, and organizational culture. Overall, Gen Z young people perceive NPOs and FPSEs as having distinct orientations to expressive roles (values and social welfare goals) and affiliative roles (inclusive community engagement), but perceive NPOs and FPSEs as more likely to have overlapping approaches to instrumental roles (getting the work done). Our results identify some perceptions that align with a priori assumptions, as well as views that indicate new ideas about the NPO and FPSE sectors. These results have implications for leaders of all types of organizations, but especially for leaders of FPSEs who may seek to assert their expressive and affiliative similarities with their nonprofit peers. Subscribe to JNEL}, number={3}, journal={Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership}, author={Albrecht, K. and Varkey, S. and Colville, K. and Clerkin, R.}, year={2018}, pages={254–276} }