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.