This research aims to examine beneficiary accountability practices of a Saudi NGO. It explores the meaning of beneficiary accountability and its operationalisation process facilitated by local social specialists in a prominent Saudi NGO providing social and development services. This study is justified by the extensive focus of NGO accountability literature on exploring upward accountability to powerful stakeholders while accountability towards beneficiaries needs further attention (Alshurafa and Kamla, 2024; Benjamin, 2021; Cordery, Belal and Thomson, 2019; Dewi, Manochin and Belal, 2021; Ebrahim, 2003, 2009; Kingston, Furneaux, de Zwaan, and Alderman, 2023, 2020, 2019; Kingston, Luke, Furneaux, and Alderman, 2022; O’Dwyer and Unerman, 2007; O'leary, Dinh and Frueh, 2023; Scobie, Lee, and Smyth, 2023; Yasmin Ghafran, and Haslam, 2021; Yasmin, Ghafran, and Haniffa; 2018; Yates and Difrancesco, 2024, 2022). A single qualitative case study design was conducted to achieve the research aim. It was informed by 47 semi-structured interviews, three focus group discussions, non-participant observation and document analysis. To theorise the thesis's finding, Bourdieu's (1977, 1986) theory of practices was adopted and extended to include imposed, adaptive, felt accountability and social dignity (O’Dwyer and Boomsma, 2015; Killmister, 2017, 2020). By doing so, the research identified five attributes that construct the meaning of beneficiary accountability in the Saudi case studies. In addition, the finding stressed the significant role social specialists played in enacting beneficiary accountability in the field. It is concluded that beneficiary accountability is a complex social process where multiple stakeholders take part in stressing beneficiary empowerment, including the beneficiaries themselves. From this perspective, beneficiary accountability in the Saudi context cannot be considered as distinct from imposed accountability practices. They work in a collaborative way, facilitating the enactment of beneficiary accountability. Such a view could challenge a stream of the debate in the NGO accountability literature highlighting the dichotomy of upward and downward accountability (for example, O’Dwyer and Unerman, 2008).
