Public relations, marketing and fundraising in Canadian nonprofits: Who is better at relationship?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nonprofit landscape in Canada is extremely competitive and organizations looking to be successful for the long term will need the ability to build effective relationships with their key audiences. Over the last 30 years, the quality of organizational-public relationships (OPR) has been measured by a number of public relations scholars but it was Hon and Grunig (1999) who identified a number of indicators, including trust, commitment and control mutuality. Furthermore, scholarly literature shows there is also the potential for encroachment of public relations by other functions such as fundraising and marketing, as financial sustainability remains a great concern for nonprofits. This study examines public relations, marketing and fundraising structures in the human services nonprofit subsector in Canada against OPR indicators to explore whether there is a relationship between structure and engagement effectiveness. The researcher deployed a nationwide survey reaching 115 public relations, marketing and fundraising professionals, conducted in-depth interviews with 11 CEOs and senior leaders of nonprofit organizations and analyzed six of their corresponding organization charts in a content analysis. The research shows that generally the organizations in this subsector enjoy high levels of trust and commitment from their audiences, but control mutuality is an area of weakness. The researcher also found that encroachment of the public relations function was not occurring to a great extent. This study raises possibilities for future research of OPRs and other nonprofit subsectors as well as research that examines the relationship between organizational size and engagement effectiveness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".