ISTR and the consortium of Canadian hosts invite you to Exhibit and Advertise at the 14th International Conference in Montréal, Canada July 7-10, 2020.
Engage with 650+ leading nonprofit, civil society, and philanthropy scholars from all parts of the world. Promote your products & services and expand your networks.
PRINT AND MOBILE ADVERTISEMENTS
Advertise in the printed conference program and on the conference app to make sure our 650+ attendees know about your academic program, recent publications, scholars, services, and share announcements. Get a discount for print and app combined purchases. Options and prices are available on our website.
The deadline for payment and art work is April 20, 2020. Space is available on a first-come/first-served basis.
Reserve an exhibit table adjacent to our popular coffee breaks and engage continuously with attendees.
NEW Academic Centers (university-based) can exhibit for free as ISTR members!
demonstrate publishing services
feature books, reports, and other publications
promote academic centers and programs
Please reserve your space online by April 20, 2020.
Of the many opportunities ISTR Conferences offer, an important element is the opportunity to learn how the Third Sector manifests locally in the host country. Our upcoming conference will feature panels on the Québecois and Canadian experience more broadly and a colloquium hosted by the ARIMA partnership embedded within the conference itself (starting the day before). More information about these opportunities will follow in future blog posts. For now, we wanted to help familiarize you with the city of Montréal and provide some context for the city where we will gather in July.
A striking union of European charm and North American attitude, Montréal presents visitors with a captivating combination of the historic and the new, from exquisite architecture in the Old Port to diverse art displays throughout the city to fine dining in the Plateau.
Its strategic position in the St. Lawrence River made the island of Montréal a popular trading area for regional First Nations: the Atikamekw to the north, the Anishinaabe (Algonquin) to the west and the Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk), part of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy, to the south. Today, the First Nation communities most closely associated with Montréal are the Kanien’kehá:ka—who named the island Tiotia:ke—in the Kahnawà:ke Mohawk Territory on the South Shore and the Kanehsatà:ke Lands on the North Shore, near Oka.
Once home to the First Nations people, this island gem on the magnificent St. Lawrence River has seen travelers from far and wide visit its shores creating a bustling port city. The French colonists were the first to arrive, followed by the English, the Scottish and the Irish. Later, myriad peoples from around the world settled the fertile ground stretching up to the now defunct volcano Mount Royal.
Today, 120 distinct ethnic communities are represented in its population of more than 3.6 million, making Montréal a veritable mosaic of cultures and traditions. The world’s second largest francophone city after Paris, it truly merits the moniker ‘international’ city, a cosmopolitan centre with proud roots in the past that enthusiastically embraces the future. A world leader in such industries as aeronautics, information technology and biotechnology, the city has also made significant innovations in medicine, multimedia, the arts and urban planning. Its avant-garde spirit has not gone unnoticed: in 2006, Montréal was named a UNESCO City of Design. The strength and number of its academic institutions have also won Montréal the QS ranking of the top university city in the world.
Montréal provides a diversity of choices of activities for visitors day and night. It is host to a dizzying array of events, exhibitions, and festivals year round. While Montréal’s masterful chefs continue to elevate its reputation as a gourmet destination, creative artists and artisans draw admirers in droves to the haute couture ateliers, arts galleries and charming boutiques that line the city streets.
This award, established in 2006 by an anonymous donor, is given once every two years at the biennial ISTR conference to the author of the best dissertation in the field of comparative study of civil society organizations, nonprofit organizations, philanthropy, and voluntarism and related issues. The purpose of the award is to encourage young scholars to enter the field of nonprofit and philanthropic studies throughout the world. The winner this year was chosen from among 60 other entries from 28 countries. The overall quality of the entries, the diversity of the topics approached, the scope of areas addressed, as well as the spectrum of research methods utilized, left a very positive impression with the members of this year’s Selection Committee.
This year’s winner is Andrew Heiss, Brigham Young University, for his PhD thesis Amicable Contempt: The Strategic Balance between Dictators and International NGOs.
Examining the activities and adaption of international nongovernmental organisations (INGOs) in the context of increasing global restrictions on civic space, Andrew’s dissertation addresses the paradox that while INGOs’ service and advocacy activities can threaten the legitimacy and power of authoritarian regimes, numerous autocratic states still allow the work of INGOs; similarly, despite limitations and restrictions on their own activities, numerous INGOs continue to operate in these countries. Thus, the idea put forward and explored throughout the dissertation is that the relationship between INGOs and autocratic regimes is a state of amicable contempt: each party is aware that the other both threatens and supports their existence.
Focusing on the timeframe of 1991 to 2014, and on the three cases of Egypt, Russia and China, the dissertation addresses questions about: Why do regimes allow INGOs to work in their country? What influences INGO decision making in restrictive environments? How do regimes reap the benefits of INGOs programming? How do INGOs adapt to restrictions? A creative, detailed and thorough examination of an increasingly important international issue, the dissertation thereby provides a strong theoretical basis for examining INGO-dictator relationships. Additionally, it offers a diversity of practical findings that can be used by local and international NGOs to manage risk and to improve their likelihood of survival and impact of their work.
The Selection Committee also acknowledges the merit and achievements of the two other finalists.
Nora Derbal, Freie Universität Berlin, Charity for the Poor in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 1961–2015.
Sara Compion, University of Kentucky, Volunteering And Democratization In Southern Africa: A Structural And Cultural Analysis.
Abdulrazak Karriem, University of Western Cape Town, South Africa and Lehn M. Benjamin, Indiana University, United States, for their article, “How Civil Society Organizations Foster Insurgent Citizenship: Lessons from the Brazilian Landless Movement,” February 2016, Volume 27, Issue I, pp 19-36.
Jasmin Slootjes, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands and Thomas Kampen, University for Humanistic Studies, The Netherlands for their article, “Is My Volunteer Job Not Real Work? The Experiences of Migrant Women with Finding Employment Through Volunteer Work,” October 2017, Volume 28, Isuue 5, pp 1900–1921.
Stefan Toepler, George Mason University, and Publications Committee Chair presented the award to Andre-Anne Parent; Stéphanie Tourillon-Gingras; and Christian Jetté, Université de Montréal for their poster The Entre-Maisons Ahuntsic – A Collaborative Project at the Hearth of Low-rent Housing Units. Click here to see the award-winning poster!
“It is the task of the publications committee to select and confer the best poster presentation award. Doing so is a very delightful task; our only regret is that we cannot offer any publications opportunities along with the award. That said, in selecting our awardee, we look for both intellectual and visual appeal of the poster. Intellectually, we look for clearly presented statements of the research question and approach that also convince through concision. Visually, we like posters that utilize different design elements without being distracting and that easily guide the eye along … bonus points go to posters that manage to do so without overtaxing the eyes of the grey-haired crowd and do not force us to open the magnification app on our iPhones. There were many highly fascinating posters, but this one had the best overall package.”
PhD 3 Minute Thesis
Ruth Phillips, University of Sydney in Australia and President-Elect of ISTR, presented the award for the PhD 3 Minute Thesis to Fanny Dethier for her presentation titled Seeing Through NPOs. A new innovation for ISTR, this experimental competition offered a light-hearted way for students in the ISTR PhD Seminar to practice the art of distilling their ideas down to the core questions and concerns in 3 minutes and 1 PowerPoint slide. Ten students all gave very good presentations during the seminar and the experience was fun for the audience. A prize was awarded to the person who made the case for their research in the most clear and compelling manner, and the winner made her presentation to the entire plenary. You can view a video of her presentation (at the end of the opening plenary) by clicking here.
But besides the fun, the 3-minute thesis teaches important lessons – research should be designed to be useful, and in order to be useful (and in order to funded!) the users need to understand it and believe in it. Sometimes 3-minutes are all we have to get the attention of our audience.
It is ISTR’s hope that this competition provided an opportunity to make the wider conference attendees more aware of the PhD seminar, and hopefully inspired the students to feel more connected to the larger group of scholars and begin to see it as their research home into the future.
Guest post by Franz Koranyi who is writing a PhD on ‘philanthropic engagement in community-based networks in the field of education’ at the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Do you know that feeling of anticipation preceding an important presentation or event? You anticipate your own excitement, helpful feedback of others, interesting encounters and wonder how you will experience the ambiance of the event. Preparing for the fourth ISTR PhD Seminar from 8th to 10th July on the train to Amsterdam, the Netherlands, I had this exact feeling. Like Mieke Berghmans I expected to have the (rare) opportunity to talk, discuss, and work with other early career researchers who are all interested in the same field, concerned with phenomena such as the third sector, philanthropy and social entrepreneurship. This promised the chance to discuss my PhD in a different way than I present it to my peers in educational science.
From the moment I arrived at the hotel, the feeling of excitement became a feeling of joy. We had all been booked in the same hotel which meant that we met right before the start of the seminar. Having been given the opportunity to share a room, I first met my roommate from Jamaica. This was a perfect match since he not only is a very empathetic person and great roommate, but also works on the engagement of foundations. So, we were on the same page from the very beginning. Arriving at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, we experienced a very welcoming atmosphere that instantly made us feel comfortable. After hearty welcoming words by the organizers Pelle Åberg (Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College) and René Bekkers (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), and an interesting keynote speech by Taco Brandsen (Radboud University), we were ready to go for very valuable two seminar days. In the following I am going to sketch three aspects that in my opinion significantly shaped that experience:
Group sessions: a key element of the PhD Seminar were the group sessions of about six or seven students and two faculty members. Every student had 45 minutes that were approximately divided into 15 minutes of presentation and 30 minutes of discussion. As stated by Mieke Berghmans this turned ‘normal’ presentations at conferences upside down, thereby providing more space for discussion of ideas, concepts, and most importantly challenges that you face at the moment. What I found to be most special in comparison to other workshops was that presentations went completely without slides. Instead, prepared with the abstracts of each participant, we sat together speaking to and discussing with each other. This implied for the presenter to come straight to the point; otherwise you risked that your audience would lose your line of thought. Still, in cases of confusion participants could easily make additional clarifications. The group sessions had a very positive atmosphere as described for the years before by Christiane Rudmann, and we received valuable feedback by students and faculty members alike.
Community: another important element of the PhD Seminar was the interaction outside of group sessions. There were tons of opportunities to enter into conversations with each another: We mingled in breaks (with delicious catering), enjoyed a lovely BBQ together, drank a glass of wine at the reception, or danced at the PhD party (to the music played by René Bekkers and band). This allowed us to meet fascinating people from all over the world in a more informal setting (more than 50 students from over 20 countries). At the same time, the range of interests was overwhelming, ranging from measuring the third sector in Malaysia for the first time, seeking civil society and the public sphere in social media, to research on volunteering by vulnerable groups. All the interaction gave us the opportunity to connect with each other and exchange not only knowledge, ideas, and daily challenges in the PhD life, but also talk about matters apart from our academic identity.
Professional development: the PhD seminar as well as additional workshops during the conference provided the opportunity for us to also think about our future careers. During the seminar we were offered three workshops on scholarly identity, the tenure track, and getting published that were chaired by a faculty member. These were open formats, in which information on the subject was mixed with personal experiences and stimulated by additional participant inputs as well as questions. For example, scholars in third sector research often face the challenge that they need to specialize in another discipline since (at least in Europe) schools in nonprofit / third sector studies are rare. Thus, we discussed what strategies are suited to cope with this challenge. Furthermore, during the subsequent ISTR conference, there were more workshops on professional development such as ‘post-doc opportunities’, ‘teaching and learning’, ‘non-academic job market’, ‘navigating job-market and career strategies’ and ‘academic job interviews’. These workshops provided food for thought and offered opportunities for further exchange on our future plans.
These are only three aspects of the PhD Seminar, however, there was even more to experience (e.g., a 3 Minute Thesis Competition as described by Steph Haywood) that would not fit into the space of this post. Thus, I highly recommend applying for the next ISTR PhD Seminar in 2020 – because of both the excited feeling before meeting your fellow PhD colleagues and the joyful, interesting, and valuable experience during the seminar sessions, social exchanges, professional development workshops and many more. A big thank you to the team at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the ISTR, the faculty members and all the fellow PhD students for making this experience possible. I am looking forward to seeing you at another seminar or conference.
The following is an overview of a special roundtable ISTR is hosting at this year’s conference.
Philanthropy’s role in advancing sustainable development attracts a lot of attention. However, very few figures are available to date on the volumes and sectors of philanthropic flows supporting development. To address this lack of reliable and comparable data, the OECD produced the report on Private Philanthropy for Development. The report calls into question long-held assumptions about the volume, nature and potential of foundations’ engagement in developing countries, and the role they can play to support the SDGs.
The report examines philanthropic resource flows for development purposes, as well as foundations’ priorities, practices and partnering behaviors. It presents fresh perspectives and action-oriented recommendations to optimize philanthropy’s role in support of sustainable development.
This report offers practical insights for government policy makers and decision makers in civil society organisations, social enterprises and foundations. It results from close co-operation between the OECD Development Centre’s Network of Foundations Working for Development (netFWD) and the OECD Development Co-operation Directorate.
The ISTR Conference will host a round table introducing and presenting the 2018 OECD Report on Private Philanthropy for Development. Lorenzo Pavone, Head (Acting), Partnerships and Network Unit, OECD Development Centre, will present the report’s ground-breaking data and fresh perspectives on how to optimise philanthropy’s role in support of sustainable development.
Following this, the panel will discuss the report’s findings and its implications. Panel participants include:
Here is some helpful information for those of you traveling to Amsterdam for the ISTR Conference. You can also download a print version of these instructions, or get it off the ISTR Conference mobile app.
CONFERENCE VENUE The conference will be held at VU University Amsterdam, which is located at the South of Amsterdam. The Campus is easily accessible from the center of Amsterdam by various numbers of public transport (metro/tram).
Here is a photo of the main building where the conference will be held and a map showing it’s location on campus. It’s the tallest building on campus so you can’t miss it.
From Schiphol Airport to VU
Take the train to Station Amsterdam Zuid
Express tram 51 (1 minute), direction Amstelveen Westwijk
Tram 5 (1 minute), direction Amstelveen Binnenhof
It is a 10-minute walk to the VU from Station Amsterdam Zuid. From the Amsterdam South Train station, take exit ‘VU / Parnassusweg’ and follow the signs à From there it is a 600 meter walk to the main entrance of VU Amsterdam. After descending the stairs, go left and walk straight. You will see the tall concrete building just in front of you.
From Central Station to VU
Metro tram 51, direction Amstelveen Westwijk (16 minutes), stop at: De Boelelaan/VU
Tram 5, direction Amstelveen Binnenhof (25 minutes), stop at: De Boelelaan/VU
Tram 16 or 24, direction VUmc, final stop
Tram, bus, metro tickets
The GVB day or multi-day ticket provides you with unlimited travel throughout Amsterdam, both day and night, on the bus, tram, and metro, for the number of days that best fits your plans.
1 hour € 3.00
1 day (24 hours) € 7,50
2 days (48 hours) € 12,50
3 days (72 hours) € 17,50
4 days (96 hours) € 22,50
5 days (120 hours) € 27,50
6 days (144 hours) € 31.50
7 days (168 hours) € 34,50
Buy those tickets at the airport Schiphol (AKO), Holland Tourist Information, yellow ticket vending machines, and GVB Tickets & Info desks at major metro stations.
Bringing your kids? A children’s day ticket is also available for a heavily reduced fare. This ticket is for children 4 through 11 years. The child ticket can only be purchased via GVB Tickets & Info, www.ovshop.nl, and our Service points
By Car to VU
The A-10 Amsterdam ring road can be reached from all directions. Follow the A-10 to the Zuid/Amstelveen exit S108. Turn left at the end of the slip road onto Amstelveenseweg; after three hundred yards (at the VU University hospital building) turn left again onto De Boelelaan. VU University Amsterdam can be reached via city routes S108 and S109.
There is a limited amount of parking space around VU University Amsterdam in De Boelelaan, which has parking bays, and also in Karel Lotsylaan. There is paid parking on VU Amsterdam parking lot to the right of the Hospital Outpatient Clinic.
Schiphol Airport to Downtown Amsterdam
Please note that if you are traveling from the airport to the conference venue directly, you should refer to the instructions above.
Amsterdam Airport Express
Need a quick connection between Amsterdam Schiphol Airport and the city centre of Amsterdam? Take the Amsterdam Airport Express (bus 397)! Please note: this used to be bus 197.
The Amsterdam Airport Express provides a quick and easy transfer from Amsterdam Schiphol Airport to the city centre of Amsterdam. Departing every 7,5 minutes from bus platforms B15-19, this bus takes you directly to Museumplein, Rijksmuseum or Leidseplein. From there on you can get to many hotels in Amsterdam very easily.
Whenever I go to a conference, the thing I dread most is panels.A typical panel is a show about nothing. Sure, it worked on Seinfeld—but they had comedic geniuses obsessing over the perfect script and a whole cast of skilled actors and producers making it sing. (Though panels do have some recurring characters: I’m sure you’ve met The Rambler, The Spotlight Hog, and The Mansplainer.)
Panels aren’t going away any time soon. Since I end up sitting on them and moderating them on a regular basis, I decided to see if I could fix them.
And by fix them, I mean run a panel that doesn’t ruin your day. Here are my guidelines:
CHOOSING THE CAST
1. Keep it small. In my experience, the best panels have a moderator and no more than two or three guests. Just like in teams, less is more. Larger panels create more communication and coordination difficulties. It’s impossible to find a rhythm with six people on stage. People just sit there waiting to make their point.
2. Invite people who complement each other. I’ve suffered through panels that flop because the participants have nothing in common and because they have totally redundant perspectives. You need a mix of similarities and differences. In psychology it’s called optimal distinctiveness. Every panelist should fit into a common topic but stand out based on having unique insights or experiences.
3. Design for relationships between the panelists. A group of strangers sitting on stage together is a recipe for disaster. A great panel feels like being a fly on the wall for an actual conversation between friends or sparring partners.
Don’t just think about the qualities that you want in individual panelists or moderators; invite people who actually know each other. They’re used to having conversations together, they’re familiar with each other’s views, and they’re more likely to be comfortable debating and disagreeing respectfully.
If they haven’t connected before, have them spend some time getting to know each other. Even a quick email exchange followed by five minutes face-to-face backstage can help build rapport and give time to compare notes on what to cover (and avoid).
SETTING THE STAGE
4. Encourage the panelists to talk to each other. A rookie mistake is when panelists are all having individual conversations with the moderator. That’s just a bunch of one-on-one interviews slapped together—you would never do that in a meeting or at a party.
Maryellen Reilly introduced me to a creative way of nudging authentic discussion: invite each participant to ask a question of one other panelist. Along with catapulting them into a natural back-and-forth, it’s fascinating to see what they most want to learn from one another.
5. Ask them to keep their comments short. The most compelling responses are usually no more than 60 seconds. That’s where you start pushing the limits of conversational attention span and violating the natural flow of back-and-forth. Go longer and you’re just doing sequential monologues. Short answers open the door for burstiness, where it sounds like the panel is literally bursting with ideas. The energy picks up, people veer off script and actually build on one another, and there’s more room for unexpected wisdom and spontaneous humor.
6. Don’t let every panelist answer every question. That immediately devolves into mind-numbing turn-taking. No one has something interesting or informative to say on all the topics.
7. Tell them you might interrupt them. The moderator’s job is to guide the conversation to make it worthwhile for the audience. So if panelists start rambling, you need to jump in with a comment, a fresh question, or a redirect. At first I struggled to do that—I was afraid of being disagreeable. But I found that when I told panelists in advance that I might interrupt them, the awkwardness melted away. It’s not rude to interrupt them once you have their permission.
PREPARING THE SCRIPT
8. Start by asking for a story. Panels fall flat when participants never get to share their knowledge—and the audience has no context for why they’re there. Sometimes moderators try to solve that by reading lengthy bios for each panelist, which is a huge waste of time. Just introduce them with a few highlights that explain why they’re on stage, and invite them each to tell a story on the topic.
9. Pose questions that make the audience—and the panelists—think. The richest questions often start with why (to get at motivation/purpose) and how (to get at strategy/tactics). It can also help to surface tension, which doesn’t have to be with other panelists; you can prompt them to challenge conventional wisdom or their own past experiences.
Two of my favorite questions are “What’s the worst career advice you’ve gotten?” and “What’s something you believed early in your career that you now think is wrong?” Sometimes it helps to give them the questions in advance, both for peace of mind and for reflection time.
Another trick is to have the audience ask their questions at the beginning of the panel instead of the end. As Kumar Gargpoints out, it helps the panelists get more specific and more practical.
10. Run a lightning round. Come ready with a few questions that panelists can answer in a word or a sentence. Other than an opening story, that’s the only time you want everyone to chime in: it’s a great way to get diverse ideas on the table swiftly and represent everyone’s voice. It can be a fun appetizer early on if there’s a burning question where you want to surface a range of views, a nice interjection to keep the conversation moving if it’s dragging in the middle, or a strong closing if you want to wrap up with a light, memorable Q&A.
It’s always reassuring to hear successful people open up about their vices. What was your worst idea ever? What task do you procrastinate on? When do you feel the most self-doubt?
Adam Grant is an organizational psychologist at Wharton, a #1 New York Timesbestselling author, and the host of the TED podcast WorkLife. He shares insights in his free monthly newsletter, GRANTED.