Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-5qg8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T09:31:37.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philanthropy as an Essentially Contested Concept

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Siobhan Daly
Siobhan Daly*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, Northumbria University, Lipman Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
*
e-mail: siobhan.daly@northumbria.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing upon W.B. Gallie’s framework, which identified seven characteristics of essentially contested concepts, the paper unpacks and examines the variety of approaches to the conceptualisation of philanthropy. In this way, it explores how philanthropy is an essentially contested concept. I argue that greater scholarly attention to the essentially contested nature of the concept of philanthropy is salient to avoiding problems of conceptual ambiguity and miscommunication. What is more, recognition of the essentially contested nature of the concept of philanthropy is fundamental to ensuring that issues of conceptualisation do not hinder either progress in the theoretical development of the field or the resonance of studies of philanthropy beyond the academy.

Résumé

Résumé

Se fondant sur le cadre d’étude de W.B. Gallie, qui a identifié sept caractéristiques de concepts essentiellement contestés, l’article expose et examine la variété des approches relatives à la conceptualisation de la philanthropie. Il explore ainsi comment la philanthropie est un concept essentiellement contesté. Mon argument est qu’une plus grande attention de la recherche sur la nature essentiellement contestée du concept de philanthropie s’impose afin d’éviter les problèmes d’ambiguïté conceptuelle et d’incompréhension. En outre, la reconnaissance de la nature essentiellement contestée du concept de philanthropie est fondamentale pour garantir que les questions de conceptualisation ne viennent pas compromettre le progrès du développement théorique de la discipline ou la résonance des études sur la philanthropie au-delà de l’université.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Beruhend auf dem von W. B. Gallie formulierten Rahmenwerk, das sieben Merkmale wesentlich umstrittener Begriffe bestimmt, werden in dem Beitrag die verschiedenen Ansätze zur Konzeptualisierung der Philanthropie dargestellt und untersucht. Auf diese Weise wird erforscht, inwiefern es sich bei der Philanthropie um einen wesentlich umstrittenen Begriff handelt. Ich bin der Ansicht, dass größere wissenschaftliche Aufmerksamkeit auf den wesentlich umstrittenen Charakter des Philantropiekonzepts gelenkt werden muss, um Probleme begrifflicher Ambiguität sowie Kommunikationsprobleme zu vermeiden. Darüber hinaus ist es wichtig, den wesentlich umstrittenen Charakter des Philanthropiekonzepts zu erkennen, um so zu gewährleisten, dass die Probleme einer Konzeptualisierung nicht den Fortschritt in der theroetischen Entwicklung des Bereichs oder die Resonanz der Philantropiestudien über die Hochschulen hinaus behindern.

Resumen

Resumen

Haciendo uso del marco de W.B. Gallie, que identificó siete características de conceptos esencialmente discutibles, el documento desvela y examina la variedad de enfoques ante la conceptualización de la filantropía. De este modo, explora cómo la filantropía es un concepto esencialmente discutible. Yo argumento que la mayor atención académica a la naturaleza esencialmente discutible del concepto de filantropía es significativa para evitar problemas de ambigüedad conceptual y mala comunicación. Además, el reconocimiento de la naturaleza esencialmente discutible del concepto de filantropía es fundamental para garantizar que las cuestiones de conceptualización no entorpezcan ni el progreso en el desarrollo teórico del campo ni la resonancia de los estudios de filantropía más allá de la academia.

摘要

摘要

本文以 W.B. Gallie 的理论框架为基础——本框架指出了本质上存有争议的一些概念的 7 大特点,探讨了各种各样的慈善事业概念化方法。通过这种方式,本文探究了慈善事业如何成为一个本质上存在争议的概念。我认为,学术界应当对慈善事业这一概念的争议性给予更多关注,这是防止概念模糊和表达不清的关键。此外,承认慈善事业这一概念的争议性具有极重要的意义,唯有如此,方能确保概念化问题不致阻碍该领域的理论发展,或是妨碍慈善事业研究在学术界之外产生反响。

要約

要約

W.B.ガリ(W.B.Gallie)の枠組みを用いると、本質的に争点となる概念の7つの特性が特定されるが、本論文では慈善活動を概念化する様々なアプローチを提示して、分析する。さらに慈善活動が、いかにして本質的に争点となる概念であるかを研究する。本質的に争点となるような慈善活動の概念の性質に対して学究的な注目を集めることは、概念的な曖昧さと誤解の問題を避けるために重要である。さらに重要なことは、本質的に争点となるような慈善活動の概念の性質を認識することは、概念化の問題が、学会を超えたフィールドの理論展開における進展、もしくは慈善活動の研究における共鳴のいずれかを妨げないことを確実にすることが基本となる。

ملخص

ملخص

بالاعتماد على إطار(W.B. Gallie)، الذي حدد سبع خصائص للمفاهيم الأساسية المتنازع عليها، البحث يبين و يفحص مجموعة من مناهج مختلفة في فكر العمل الخيري. في هذه الطريقة، إنه يستكشف كيف أن مفهوم العمل الخيري متنازع عليه أساسي. أنا أناقش أن المزيد من الاهتمام العلمي لطبيعة التنافس الأساسي لمفهوم العمل الخيري هو لتجنب المشاكل البارزة من الغموض وسوء الفهم النظري. ما هو أكثر، التعرف على طبيعة التنافس أساسي لمفهوم العمل الخيري هو أساس لضمان أن مشاكل الفكر لا تعيق أي تقدم في تطوير نظرية المجال أو صدى لدراسات العمل الخيري خارج الأكاديمية.

Keywords

W.B. GalliePhilanthropyEssentially contested concept

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 535 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acs, Z. J., & Phillips, R. J. (2002). Entrepreneurship and philanthropy in American Capitalism. Small Business Economics, 19, 189–204. doi: 10.1023/A:1019635015318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adam, T. (Ed.). (2004a). Philanthropy, patronage and civil Society. Experiences from Germany, Great Britain and North America. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adam, T. (2004b). Introduction. In Adam, T. (Ed.), Philanthropy, patronage and civil society. Experiences from Germany, Great Britain and North America. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.10.2979/2618.0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adloff, F. (2009). What encourages charitable giving and philanthropy?. Ageing and Society, 29, 1185–1205. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X08008295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anheier, H. K., & Daly, S. (Eds.). (2007). The politics of foundations: A comparative analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K., & Leat, D. (2002). From charity to creativity: Philanthropic foundations in the 21st century. London: Comedia.Google Scholar
Arapogolou, V. P. (2004). The governance of homelessness in Greece: Discourse and power in the study of philanthropic networks. Critical Social Policy, 24, 102–126. doi: 10.1177/0261018304241005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnove, R. F. (Ed.). (1980). Philanthropy and cultural imperialism: The foundation at home and abroad. Boston, MA: G.K. Hall.Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies, 23, 5–26. doi: 10.1017/S0260210597000053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M., & Green, M. (2008). Philanthrocapitalism: How the rich can save the world. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Boas, T. C., & Gans-Morse, J. (2009). Neo-liberalism: From new liberal philosophy to anti-liberal slogan. Studies in Comparative International Development, 44, 137–161. doi: 10.1007/s12116-009-9040-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breeze, B. (2005). The return of philanthropy, Prospect, Issue 106, 16 January 2005. Available at: http://kent.academia.edu/BethBreeze/Papers/520736/The_return_of_philanthropy.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (2010). Building the big society. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Care, N. S. (1973). On fixing social concepts. Ethics, 84, 10–21. doi: 10.1086/291898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrington, D. (2009). The application of learning and research to the practice of philanthropy, European Philanthropy Research and Teaching Initiative. Accessed June 6, 2011, from http://www.efc.be/NewsKnowledge/Documents/Final%20report%2019%2011-C.pdf.Google Scholar
Cobb, N. K. (2002). The new philanthropy: Its impact on funding and culture. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 32, 125–144. doi: 10.1080/10632920209596969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, D., & Adcock, R. (1999). Democracy and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 537–565. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, D., Hildago, F. D., & Maciuceanu, A. O. (2006). Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11, 211–246. doi: 10.1080/13569310600923782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49, 430–451. doi: 10.1353/wp.1997.0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, W. E. (1974). Terms of political discourse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Daly, S. (2008). Institutional innovation in philanthropy: Community foundations in the UK. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, 19, 219–241. doi: 10.1007/s11266-008-9067-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis Smith, J. (1995). The voluntary tradition: Philanthropy and self-help in Britain, 1500–1945. In Rochester, C., Hedley, R., & Davis Smith, J. (Eds.), An introduction to the voluntary sector. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Borms, L. (2005). Foundations: Creating impact in a globalized world. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dinnello, N. (1998). Elites and philanthropy in Russia. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 12, 109–129. doi: 10.1023/A:1025958721038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobkin Hall, P. (1999). The work of many hands: A response to Stanley Katz on the origins of the “serious study” of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 522–534. doi: 10.1177/0899764099284013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donmoyer, R. (2009). Theories about the role of theory in nonprofit and philanthropic studies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 701–713. doi: 10.1177/0899764009333687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ealy, L. T. (2005). Editorial. The philanthropic enterprise: Reassessing the means and ends of philanthropy. Journal of Economic Affairs, 25(2), 2–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0270.2005.00543.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M. (2009). Gates, Google and the ending of Global Poverty: Philanthrocapitalism and international development. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 15, 35–42.Google Scholar
Eikenberry, A. (2006). Giving circles: Growing grassroots philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 517–532. doi: 10.1177/0899764006287482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeden, M. (1996). Ideologies and political theory: A conceptual approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Frumkin, P. (2006). Strategic giving: The art and science of philanthropy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J. (2001). Social science methodology: A criterial framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldfarb, N. D. (2011). Josiah Royce’s philosophy of loyalty as philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 720–739. doi: 10.1177/0899764010363625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafstein, R. (1988). A realist foundation for essentially contested political concepts. The Western Political Quarterly, 41, 9–28. doi: 10.2307/448454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. N. (1977). On the contestability of social and political concepts. Political Theory, 5, 331–348.Google Scholar
Gross, R. A. (2003). Giving in America: From charity to philanthropy. In Friedman, L. J. & McGarvie, M. D. (Eds.), Charity, philanthropy and civility in American history. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harrow, J. (2010). Philanthropy. In Taylor, R. (Ed.), Third sector research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Harrow, J. (2011). Governance and isomorphism in local philanthropy. The interplay of issues among foundations in Japan and the UK. Public Management Review, 13, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2010.501617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilchman, W. F., Katz, S., & Queen, E. L. (1998). Introduction. In Ilchman, W. F., Katz, S., & Queen, E. L. (Eds.), Philanthropy in the world’s traditions. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, R., Davies, R., & Mitchell, L. (2007). Give and let give: Building a culture of philanthropy in the financial services industry. London: Policy Exchange.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. (2003). Conceptual problems as obstacles to progress in political science: Four decades of political culture research. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15, 87–115. doi: 10.1177/0951692803151004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioural science. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Karl, B. D. (1997). Philanthropy and the maintenance of democratic elites. Minerva, 35, 207–220. doi: 10.1023/A:1004286118726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, S. N. (1999). Where did the serious study of philanthropy come from, anyway?. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 74–82. doi: 10.1177/0899764099281006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, S. (2005). What does it mean to say that philanthropy is “effective”? The philanthropists’ new clothes. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 149, 123–131.Google Scholar
Kisby, B. (2010). The big society: Power to the people?. The Political Quarterly, 81, 484–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-923X.2010.02133.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, M. (2010). Catalytic philanthropy. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall. Available at: http://www.coloradofunders.org/Docs/UploadedFiles/Catalytic%20Philanthropy%20-%20Kramer.pdf.Google Scholar
Letts, C. W., Ryan, W., & Grossman, A. (1997). Virtuous capital: What foundations can learn from venture capitalists. Harvard Business Review, 75(2), 36–44.Google ScholarPubMed
Lindenmeyer, A. (1998). From repression to revival: Philanthropy in twentieth century Russia. In Ilchman, W. F., Katz, S., & Queen, E. L. (Eds.), Philanthropy in the World’s traditions. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lohmann, R. (1992). The commons: A multidisciplinary approach to nonprofit voluntary organisation, voluntary action and philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21, 309–324. doi: 10.1177/089976409202100308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-02248-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, M., & Hasan, S. (2002). Researching Asia’s third sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, 13, 107–112. doi: 10.1023/A:1016091620849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (1987). On the contested nature of the public good. In Powell, W. W. (Ed.), The non profit research handbook (1st ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for understanding CSR in Europe. Nottingham: International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility.Google Scholar
Miller, E. F. (2006). Philanthropy and cosmopolitanism. The Good Society, 15, 51–60. doi: 10.1353/gso.2007.0006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moody, P. (2008). Building a culture: The construction and evolution of venture philanthropy as a new organisational field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 324–352. doi: 10.1177/0899764007310419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, S. (2004). Changing perceptions of philanthropy in the voluntary housing field in nineteenth and early twentieth century London. In Adam, T. (Ed.), Philanthropy, patronage and civil society, Experiences from Germany, Great Britain and North America. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Muukkonen, M. (2009). Framing the field. Civil society and related concepts. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 684–700. doi: 10.1177/0899764009333245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagai, A. K., Lerner, R., & Rothman, S. (1994). Giving for social change: Foundations, public policy and the American Agenda. Westwood, CT: Greenwood/Praeger.Google Scholar
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) (2003). Understanding social justice philanthropy. Washington: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.Google Scholar
Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Enterprise Theory and Practice, 34, 611–633. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00397.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickel, P. M., & Eikenberry, A. (2009). A critique of the discourse of marketized philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52, 974–989.Google Scholar
Nickel, P. M., & Eikenberry, A. (2010). Philanthropy in an era of global governance. In Taylor, R. (Ed.), Third sector research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary?. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 613–627. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-0021-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrander, S. A., Langton, S., & Van Til, J. (Eds.). (1987). Shifting the debate: Public/private sector relations in the modern welfare state. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Ostrander, S. A., & Schervish, P. (1990). Giving and getting: Philanthropy as social relation. In Van Til, J. (Ed.), Critical issues in American philanthropy (pp. 67–98). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Ostrower, F. (1995). Why the wealthy give: The culture of elite philanthropy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Payton, R. (1987). Philanthropy as a concept. Accessed and Downloaded May 3, 2011, from www.paytonpapers.org.Google Scholar
Payton, R. (1988). Voluntary action for the public good. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Payton, R., & Moody, M. (2008). Understanding philanthropy: its meaning and mission. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.10.2979/2614.0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pharoah, C. (2009). Family Foundation Philanthropy 2009. UK, Italy, Germany, US. London: Alliance Publishing Trust.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520340503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (1999). Philanthropy’s new agenda: Creating value. Harvard Business Review, 77, 121–130.Google ScholarPubMed
Roelefs, J. (2003). Foundations and public policy: The mask of pluralism. Albany: State of University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (1992). America’s nonprofit sector: A primer. New York: Foundation Center.Google Scholar
Sanborn, C., & Portocarrero, F. (Eds.). (2006). Philanthropy and social change in Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64, 1033–1053. doi: 10.2307/1958356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, G. (Ed.). (1984). Social science concepts: A systematic analysis. Beverley Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Schervish, P. (1998). Philanthropy. In Wuthnow, R. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of politics and religions (pp. 600–603). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Schuyt, T. N. M. (2010). Philanthropy in European welfare states: A challenging promise?. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76, 774–789. doi: 10.1177/0020852310381218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, P., & Oh, S-A (2010). Private foundations, philanthropy, and partnership in education and development: Mapping the terrain. International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 460–471. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, D. (2010). Private philanthropy or policy transfer? The transnational norms of the Open Society Institute. Policy and Politics, 38, 269–287. doi: 10.1332/030557309X458416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulek, M. (2010a). On the modern meaning of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 193–212. doi: 10.1177/0899764009333050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulek, M. (2010b). On the classical meaning of philanthrôpía. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 385–408. doi: 10.1177/0899764009333050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. (1985). On the “essential contestedness” of political concepts. Ethics, 95, 811–827. doi: 10.1086/292685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, A. A., & Landim, L. (1998). Civil society and philanthropy in Latin America: From religious charity to the search for citizenship. In Ilchman, W. F., Katz, S., & Queen, E. L. (Eds.), Philanthropy in the world’s Traditions. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Van Til, J. (1988). Mapping the third sector: Voluntarism in a changing social economy. New York: Foundation Center.Google Scholar
Van Til, J. (1990). Defining philanthropy. In Til, J. Van & Associates (Eds.), Critical issues in American philanthropy. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Vogel, A. (2006). Who’s making global civil society: Philanthropy and US empire in world society. British Journal of Sociology, 57, 635–655. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2006.00129.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, L. (2002). The ‘new’ donor: Creation or evolution?. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7, 343–352. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, J. (2002). Is the rule of law an essentially contested concept (in Florida)?. Law and Philosophy, 21, 137–164.10.1023/A:1014513930336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirgau, J. S., Farley, K. W., & Jensen, C. (2010). Is business discourse colonizing philanthropy? A critical discourse analysis of (PRODUCT) RED. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, 21, 611–630. doi: 10.1007/s11266-010-9122-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D., & Hagerman, L. (2010). Mission investing and the philanthropic toolbox. Policy and Society, 29, 257–268. doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, K. (2001). Generosity vs. altruism: Philanthropy and charity in the United States and United Kingdom. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, 12, 399–416. doi: 10.1023/A:1013974700175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar