Legitimacy is one of the most critical yet methodologically challenging constructs in non-profit research. Rooted in social perception rather than objective performance, it defies simple quantification. This article reviews key approaches to assessing legitimacy—direct measures, proxy indicators, and methodological pluralism—highlighting their respective strengths and limitations. Surveys and polls provide perception-based insights but remain sensitive to context and design bias. Proxy indicators such as donor support, policy access, and media coverage offer indirect evidence but risk conflating elite approval with societal trust. Methodological pluralism, which combines qualitative and quantitative approaches, offers the most balanced framework, integrating perception data with discourse analysis and observable outcomes. The article argues that legitimacy measurement must be reflexive, multidimensional, and context-sensitive, recognising the political and cultural forces that shape credibility. It provides scholars with a methodological roadmap for advancing legitimacy research and guides practitioners toward more accurate and ethical assessment practices that value both community trust and institutional recognition.
Anna Neya Kazanskaia (Wed,) studied this question.