The Smith General Theory of DVAs

From general reading of the research literature, mainly qualitative case studies on DVAs, and from teaching for many years a course on DVAs (Smith 1996), Smith inductively generated 51 hypotheses about DVAs in general. With the collaboration of Stebbins, Smith sought support for these hypotheses by additional, more formal content analysis of qualitative published research on a wide variety of DVAs, mostly using books rather than articles (Smith and Stebbins 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e). Using this content analytic process over the course of two years, Smith developed an additional 27 hypotheses, for a total of 88 hypotheses, which were also content analyzed for empirical support.

The set of documents that were content-analyzed were selected purposively to include coverage of 24 common sense (natural language) categories of DVAs as expressed in two independently published books for each type. Most books described DVAs in North America, especially the USA, but some books reached back up to 800 years and described DVAs on other continents, mostly Europe. These final 24 DVA types, winnowed down theoretically from a larger set of 57 initial categories/types, fall into three broader, constructed categories: (a) political influence/ liberation DVA types (e.g., social movement groups, terrorist groups, vigilante groups, citizen militia groups, extremist political parties, etc.), (b) religious/salvation/occult DVA types (e.g., new religions ["cults" and deviant sects], medieval heresy groups, witches' covens, religious communes, doomsday/suicide/massacre groups, etc.), and (c) hedonic satisfaction DVA types. Category "c" has two sub-categories: (1) negative emotional expression (e.g., hate groups, motorcycle outlaw gangs, juvenile delinquent gangs) and (2) positive emotional expression (e.g., group sex/swingers' groups/group marriage, transvestite groups, nudist/naturist groups, gay/lesbian groups, and some secular communes).

The 88 inductively generated DVA hypotheses were clustered by topic into several broader categories, which have been the subjects of conference papers (Smith and Stebbins 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e) and are also chapters in Smith and Stebbins (2015a). From four of these broad categories, we present here illustrative hypotheses that were strongly supported by the content analytic process (Smith and Stebbins 2015a).

(a) Origins Phase

(i) “Hypothesis OR.5: During their origins phases, [DVAs] usually follow significant aspects of the organizational pattern of some prior, similar, group predecessor, which was linked to one of more of the founder-activists of the current [DVA] by that person’s life experience, often as a member or participant.”

(ii) “Hypothesis OR.9: If successfully established, new DVAs are nearly always fundamentally deviant from one or more societal moral norms from the time period of their origins, rather than starting as conventional associations and shifting later to become DVAs.”

(b) Joining and membership

(i) “Hypothesis JM.12: Members of DVAs are particularly attracted to solidary (sociability) incentives and rewards provided by such groups -- a sense of belonging, community, acceptance, caring, and support.”

(ii) “Hypothesis JM.17: DVAs often involve high commitment by members, developed through mechanisms of commitment built into group structure [and processes].”

(c) Ideology

(i) “Hypothesis ID.1: DVA ideologies try to create a fictive reality that opposes and rejects aspects of mainstream society, its norms and beliefs.”

(ii) “Hypothesis ID.5: DVA ideologies are often based on the beliefs and values of the group’s founders, which are preserved with modest changes over time.”

(d) Structure and Leadership

(i) “Hypothesis SL.4: Obedience and conformity by DVA members in meetings and other collective events tend to be high.”

(ii) “Hypothesis SL.8: DVAs seek isolation and secrecy from conventional society to some significant degree [often operating underground].”

(iii) “Hypothesis SL.23: Insofar as leadership is present, leaders are usually promoted from or emerge from within the DVA, rather than being brought in from outside.”

V. MICRO-THEORIES: ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP, PARTICIPATION, AND VolUNTEERING

The micro-theories relevant to this Part of Chapter 8 are presented at length in Handbook Part IV and will not be repeated here. Chapter 37 gives an overview of the most comprehensive theories and models that have been tested empirically. Very substantial portions of the variance (40-60%+) in volunteering and participation can be explained by the best of these theories.

Rochester’s (2013) recent book is one example of renewed interest in theories about volunteering and voluntary action (see also Rochester, Paine, and Howlett 2010). Rochester (ibid. Chap. 8) discusses three paradigms of volunteering, as different contexts all of which are needed for a “round earth” map of volunteering---a dominant “nonprofit paradigm” involving VSPs, a “civil society paradigm” involving self-help and mutual aid in associations, and a “serious leisure paradigm,” involving arts, culture, sports and recreation activities also in associations.

Smith (2015f) prefers a different but related approach. He distinguishes five analytical types of volunteering, based on the external context of each type, as follows, with types #2 and #4 corresponding to Rochester’s three paradigms, but adding #1, 3 and 5 below:

(1) Informal Volunteering (IV), where there is no relevant external group or organization as a context and role guiding the individual’s volunteer activity (see Handbook Chapter 10A);

(2) Formal Association Volunteering (FAV), where the individual is acting in a role as a volunteer member or participant in an external association (see most chapters of the Handbook);

(3) Formal Board Volunteering (FBV), where the individual is acting in a role as a volunteer member or participant in a policy-making board, commission, or similar elite unit of some larger organization, whether a nonprofit organization or not (not the subject of a Handbook chapter, given insufficient research literature);

(4) Formal Service-Program Volunteering (FSPV), where the individual is acting in a role as a service-providing volunteer as part of some Volunteer Service Program (VSP), that is a non-autonomous, volunteer department of some larger, parent organization in any sector of society (see Handbook Chapters 10B and 29, and parts of other chapters);

(5) Stipended Service Volunteering (SSV), where the individual is acting in a role as a service-providing volunteer as part of some Volunteer Service Program (VSP) but receives significant payments, either financially or in-kind, which still leave a net cost to the volunteer relative to the market value of the activity performed (as in the U.S. Peace Corps or domestic SSV program, such as VISTA; see Handbook Chapters 11A and 11B).

VI. MICRO-THEORIES: GEneral Human behavior

Psychologists, sociologists, and other social scientists have been seeking general theories of individual human behavior for the past 80 years or more. An example of an early proto-theory in psychology is Lewin’s pseudo-equation for behavior: B= f (P, E), where B=Behavior, P=Person, and E=Environment (Lewin [1936] 2008). It is not clear whether Lewin sought to quantify his pseudo-equation, which seems more like a heuristic device. In sociology, Homans’ (1961) exchange theory is a more recent but still early example. In political science, Almond and Verba’s (1963) civic culture model of political participation is an early example.

In Handbook Chapter 31, Smith with van Puyvelde briefly review various recent theories and models in four social-behavioral sciences and some fields of biology that are converging toward a common theoretical approach to explaining human individual behavior. In the past two years, Smith (2015c) has used his view of such convergence to construct S-Theory (Synanthrometrics). S-Theory is presented as a comprehensive, quantitative, interdisciplinary, and consilient theory of human behavior and proposed as a new Standard Human Science Model.

S-Theory is exceedingly complex and therefore difficult to summarize effectively in this chapter. It posits a Basic Behavior Equation (BBE) in various forms that are hypothesized to explain and predict the complexity of nearly all instances of individual human behavior, including sociality and voluntary action.S-Theory can be summarized in a Brief Basic Behavior Equation (Brief BBE) in deterministic form (Smith 2015c: Proposition P2). This equation asserts that human behavior (P’ below) results from the joint effects of three Mega-Independent Variables (Mega-IVs): the individual’s Body (B), external Environment (E), and Psyche, psychological system, or mind (Y, pronounced as psi or sigh), as follows:

(Eq. 1) P’ = B x E x Y

The most comprehensive version of the BBE in S-Theory (Smith 2015c: Proposition P4), termed the General BBE/ Comprehensive Version (General BBE/ CV), contains the following 19 Key Macro-Independent Variables (Macro-IVs) that collectively are hypothesized to explain and predict nearly all human behavior (P below):

Eq. 2) P (Position or behavior)= [seven Relevant-Body IVs (BIF, CAP, ASC, BGR, CBC, BSR, SBF)] + [five Relevant-Environment IVs (PPM, EDF, SBS, CE, GBP] + [seven Psyche IVs (M, A, G, I, C, π, S)]

or a bit more simply:

(Eq. 3) P = [BIF + CAP + ASC + BGR + CBC + BSR + SBF] + [PPM + EDF + SBS + CE + GBP] + [M + A + G + I + C + π + S]

P5: The following are the contents (and brief labels) for all 19 Key Macro-IVs comprising the three Mega-IV types:

(A) Seven Relevant-Body (R-B) Key Macro-IVs:

(1) BIF = Body Internal Functioning-health at present

(2) CAP = Conscious Alertness Phase at present (Alert-Awake, Distracted-Awake, Transitional, Light Sleep, Deep Sleep, Stupor/Coma)

(3) ASC = Altered State of Consciousness (e.g., drunk, drugged, hypnotized, in shock, sexually aroused, enraged, or psychotic), if any [a Threshold IV]

(4) BGR = Behavior Genetics Relevant (various genetic behavior-dispositions relevant at present to a given behavior DV)

(5) CBC = Current Body Chemistry-neurology (including especially the following)

(a) CEO = Current External-origin (non-human-DNA-based) Organisms and chemicals (e.g., bacteria, viruses, parasites, fungi, allergens, poisons, etc.)

(b) CHS = Current Hormones and Secretions

(c) CNC = Current Neuro-Chemistry

(d) CNP = Current Neuro-Physiology

(6) BSR = Body-linked Socio-cultural Roles indicated at present (e.g., age, gender, race-ethnicity, abnormal height or weight, facial disfigurement, body deformity, varieties of able vs. disabled [blind, deaf, mute, paraplegic, quadriplegic, amputee, birth defect victim, brain-damaged, physiological psychotic], etc.).

(7) SBF = Superficial Body Features (especially including the following)

(a) BE = Body Emissions (excretions, external secretions, odors, sounds) at present

(b) BSA = Body Surface Appearance features (hair on head and body, skin color and texture, tattoos, scars, pimples, moles; visible deformities, abnormalities, etc.) at present

(c) CAB = Clothing and Adornments on the Body at present (technically a part of the MIcro-Environment/MIE, but listed here for practical reasons), if any [a Threshold IV]

(B) Five Relevant-Environment (R-E) Key Macro-IVs, some of which refer to the MIcro-Environment (MIE):

(1) PPM = Physical Permissiveness of the MIcro-Environment/MIE (extent to

which the MIE limits normal, gross, motor activity of the body)

(2) EDF = Environment Driver Factors (objectively-present, noxious or dangerous stimuli or situations in the MIE that are likely to influence the individual to escape the MIE or to ameliorate/eliminate these stimuli if either is feasible; for instance, sufficient cold, heat, wind, moisture, noxious gas, sound, brightness of light, other extreme radiation, unpleasant smells, etc.; also, dangerous animals, people, situations, etc.)

(3) SBS = Socio-cultural Behavior Setting (a socio-culturally meaningful situation or behavior setting that is physically-objectively present [vs. perceived by the individual] in the MIE or larger sociocultural environment, with associated-linked normative expectations for behavior)

(4) CE = Control (that is objectively likely over the) Environment, especially the MIE, by the individual)

(5) GBP = General Bio-Physical environment (including the Natural Non-human

Biological environment/NNB, the Built-Artificial Environment/BAE, and the

Human Population Environment/HPE).

(C) Seven Psyche (Y) Key Macro-IVs:

(1) M = Motivations/dispositions

(2) A = Affects/emotions

(3) G = Goals/outcomes

(4) I = Intellectual capacities/skills

(5) C = Cognitions/schemas/perceptions

(6) π (pi) = Pain level felt, if any [a Threshold IV]

(7) S = Self (both the conscious and unconscious, unique, organizing pattern

of the other six Psyche IVs, which are termed the Life Stance IVs/LS, M, A, G, I, C, π)

If or when S-Theory receives sufficient empirical confirmation and/or expert approval, this theory may be seen as a proposed New Standard Socio-Behavioral Science Model or NSSSM (using the term Standard Model as in particle physics). This NSSSM seeks to make sense of the huge number and variety of variables that significantly affect human behavior. But unlike the SSSM, the New SSSM, based on S-Theory, gives biological and psychological variables their rightful place in this model.

The N SSSM is intended to replace the narrower Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) identified and discussed by Tooby and Cosmides (1992). Edward Wilson (1999:204-207) has suggested some key elements of a NSSSM, all of which S-Theory includes as consilience. The NSSSM also implements the central interdisciplinary recommendation of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Social Sciences (Mudimbe 1996). The author would prefer to use the label New Standard Human Science Model (NSHSM), because the word Human is much more appropriately interdisciplinary than the word Social.

VII. TOWARD A GENERAL THEORY OF NONPROFIT SECTOR PHENOMENA

While at present there is no general theory of nonprofit sector phenomena, we clearly need one. From the theories reviewed and referred to in this chapter, it should be evident now that the theories of associations and of volunteering/participation have come a long way in the past decade or two, contrary to the conclusion of Tschirhart (2006). There has also been much useful theory proposed in the past few decades regarding the size and nature of the nonprofit sector as a whole and its relationship to other sectors of society (Anheier 2005:Chap. 6; Boris and Steuerle 2006; Clemens 2006). In addition, the theory of nonprofit agencies has made much progress. For instance, there is a reasonably advanced economic literature on the role, behavior, and governance of paid-staff nonprofit agencies (e.g., Anheier and Ben-Ner 2003; Cornforth 2012; Hansmann 1987; Jegers 2009; Steinberg 2006; Van Puyvelde et al. 2012).

A general, multi-level theory of associations is probably within our grasp in the near future, meaning the next 10 years or so. Such a theory will need to integrate the various levels of association theories reviewed here and in some subsequent Handbook chapters.

E. USABLE KNOWLEDGE

Based on the results of research/theory on association prevalence, such prevalence can be increased in a territory by stimulating more resource/support organizations and by increasing civil liberties/democracy, as the most easily affected factors. Given the inductive theory of grassroots and supra-local all-volunteer associations presented, association founders can use the following as a checklist for key decisions about their new associations: member vs. nonmember benefits in their goals, informal vs. formal group style of operation and structure, high vs. low operational autonomy relative to external organizations, large vs. small scope of their territorial activity and membership base, diffuse vs. focused goals, conventional vs. unconventional (deviant) goals and means to achieve them, and the restrictiveness vs. inclusiveness of socio-demographic membership criteria. In fact, founders and leaders of such associations may use all the propositions of the Smith theory of grassroots association structures and processes as a practical checklist. As for paid-staff associations, a number of measures were suggested to improve their governance, including improving board competency, using effective incentive structures for managers, and implementing various board processes such as self-regulation and long-term priority setting.

For DVAs, particularly SMOs, the theories presented here have much practical utility for SMOs seeking optimum impact in securing new advantages (e.g., single issue focus, selective incentives for participation, more bureaucracy, avoid internal factions). Smith’s theory of DVAs also suggests many useful factors to consider in forming or leading such an association. For instance, if founders have ultimately deviant goals in their society, they should begin their group as a DVA, not as a conventional association expecting to be able to convert to a DVA later on.

F. FUTURE TRENDS AND RESEARCH NEEDED

One key future trend we see is a growing interest in developing and testing theory, even rather general theory, in our field of voluntaristics. Such theory, however, tends to be general within the levels of macro-, meso-, and micro-theories. Nonetheless, a clear need exists for a general theory of nonprofit sector phenomena that integrates all three levels. Such general theory must also take into account the distinctions made in this chapter between and among different association types. The distinction between conventional and unconventional (deviant) associations is crucial, as is that between all-volunteer and paid-staff associations. The distinction between local and supra-local associations of any kind is also quite important. And, although not discussed here, the distinction among associations in terms of their member types is important: individuals only, groups or organizations only (as in federations), or both types of members. Many other theoretical points and issues need to be included, as identified in passing in the many chapters of this Handbook.

Probably the most important agenda for future empirical research is much further testing and elaboration of the various theories sketched in this chapter, as well as testing competing or alternative theories. More extensive treatment of theories of volunteering and participation will be found in Chapter 31 and earlier chapters in Part IV of the Handbook. The S-Theory sketched here may be compared with the more narrowly focused theories of volunteering and participation discussed in Chapter 31.

G. CROSS-REFERENCES

Chapters 7, 10A, 10B, 38, 39, 46, and 47.

H. ReferencEs

Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Anheier, Helmut K. 2005. Nonprofit organizations: Theory, Management, Policy. London, UK: Routledge.

Anheier, Helmut K, and Avner Ben-Ner. 2003. The Study of the Nonprofit Enterprise: Theories and Approaches. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Anheier, Helmut K. and Regina A. List. 2005. A Dictionary of Civil Society, Philanthropy and the Non-Profit Sector. London, UK: Routledge.

Anheier, Helmut K. Stefan Toepler, and Regina List, eds., 2010. International Encyclopedia of Civil Society. New York: Springer.

Badelt, Christoph. 1997. “Entrepreneurship theories of the non-profit sector.” Voluntas 8(2):162-178.

Ben-Ner, Avner, and Theresa Van Hoomissen. 1991. “Nonprofit organizations in the mixed economy: A demand and supply analysis.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 62(4):469-500.

Boris, Elizabeth T., and C. Eugene Steuerle., eds. 2006. Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration and Conflict, 2^nd ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Buechler, Steven M. 2011. Understanding Social Movements: Theories from the Classical Era to the Present. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Burlingame, Dwight F., ed. 2004. Philanthropy in America: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Clemens, Elisabeth S. 2006. “The Constitution of Citizens: Political Theories of Nonprofit Organizations.” Pp. 207-220 in W. W. Powell and R. Steinberg, eds. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cnaan, Ram A. 2004. “Voluntarism.” Pp. 490-494 in Burlingame, Dwight F., ed., Philanthropy in America: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. Santa Barbara, CA.

Cornforth, Chris. 2004. “The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: a paradox perspective.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 75(1): 11-32.

Cornforth, Chris. 2012. “Nonprofit Governance Research: Limitations of the Focus on Boards and Suggestions for New Directions.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6):1116-1135.

Corbin, John J. 1999. “A Study of Factors Influencing the Growth of Nonprofits in Social Services.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(3):296-314.

Gamson, William A. 1990 [1975]. The Strategy of Social Protest, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Grønbjerg, Kristen A., and Laurie Paarlberg. 2001. “Community Variations in the Size and Scope of the Nonprofit Sector: Theory and Preliminary Findings.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30(4):684-706.

Hansmann, Henry. 1987. “Economic Theories of Nonprofit Organization.” In Walter W. Powell (ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Homans, George. 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. London, UK: Routledge.

Jeavons, Thom. 2008. “Review of A Dictionary of Nonprofit Terms and Concepts. ” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 37(3): 570-572.

Jegers, Marc. 2009. “Corporate governance in nonprofit organizations: a nontechnical review of the economic literature.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 20(2): 143-164.

Knoke, David. 1986. “Associations and Interest Groups .” Annual Review of Sociology. 12:1-21.

Knoke, David. 1990. Organizing for Collective Action: The Political Economies of Associations. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Laraña, Enrique, Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Gusfield, eds. 1994. New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Lewin, Kurt. [1936] 2008. Principles of Topological Psychology. Delhi, India: Munshi Press.

Lincoln, J. R. 1977. “The Urban Dimensions of Voluntary Organizations.” Social Science Quarterly 58:472-480.

Lofland, John F. 1996. Social Movement Organizations. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Marcuello C. 1998. “Determinants of the non-profit sector size: An empirical analysis in Spain.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 69(2): 175-192.

McAdam, Doug, and David A. Snow, eds. 1997. Social Movements. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.

Morris, Aldon D., and Carol M. Mueller, eds. 1992. Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Mudimbe, V., ed. 1996. Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Powell, Walter W., and Richard Steinberg. 2006. The nonprofit sector: A research handbook, 2^nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rochester, Colin. 2013. Rediscovering Voluntary Action: The Beat of a Different Drum. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rochester, Colin, Angela E. Paine, and Steven Howlett, with Meta Zimmeck. 2010. Volunteering and Society in the 21st Century. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Salamon, Lester M. 1987. “Of Market Failure, Voluntary Failure, and Third-Party Government: Toward a Theory of Government-Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State.” Journal of Voluntary Action Research [now the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly ]16(1-2): 29-49.

Salamon, Lester M. 1995. Partners in Public Service: Government-Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Salamon, Lester M., and Helmut K. Anheier. 1998.”Social Origins of Civil Society: Explaining the Nonprofit Sector Cross-Nationally.” Voluntas 9(3): 213-247.

Schofer, Evan, and Wesley Longhofer. 2011. “The Structural Sources of Association.” American Journal of Sociology 117(2): 539-585.

Smith, David H. 1973. "Modernization and the Emergence of Voluntary Organizations." Pp. 49-73 in Voluntary Action Research: 1973, edited by David H. Smith. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath.

Smith, David H. 1985. "Attracting volunteers and staffing shrinking programs," Pp. 225-251in Gary Tobin, ed., Planning and Social Service Delivery in the Voluntary Sector. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Smith, David H. 1986. "Outstanding Local Voluntary Organizations in the 1960's: Their Distinguishing Characteristics," Journal of Voluntary Action Research [now Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly ], 15 (3): 24-35.

Smith, David H. 1991. “Four Sectors or Five? Retaining the Member-Benefit Sector.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 20:137-150.

Smith, David H. 1996. "Teaching a Course in Deviant Groups: A Neglected Side of Deviance." Teaching Sociology, 24, 177-188.

Smith, David H. 1997a. "Grassroots Associations Are Important: Some Theory and a Review of the Impact Literature." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1997b, 26 (3, Sept.), 269-306.

Smith, David H. 1997b. “The International History of Grassroots Associations.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 38(3-4): 189-216.

Smith, David H. 1999a. "The Effective Grassroots Association, I: Organizational Factors that Produce Internal Impact." Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 9: 443-56.

Smith, David H. 1999b. "The Effective Grassroots Association, II: Organizational Factors that Produce External Impact." Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10:103-116.

Smith, David Horton. 2000. Grassroots Associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Smith, David H. 2004. “Grassroots Association.” Pp. 211-215 in D. Burlingame, Ed., Philanthropy in America: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Smith, David H. 2010a. “Grassroots Associations.” pp. 804-810 in Helmut K. Anheier, Stefan Toepler, and Regina List, eds., International Encyclopedia of Civil Society. New York: Springer.

Smith, David H. 2010b. “Membership and Membership Associations.” pp. 982-990 in Helmut K. Anheier, Stefan Toepler, and Regina List, eds., International Encyclopedia of Civil Society. New York: Springer.

Smith, David H. 2011. "Urban/Suburban Hierarchical Dominance and Associational Prevalence in Eight Massachusetts Communities: Re-examining Data from the 1960s." China Third Sector Research 1: 105-110. [Text in Mandarin Chinese; References & Abstract in English.]

Smith, David H. 2013a. “Explaining the Prevalence of Voluntary Associations Among 351 Massachusetts Municipalities Circa 1965: Testing a Theory.” 2013. China Nonprofit Review (English edition), 5:177-193.

Smith, David H. 2013b. “Growth of Research Associations and Journals in the Emerging Discipline of Altruistics.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 42(4): 638-656.

Smith, David H. 2014a. “S-Theory: Explaining Individual Human Behavior.” [In Russian, in the Russian language journal] Институт языкознания РАН [Journal of Psycholinguistics], #22(4):139-157.

Smith, David H. 2014b. “The Current State of Civil Society and Volunteering in the World, the USA, and China.” China Nonprofit Review (English edition), 6(1): 137-150.

Smith, David H. 2015a. “Voluntary Associations, Sociology of.” Pp. 252-260 in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; James D. Wright, Editor-in-Chief. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Smith, David H. 2015b. “Voluntary Organizations.” Pp. 261-267 in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Vol. 25. James D. Wright, Editor-in-Chief. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Smith, David H. (forthcoming) 2016a. “Five Analytical Types of Volunteering: History, Conflation-Ignorance, Distinctiveness, and Interrelationships.” Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, Dept. of Sociology, Unpublished paper.

Smith, David H. (forthcoming) 2016b. Method in their Madness: Developing an Empirically Supported Theory of Deviant Voluntary Associations. Bradenton, FL: David Horton Smith International.

Smith, David H. (forthcoming) 2016c. S-Theory (Synanthrometrics) as a Theory of Everyone: A Proposed New Standard Human Science Model of Behavior. Bradenton, FL: David Horton Smith International.

Smith, David H. (forthcoming) 2016d. The “Dark Energy” of the Nonprofit Sector:

Noxious, Dissenting, and Eccentric Types of Deviant Voluntary Associations, Their Impacts, and How They Work. Bradenton, FL: David Horton Smith International.

Smith, David H., and Burt R. Baldwin. 1983. “Voluntary Organization Prevalence in the States of the USA: Presentation and a Test of the Revised Smith Model.” In D.H. Smith and J. Van Til (eds.) International Perspectives on Voluntary Action Research. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.

Smith, David H., and Burt R. Baldwin. 1990. "Voluntary Group Prevalence Among the U.S. States: Factors Affecting the Distribution of Intercultural Understanding Groups (Sister City Programs)." International Journal of Comparative Sociology XXXI: 79-85.

Smith, David H., Jacqueline Macaulay and Associates. 1980. Participation in Social and Political Activities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Smith, David H., and Ce Shen. 1996. “Factors Characterizing the Most Effective Nonprofits Managed by Volunteers," Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(3): 271-89.

Smith, David H., and Ce Shen. 2002. “The Roots of Civil Society: A Model of Voluntary Association Prevalence Applied to Data on Larger Contemporary Nations.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 42:93-133.

Smith, David H., and Barbara L. Smith. 1979a. "NGO Operational Tasks and Problems: A Checklist for Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness, Part One." Transnational Associations 31(3),

Smith, David H. and Barbara L. Smith. 1979b. "NGO Operational Tasks and Problems. Part Two." Transnational Associations 31(4).

Smith, David H. and Barbara L. Smith. 1979c. "NGO Operational Tasks and Problems. Part Three." Transnational Associations 31(5).

Smith, David H., Robert A. Stebbins, and Michael Dover. 2006. A Dictionary of Nonprofit Terms and Concepts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Snow, David A., Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, eds. 2004. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Spear, Roger. 2004. “Governance in democratic member-based organisations.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 75(1): 33-59.

Steinberg, Richard, 2006. “Economic Theories of Nonprofit Organizations.” Pp. 117-139 in W. W. Powell and R. Steinberg, eds. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tarrow, Sidney. 2006. The New Transnational Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, Clive S., ed. 2004. Research Guide to U. S. and International Interest Groups. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Tolbert, Pamela S. and Richard H. Hall. 2010. Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes, 10^th ed. New Delhi, India: PHI Learning Private Ltd.

Tooby, John, and Leda Cosmides. 1992. “The Psychological Foundations of Culture.” Pp. 19-136 in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, edited by J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tschirhart, Mary. 2006. “Nonprofit Membership Associations.” In Walter W. Powell and Richard Steinberg (eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (second edition). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Van Puyvelde, Stijn, Ralf Caers, Cind Du Bois, and Marc Jegers. 2012. “The Governance of Nonprofit Organizations: Integrating Agency Theory With Stakeholder and Stewardship Theories.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(3): 431-451.

Wilson, Edward O. 1999. Consilience. New York: Vintage.

Wollebæk, Dag. 2010. “Volatility and growth in populations of rural associations.” Rural Sociology, 75(1): 144-166.

Zald, Mayer and Roberta Ash. 1966. “Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change.” Social Forces 44(3):327-41.

Zald, Mayer and Roberta Ash Garner. 1987. “Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change.” [rev. version] Pp. 121-141 in Social Movements in an Organizational Society: Collected Essays, edited by Mayer N. Zald and John D. McCarthy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Zald, Mayer and John D. McCarthy, eds. 1987. Social Movements in an Organizational Society: Collected Essays. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-23