Chinese non-governmental organizations, media, and culture: communication perspectives, practices, and provocations

Abstract

The prolific rise of Chinese non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for advancing social and political change has attracted considerable attention in recent years. Nonetheless, limited communication studies research has been conducted to further contemporary understanding of these emerging collectives, particularly beyond the popular hype of digital and social media-led “revolutions” in civic engagement or dystopian accounts of Chinese society. This paper reviews the key contours of communication scholarship on Chinese NGOs and highlights the major contributions of the articles in this special issue. We also propose three dialectical tensions to stimulate future research in mediated Chinese NGO organizing, and to help advance the communicative purposes, practices and prospects of Chinese NGOs.

Keywords:

• Chinese NGOs
• civil society
• digital media
• social media
• intercultural communication
• dialectical tensions

Introduction

The rise of Chinese non-government organizations (NGOs) in recent years has reawakened the interest in civil society relations. Chinese NGOs have developed to meet growing social needs that are linked to widening income disparities and heightened expectations of civil society activities (Hsu, 2014). Many Chinese NGOs also engage in advocacy when they are consulted about policy formulation and when their employees act as intermediaries between their constituencies and the governing authorities (Liu, 2011).

Although organizing for non-profit or voluntary activities is not entirely new in Chinese societies, the NGO is a relative new and rapidly growing organizational form in China. According to the Ministry of Civil Affairs (2015), in 2015 there were 32,900,000 registered NGOs in China, an increase of almost 13% since 2014. Nonetheless, the actual number of NGOs is indeterminate. In China, the government implements a registration policy and regulatory framework to monitor NGOs and to ensure their fragmentation and localization (Spires, 2011). Nonetheless, in tandem with the increasing adoption of information communication technologies (ICTs) by the Chinese, NGOs have reached out in broad ways to connect with their publics. Numerous NGOs use multiple media to disseminate grassroots news, raise concerns, and encourage debates, thus generating new discourse on pressing issues (Cheong, Hwang, & Brummans, 2014; Hsu, 2011; Liu, 2011; Sima, 2011; Sullivan & Xie, 2009; Yang, 2012b). Furthermore, “NGO incubators” have emerged to provide other NGOs with training programs for their public relations and capacity building, as well as the provision of financial support (Yang & Cheong, 2016). Because NGOs often operate at the center of significant social issues, such as environmental protection, poverty reduction, and labor rights, NGO research often reflects the directions of profound social change (Hsu, 2011).

Hence, with two goals in mind, we proposed a special issue on Chinese NGOs and their communication practices. First, we wanted to emphasize the growing number of studies on this topic. Hence, in this special issue, we present empirical articles that provide substantive qualitative and quantitative data on different aspects of the development of communication by Chinese NGOs, including the latest social media practices. This release of fresh data provides new insights into the interrelationships between non-profit organizations, mediated and on-ground communications, and cultural dynamics. Second, we wanted to offer recommendations for future research. In this article, we briefly review the communication research related to Chinese NGOs, and we then highlight the key contributions of the articles included in this issue. We conclude by calling for research that will expand the imaginaries of non-profit organizations in non-Western contexts.

Assessing Chinese NGO communication research

The development of Chinese NGOs is a relatively new phenomenon that emerged in the 1990s. In 1993, the journal Modern China dedicated a special issue to explore the significance of non-governmental organizations in China (e.g., Chamberlain, 1993). Since then, China’s rapidly growing civil society has continued to attract scholarly interest across multiple disciplines (Sullivan & Xie, 2009; Xie, 2012; Yang, 2005). In the field of communication, research on NGOs parallels the adoption of new media by Chinese NGOs. A search of the major communication databases identified over 30 journal articles and books dealing with the topic of Chinese NGOs, most of which were published after 2010. Both the number of publications and the recency of these studies suggest that communication scholars have recognized the social significance of these civil actors, but research on Chinese NGOs is only beginning to emerge as an important area of communication. We highlight the key contours of this scholarship below.

Descriptive research on Chinese NGO typology

One major approach to understanding Chinese NGOs is descriptive research, which involves data gathering in order to define and depict Chinese NGO activities and to illuminate the knowledge about the realities of NGO development. Because the Chinese government treats NGOs differently depending on the organization’s size, funding source, and type of mission (Hsu, 2011), a commonly used typology is to categorize NGOs according to their degree of autonomy, which has led to the concepts of “government-organized non-governmental organizations” (GONGOs) and grassroots NGOs. GONGOs range from sports, business, and academic associations to other issue fields such as environmental protection and health care (Spires, 2011). GONGOs are special because, unlike their Western counterparts, these NGOs are funded or run by the government, and they are often used as a symbol of China’s political tolerance regarding State and international diplomatic events (Yang & Taylor, 2014). However, the implications of the operations of GONGOs and their long-term effectiveness remain an area yet to be fully explored.

Despite the political advantages enjoyed by GONGOs, most communication researchers have focused on grassroots NGOs that bear limited associations with the government. Researchers tend to categorize grassroots NGOs according to issue fields. In China, because environmental NGOs are the most active, they have received the most attention. Previous studies have examined how environmental NGOs use digital media, construct green virtual public spheres, and build relationships with international NGOs and governmental actors (e.g., Yang, 2012a; Yang & Taylor, 2010; Yao, 2008). Research has also closely examined the communication campaigns of environmental NGOs (e.g., Liu, 2011; Xu, 2014).

The current emphasis on environmental NGOs does not suggest that other NGOs in China are less active than NGOs that are engaged in politically sensitive areas, such as religion, human rights, and AIDS advocacy. These NGOs tend to be subject to high levels of political scrutiny. Therefore, they are difficult to contact, and data about them are difficult to locate. Furthermore, sampling has proven problematic. To obtain legal status, NGOs need a supervisory governmental sponsoring unit. Thus, many NGOs register as business enterprises, research centers, or student associations (Xie, 2012). Moreover, many web-based groups that function as NGOs never register as formal organizations. Because no credible official directory exists, studies on Chinese NGOs rarely adopt generalizable samplings or make reliable claims about the representativeness of their samples. The majority of research on Chinese NGOs focuses on case studies of a few NGOs or employs convenience sampling (Hsu, 2011). Although the extant communication research has focused mainly on a sector of Chinese NGOs, the field is highly diverse and, as discussed below, some articles presented in this special issue reflect this diversity.

Chinese NGOs and mainstream media coverage

Another dimension of communication research on Chinese NGOs centers on examining the extent of their coverage by mainstream media, which serves, in part, to track and reflect their influence on Chinese society. As the State’s control of the media system has softened over the years, the number of studies on NGO-related coverage by mainstream media has also increased. In the 1980s, especially after the Tiananmen Square incident, there was little coverage of NGOs. The situation started to change in the early 1990s. For instance, Akhavan-Majid and Ramaprasad (1998) found that in the early 1990s NGOs and their issues were rarely highlighted. Even when mass media occasionally covered them, Chinese NGOs were marginalized in press coverage, and they attracted limited public attention.

In the late 1990s, there was a notable increase in the coverage of environmental NGO activities. As Yang and Calhoun (2007) noted, “[T]he average number of articles on environmental issues published in national and regional newspapers was 125 in 1994. This number rose to 136 in 1995 and 630 in 1999” (p. 221).The situation further improved in the last decade. For example, Yang (2014) found that in 2008 Chinese NGOs’ participation in disaster relief during and after a severe earthquake attracted public attention and extensive media coverage. Currently, other high-profile NGO campaigns are often covered by the mainstream media (Liu, 2011). Nonetheless, Chinese NGOs often lack adequate knowledge about and skills in media relations, and they may lose legitimacy in times of controversy and crisis (Long, 2016). Continued research is needed to document and develop theoretical and practical models that can improve the media practices of NGOs.

NGOs and digital media connections

Another prominent and growing area of communication research on Chinese NGOs has focused on their adoption of communication technologies to advance the civic participation of individuals and previously disenfranchised or marginalized communities (e.g., Liu, 2011; Xu, 2014). Networked digital media are often celebrated, particularly by smaller NGOs, because of their ability to help these organizations amplify their presence and mobilize volunteers (Hsu, 2011; Lo & Waters, 2012). Although NGOs’ activism occurs mostly within the boundaries defined by the political authorities, some NGOs have considerable sway, particularly in areas such as animal protection and environmental rights (Liu, 2011; Sima, 2011; Sullivan & Xie, 2009; Yao, 2008). Several studies have examined how NGOs use digital media and have identified a range of usage patterns, such as NGOs’ embrace of dialogic principles, building of online communities, as well as opportunities for and constraints on online and offline collective actions (Liu, 2011; Lo & Waters, 2012; Sima, 2011; Yang & Taylor, 2010).

Notably, a few studies have presented nuanced examinations of communication technologies, modifying the technological determinism view, which presumes that new media drive the development of Chinese NGOs. Some studies have suggested that Chinese NGOs’ adoption of digital media entails a negotiation between new mediated possibilities and Chinese culture. For example, based on their study of 75 Chinese NGOs and their Facebook use, Lo and Waters (2012) argued that while some NGOs, such as religious NGOs, uphold traditional Chinese cultural values in their use of digital media, education, and health care NGOs often explore new possibilities such as dialogic praxis and online activism. Wang (2015) examined how the “rural vs urban” context affects the ecosystem of social media usage by Chinese NGOs, concluding that NGOs in rural China lack organizational readiness or have limited access to ICTs.

NGOs inter-organizational networks

Building networks within and across sectors is increasingly important in the operations and development of NGOs as they engage in collaborative activities (Guo & Acar, 2005). Several studies have examined how Chinese NGOs develop inter-organizational networks. One line of research has focused on the interactions between domestic and international NGOs. For instance, Reese (2015) interviewed prominent international environmental NGOs to understand how they adapt to authoritarian social structures and develop strategic linkages with Chinese NGOs. Yang (2012a) examined the hyperlink network between Northern NGOs and Chinese NGOs, finding that although a close link to Chinese NGOs could be advantageous, Northern NGOs rarely connect with Chinese NGOs. The North–South connection pattern in the virtual space largely resembles its offline situation. In addition, previous analyses have provided a bird’s eye view of the opportunities and challenges existing in the inter-organizational networks of NGOs.

Contributions of articles

The five articles in this issue cover diverse NGOs, including those involved in hunger relief, environmental education, and women’s rights. As a collection, the articles span the range of human communication practices, including interactions in digital and social media, print and broadcast media, and face-to-face exchanges.

WeChat is China’s fastest-growing mobile social networking site (SNS), yet we know little about the day-to-day organizational communication of this digital media platform. The first article, which is by Ruelle and Peverelli, is a timely case study that examines how key members of a Chinese hunger relief NGO build their organization via daily communicative acts and in the process discursively shape its group identity. The results revealed a detailed corpus of categories of discourse and specific content in social media communication. These discursive acts include the use of digital hongbaos, which mirrors the Chinese practice of giving money in red envelopes on festive occasions to share good fortune and to spur group interaction and devotion. The study emphasizes that NGOs appropriate newer technology applications, and the authors invite further research on the role of social media in the identity construction of Chinese civil actors.

The second article focuses on publicity strategies. Jia elaborates the divergent perspectives and campaign practices of environmental NGOs (ENGOs) in China. The findings from in-depth interviews indicated distinctions in philosophies and campaign operations, which corresponded to the different ways in which, with varying outcomes, communication campaigns target policy-makers, businesspersons, and lay publics. In doing so, this comparative study on ENGOs provides nuanced information about the normative factors that shape campaign processes, as well as their differing capabilities and media usage according to specific needs. These results also revealed the dialectics of mediated communication, as the values and beliefs of ENGOs guide their strategic practices to engage and curtail media use.

The third article by Li and Li on the women’s movement in China contributes a fresh perspective on a group of under-researched Chinese civil actors. Through the comparison of two generations of Chinese women NGOs, the study demonstrates how their organizational models, resource conditions, status, and media strategies have evolved in recent decades. Notably, the communication practices of younger feminists reflect their interests in working with emerging market-oriented media to create well-choreographed and dramatic stories, such as the “Occupy Men’s Toilet” movement to highlight gender discrimination. It is important to note that although the authors focused on women NGOs, many of these changes may apply to other NGOs. The study invites us to reflect on how changing social conditions, especially those involving dynamic State–civil actor relationships, foster Chinese models of NGOs’ practices that engage both official and commercialized media.

Because of the intense adoption of communication technologies by Chinese NGOs and their volunteers, it is common to prize digital media usage as a key facilitator of NGO growth. In this respect, Fu and Shumate’s article makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of Chinese NGOs by focusing on the social factors that shape their offline networks. In particular, the study shows the importance of board affiliation, or guanxi, in influencing the sizes of Chinese NGO networks. In China, where many NGOs are marginalized and need to expand their social connections, the study reminds policy-makers and NGO practitioners of the importance of initiating and nurturing guanxi by facilitating resourceful stakeholders.

Finally, Sommerfeldt and Xu contribute a significant critical analysis of the impact of digital media on Chinese NGOs. The study probes deeply how workers in 20 different NGOs perceive and evaluate their digital media practices. The results illustrate a dire need for the systematic assessment of their programs and their use of digital technologies. These findings reflect the programmatic priorities of Chinese NGOs and their donors, as well as the challenges that NGOs face in delineating resources and measuring effects even though many respondents acknowledge the growing importance of accountability and evaluation processes in voluntary work. The authors highlight the importance of building evaluation capacities in Chinese NGOs to increase their effectiveness.

Pressing issues for future research

We close this introduction to our special issue by raising several points that we hope will provoke our readers to conduct future research. We propose three dialectical tensions that could help rethink and reframe the communicative purposes, practices, and prospects of Chinese NGOs. Contrary to conventional either–or understandings, a dialectical perspective requires the embracement of seemingly incompatible truths to generate tension, complexity, and possibility. Dialectical tensions or the concurrent hybrid existence of opposing forces in mediated communication practices (Cheong, Martin, & Macfadyen, 2012) deserve closer inspection in the interrelationships among Chinese NGOs, culture, and communication. Although the excitement about the usage of digital media by Chinese NGOs is understandable, the literature lacks an in-depth, critical analysis of the limitations of mediated communication compared with other communication practices. Hence, future research should consider how academics and practitioners understand and navigate the tensions in Chinese NGO organizations to achieve fruitful insights for both research and praxis.

1. Independence–dependence: Chinese NGOs are interdependently networked as autonomous civic and State reliant entities

The first consideration for future research is to appraise the independence–dependence tensions that Chinese NGOs face and to examine critically the broad communicative practices that are embedded in State and corporate interdependencies. Conventional views of Chinese NGOs that are rooted in Western paradigms of civil society and the third sector have primarily focused on evaluating their autonomy and political independence. Consequently, government collaborations are viewed as an impediment to Chinese NGOs’ civic initiatives or as “too close for comfort” in an authoritarian State (Lu, 2007). Moreover, many Chinese civic organizations have historically avoided the NGO nomenclature, preferring to call themselves people-based or social organizations in order to minimize government intervention (Yang, 2005). However, a binary approach to NGO–State relations obscures the present-day multiple and mediated interdependencies that many Chinese NGOs increasingly rely on to flourish (Spires, Tao, & Chan, 2014). Moreover, alliances among non-profits are important in resolving pressing social issues around the world (Guo & Acar, 2005). In other words, a key communicative reality is that Chinese NGOs necessarily constitute their organization by auto-communication or self-referentiality (Broms & Gahmberg, 1983) and by recurrently interacting with other NGOs, as well as corporate and State actors. This paradox of functioning interdependently with the government, autonomously, or even as a legally unregistered entity has profound implications for the communication practices and future of NGOs in China.

Indeed, an increasing number of articles have stressed the hybrid nature of Chinese NGOs. Joint descriptors such as “dependent autonomy” (Lu, 2007), “semiautonomous, non-resistance activism” (Wang, 2015), and “consultative authoritarianism” (Teets, 2013) illustrate the tensions involved in organizing NGOs while recognizing the value of these civil society actors. The bulk of research attention, however, has tended to focus on State alliances, paying less attention to the intricacies and challenges of NGO–corporate interdependencies. The lack of attention to the latter represents a research gap because an important trend in China has been the fast accumulation of wealth and the effects of new fortunes on fundraising opportunities for Chinese NGOs (Saich, 2008). Domestic funding opportunities used to be scarce, but as Chinese business leaders emerged as resourceful venture capitalists and donors, they became attractive partners for NGOs because they are accessible and less likely to be regarded with suspicion compared to foreign sponsors (e.g., the Overseas NGOs Management Law 2015) (Ministry of Civil Affairs, 2015).

Accordingly, future research should investigate the expanded communicative scope of Chinese NGOs, including the aforementioned tensions and their ontology, as they construct partnerships with for-profit organizations among other collaborations while adhering to their mission. Future research should also examine the variegated hybrid nature of the organizing and communication activities of NGOs as they develop various collaborations with other actors that are increasingly prominent, including the burgeoning number of officially endorsed or unregistered faith-based organizations that are interested in advancing social work in areas of dire poverty and transnational crises (Cheong, Hwang, & Brummans, 2014; Lee & Han, 2014).

Furthermore, the reframing of Chinese NGOs as apolitical or non-governmental rather than anti-governmental entities should not be simply construed as an enfeebled response to State pressure (Gleiss, 2014), thereby curtailing NGOs’ communication possibilities. Many grassroots NGOs work with government agencies in a “contingent symbiosis” (Spires, 2011) and rely on their funding to gain the communicative capacity to serve their constituents in the light of official and public distrust (Long, 2016). Drawing on a Chinese proverb, “The most invisible place is the spot right underneath the light,” scholar-practitioner Jing Wang (2015) made the striking point that it may be easier for some Chinese NGOs to function and better serve their constituents within the planned spaces and confines of Party–State surveillance than carve out alternative spaces. Put differently, there are communication benefits from cultivating close relations with governing authorities because Chinese NGOs, which are closely tied to the State, may paradoxically have the highest degree of autonomy in their operations.

Hence, rather than viewing State collaboration as conflict or cooptation, future research should embrace the independence–dependence tensions in Chinese NGOs and investigate how pragmatic communication practices could help their organizations as their interdependencies were leveraged to avoid censorship, gain credibility, and even challenge official discourse at opportune times. Future research should also pay attention to the communication practices of new Chinese NGOs that work as bridges or incubators (Yang & Cheong, 2016) to help connect networks of state, corporate, and other civic stakeholders in the context of growing global and transnational communication networks (Reese, 2015).

2. Privilege–disadvantage: Chinese NGOs as legitimate, authoritative, and vulnerable establishments

The second consideration concerns how issues of power, authority, and voice should be considered in future studies. In relation to the first point regarding the need to unpack and recognize independence–dependence tensions, Chinese NGOs are both privileged and disadvantaged in terms of their capacity to legitimize their identities and work in the incipient Chinese civil society. On one hand, some Chinese NGOs are seen as harmonious with the status quo, and they are increasingly valued as a benevolent social force that is evidence of China’s social progress (Yang & Taylor, 2014). On the other hand, many Chinese NGOs face precarious working conditions because they are small, marginalized, and informally constituted (Yang & Alpermann, 2014). Consequently, they are under-represented in mainstream media and undervalued by citizens who are less interested in the vitality of civic engagement than in pragmatic day-to-day and economic affairs. Many Chinese NGOs, particularly Internet-oriented entities, struggle to obtain official approval. Chinese NGOs also encounter shifting policy regulations in terms of the extent to which they can utilize various media technologies because digital communication and the legal landscape are constantly reconfigured by changing regulations (Hassid, 2012).

Future research needs to take into account the above tensions and dynamics of Chinese NGO practices, as well as recognize the contested nature of the proliferating NGO activities. There is a need for the further examination of the communication processes that are required by NGOs to implement the “negotiated creativity” required to navigate the mercurial and volatile nature of Chinese social and Internet spaces (Yang, 2012b). Moreover, further research should explore the communicative practices that help develop “organizational resilience” because NGOs utilize different tactics to achieve sustainable development (Long et al., 2015).

Furthermore, research should focus a critical spotlight on the contested nature of the work performed by Chinese NGOs, paying attention to the ways in which communication practices are enacted to achieve differential goals. For instance, a study on environmental NGOs in Guangdong, China concluded that these NGOs were primarily constituted to develop social capital in the form of guanxi to promote personal benefits and fulfil the aspirations of the new Chinese middle class rather than advocate for environmental protection. As Tsang and Lee (2013) noted, “This is largely because many NGOs do not promote social causes and therefore pose little threat to the communist regime. Behind the façade of chanting the environmental protection slogans, they are in fact pursuing material business interests” (p. 168). In turn, these material interests may paradoxically harm the pro-environmental causes that these NGOs were purportedly created to support. Thus, future research should investigate the real extent to which communication perspectives and outcomes may vary in different NGOs, depending upon the contexts in which they are viewed as privileged or disadvantaged sites of social action.

3. Online–offline: Chinese NGOs are embedded in everyday new and old media ecologies

Although much attention has been paid to the emancipatory potential of digital media to cause transformative civic changes, a key thrust of recent Internet studies has been to demonstrate how digital media use is embedded and shaped by on-the-ground networks, older media practices, and established telecommunication systems (Castells, 2012). Even the phenomena of so-called “Internet events” in China, such as “cyber-vigilantism”, require the multi-modal and non-mediated efforts of citizens to work with existing contacts and on-the-ground investigations to gather information to expose and protest social injustices (Cheong & Gong, 2010). Hence, a third consideration for future research is how new NGO-mediated practices and representations are simultaneously online–offline performances that are embedded in analogous procedures and multi-platform innovations. This research stream should take into account the social norms and stratifications that affect communication, digital media use, and organizational disparities (Wang, 2015), including the differences and similarities in the ways that Chinese NGOs incorporate various media in their communications. Because some Chinese NGOs have expanded their operations globally, it has become particularly important to investigate how unmediated and mediated practices, including social media, are appropriated to constitute and enlarge their organizations and motivate diverse volunteers to collaborate in achieving a common mission (Cheong et al., 2014).

Moreover, given the vertiginous effects of technological development in China, future research should pay increased attention to potential inequalities regarding the implications and consequences of mediated activities. Recent research on human rights NGOs found that while digital media may facilitate new ways in which NGOs access information and promote their work, the “new media may in fact represent a more challenging environment in which to be heard for some groups seeking global attention” (Thrall, Stecula, & Sweet, 2014, p. 135). NGOs that traditionally faced challenges in soliciting resources were further impaired as they faced new “attention bottlenecks” in highly mediatized environments (Thrall et al., 2014). These findings underscore that established communication inequalities and customs can exacerbate prior disparities. Therefore, although the latest media afford new communicative possibilities, the development of new media could exacerbate the constraints on NGOs, depending on prior experiences, resource allocation, location, and perceptions of the online environment and its risks. Research that investigates the long-term implications of media use by Chinese NGOs can deepen the critical understanding of secondary digital divides.

Finally, the corollary to Chinese NGO digital media appropriation involves users’ perspectives on how NGO constituents understand and choose to engage with NGO activities online. Because Chinese NGOs utilize a spectrum of communication resources, there are ample research opportunities for further investigations and interpretive analyses of why and how Chinese publics choose to engage in NGO campaigns and the factors that drive their online engagement.

Notes on contributors

Pauline Hope Cheong (PhD, University of Southern California) is associate professor at the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University. She studies how cultural communities, including religious and non-profit ones, interact with different media to build authority and community practices around the world. She has published more than 70 articles and books, and has received multiple awards from the National Communication Association and the International Communication Association.

Aimei Yang (PhD, University of Oklahoma) is an assistant professor of public relations in the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California. Yang’s research is positioned at the intersection of strategic public relations research and a social network approach to the study of inter-organizational relationships, and focuses on the relationship dynamics among non-profit actors, corporations, and government agencies.

Acknowledgement

We thank our colleagues who served as reviewers: Boris Brummans; Itai Himelboim; Tom Hollihan; Shuzhen Huang; Jennie Hwang; Thomas Johnson; Peng Pan; Steven Reese; Adam Saffer; Eric Sommerfelt; Maureen Taylor; Jing Wang; Huike Wen; Cara Willis; and Guobin Yang. We would like to dedicate this issue to NGO workers devoted to industrious efforts that inspire and ennoble us all.