'You just have to figure it out for yourself' : an exploration of justifications for neighborhood level volunteering

(1)

‘You just have to figure it out for yourself’

An exploration of justifications for neighborhood level volunteering

Master thesis Sociology 2017-2018

Name: Jeremy Rijnders Student number: 10908102

E-mail: jeremy.rijnders@student.uva.nl

Education: Graduate school of social sciences; Master Sociology Specialization: General track

Supervisor: Dr. K. De Keere

Second supervisor: Prof. Dr. W.G.J. Duyvendak

Date: 09-07-2018

(2)

(3)

(4)

IV

(5)

V

Preface: The ‘Good Samaritan’

2

The parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’ (Luke 10:25-37), here depicted by Vincent van Gogh (1853 – 1890) after an impression of Delacroix (1798 – 1863), is a well-known and often referred to story in daily life. In the parable, a Jewish man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho is robbed and stripped of his clothes to be left for dead alongside the road. A Priest and Levite, considered to be well mannered and respected by many, pass the man separately from each other, show no mercy and carry on with their journey towards Jericho. A passing Samaritan, a people considered hated by the Jews and vice versa, shows compassion, takes care of the man and brings him, at his own expenses, to an inn to be taken care of by the host. This story has been the subject of many allegorical and exemplary readings, defining and detesting its ‘meaning’ (e.g. Funk, 1974). Nevertheless, a general agreement amongst interpreters seems to be that the parable contains the conviction that one is defined by what one does. I myself have always interpreted the story as a metaphor for the different roles possible in a social situation and considered that everyone, at least once in their life, found themselves in each of the different roles. I can think of various situations in which I found myself in one of the different roles. To give a comprehensive personal example in which I found myself in each of these roles I can admit that during the two years of studying at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) I sometimes acted like the Priest or Levite when fellow students asked for help, neglecting their question and minding my own business. Sometimes I acted like the Samaritan,

(6)

VI spending time with fellow students trying to solve the problem at hand, investing more than one usually would. And several times, especially at the end of my sociology study, I acted like the robbed man, laying on the side of the road, feeling that I had lost all my ideas, knowledge and skills, ready for nothing else to do then to wait until it was all over. Of course, this sounds a bit exaggerated, but then again it is a good analogy of how I perceived these past two years of studying. It was an intense and gratifying experience in which I got familiar with new and sometimes surprising personal

boundaries. After 6 years of working as a social worker at

a homeless shelter in the Red Light District of Amsterdam, I enrolled in a part-time bachelor Social Work at the Amsterdam University of Applied Science (HvA). After graduating and a total of 9 years of working ‘in the field’, I started a job as a ‘junior researcher in training’ (HOIO) at the HvA and enrolled in the (pre-) Master Sociology at the UvA. The transitions I made were accompanied by personal feelings of 'highs' and 'lows', with the latter occurring just as often as the former.

In line with the foregoing, I would first like to thank some of my fellow ‘contract students’ with whom I have spent long nights, ‘intelligently’ discussing sociology, which were always followed by lonely mornings filled with feelings of stupidity and regret. Secondly, I would like to thank Lex Veldboer for giving me the chance to develop myself as a researcher and for the inspiration he gave me the past two years working under his guidance. A special thanks goes out to my thesis supervisors Kobe de Keere for his trust, guidance, and feedback during the master thesis period and Jan Willem Duyvendak for his feedback and acceptance to act as my second supervisor. Now only a few people remain to be thanked. I want to thank my parents for giving me space and trust to develop myself at my own pace and for the feeling that I always had a firm emotional safety net. Finally, I would like to thank Laura. Working 24 hours a week combined with a full-time master study, sometimes took its toll. In those times of ‘helplessness’, there was always one ‘Good Samaritan’ that nurtured my ‘wounds’ and tried to get me back on my feet. Laura, thank you for dealing with all my frustrations and excitements these past two years. Your strength, knowledge and sometimes strategically well-timed ‘ignorance’, always gave me confidence and peace of mind when ‘laying at the side of the road’. I can conclude with the ‘confession’ that getting acquainted with the academic world, on the one hand, broadened my own world and on the other hand narrowed it. I now know how to find the answers to the questions that I encounter in everyday life but, then again, I have also experienced that it is sometimes better to ‘know nothing’ because then I don’t have to worry about all the things that I have no knowledge about.

(7)

VII

Summary

Volunteering has recently gained specific interest within the Netherlands. It is one of the important instruments to anchor the so-called ‘participation society’. The multitude of actors involved in the matter requests for an exploration of viewpoints due to the importance of a shared conception of volunteering. This study explored the motivations of short-term and long-term volunteers active on a ‘neighborhood level’ in the city of Amsterdam by exploring how they justify their ideas about volunteering. The, in this study, constructed theoretical argument proposes that motivations communicate justifications for action, giving insight in what volunteering ‘means’ through the perspective of the volunteers themselves. These justifications are grounded in different assemblages of ‘frameworks of understanding’ (Wuthnow, 1995) which show how individuals make sense of what they are doing. By interviewing 17 respondents and analyzing 53 surveys, I found that there were minor differences between the justifications of the two types of volunteers and that the most distinct differences were found within the two types. For example, Prior experience showed to be

related to a between units differences while age indicated a within unit difference. Both short- and

long-term respondents justified their ideas about volunteering by emphasizing what it yields for them as an individual, stating that individual revenues are the most valued and form the conditions for sustaining the act of volunteering. I conclude that the ‘framework’ of Self-realization (Wuthnow, 1995,

pp. 73-75) can be distinguished as the most powerful within the justifications for volunteering. Although all four ‘frameworks of understanding’ were used to justify volunteering and were ranked differently between units, the analysis of the combined interview- and survey data showed that individual justifications were the most articulated by the respondents. In this study, I found that the

process of individualization and volunteering can positively influence each other. The latter allows an

individual to ‘answer to’ and ‘pursue’ individual needs and goals which are articulated as the most important condition to ensure the act of volunteering. The findings in this study have important implications for volunteers, volunteer affiliated organizations, policymakers and the sociology of volunteering due to its insights into conditions for involvement and commitment to a ‘neighborhood level’-variation of volunteering within the Netherlands.

(9)

1

1. Introduction

The parable of the Good Samaritan, as cited in the preface, serves as a precursor to this introduction of the thesis subject of volunteering. It is not unheard of that ‘volunteering’ and ‘the Good Samaritan’

are mentioned in the same sentence. The definition of a ‘Good Samaritan’ in the English Language Learners Dictionary states that a ‘Good Samaritan’ is; ‘a person who helps other people and especially strangers when they have trouble’ (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2018). The English Law dictionary definition describes that a ‘Good Samaritan’ is; ‘one who voluntarily renders aid to

another in distress although, under no duty to do so’ (Ibid. emphasis added). Considering that the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’ communicates that what one does, defines who one is, and that ‘being a Good Samaritan’ indicates that one voluntarily helps others it could be suggested that voluntarily helping others is a way for an individual to portray ‘who’ s/he is. A ‘modern’ interpretation of a ‘Good Samaritan’–act, such as volunteering, could state that;

‘Volunteer work is “a way of dramatizing that one is a good and decent person”’ (Wilson & Musick, 1997, p. 696)

This seemingly firm statement from Wilson and Musick, whom here quote Wuthnow (1994, p. 241), can be contested by the claim that volunteering is not an act of individualism or an impression management tool but rather that it is an act of compassion or a duty as a ‘good’ citizen. Both viewpoints have their legitimate reasons and depending from which side one observes the phenomenon, either of these reasons will be evaluated as ‘true’ since every viewpoint shows a certain part of the whole picture (Star, 1991, p. 278).

Recent political developments in the Netherlands have stressed the importance of volunteering in the Dutch society (Schmeets and Arends, 2017, p. 3). Welfare state reforms initiated by economic necessity (Bijlsma & Janssen, 2012; Sprinkhuizen & Scholte, 2012) due to the oil crisis in 1973 and a ‘ societal demand’ (Rijksoverheid, 2013) as the aftermath of the increasing social critique on the pacifying character of the caring welfare state in 1978 (Schuyt, 1995), ushered in a transformation from a ‘caring welfare state’ towards a ‘participation society’. The idea of a less caring and more supportive central government coined the idea that ‘citizens need to take control over their own well-being’ (Tonkens, 2006; Houwelingen, Boele & Dekker. 2014; Sellick, 2014). Citizens are expected to be or become more self-sufficient and to rely more on mutual citizen support (Tonkens, 2006, p. 10). The economic necessity of these welfare state reforms was, again, emphasized after the global financial and economic crisis in 2008, with as benchmark the collapse of

(10)

2 the Lehman Brothers bank in 2008 (Newman & Tonkens, 2011). Within popular and political discourse, the welfare state reforms are often framed as a counterpoise for the increasing individualization of the Dutch society which, according to Plasterk and Van Rijn (2014), impedes and subverts the social cohesion society. Stimulating and facilitating the ideas and practices that will increase unpaid support such as volunteering, became an important instrument in order to anchor the ‘participation society’ (Machielse, Grootegoed, Tonkens, & Blonk, 2017, p. 13). Next to this, recent demographic developments have led to an increasing importance of volunteering as a consequence of the growing demand for care due to ‘vergrijzing’ (a process of a to a greater extent aging population) (Beach & McKenzie, 2014). Volunteering is an increasingly important topic within several fields of daily Dutch societal life and has proven to accommodate many actors; citizens, scholars, organizations, and governments. All of these actors observe, evaluate and define volunteering from their own perspective, indicating that there is no simple definition and meaning of what volunteering entails. In order to define what ‘something’ means it is of utmost importance to ask those that are invested with this ‘something’, how they perceive and give meaning to this 'thing'. Exploring the meaning of volunteering from the perspective of ‘the volunteer’ is an important endeavor. Insights into the motivations for volunteering tells us what volunteers deem important and what volunteering ‘means’ according to them. This is of specific importance considering the role of volunteering within contemporary Dutch society. In addition, the argument that volunteers increasingly tailor the type of volunteering towards their personal preference and therefore set more conditions for their involvement and commitment (Hustinx, 2009), strengthens the importance to explore what volunteering means to ‘the volunteer’. Verplanke (2014, p. 63) states that volunteer affiliated organizations, as well as policymakers, need to recognize and distinguish the different motivations for volunteering due to the fact that these come with different conditions for an individual or group to sustain the act of volunteering. This leads to the research question within this study. Due to the important role of volunteering in Dutch society, it would be interesting to explore the viewpoint of the Dutch volunteers, what are their motivations? And how do they give meaning to the act of volunteering? This knowledge has, as mentioned before, several implications. To get insights into what volunteering entails according to those who engage in this act, I will explore how volunteers talk about volunteering and how they justify why they do what they are doing. This

leads to a more specific formulation of the research question; how do volunteers justify their ideas about volunteering?

(11)

3

2. Theoretical framework

In order to understand how volunteers give meaning to volunteering, I will explore the justifications given for volunteering. It is thus important to first define what justifications are. Following Habermas

(2014, p. 4), I adopt the definition of justifications as the discursive activity which acts as an endeavor of the speaker for its ‘beliefs’, not only to be acknowledged by the hearer but also to be

internalized in order to come to the same opinion. According to Habermas (2014, p. 71), the practice of justification equals as ‘the game of argumentation’, which has the function to reach an understanding amongst speaker and hearer about 'something’ (Habermas, 2014, p. 5). Justifications are reasons that are given for an action to be acknowledged and understood. Before I further focus on justifications for volunteering, it is important to theoretically explore what volunteering is, how it is

positioned within the Dutch context and to explore the existing literature concerning why individuals

volunteer.

Volunteering

Volunteering, in all its present forms, can be dated back to the 16th_{-century cathedral almsmen and,}

later on, to the 19th_{-century Victorian philanthropy (Kelemen, Mangan & Moffat, 2017, p. 1240).}

Kelemen, Mangan, and Moffat argue that in the 19th_{century, philanthropy underwent a process of}

professionalization, giving rise to the contemporary division between formal and informal care. The former defined by being a paid professional - i.e. a medical doctor- and the latter by being an unpaid worker (Ibid.), or in other words, as a ‘volunteer’. Over the recent years volunteering has gained considered attention within contemporary social research (Wilson, 2000, p. 217), Dekker and Hallman (2003, p. 1) state that this was accompanied by a widespread political and public interest in the matter of subject.

Volunteering can be defined as a broad range of activities in which a person gratuitously invests or gives time to benefit a person, group, organization or society (Dekker, 1994; Wilson, 2000; Hustinx, Cnaan & Handy, 2010; Helsloot & Melick, 2015). This definition does not preclude that volunteers do not benefit from volunteering, Wilson (2000) argues that volunteering can yield material, as well as immaterial rewards. An example of an immaterial reward is given by Schmeets and Arends (2017), whom state that volunteering contributes to the increase of social contact and networks within society. An example of a material reward is that (some types of) volunteering eventually increase one’s annual earnings with 6 to 7 percent in contrast with non-volunteers (Day & Devlin, 1998). Wuthnow (2012 [1991]) states that volunteering allows for core human values, such

(12)

4 as altruism, compassion, generosity, concern for others, social responsibility, and community spirit, to be expressed. Volunteering thus indicates involvement with society (Schmeets & Arends, 2017) and can be considered as an exceptional and essential form of social solidarity which binds society together (Hustinx, Cnaan & Handy, 2010), in other words; volunteering is an indicator of the social cohesion in society (Putnam, 2000 cf. Schmeets & Arends, 2017). Hustinx, Cnaan, and Handy (2010) argue that volunteering is a social construct with multiple definitions. What is understood as volunteering is a matter of public perception which makes the boundaries, between what ‘volunteering’ is and what it is not, permeable. For instance, people who are doing the same task willingly and without payment may have different conceptions of this being a volunteer activity (Ibid.). Wilson (2000, p. 216) for instance illustrates that some scholars deem volunteering not as ‘volunteering’ if it is compensated (Smith, 1991, p. 115 cf. Wilson, 2000, p. 216), that it is a form of quasi-volunteering when one chooses to work in a poorly paid job (Smith, 1982, p. 25), or that it is questionable if it should be called ‘volunteering’ if one conducts unpaid activities for an organization which one belongs to (Cutler & Danigelis, 1993, p. 150; Gallagher, 1994, p. 20; Payne & Bull, 1985, p. 25). Volunteering thus has, as argued by Dingle (2001), a ‘very broad’ range. Hodgkinson (2003, p. 38) agrees and states that four types of volunteering can be distinguished. Mutual aid such as self-help groups and community groups is the first type, the second type of volunteering is a form of philanthropy or service to others, or the community as a whole, and is mostly mediated by a voluntary organization (Ibid.). The third type is in the form of campaign and advocacy and the fourth type is participation, such as acting as a representative for a group or cause within a political context (Hodgkinson, 2003 p. 38). In this study, I will focus on the second type of volunteering in which it is a service in the benefit of a part, or the community as a whole, and is done through the mediation of a voluntary organization (Ibid.).

Volunteering in the Dutch context

Focusing on the Dutch context I found that the Netherlands is described as a country with a rich volunteering-culture (Arends & Flöhte, 2015; Lahaut, 2015). Arends (2015), Voicu and Voicu, (2009, p. 560) and Hodgkinson (2003, p. 39) argue that the participation in the Netherlands is high compared to other European countries. Although some authors have argued that this participation has declined since the mid-nineties, others claim that there is no significant in- or decrease (Arts & Te Riele, 2010, p. 55). The fact that a retracting government and decrease of government social expenditure leads to a decline of social activities such as volunteering (Day & Devlin, 1996; Bartels,

(13)

5 Cozzi, & Mantovan, 2013; Visser, Gesthuizen, & Scheepers, 2018) would indicate that there would be a decrease in volunteering participation as a result of the welfare state reform induced cutbacks. Arends (2015) and Schmeets and Arends (2017, p. 5) illustrate, in contrast to the former argument, that the volunteering participation in the Netherlands has stayed relatively stable and even underwent a slight increase in 2016, where 50% of the Dutch population participated in a volunteering activity in the past year, against 48% in 2014. These numbers are claimed to support the argument that the Netherlands has a strong volunteering culture (Arends, 2015).

When looking at the Dutch definition of volunteering, Helsloot, and Melick (2015 p. 15) state that there is no legally defined definition of ‘volunteering’ or ‘volunteers’ within the Netherlands. The most used definition originates in the 1980’s and prescribes volunteering to equal; ‘non-compulsory unpaid work for the benefit of others or society in general’ (Helsloot & Melick, 2015 p. 16). This definition is closely in line with the general formulated definition of volunteering (e.g. Dekker, 1994; Wilson, 2000; Hustinx, Cnaan & Handy, 2010). ‘Volunteers’ are defined by a definition of the Dutch tax authorities, which prescribes that a volunteer is not (professionally) performing work for a body that is subjected to corporation tax (Helsloot & Melick, 2015 p. 16). The central components of Dutch volunteering are ‘unpaid’, ‘non-compulsory’, ‘for the benefit of others’ and ‘in any organized context’ (Helsloot & Melick, 2015, p. 16). This definition ignores any form of remuneration (Wilson, 2000; Helsloot & Melick, 2015), the possibility of volunteering for one’s own interest (Wuthnow, 1995; Verplanke, 2014; Helsloot & Melick, 2015) and it disregards the fact that not all volunteering is conducted within an officially recognized organized setting (Helsloot & Melick, 2015).

Although there is no clear definition of volunteering within the Netherlands, I want to conclude by highlighting the difference between volunteering and ‘mantelzorg’. ‘Mantelzorg’, which is defined as ‘taking care of a relative or close related neighbor’ (Boer, Broese van Groenou & Timmermans, 2009, pp. 31-32), is different from volunteering due to the fact that the latter (usually) does not imply a prior personal connection, if this is the case it is likely to be defined as ‘mantelzorg’. Although both volunteering and ‘mantelzorg’ fall under the denominator ‘informal care’, there is a clear distinction between these two ‘types’, even on a national policy level (i.e. Tonkens, van den Broeke, & Hoijtink, 2009; van Rijn, 2016). In this study, as argued above, I will only focus on the ‘second type’ of volunteering (Hodgkinson, 2003) and I will not take ‘mantelzorg’ into account.

(14)

6

Motivations for volunteering

There is a wide array of literature concerning the motivations of volunteers to engage in volunteering. I will conclude by presenting a small overview in which I will identify a recurring division within the literature concerning why individuals volunteer.

Social psychologists Clary and Snyder (1999) identified diverse social and personal motivations for volunteering. They argue that values, understanding, and enhancement are given as the

main motivations for volunteering (Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 157). Values entail that the expression

or enactment of values such as humanitarianism is an important function of volunteering (Ibid.).

Understanding means that one learns more about the world and that volunteering offers the possibility

of exercising skills that are often unused (Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 157). The motive of Enhancement

means that volunteering allows benefits for the volunteer in the form of psychological development and growth (Ibid.). Zappalà (2000) reviewed the studies concerning motivations for volunteering amongst Australian volunteers and found that people state altruism as the main motive followed by growth of social- and human capital to engage in volunteering. Amongst older volunteers (≥ 65 years of age) he found both egoistic as altruistic reasons and the often articulated idea of reciprocity which translates to the moral obligation to volunteer in order to ‘pay back’ to society (Ibid.). Zappalà (2000) concludes that motivations that influence volunteering relate to personal needs which are varied and complex. Bussell and Forbes (2002) follow the findings of Zappalà (2000) and argue that volunteering allows to act out core values and beliefs. According to the authors, people volunteer for both egoistic as altruistic goals, eventually satisfying important social and psychological goals. Examples of the latter are argued to be a sense of belonging, which results in self-esteem, and the expansion of one’s social capital. Bussel and Forbes (2002) make the remark that improving human capital by gaining knowledge appears to be becoming a more important motivator for volunteering. Dekker and Halman (2003, p. 4) agree with Bussel and Forbes (2002) and state that volunteers do not distinguish between egoistic and altruistic motives. They mention that the general impact of motives remains rather unclear (Ibid). The authors claim that the motives given for volunteering are tailored to what, for instance, an organizational culture or social group stimulates and accepts as valid motives (Dekker & Halman, 2003, p. 5). Dekker and Halman (2003, p. 6) state that; ‘People are guided not only by their passions and self-interest but also by their values, their norms, and their belief systems’. Altruism, reciprocity, solidarity, equality, and inequality are proposed examples of values as being one of the components of the motives for volunteering (Ibid.). MacNeela (2008) argues in his study concerning motivations for volunteering amongst Irish volunteers, that

(15)

7 motivations can be categorized into self- and other-oriented motivation (MacNeela, 2008, p. 130). He found value expressions, such as ‘giving something back’ (Ibid.) and ‘career development’ (MacNeela, p. 131) to be most prevalent amongst Irish volunteers. Other motives that were less prominent were the desire for social engagement and esteem enhancement (MacNeela, 2008, p. 131). MacNeela (2008, p. 137) concludes that the benefits and challenges connected to volunteering were equally prominent as motives and states that the benefits of volunteering can act equally motivating for volunteering as are either ego-inspired or altruistic motives. Verplanke (2014, p. 48) studied motivations amongst Dutch volunteers in care and well-being and found that, although these volunteers are motivated by a combination of different motives, that the main motives why people

volunteer are in order to ‘improve the world’ or to ‘improve their own lives’ (Ibid). ‘Improving the world’ is explained to consist of countering social problems such as social exclusion, isolation, and discrimination and to stimulate mutual understanding and contact (Verplanke, 2014, p. 48). ‘Improving one’s own life’ is explained as receiving a material benefit, such as a financial reward of an immaterial benefit such as (work-) experience (Verplanke, 2014, p. 52). Kuiper and Brandts (2016, p. 24) support the findings of Verplanke (2014) and refer to research of Houben-van Herten (2011) in their argument that getting new insights and the possibility to show that helping others is important are the most articulated motivations of Dutch volunteers to engage in volunteering

‘Personal and social’ motivations (Clary & Snyder, 1999), ‘egoistic and altruistic’ goals and motives (Zappalà; 2000; Bussell & Forbes, 2002; Dekker and Halman, 2003), ‘self- and other-oriented’ motivation (MacNeela, 2008), ‘improving one’s own life and improving the world’ (Verplanke, 2014; Kuiper & Brandts, 2016), all indicate a division between, what I shall refer to as being; individual and collective

motivated. People are on the one hand motivated to volunteer because of individual oriented reasons and benefits, for example, justified by the argument that one has certain resources that allows one to distinguish her-/himself by engaging in a ‘consuming’ activity or that one is looking for a way to develop her-/himself. On the other hand are people motivated by collective orientated reasons and benefits, justifications for volunteering, for instance, indicate that collective interests are more valued than individual interests or, in a more direct example, that group norms ‘dictate’ individual action. Although this dichotomy is somewhat synthetic considering the fact ‘ motivations’ can shift over time, overlap, and influence each other in practice (i.e. Dekker & Halman, 2003), I want to argue that it covers all possible motivations for volunteering.

(16)

8 concerning individual and collective ‘motivations’ for volunteering. I will focus on how volunteers, that

act in the benefit ‘the community’ and through the mediation of a neighborhood orientated voluntary organization, justify their ideas about volunteering.

3. Studying culture

In this chapter, I will construct a theoretical-methodological approach to study the culture of volunteering.

Justifications are, as previously argued, given as reasons for action in the Habermasian ‘game of argumentation (Habermas, 2014, p. 71). It is thus important to explore how actions and justifications are related. I will first focus on the role of motives, considering that motives can be

perceived as the ‘names’ given to actions (Mills, 1940, p. 906). After this, I will discuss how

frameworks of understanding (Wuthnow, 1995) allow for motives to be articulated and which

‘frameworks of understanding’ are commonly found amongst volunteers. I will conclude by discussing the influence of the worlds of justification (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1991]; Boltanski &

Chiapello, 2005) on the Wuthnowian ‘frameworks of understanding’ and by proposing a theoretical argument that combines the aforementioned theoretical concepts.

3.1 Motives

The role of motives is a well-discussed topic within the field of sociology. Classical scholars such as Weber (2009 [1920]; 2012 [1914]), and more contemporary scholars such as Mannheim (2012 [1956]) and Vaisey (2009), have taken motives as a subject of research. In this study, I will follow Mills, who broke with the traditional paradigms on motives, such as argued by Weber (e.g. as ‘values’ or ‘hidden springs of action’), by stating that motives are vocabularies which have certain functions within societal situations (Mills, 1940, p. 904). Rather than being fixed elements that reside ‘within’ the individual, Mills perceives motives as terms through which the conduct of social actors is interpreted (Ibid.). This means that the different reasons individuals give for their actions are always situated in time and place. This Millsian conception relates to Swidler’s (1986) idea of culture as a ‘toolkit’ in such that an individual will select, according to the social situation, the most appropriate and suiting motive(s) from a repertoire of motives in order to justify her or his action (Sewell 2005, p. 162). Mills (1940, p. 905) states that the awareness of motives occurs when acts are questioned, and claims that it is in this moment that the meaning of motives is assigned to the questioned action. Motives thus refer to; ‘anticipated situational consequences of questioned conduct’ (Mills, 1940, p. 905). The intention, or purpose of action, is the awareness of situational

(17)

9 consequences, and motives are the ‘names’ given to the actions that lead to the articulation of these consequences (Mills, 1940, p. 906). In other words, the different motives individuals give for their actions are tailored towards the different social situations in which they are asked to elaborate on why they do what they do. Each social situation has its own vocabulary of motives that functions as an indication and justification for the actions in it (Mills, 1940, p. 960). The motives and actions of the individual thus originate from the social situation an individual finds oneself in (Ibid.), defining motives as accepted justifications for actions within a situation (Mills, 1940, p. 907). Mills (Ibid.) further argues that motives are strategies of actions, the motives given are geared to the explicit or tacit agreement of others. He states that the acceptance of given motives for action by others is essential for the continuation of action (Mills, 1940, p. 907). Individuals thus have a tendency to articulate motives that would motivate acts for other members in a situation which leads to the utilization of the appropriate vocabulary of motives as conditions for certain lines of conduct (Mills, 1940, p. 907). When an individual articulates motives, the individual tries to influence others, as well as oneself, by stating acceptable reasons that mediate action (Ibid.). The vocabulary of motives is thus associated with a norm that is agreed upon by both the actor as the observer of the action, indicating that motives are social instruments rather than individual springs for action (Mills, 1940,

p. 908). Mills (1940, p. 909) argues that

individuals learn the appropriate vocabularies of motives along with the rules and norms of action for various situations, which makes the articulated motive a consequence of the vocabulary of a specific situated action. Motives thus have no value outside the delimited societal situation for which they are the appropriate vocabulary. From this it can be concluded that motives act as the language of the situation, meaning that the motives given for an action could be perceived as a descriptive of the

situation in which an actor operates (Mills, 1940, p. 913). When volunteers articulate their motives they will give insights into the meaning they assert to their action. Due to the fact that they formulate justifications for what they are doing, their motives communicate what the volunteer defines as important in the general act of volunteering. Wuthnow (1995) argues that people need ‘frameworks’ to make sense of what they are doing. He states that there are several nearly universal ‘frameworks of understanding’ readily available for individuals to draw upon when they motivate their actions (Wuthnow, 1995, p. 61). These ‘frameworks’ are learned from and within interactions and thus function as a ‘language’ (Wuthnow, 1995, p. 61). Individuals possess multiple and overlapping ‘frameworks’ that shape the subjective meaning of actions (Wuthnow, 1995, p. 64). Because ‘language’ helps to formulate motives that explain the significance of the action of an

(18)

10 individual to oneself and to others (Wuthnow, 1995, p. 63), motives function as the representation of a ‘framework of understanding’. Wuthnow agrees with Mills in the argument that the way individuals talk about their motives portrays the subjective meaning they assign to their action. This meaning is shaped by the specific ‘framework’ that is drawn upon in the specific situation. He further argues that a language of motivation, which justifies why an individual is involved in a

particular activity, could thus be seen as a moral framework (Wuthnow 1995, p. 64). A ‘framework of understanding’ allows for an individual to make one’s behavior more meaningful because it provides a clear understanding of why one does what s/he does, making this behavior more likely to pertain over time (Wuthnow, 1995, p. 64). Wuthnow (1995, pp.79-80) states that motivations presuppose the ‘frameworks of understanding’ by directly and indirectly referring to them, which reveals their existence. A ‘framework of understanding’ is thus communicated through the whole of motives that individuals articulate when they justify their actions.

3.2 Four frameworks

Wuthnow (1995) differentiates four ‘frameworks of understanding’ which are used in the motivation for volunteering; Humanitarianism, The pursuit of happiness, Reciprocity, and Self-realization. Wuthnow

(1995, p. 65) argues that these ‘frameworks’; ‘point [...] toward the plausibility of an entire category of behavior’, and thus allow for a similar action to be justified post hoc by the different ‘frameworks’

in order to make sense of volunteering.

The ‘framework’ of Humanitarianism refers to the awareness of interdependence. The goal to

eliminate pain and suffering leads to helping those whom one feels compassion for. Although it focuses on specific groups or people, this ‘framework’ stresses the equality of people legitimizing inequality to be redressed. Humanitarianism tends to evoke the language of moral obligation but is no exclusive expression of altruism or selflessness due to the awareness of possible benefits and limitations (Wuthnow, 1995, pp. 65-67). The pursuit of happiness ‘framework’ is closely related to

humanitarianism but stems from the premise that the good of others and individual happiness are linked. This leads to the belief that the happiness of the individual depends on the wellbeing of others. Although helping does not exclusively focuses on happiness, the spreading of happiness is considered to be an essential element of helping (Wuthnow, 1995, pp. 67-69). The Reciprocity ‘framework’ stresses the special privileges or unique resources of a few which makes it possible for

them to help others, differentiating itself from the premise of equality upheld by the ‘framework’ of

(19)

11 as an ‘insurance’. Helping others is thus a way of securing the possibility of receiving help. When being helped in the past does not lead to a ‘return of the favor’ but to the helping of others, Wuthnow speaks of serial reciprocity; a chain of helping which links people together. This ‘framework’

can be combined with the Pursuit of happiness and Humanitarianism ‘framework’ differing in the

experience of a duty to return the good fortune one has received. (Wuthnow, 1995, pp. 69-73). To conclude, the ‘framework’ of Self-realization which emphasizes on the individual benefits gained by

helping others and which focusses more on growth than on happiness. This ‘framework fosters the idea is that one can reach its full potential by facing the challenge of helping others, in other words, this ‘framework’ focuses on the ‘giver’ by emphasizing the personal growth in the form of new skills and a sense of accomplishment that one acquires by helping others. Next to this, it sometimes extends to the recipient as well driven by the argument that people have the right to realize their own potential and that helping them to achieve this is a good thing (Wuthnow, 1995, pp. 73-75).

Wuthnow (1995, p. 76) concludes that, although these ‘frameworks of understanding’ overlap and permit individuals to shift between them when articulating their motivations, they are sufficient independent which allows individuals to emphasize one of them more than the others. I thus want to argue that, when placing these four ‘frameworks’ within the ‘motivation dichotomy’ (see p. 7), the ‘frameworks’ of Humanitarianism and The pursuit of happiness relate to the collective justifications and that the ‘frameworks of Reciprocity and Self-realization

relate to individual justifications.

3.3 Worlds of Justification

The Wuthnowian ‘frameworks of understanding’ show a strong resemblance with what Boltanski and Thévenot (2006 [1991] call ‘the worlds of justification’. Boltanski and Thévenot (2006 [1991]) argue that there are six ‘worlds’ of justification. The authors state that people draw upon six ‘worlds’ to justify their actions during ‘critical moments’ as in the likes of a ‘dispute’ (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1999], pp. 359-360). The six ‘worlds of justification’ are The Civic world, The Domestic world, The Industrial world, The Inspired world, The Market world, and The Renown world. An individual may apply

different justifications in any single situation referring to any of the six different ‘worlds’ (Dequech, 2008, p. 529). According to Boltanski and Thévenot (2006 [1991]) an individual thus has ‘access’ to six ‘worlds’ within the Habermasian ‘game of argumentation’. Here I found the resemblance of the ‘worlds of justifications’ with the Wuthnowian ‘frameworks’; both concepts make it possible that, depending on the situation, a similar action is differentially justified.

(20)

12 The Civic world advocates that the individual is a part of a larger collective, such as

humanity itself or a particular community or organization, in which ‘collective action [give] meaning and justification to their own individual behavior’ (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1991], pp. 185-186). Collective interests outweigh individual interests and are aspired from the idea of social equality (Ibid.). The Domestic world sides with the proposition that social position in the hierarchy of society

defines one’s value (Boltanski & Thévenot 2006 [1991], p. 165). Relationships between individuals are personal in which these individuals are personal acquaintances (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1991], p. 173). These relationships are not exclusively confined to family relationships and are characterized by interdependence and loyalty. The Industrial world defends that ‘worth is based on

efficiency’ and focuses on individuals and ‘things’ to be standardized by being operational, efficient and productive (Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006 [1999], pp. 372-373). A notion of ‘professionality’ is articulated by the authors, arguing that within this ‘world’, professional capabilities (i.e. being an ‘expert’) indicate and measure the worth of an individual (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1991], p. 372). The Inspired world encourages individuals to be driven by the desire to create. Here, creativity,

inspiration, or originality is most valued (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006 [1991], p. 159). Self-esteem is more valuable than the opinion of other and furthermore it ‘eludes measure’ (Ibid.). The Market world endorses that the market is the source of worth (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1991], pp.

196-197). Money is an indicator of the value of ‘things’ and wealth indicates the worthiness of individuals (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1999, p. 372). Fair competition is worthy behavior, competing for the possession of objects and rare goods (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1991], pp. 196-199). The last ‘world’ is the Renown world, which upholds that an individual is valued by other people’s opinion and

marginalization and contempt are tried to be avoided (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1991], pp. 178-179). Status and visibility are important indicators of personal value, while an individual’s dignity is affected by indifference and banality towards others (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006 [1991], pp. 184-185). Boltanski and Chiapello (2005) added a seventh ‘world’. In an article, based on their book: ‘The New Spirit of Capitalism’ (2007 [1999]), they analyzed that the existing six ‘worlds’ did not account for

all the changes in ‘the spirit of capitalism’ over the past three decades and stated that a seventh ‘world of justification’; the Project world should be added (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005, p. 168.). The Project world perceives life as a series of projects in which the value of the project is determined by

being different from all other undertaken projects (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005, p. 169). Participating in projects and the readiness to undertake new projects results from the impulse of activity, which seems to drive individuals (Ibid.). The limited lifespan of these projects does not

(21)

13 curtail the involvement and enthusiasm of those who participate and allows for a follow-up of various temporary projects due to its network creating character (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005, p.

169). Despite the resemblance

between the ‘frameworks of understanding’ and ‘the worlds of justification’, I want to argue that they are not the same. Dequech (2008, pp. 528-532) makes the critical notion that ‘the worlds of justification’ should not be treated as ‘logic’s of action’, or in other words as the direct instigators of

personal action. Dequech (2008, p. 532) continues by stating that; ‘the “world” in which a justification is located may be different from the real domain(s) of action’, indicating that action does not stem directly from a ‘world of justification’. I will follow Dequech (Ibid.) and want to argue that the Wuthnowian ‘frameworks’ act as a ‘mediator’ between ‘the worlds of justification’ and the motivations for volunteering.

3.4 The Framework of volunteering justification

The theoretical argument is summed up as followed; motivations for volunteering arise from the assemblage of the four ‘frameworks of understanding’ (Wuthnow, 1995). Each assemblage functions as the ‘vocabulary of the situation’ (Mills, 1940), defining motives as justifications for action. The seven 'worlds of justification' (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1999]; Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005) are mediated through the different ‘frameworks’, this means that each ‘framework of understanding’ can follow multiple ‘worlds of justification’. Here, I must note that not all ‘worlds’ are compatible with

the different ‘frameworks’, then again not all of the ‘worlds’ have to be represented within the

different ‘frameworks of understanding’. Motivations thus reflect a particular, or an assemblage of, the ‘frameworks of understanding’ - which is justified by one or multiple ‘worlds of justification’. In other words, a motivation is justified through a, or an assemblage of the ‘framework(s) of understanding’ which are shaped and influenced by one or multiple ‘worlds of justification’. An example is given by a justification for volunteering in which it argued that all people are equal and one should thus help those that reside in an unequal position (LT-2, a 69-year-old male). This motive is justified through the ‘framework’ of Humanitarianism that states that one helps those whom

one feels compassion for (Wuthnow, 1995, p. 66) and hints at the Civic world, in which collective

interests outweigh individual interests and are aspired from the idea of social equality (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1991], pp. 185-186). A visual representation of the proposed theoretical argument is given in Figure 1 (Appendix I).

(22)

14

4. Methodology

4.1 Research design

In this study I followed the Weberian tradition of ‘verstehen’, by interpreting the subjective

motivations that give meaning to a ‘social action’ (Weber, 2012 [1904], p. 278; Calhoun, C., Gerteis, Moody, & Pfaff, 2012, p. 269). By interpreting the subjective motivations for volunteering I explored the process of meaning-making. In more detail, I explored the meaning that volunteers give to volunteering by focusing on the justifications they articulated when talking about their act of volunteering. I have employed an abductive approach, combining elements of deductive and inductive analysis (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012) in order to answer the research question.

4.2 Respondents

In this study, I focused on the population of volunteers within the city of Amsterdam that offer a practical form of support at the neighborhood level. Two groups were contrasted, distinguished on basis of the contact that the volunteers have with the individuals they support. The first group of volunteers have an ‘inconsistent’ relationship with the supported and are referred to as; ‘short-term volunteers’ (ST). These volunteers support on basis of a supply and demand principle, ending the support relation after the demand is foreseen. The second group of volunteers has a ‘consistent’ relationship with the supported and is referred to as; ‘long-term volunteers’ (LT). These volunteers support on a one-on-one basis for a (pre-fixed) amount of time.

The choice of these two groups tried to differentiate between the different contemporary forms of volunteering. This allowed me to explore if these groups portray different ‘frameworks of understanding’ within their justification for volunteering. The recent proliferation of the short-term type of volunteer, as argued by Hustinx (2009), has led scholars, such as Dekker, Hart and de Faulk (2007) and Eliasoph (2009, 2011) to coin the term ‘flash-‘ or ‘plugin volunteer’. The plug-in volunteer is a volunteer that moves in and out of volunteering, mostly seeking for a rewarding experience (Eliasoph 2009, p. 302; Eliasoph 2011, p. 117). Verplanke (2014, p. 63) states that she hardly found empirical evidence of this type of volunteer in her research into motives of volunteers, which seems to contradict the argument of Hustinx, Dekker, and Eliasoph. Nevertheless, I want to argue that there are several ‘types’ of volunteers which have different motives for volunteering. In sum, I want to argue that the differentiation between two groups, purposively sampled from two

(23)

15 Amsterdam based voluntary organizations, allowed me to explore if different ‘frameworks of understanding’ can explain different justifications for short- and long-term volunteering.

4.3 Sampling

I have conducted a purposive sampling by selecting units to provide for the respondents relevant to the research question (Bryman, 2012, p.418). The unit for sampling short-term volunteers is

Burennetwerk Amsterdam, this organization supports people in need of ‘small’ types of support such as

doing groceries, chores, transport, and etcetera. (Burennetwerk, n.d.). The support is one-time or recurring, depending on the choice of the volunteer and focuses mainly on social or practical support (Ibid.). The short-term volunteers refer to themselves as ‘Goede buur’ which means ‘Good neighbor’. The unit for sampling long-term volunteers is Stichting de Regenboog Groep, this organization

focuses on getting people, who are socially isolated, to participate in society (De Regenboog Groep, 2001, p. 3.). De Regenboog Groep offers individual assistance and focuses on social-emotional support

and guidance (Ibid.). Volunteers benefit from training, coaching, ‘intervision’ meetings and a ‘volunteer agreement’ (De Regenboog Groep, 2011, p. 4; p. 13). The long-term volunteers usually refer to themselves as ‘Buddy’ or as its Dutch equivalent; ‘Maatje’.

The main difference between the two units is the commitment required in order to participate as a volunteer. De Regenboog Groep (2011) asks for a weekly availability over a

minimum period of two weeks while Burennetwerk (n.d.) has no minimum requirements, stating if a

demand for support is not convenient for the volunteer that replacement will be provided. The short-term unit indicates that they support all citizens that have a request for help (Burennetwerk, n.d.) while the long-term unit indicates to support citizens that are primarily in need of ‘care’ (De Regenboog Groep, 2011). The long-term unit differentiates itself by targeting citizens with, what they characterized as, a ‘heavier’ request for help. This refers to supporting citizens with either an (ex-) addiction, a diagnosed psychiatric pathology and/or those who are in professional debt counseling. During the fieldwork, I noticed that both units target a similar audience, namely marginalized citizens marked by psychosocial problems such as poverty, loneliness and some form of psychopathology. From here on forward I will refer to those who are supported by either of the sampling units volunteers as a participant. This is an official term within the long-term unit and is a

neutral way to describe those that are supported. The respondents were recruited through either direct or indirect contact I established with managers from both organizations. I asked if the managers were willing to disseminate the invitation for an interview among all unit

(24)

16 volunteers. The short-term unit manager mediated in the recruitment of respondents by posting a call for respondents within their closed Facebook-group only accessible for unit members. In the short-term recruitment 3 respondents reacted and during the fieldwork, I snowball-sampled (Bryman, 2012) an additional 3 respondents within this unit. Contact with the long-term respondents was established through the director of De Vrijwilligers Academie, an institute that offers

training and courses to the volunteers of various organizations within the municipality of Amsterdam. The director is strongly affiliated with the long-term unit and played a crucial role as a key figure in the recruitment of long-term respondents by contacting two volunteer coordinators who disseminated the call for respondents within their pool of volunteers. In the long-term recruitment 12 respondents reacted positively.

The interview sample consisted of 6 short-term volunteers and 12 long-term volunteers. One of the long-term volunteers appeared to have a coordinating function and was not acting as a volunteer within the unit. I decided to interview her in order to collect background information concerning the long-term unit. This thus resulted in a total interview sample of 17 respondents. Due to personal circumstances of one short-term respondent (ST-6), I was not able to meet face-to-face with this respondent. After some (failed) attempts to meet, we agreed that I would e-mail several interview questions in order for this respondent to answer these questions as extensive as possible. Of the 17 interview respondents, 59% identified themselves as ‘female’ and 41% as ‘male’, ranging from 28 to 69 years-of-age (M=42, SD=12) with the average education level of Post-secondary education. Of these respondents, 76% worked either part- or fulltime and 24% was retired or unemployed. A detailed description of the interview-sample is given in Table 1 (Appendix II). In addition to the interview-sample, an online distributed survey led to an additional 36 survey respondents, of which 16 short-term and 20 long-term, resulting in a total survey-sample of 53 respondents, including the completed surveys by the interview respondents. In this sample, a percentage of 70% identified themselves as ‘female’ and 30% as ‘male’, ranging from 21 to 78 years-of-age (M=45 SD=14) with the average education level of Post-secondary education. Of these respondents, 57% worked either part- or fulltime and 25% was retired or unemployed (of 18% I did not have information about their employment status, see §4.5). In sum, this study uses data from 17 interviews and a total of 53 completed surveys.

(25)

17

4.4 Method

I have conducted semi-structured interviews guided by a topic list. This method elicited the possibility to focus the interview on what the respondent considered important in the understanding of her/his patterns of action and behavior (Bryman, 2012, p. 471).

The first part of the interview consisted of open questions exploring, the volunteering ‘career’. Topics were; ‘volunteering history and prior experience’, ‘personal and general motivations for volunteering’, ‘personal preferences’, and ‘personal costs and benefits of volunteering’. To ensure the validity of the topic list, it has been submitted to and reviewed by, the previously mentioned director of De Vrijwilligers Academie. Some (minor) changes, concerning formulations and the use of

certain terminology, were made as a result of this consult. The topic list, as used, is added in the appendices (Appendix V). In the second part, I asked the respondent to complete a survey in which they ranked statements representing the four ‘frameworks of understanding’ and to elaborate on this ranking. The addition of a fixed choice interview part is argued to be of great additional value within a semi-structured interview (Vaisey, 2009, p. 1688; Jerolmack & Kahn, 2014). Vaisey (2009, p.1688) for instance argues that a survey allows for an exploration of the ‘real motives behind a person’s behavior’. Due to a survey being less cognitively demanding, it allows the respondent to react more intuitively which may reveal a respondent's underlying cultural schema (Vaisey, 2009, p. 1689). The combination of a qualitative and quantitative part allowed me to explore the motivations given for volunteering in more detail. The following statements3_{, that I have taken from Wuthnow (1995, p.}

75), were presented in the survey;

1. Humanitarianism: "I want to give of myself for the benefit of others."

2. The pursuit of happiness: "It makes me feel good about myself when I care for others."

3. Reciprocity: "Helping others is a way of paying debts for the good things I have received."

4. Self-realization: "Helping others makes me a stronger person."

The quantitative part of the study adopted two principles from Q-methodology (Brown, 1996). The first principle is adopted from Jedeloo and Van Staa (2009, p. 9). They follow a common assumption from the ‘Gestalt psychology’ which states that specific and different statements beget meaning through their mutual relationship. The importance of one statement is thus decided by contrasting it with another statement. The second principle is adopted from Brown (1996), who argues that the

(26)

18 previous principle stimulates the respondent to differentiate between what s/he deems more- and less important, resulting in a structuring of the subjectivity of the respondent concerning the topic of study (Brown, 1996 p. 561). These principles legitimatize the fixed-choice statement sorting within the survey. In short, this means that the respondent was forced to hierarchize the given statements, not allowing for a statement to be sorted as equal. This did not only illustrated which ‘framework’ the respondent emphasizes the most but also gave insight into the relationship between the four ‘frameworks of understanding’ and how the respondent justified this assemblage. The ranking of the statements also acted as an elicitation method which allowed for the collection of additional qualitative data during the interviews.

The used survey was built in Qualtrics4_{and followed a}_{randomized order for all answer options}

presented in the items. This survey was, in addition to being used in the interview, distributed within the sampling units by an ‘anonymous’ link, through an organizational newsletter, a Facebook-post, and through ‘word of mouth’ by the volunteer-coordinators. The additional quantitative data I collected offered a more detailed insight into the different assemblages of the ‘frameworks of understanding’ between the units and it allowed to explore differences between and within the

sampling units.

4.5 Analysis

For analysis of the interview data, I used the qualitative data analysis program MAXQDA 2018. Coding took place according to a tree step coding scheme following Boeije (2005). The first step was open coding, selecting data that at face value meet the criterion ‘meaningful’. Examples were statements about how one got involved in volunteering or what one deems as the purpose of volunteering. The second step was the axial coding phase in which the ‘open codes’ were reevaluated which constructed clusters of codes in order to create the ‘main codes’ (Ibid.) An example is the creation of the code volunteering history consisting of statements about prior experience and context

influence, such as activities within sports clubs. In the final step, the phase of selective coding I structured the ‘main-‘ and ‘sub codes’ created in the axial coding step in order to answer the research question (Boeije, 2005) I, for example, combined the codes family, which represented the influence

of upbringing, and volunteering history into the code volunteering career.

The statement sorts were analyzed using STATA 13. The statements were sorted on a four-option scale, ranging from “Most applicable to me” (ranked 1st_{) to “Least applicable to me” (ranked}

(27)

19 ranking was re-coded, assigning the highest ranked statement with a value of 4 and the lowest ranked statement with a value of 1. A descriptive of the statement sort is presented in Table 3 (Appendix IV). For further analysis, I created 3 dummy variables in order to explore differences

between and within the sampling units. To differentiate between age categories, I re-coded the variable Age assigning a value of 0 (= Young) to respondents Aged younger or equal to 45, and a value of 1 (= Middle aged/Senior) to respondents aged 46 years or older. To explore differences between education

level, I re-coded the variable Education level equal to 1/2/3 (Primary, Lower secondary, Secondary) and 6

(Other) into 0 (= Low education) and 4/5 (Post-secondary, Tertiary) into 1 (= High education). Finally, in

order to explore the differences between occupational status, I re-coded Work equal to 3/4 (Retired, Currently not working) into 0 (= Unemployed) and 1/2 (Full-time, Part-time) into 1 (= Employed). This last

variable had 10 missing values due to a technical glitch in the survey construction, which I repaired after noticing. Because employment status was no primary point of focus in the analysis of the survey data, I choose to not recode or drop the missing values (for Dutch value labels see Appendix VI). The analysis of the quantitative data was used as a simple and basic way to explore and support possible interesting themes reported in the results. I did this by exploring the survey data, looking for differences in statement ranking between and within units to get

a general view on possible patterns. I must note that the quantitative analysis is predominantly based on the exploration the descriptive statistics, such as frequency distributions, percentages and the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of the statement sorts. An overview of the statistics used are presented in the appendices (Appendix II, Appendix III and Appendix IV)

4.6 Ethical considerations.

Lastly a short note about the ethical considerations within this study. In order to preserve the anonymity of the respondents, I clearly instructed the respondents that the interviews will be anonymized and that no personal retraceable information will be shared with the unit or volunteering coordinator. This dictated to position myself as a neutral and independent researcher, I explained my role, purpose, and obligations as a researcher in the invitation text and during the introduction of the interviews. To conclude, a note concerning the involvement of the director of

De Vrijwilligers Academie. In the first phase of the recruitment process, the director accepted to help

with the dissemination of the interview invitations on condition that the results would have value for them as an organization. I agreed to this condition under the following terms; First, I would discuss the topic list, in order to ensure the validity of it. Second, I agreed to present or write a small

(28)

20 summary of the study results for the organization. And third, we agreed that the director has no authority to interfere with the content of the report and that I will emphasize the themes - that they as an organization are interested in - in the summary, provided that they are apparent in the original interview and survey data.

5. Results & Analysis

The analysis of the interview data showed that the ‘framework’ of Self-realization was the most

prominent used in the justifications of the ideas about volunteering. The power of this ‘framework’ holds when analyzing the survey data; the survey respondents ranked Self-realization 2nd_(M=2.60

SD=1.06) and when broken down by the units, 2nd_{within the short-term unit (M=2.50 SD=1.06)}

and 3rd_{within the long-term unit (M=2.68 SD=1.08). Although the other ‘frameworks’ are apparent}

in the interview and the survey data, I will highlight these less detailed or in relation to the ‘framework’ of Self-realization.

The results will be presented in three paragraphs. The first paragraph presents the motivations for volunteering. This first section deals with the different motivations that the respondents

give for their involvement in volunteering. The second paragraph presents the ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ of volunteering. In this section, I will discuss what the respondents explain to be the ‘costs’ of

volunteering and what they get out of volunteering. The final paragraph will present the general views on ‘volunteers’ and ‘volunteering’. In this final section, I will explore how the respondents reflect on the

general meaning of volunteering in society according to, and as given by the respondents themselves. In these paragraphs, I combined the interview data with the survey data, as explained in §4.5. At some points, I will differentiate between the data in order to show the interaction between both. One example is that the survey data showed a difference between ‘younger’ and ‘older’ volunteers. I have used the interview data to further explore this within unit(s) difference in order to

explain how these groups qualitatively justify this difference. In sum, I will present the interview- and survey results in an integrated manner.

5.1 ‘Motivations’ for volunteering

In this paragraph, I explore how the interview respondents justify their act of volunteering. The respondents were asked about their volunteering career, how the respondents got involved in

volunteering and what their ‘motivations’ for volunteering are. There is no clear difference between

(29)

21 between both units in having prior experience with volunteering, at which more than two third of the short-term unit respondents has prior experience in comparison to one-third of the long-term unit. Next to this, there is an interesting difference in the justifications for volunteering between ‘younger’ and ‘older’ respondents of both units when combining the interview- and survey data.

Prior- and novel experiences

When asked to narrate how the interview respondents got involved with volunteering, nine

respondents described that they had prior experience before joining the volunteering unit they are affiliated with, while eight indicated that they had no prior experience. Five short-term respondents (n=6) had prior experience, whilst four long-term respondents (n=11) indicated that they had prior experience before joining the unit.

The respondents who had prior experience described that volunteering was something that they were either; ‘interested in’ (ST-1, a 37-year-old male; LT-5, 28-year-old female), or that it was a part of the sports club they were active in (ST-2, 28-year-old female). Several-long and short-term respondents with prior experience argued that volunteering was something that had been passed down through their upbringing. Being part of a social or active volunteering family was given as an indicator of why one started volunteering (LT-1, 58-year-old female; LT-5, 28-year-old female). Some respondents replied that that having a religious upbringing either consciously or unconsciously influenced their choice for volunteering (ST-1, 37-year-old male; ST-3, 34-year-old female; LT-1, 58-year-old female). When describing this influence, one respondent drew upon the notion of ‘The Good Samaritan’ as a way of justifying how he was influenced by his religious upbringing;

‘I am not a Christian myself anyway, so that is no motivation for me, well I’m not a Christian

anymore (…) but maybe that still has influence, yeah I know that for sure (…) that Christian

morality that is inherently still there (…) that helping each other without any interest [...], that

that is “good”, that “merciful Samaritan”-like, yes that! I think it is difficult to verify because

it is not consciously’ (ST-1, 37-year-old male, emphasis added)

Although stating that he is ‘not a Christian anymore’, the respondent makes notion of a ‘Christian morality’ as the substructure of his volunteering. Another respondent, whose Christianity is explicitly

explained to be a drive for volunteering, explains in more detail what this ‘morality’ entails; ‘I do not really believe in individualization, that someone lives for his own because in the end, yeah, you just need each other’ (ST-3, 34-year-old female, emphasis added)

(30)

22 These respondents justify that they see volunteering as a moral obligation, inherited through their upbringing. Next to this, the idea of being part of a larger whole and the acknowledgement that people need each other, or as Wuthnow (1995, p.66) would state the acknowledgment of; ‘a common bond that ties all people together and obligates them to help one another’, is given as a justification to engage in volunteering. These respondents with prior experience draw upon the ‘framework’ of Humanitarianism in order to justify how they got involved in volunteering. In this

‘framework’ I find hints at the Civic world (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1991], pp. 185-186). The Civic world states that being part of the collective is considered to give worth to an individual

(Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1991], p. 185). Individual behavior benefits the collective of which the individual is a part of (Ibid.) Justifying volunteering by stating that ‘people need each other’ indicates that collectivity is more important than individuality (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006 [1991], p. 185).

Five of the interview respondents who had no prior experience (n=8), explained that becoming a volunteer was ‘an idea they were walking around with’ for quite some time (LT-6, 35-year-old male; LT-8, 25-year-old male). They explain that they did not

previously engage in volunteering due to being in a certain phase of life. For several of these respondents, time was an important resource lacking. I will discuss the concept of time will in more

detail in §5.2, for now, it will suffice to define time as personal leisure time. A change of job or in

personal health were exemplary for changes that allowed these respondents to do what they long-time wanted to do. An example of this is the ‘stabilization’ of the health of a respondent, who argued that her personal health issues previously didn’t allow her to make herself; ‘useful’ (LT-9, 34-year-old female). This respondent explained that her illness required for her to spend most of her leisure time resting which prevented her to actively participate in society. Now that her situation had improved she engages in volunteering to make up for the previous ‘time lost’ (LT-9, 34-year-old

female). Another example is given by a respondent that explains that reaching a certain age was accompanied by a change of priorities in life, which resulted in leisure time to ‘spend’;

‘[T]he people around you are more and more starting a family, having children, living together and things like that and at that moment I did not have a boyfriend so yeah, then you are pondering little bit at “what am I going to do with my time?” I then came up with the

idea of doing something I really want, and maybe it's fun to do something like [volunteering],

just have a look at how that is (…) I already had it in my mind for a long time, but yeah then you have a busy life, being at such an age that you still hang out in the pub every weekend so then it does not happen’ (LT-7, 34-year-old female)

'You just have to figure it out for yourself' : an exploration of justifications for neighborhood level volunteering