Postcolonial theories

Integrating postcolonial theory into third sector research provides a productive framework for understanding how social welfare organizations participate in the negotiation of knowledge, identity, and power in global contexts. At the center of this perspective is Homi Bhabha’s concept of the “Third Space,” which shifts the analytical focus from fixed cultural entities to processes of translation, interaction, and transformation (Bhabha, Reference Bhabha1994).

To clarify the meaning of “third” in “Third Space,” it is important to distinguish this concept both from sectoral classifications and from simplified dualisms. In Bhabha’s understanding, the Third Space does not denote a third entity alongside two pre-existing cultural spheres. Rather, it emerges from the interaction between what may heuristically be described as a “first space” (often associated with dominant, institutionalized, or hegemonic cultural orders) and a “second space” (frequently linked to subordinate, local, or marginalized perspectives). The word “third” refers to the relational and processual space that arises through this encounter—a liminal space in which meanings are negotiated, translated, and rearticulated. It cannot be reduced to either side, nor can it be understood as a stable synthesis; instead, it remains a site of ongoing ambivalence and transformation.

This distinction is particularly relevant for third sector research, as the term “third” is used there in a different sense, namely to designate a sector positioned between the state and the market. While “third sector” refers to an institutional category, “Third Space” describes a cultural and discursive process. Conflating these meanings may lead to conceptual ambiguity. In this article, “Third Space” is therefore used exclusively in Bhabha’s sense—as an analytical perspective on processes of hybridity and negotiation—rather than as a sectoral category.

Bhabha’s approach builds on and extends key insights from earlier postcolonial theories. Edward W. Said (Reference Said1978) demonstrated how colonial power operates through systems of representation that construct and stabilize distinctions between “the West” and “the Other,” thereby legitimizing domination. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Reference Spivak1988, Reference Spivak, Williams and Chrisman1994, Reference Spivak1996, Reference Spivak2008) further highlighted the ambivalences of representation, showing how subaltern voices are often mediated or silenced within dominant epistemic frameworks. Both perspectives draw attention to the asymmetries that shape cultural encounters. Bhabha, however, shifts the focus toward the indeterminacy of these encounters, emphasizing that cultural interaction is not only a site of domination but also one of negotiation, translation, and partial transformation.

Central to this perspective is the concept of hybridity. For Bhabha, hybridity does not simply denote the mixing of cultural elements, but the emergence of new meanings through processes of mimicry, displacement, and reinterpretation (Bhabha, Reference Bhabha1994). These processes destabilize binary distinctions such as global versus local, modern versus traditional, or Western versus non-Western and open up spaces in which alternative identities and practices can emerge. The Third Space thus provides a conceptual framework for analyzing how such hybrid formations are produced under conditions of unequal power.

These insights can be productively connected to research on TSOs. TSOs operate at the intersection of multiple institutional fields and are therefore particularly exposed to processes of translation between diverse cultural, normative, and organizational frameworks (Vaceková & Plaček, Reference Vaceková, Plaček and Farazmand2022).

Rather than conceptualizing TSOs as neutral intermediaries or clearly bounded entities, the perspective of the Third Space allows them to be analyzed as relational and processual arenas in which different institutional logics—such as professional standards, religious norms, local knowledge systems, and global governance requirements—interact, are translated, and are reconfigured. For third sector research, this is significant insofar as it shifts attention not only to what organizations do (e.g., deliver services), but to how they produce meaning, practices, and legitimacy.

This approach enables a systematic analysis of microlevel processes of organizational practice—such as negotiations over what constitutes “appropriate” forms of care, knowledge, or professionalism—and highlights their constitutive role in shaping welfare arrangements. For example, when professional standards of social work are adapted to local religious or cultural contexts, the result is not merely “local variants” of existing models, but hybrid practices that generate new logics of action (van der Hoek, Reference van der Hoek2024a).

At the same time, the Third Space perspective contributes to critically rethinking key assumptions in third sector research—such as the idea of clearly defined sectoral boundaries or normatively charged concepts of “civil society.” Instead, organizations become visible as dynamic nodes. This opens up new possibilities for analyzing hybrid organizational forms, contested negotiations, and context-specific forms of social innovation with greater theoretical precision.

At this point, the connection to theories of organizational hybridity becomes central. Existing research on the third sector has shown that TSOs are structurally hybrid organizations that combine elements of state, market, and community logics (Billis, Reference Billis2010; Evers, Reference Evers, Billies and Rochester2020; Smith, Reference Smith2014). This hybridity is reflected in funding structures, governance arrangements, and accountability requirements, often requiring TSOs to balance multiple—and sometimes conflicting—expectations. However, organizational hybridity is not only a structural characteristic; it also has a cultural and discursive dimension. The need to integrate different institutional logics requires continuous processes of interpretation, translation, and legitimation (Billis, Reference Billis2010).

It is precisely here that Bhabha’s concept of the Third Space complements existing third sector research. While organizational hybridity describes the coexistence of different logics within organizations, the Third Space provides an analytical lens for examining the processes through which these logics are negotiated in practice. In other words, organizational hybridity describes the structural conditions, whereas the Third Space captures the processes through which actors interpret, translate, and transform these conditions.

This integrated perspective allows for a more comprehensive understanding of TSOs than existing approaches. TSOs can be conceptualized as Third Spaces that are structurally positioned between different institutional fields and culturally embedded in processes of negotiation and meaning-making. Recognizing this dual nature highlights that TSO practice is shaped not only by formal institutional arrangements, but also by ongoing interactions between actors, knowledge systems, and power relations.

At the same time, recent postcolonial critiques caution against an overly positive interpretation of hybridity (Saha, Reference Saha2025). Hybridity appears here not merely as a space of creative negotiation, but as a historically shaped and power-laden concept closely linked to colonial and postcolonial hierarchies (Mizutani, Reference Mizutani2009). It has been argued that the conceptual openness of hybridity may obscure existing inequalities, material conditions, and epistemic dominance (Acheraïou, Reference Acheraïou2011; Kapoor, Reference Kapoor2002). In the context of the third sector, this implies that Third Spaces are not neutral arenas of negotiation but are shaped by global political-economic structures—such as donor dependencies, philanthrocapitalist agendas, and unequal resource distributions (Roy et al., Reference Roy, Eikenberry, Teasdale, Donnelly-Cox, Meyer and Wijkström2021; Vogel, Reference Vogel2006). These structures influence not only which forms of hybridity are possible, but also which are recognized as legitimate, visible, or sustainable.

Conceptualizing TSOs as Third Spaces therefore requires bringing together two analytical dimensions: the productive potential of cultural negotiation and the constraints imposed by structural inequalities. Hybrid identities and practices may enable new forms of inclusion, participation, and innovation, but they may also reproduce dominant norms or obscure power asymmetries. The Third Space is thus best understood as an ambivalent space.

Bringing postcolonial theory into dialogue with organizational hybridity provides a theoretical foundation for analyzing this ambivalence. It allows TSOs to be understood not as static entities within a clearly bounded sector, but as dynamic sites in which cultural, organizational, and political-economic processes intersect. This perspective forms the basis for examining how TSOs mediate between global and local frameworks, negotiate hybrid identities, and operate under conditions of structural inequality.

Building on this integrated theoretical framework, the following section shifts from conceptual clarification to analytical illustration. If TSOs are understood as hybrid organizations operating within Third Spaces, the key question becomes how these dynamics manifest in concrete empirical contexts. The following examples aim to demonstrate how processes of cultural negotiation, organizational hybridity, and structural constraint intersect in practice.

More specifically, the cases illustrate three analytically distinct but interconnected dimensions derived from the theoretical framework:

1. (1) the translation between global and local knowledge systems,

2. (2) the negotiation of multiple institutional logics within organizational practice, and

3. (3) the embedding of these processes within broader power relations and political-economic conditions.

The selected cases reflect different geographical regions, religious traditions, and organizational forms, thereby enabling a differentiated understanding of how hybrid welfare practices emerge under varying conditions. The aim is not systematic comparison, but rather the identification of recurring patterns of hybridity and negotiation across contexts. This approach allows the theoretical framework to be empirically grounded without limiting its analytical generalizability.

In this sense, the following section operationalizes the concept of the Third Space for the analysis of TSOs. It demonstrates how abstract theoretical concepts such as hybridity, translation, and ambivalence become visible in concrete organizational practices—for example in service provision, processes of cultural mediation, or the negotiation of accountability. In doing so, it provides an empirical basis for the argument that TSOs can be understood as sites in which cultural, organizational, and political-economic dynamics converge and are continuously reconfigured.

Theoretical framework: Third Space and the third sector

Bringing together Homi Bhabha’s theory of the Third Space with the concept of the third sector provides a productive framework for understanding how global social welfare organizations participate in processes of cultural negotiation across diverse contexts. Rather than assuming that such organizations uniformly shape collective identities, this approach adopts a more cautious perspective by examining how they contribute to the translation, reinterpretation, and partial reconfiguration of identities, norms, and practices. Bhabha’s concept of the Third Space highlights cultural hybridity as an “in-between” space in which different cultural, social, and ideological perspectives intersect, are translated, and are renegotiated. Within this space, hybrid forms may emerge that challenge rigid dichotomies such as Global North versus Global South and disrupt established cultural hierarchies (Bhabha, Reference Bhabha1994).

Applied to TSOs, this perspective suggests that TSOs cannot be understood merely as neutral carriers of predefined welfare models. Rather, they are sites in which global discourses, local traditions, and diverse knowledge systems interact and are partially transformed. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that not all TSOs function equally as sites of such transformation; instead, this approach draws attention to the conditions under which processes of hybridization become possible.

The empirical examples presented below are purposively selected to illustrate variation across postcolonial welfare contexts, including different geographical regions, religious traditions, and organizational forms. The selection encompasses the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and Southeast Asia and includes faith-based organizations, health initiatives, social enterprises, and community-based programs. This diversity serves to demonstrate how similar processes of translation and negotiation may take distinct forms under different cultural and political-economic conditions. The examples are not intended as systematic comparative case studies or as a representative sample, but rather as analytically informed illustrations that make key dimensions of the theoretical framework visible in practice.

Faith-based NGOs operating in refugee contexts often exemplify processes of translation between global humanitarian frameworks and locally embedded religious norms. In Middle Eastern contexts, for instance, Islamic NGOs navigate tensions between traditional gender roles and secular international humanitarian standards, resulting in hybrid configurations that reflect both local religious practices and global human rights discourses (Haddad, Reference Haddad, Bassi, Aquino Alves and Cordery2025). Another example is provided by the Red Cross Movement, which operates under the symbol of the Red Crescent in many Islamic countries, thereby translating humanitarian principles into specific religious and cultural contexts. These examples illustrate that global norms are not simply implemented but are contextualized and reinterpreted. What may appear externally as a symbolic adaptation is often rooted in long-standing tensions within transnational cooperation (Al-Hadid, Reference Al-Hadid, Lijnzaad, van Sambeek and Tahzib-Lie2004). At the same time, processes such as urbanization, digitalization, and demographic change in the MENA region shape the conditions under which such negotiations take place and influence patterns of coexistence and identity formation (Haddad, Reference Haddad, Bassi, Aquino Alves and Cordery2025).

Comparable dynamics can be observed in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in the field of health and healing practices. In Bolivia and Guatemala, NGOs have facilitated cooperation between biomedical professionals and traditional healers, giving rise to health approaches that integrate different conceptions of the body and illness (Calestani, Reference Calestani2009; MacKenzie, Reference MacKenzie2014; van der Hoek, Reference van der Hoek2024b). In South Africa and Tanzania, therapeutic practices associated with sangomas—traditional healers—combine African spiritual traditions with Christian and esoteric elements (Nattrass, Reference Nattrass2005), resulting in syncretic forms that cannot be clearly categorized as either “traditional” or “modern,” yet are nevertheless integrated into contemporary welfare structures (Kleinhempel, Reference Kleinhempel2017; Marsland, Reference Marsland2007). Sangomas often act as mediators between different social groups and belief systems and contribute to the negotiation of identities in contexts shaped by colonial histories (Kleinhempel, Reference Kleinhempel2017). These examples illustrate how hybrid practices emerge at the intersection of different knowledge systems while remaining embedded in specific historical and cultural contexts.

Third Space dynamics are also evident in economic initiatives associated with TSOs. Social enterprises in Kenya and other African contexts adapt elements of Western business models to local communal values, combining market-oriented strategies with principles such as Ubuntu (Kinyanjui, Reference Kinyanjui2019; Njagi & Njoka, Reference Njagi and Njoka2021). Kinyanjui’s research on markets and artisans in Nairobi demonstrates that economic practices are embedded in social relationships and community networks, thereby challenging the assumption that economic action is primarily driven by individual profit maximization (Kinyanjui, Reference Kinyanjui2019). Her concept of the “indigenization of Nairobi” captures how actors appropriate and transform economic spaces under conditions of global capitalism, giving rise to hybrid economic forms (Kinyanjui, Reference Kinyanjui2019). These examples extend the analysis of the Third Space beyond cultural and religious domains to include economic practices.

Further examples can be found in urban European contexts and in Southeast Asia. In cities such as Berlin and London, community centers for migrants provide spaces in which individuals negotiate bicultural or plural identities by combining elements of their cultural heritage with practices of the host society (van der Hoek, Reference van der Hoek2022, Reference van der Hoek2023). In Southeast Asia, NGOs develop intercultural education programs that link Western pedagogical approaches with indigenous languages, historical narratives, and cosmologies, thereby fostering forms of learning that are both locally grounded and globally connected (Fry & Bi, Reference Fry and Bi2013). Case studies from Indonesia, Cambodia, and Timor-Leste further show how TSOs act as mediators between local authority structures and global governance frameworks, producing hybrid forms of governance (Onyx et al., Reference Onyx, Coventry, Kenny and Fanany2018). These examples demonstrate that processes of negotiation and translation occur across diverse institutional and cultural contexts without producing uniform outcomes.

Taken together, these examples suggest that such dynamics are context dependent and unevenly distributed. This perspective aligns with research on organizational hybridity, which conceptualizes TSOs as organizations that combine multiple institutional logics and purposes.

Building on Evers’ distinction between intersectoral and multipurpose hybridity, TSOs can be understood as organizations that simultaneously integrate state, market, and community logics and combine functions such as service provision, advocacy, and community building (Evers, Reference Evers, Billies and Rochester2020; see also Billis, Reference Billis2010). Smith (Reference Smith2014) similarly emphasizes that nonprofit organizations operate under multiple institutional logics and must reconcile social missions with market demands and regulatory frameworks. Importantly, organizational hybridity does not automatically entail cultural hybridity; rather, it creates the conditions under which such processes may emerge.

Dar’s (Reference Dar2014) concept of “hybrid accountabilities” illustrates how these dynamics unfold at the microlevel. In her study of an Indian NGO, she shows how staff members negotiate tensions between donor-driven reporting requirements and locally embedded communication practices, developing hybrid forms that combine formal documentation with narrative and performative elements (Dar, Reference Dar2014). This example demonstrates how organizational hybridity and Third Space dynamics intersect in everyday practices and are shaped by unequal power relations that determine which forms of hybridity are recognized as legitimate.

In sum, the theoretical framework developed here conceptualizes TSOs as potential Third Spaces in a double sense. On a cultural and discursive level, they may function as sites where identities, values, and knowledge systems intersect and are renegotiated. On an organizational and structural level, they are hybrid entities that combine multiple logics, purposes, and accountability regimes (Dar, Reference Dar2014; Evers, Reference Evers, Billies and Rochester2020; Smith, Reference Smith2014). However, these two dimensions do not necessarily coincide: cultural hybridity may occur without organizational hybridity, and vice versa.

The Third Space perspective therefore explicitly acknowledges both the potential and the limits of hybridity. While hybrid practices may enable new forms of inclusion and innovation, they may also reproduce existing inequalities or obscure underlying power asymmetries (Acheraïou, Reference Acheraïou2011; Kapoor, Reference Kapoor2002; Mediavilla & Garcia-Arias, Reference Mediavilla and Garcia-Arias2019; Roy et al., Reference Roy, Eikenberry, Teasdale, Donnelly-Cox, Meyer and Wijkström2021; Sakue-Collins, Reference Sakue-Collins2021; Vogel, Reference Vogel2006). The examples discussed here are thus not intended to demonstrate a universal model, but to provide analytically grounded entry points for examining how cultural negotiation, organizational hybridity, and structural constraints intersect in specific contexts.

Implications for theories and practice in the third sector

Integrating postcolonial approaches into third sector research—illustrated here through Homi Bhabha’s concept of the Third Space—opens up important theoretical and practical perspectives. Put simply, the Third Space refers to situations in which different cultural perspectives encounter one another and interact, generating new meanings that cannot be reduced to either of the participating sides. Applying this concept to the third sector shifts attention away from formal organizational structures or governance arrangements and toward the cultural and social processes through which organizations operate.

From this perspective, TSOs do more than provide more or less public-benefit-oriented services. They also function as spaces in which meanings, identities, and social norms are negotiated. This is particularly relevant in global social welfare contexts, where organizations often operate across cultural boundaries. Rather than assuming that individuals or communities simply adopt external models, Third Space theory highlights that identities and practices emerge through ongoing processes of interaction, translation, and reinterpretation. For marginalized groups, whose knowledge systems are often overlooked in international welfare programs, this perspective offers a way of understanding how they actively engage with and shape external interventions.

A key theoretical implication is that, under certain conditions, TSOs can function as spaces of negotiation and potential transformation. Bhandari (Reference Bhandari2022), for example, argues that hybrid encounters—situations in which different cultural perspectives come together—can challenge dominant assumptions and open up new ways of thinking and acting. When organizations interact with service users, policymakers, and funders, they do not merely implement programs; they also shape how social problems are understood and addressed. In this sense, TSOs can act as cultural mediators that contribute to the formation of shared meanings and social imaginaries. At the same time, it must be emphasized that such processes do not occur automatically, but depend on context, power relations, and organizational practices.

This perspective also challenges simplified understandings of the third sector, in which TSOs are often described either as independent actors of civil society or as partners of state institutions. Civil society, understood as a sphere distinct from the state and the market and characterized by voluntary, non-profit-oriented action (Hutter & Priemer, Reference Hutter and Priemer2026), plays a relevant, though ambivalent, role for TSOs. Empirical studies show that this separation is not always clear. In politically constrained contexts, for instance, organizations may be subject to state control, possess only limited autonomy, or engage in strategic cooperation (Pushpo & Uddin, Reference Pushpo and Uddin2026). This suggests that the third sector is better understood not as a clearly bounded field, but as a domain shaped by overlapping roles, competing expectations, and shifting power relations—thereby further supporting a hybrid approach to its analysis and description.

Macmillan and McLaren (Reference Macmillan and McLaren2012) further show that TSOs actively manage this complexity through the use of different narratives. An organization, for example, may present itself as independent in relation to local communities, while emphasizing its role as a partner in relation to state or international actors. These narratives are not merely rhetorical; they are strategic instruments for producing legitimacy, securing resources, and adapting to different expectations. From the perspective of the Third Space, it becomes clear that hybridity is not only cultural but also discursive, as organizations continuously reinterpret their roles and identities depending on the context.

TSOs operate within broader systems shaped by unequal resource distribution, donor priorities, and global economic dynamics. Studies of NGOs in the Global South show, for example, that funding structures and philanthrocapitalist approaches—that is, the application of market-oriented principles to charitable activity (McGoey, Reference McGoey2012)—can limit the scope of organizational action and influence the design of programs (Sakue-Collins, Reference Sakue-Collins2021). It follows that hybrid practices may indeed emerge, but are often constrained by external conditions.

From a practical point of view, Third Space theory underscores the importance of designing social welfare interventions in culturally sensitive and context-specific ways. This includes, in particular, involving community members in decision-making processes, recognizing different forms of knowledge, and adapting programs to local conditions. Participatory approaches—in which service users are actively involved in planning and implementation—can help ensure that interventions are more closely aligned with people’s lived realities rather than being based on external assumptions. Likewise, training staff in cultural sensitivity and communication can improve cooperation in diverse contexts.

Another key aspect is collaboration with local actors. Cooperation with community leaders, religious organizations, or grassroots initiatives can help align programs with existing social structures and value systems. At the same time, creating internal spaces for dialogue within organizations makes it possible to bring different perspectives into decision-making processes and integrate them more effectively. As Kappler and Lemay-Hébert (Reference Kappler and Lemay-Hébert2019) argue, such approaches help overcome rigid categories by recognizing that organizations often combine multiple influences rather than fitting neatly into clearly defined models.

For future research, this points to the need for closer examination of the interplay between cultural processes and structural conditions within organizations and their networks. While Third Space theory provides valuable analytical tools for examining cultural negotiation processes, it should be combined with approaches that address political economy, governance structures, and inequality. This is particularly important in light of increasing market logics, donor-driven accountability requirements, and hybrid governance arrangements that significantly shape third sector practice.

Comparative research across different world regions can deepen these perspectives further. As the examples discussed in this article suggest, similar processes of negotiation and hybridity take different forms in different contexts. Analyzing these differences can help identify both common patterns and context-specific dynamics, thereby contributing to a more differentiated and globally relevant understanding of the third sector.

Overall, applying Third Space theory to third sector research helps us better understand how organizations operate in complex and diverse environments. More clearly than conventional theories, it shows that social welfare practices are not simply implemented, but are shaped by ongoing interactions among different actors, ideas, and structural conditions and are instead deployed in adaptive ways. At the same time, it points to the limits of these processes by emphasizing that cultural negotiation and hybridity are always embedded in broader structures of power and inequality. Understanding this interplay is crucial for developing inclusive, context-specific, and effective approaches to social welfare.

Third Space and the challenge of hybrid welfare practice in the third sector

Integrating Homi Bhabha’s concept of the Third Space into third sector research opens up new perspectives on the role of social welfare organizations in negotiating collective identities under hybrid and often contested conditions. TSOs increasingly function as intermediaries between local communities, global governance structures, and culturally diverse stakeholders. Positioned at the intersection of different rationalities and institutional logics, they face the challenge of reconciling local needs and traditions with global standards, regulatory frameworks, and donor requirements (Evers, Reference Evers, Billies and Rochester2020). This becomes visible in welfare practices that integrate indigenous knowledge, religious traditions, and local epistemologies into organizational models, thereby strengthening social cohesion and cultural resilience under conditions of global pressure (van der Hoek, Reference van der Hoek2024a). At the same time, these practices unfold within unequal power relations, meaning that Third Spaces are not neutral sites of experimentation, but arenas in which negotiations over meaning, recognition, and authority are shaped by political-economic conditions.

In this article, the term “hybrid welfare practice” refers to the everyday work of TSOs in which professional standards, donor requirements, and regulatory frameworks are combined with locally embedded moral and religious frameworks and translated into workable forms of intervention. These practices are not static but emerge through ongoing processes of negotiation and adaptation.

Against this backdrop, the article argues for a more consistent conceptualization of hybrid TSOs as Third Spaces. These organizations do not merely deliver services; they create contexts in which internal and external cultural negotiations take place and in which professional, religious, and community-based identities are continuously redefined. Evers describes such organizations as “multipurpose hybrids” that provide social services while simultaneously shaping collective identities and transmitting values (Evers, Reference Evers, Billies and Rochester2020). In this sense, TSOs provide frameworks for inclusive social norms and may contribute to alleviating social tensions by offering interpretive resources for dealing with diversity and conflict (Evers, Reference Evers, Billies and Rochester2020).

From the perspective of Third Space theory, this hybridity is not only organizational—reflected in structures or funding arrangements—but also cultural and discursive. TSOs become arenas in which different worldviews are translated, hybridized, and negotiated and in which resistance to dominant discourses may also emerge. At the same time, postcolonial critiques highlight the ambivalence of these processes. The same hybrid spaces that enable critique and innovation can also stabilize existing power relations when donor interests, managerial logics, or market-oriented requirements determine which forms of hybrid practice are recognized as legitimate (Acheraïou, Reference Acheraïou2011; Sakue-Collins, Reference Sakue-Collins2021).

The analysis of existing case studies (see Section “Theoretical framework: Third Space and the third sector”) underscores the relevance of applying Third Space theory across different levels of the third sector. Onyx et al. (Reference Onyx, Coventry, Kenny and Fanany2018), for example, demonstrate in their studies of NGOs in Indonesia, Cambodia, and Timor-Leste that TSOs function as hybrid spaces of cultural negotiation and identity formation, connecting local communities with global governance structures and contributing to social cohesion and resilience (pp. 11–15). Their findings illustrate that NGOs operate simultaneously in local vernaculars and transnational policy discourses, mediating between the expectations of communities, religious authorities, state institutions, and international donors.

At the organizational level, these spaces are also shaped by hybrid forms of accountability. Dar (Reference Dar2014) shows, in the context of an Indian NGO, how staff members develop combined forms of reporting and communication that respond both to Western donor requirements and to locally embedded practices of trust and responsibility (pp. 131–134, 140–142). Taken together, these studies suggest that Third Space theory has not yet been fully exploited in third sector research. It offers the potential not only to analyze cultural encounters but also to illuminate the intersections between welfare practice, religious studies, nonprofit research, and development studies, thereby fostering deeper interdisciplinary collaboration.

For welfare practice and social research, Third Space theory thus provides an opportunity to integrate postcolonial perspectives in a productive way and to address third sector challenges through interdisciplinary approaches that remain attentive to power relations, historical contexts, and institutional structures. A hybrid perspective that combines Third Space theory with organizational hybridity can help analyze how governance arrangements, funding mechanisms, and policy frameworks shape the scope of action available to practitioners and community actors. Focusing on the “in-between” position of practitioners—situated between professional standards, organizational mandates, donor expectations, and community needs—makes it possible to capture the practical dilemmas and creative strategies that characterize hybrid welfare practice in the third sector. Strengthening the connection between welfare practice and nonprofit studies is particularly important in this regard, as complex social problems and institutional tensions rarely fit within the boundaries of a single discipline.

The article also points to several practical implications for TSOs. Promoting participatory approaches is essential for meaningfully involving local communities in the design, implementation, and evaluation of social welfare programs (Evers, Reference Evers, Billies and Rochester2020). Participation should not be understood merely as consultation, but as a shared process of defining problems, priorities, and criteria of success within a hybrid space in which different forms of knowledge are recognized as equally valid. Similarly, fostering cultural competence among staff and volunteers is of central importance. This should go beyond basic intercultural communication and include engagement with religious traditions, cosmologies, and moral frameworks, enabling practitioners to respond appropriately to hybrid identities and needs.

At a structural level, it is crucial to involve indigenous leaders, religious authorities, and other local actors as genuine partners in decision-making processes. This helps ensure that solutions are not only technically effective but also culturally meaningful and sustainable. At the same time, it can reduce the risk of reproducing paternalistic or neocolonial patterns in which external actors define the terms of welfare provision and local communities are positioned primarily as recipients rather than co-creators of social interventions.

Conceptualizing hybrid welfare practice in the third sector as situated within Third Spaces thus highlights both the potential and the fragility of these organizational contexts. They can become sites of creative problem-solving, recognition, and transformation—but only under conditions that allow for genuine negotiation and participation. Future research should therefore examine more closely how Third Spaces are shaped by funding regimes, regulatory requirements, and transnational power relations and under which conditions hybrid welfare practices contribute to more inclusive and culturally grounded forms of social welfare.