Thus, we have two competing groups of
scholars who answer the same question differently. And it is not only the
answers that are different, but the methodology that the scholars are using
while researching the question. Critique of “globalizing” NGOs was chiefly
created on the basis of case-study and qualitative techniques (see Spires,
2011b; Bob, 2005; Henderson, 2002; Mendelson & Glenn, 2002; Luong &
Weinthal, 1999)[2],
while “advocates” approached the problem quantitatively (Koslinski & Reis,
2009; Stark, Vedres, & Bruszt, 2006). Methodological diversity makes
competing arguments less commensurable, which, indeed, an obstacle for any kind
of comparison and understanding of how these insights may correspond to each
other.