Insights into Motivations of COVID-19 Volunteers

(1)

Insights into Motivations of

COVID-19 Volunteers

Master Thesis

Name: Tabea Brückelmann

Student Number: S2685426

Supervisor: Dr. L. Cabane

Second Reader: Dr. J. J. Wolbers

Date: September 16, 2020

Word Amount: 23.664

(2)

3.4. Surveying Through Semi-Structured Interviews ... p. 42 3.4.1. Overview ... p. 42 3.4.2. Selection of and Information about the Participants ... p. 43 3.4.3. Data Analysis ... p. 44 3.4.4. Limitations ... p. 45 3.5. Qualitative Results ... p. 46 3.5.1. Motivations of Interviewees ... p. 46 3.5.2. Experiences of Interviewees ... p. 50 4. DISCUSSION p. 51 4.1. Hypothesis 1 ... p. 51 4.2. Hypothesis 2 ... p. 53 4.3. Hypothesis 3 ... p. 54 4.4. Hypothesis 4 ... p. 55 5. CONCLUSION p. 56 6. LIST OF REFERENCES __ p. 62 7. ANNEX p. 70 7.1. Annex 1: Questionnaire Material ... p. 70 7.1.1. A Translated Copy of the Questionnaire into English ... p. 70 7.2. Annex 2: Interview Material ... p. 77 7.2.1. The Interview Guide Translated into English ... p. 77 7.2.2. The Codebook for Coding Interview Data ... p. 80 7.2.3. All Anonymous Interview Transcripts (in German) ... p. 82 7.2.3.1. Interview 1 ... p. 82 7.2.3.2. Interview 2 ... p. 87 7.2.3.3. Interview 3 ... p. 93 7.2.3.4. Interview 4 ... p. 100 7.2.3.5. Interview 5 ... p. 104

(4)

1. INTRODUCTION

‘Everything great in this world only happens because someone does more than (s)he has to’

– Hermann Gmeiner in Tagesschau, 2020 (translated) The novel coronavirus outbreak and the accompanied precautionary measures have changed the daily routines of several people around the globe (Deutsche Welle, 2020). Following its origin in the Chinese province of Hubei in December 2019, the novel coronavirus has spread to numerous countries in the world throughout the following months (CDC, 2020b). As such, 114 countries reported more than 118.000 infections as well as almost 4.300 deaths on March 11, 2020. To respond to the outbreak, the World Health Organization had declared the outbreak a pandemic on the same day (WHO, 2020b). Throughout the next weeks and months, the cases continued to increase rapidly on all continents. For example, 5.934.936 infections and 367.166 deaths were reported worldwide until May 31, 2020 (WHO, 2020d).

Formally called SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome–Coronavirus–2), the virus causes the mild to severe respiratory disease COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease–2019) (DZIF, 2020). The elderly and people with underlying medical conditions are particularly at risk of becoming seriously ill after an infection as their potentially weaker immune systems might be incapable of sufficiently fighting the virus (CDC, 2020a; Velavan & Meyer, 2020, p. 304). As a corollary, the daily routines of people at risk were significantly impaired by the spreading virus. If they wished to minimise the risk of infection, they needed to avoid crowded places. Therefore, people at risk frequently became dependent on external help as they, for example, needed others to physically run their essential errands. Despite individuals, some institutions also required additional help. For example, overstrained hospitals needed additional manpower to manage the high inflows of COVID-19 patients (Bayerischer Rundfunk 24, 2020).

To respond to the numerous quests for help, several people decided to volunteer their time and effort during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their voluntary activities were manifold and, inter alia, ranged from sewing masks over helping out in hospitals to running essential errands for others. While all voluntary activities were time-consuming, some further required that volunteers exposed themselves to an increased risk of infection in case they had to be in physical contact with others. Nevertheless, the motivations driving people to volunteer during the pandemic appeared to be higher than any potential deterrence. Therefore, it might be of interest to understand the motivations of COVID-19 volunteers, which is why this thesis seeks to analyse: Why are people motivated to volunteer during the COVID-19 pandemic?

(5)

To enable a cohesive analysis, the analysis of this thesis firstly focuses on a timeframe which ranges from the beginning of March until the end of May 2020. Secondly, the analysis further focuses on one geographical location, which is Germany. Germany represented a suitable geographical focus for the subject under study because even though the country had been one of the most affected European countries between March and May 2020, it did not opt for a strict lockdown (Deutsche Welle, 2020), which facilitated both affiliated and unaffiliated volunteers to help in various ways without needing an essential reason. Furthermore, with respect to the time of writing, the timeframe was chosen as Germany itself was most affected by an outbreak of the novel coronavirus between March and May 2020.

An analysis of motivations driving people to volunteer during the COVID-19 pandemic is of both societal and academic relevance. The research is relevant for the society as throughout the last decades, the likelihood and dimension of epidemics and pandemics significantly increased due to, for example, urbanisation trends, the rising global mobility of people and industrialised food patterns (Gössling et al., 2020, p. 3; Lakoff, 2017, p. 5; Madhav et al., 2017, p. 326). As volunteers can embody an important assistance to communities and organisations while managing disease outbreaks, the society would benefit from refined strategies planning in volunteers during future disease outbreaks. An understanding of motivations driving COVID-19 volunteers can particularly help to attract and maintain the same and/or new volunteers during future epidemics or pandemics.

Furthermore, to analyse the motivations underlying volunteerism during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany is also relevant for the academic sphere, as academic literature comprising motivations of people volunteering during disease outbreaks is relatively sparse. Besides, most studies which nevertheless analysed the latter, predominantly focused on African settings (Akintola, 2011; Kironde & Klaasen, 2002; Kpnake et al., 2019). As the motivations of people volunteering in developing countries might potentially differ from people carrying out voluntary activities in industrialised settings, the findings of this thesis could be helpful for the academic sphere doing research on motives underlying volunteerism in different geographical settings.

For the purposes of this thesis, four hypotheses were set up as they might predict motivational characteristics of COVID-19 volunteers. The four hypotheses were deduced from Clary et al.’s (1998) Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) as well as from findings of prior research analysing the motivations of volunteers. The VFI thereby assumes that six functions induce people to carry out voluntary work. These functions refer to (1) Values (comprising humanitarian and altruistic motives), (2) Understanding (covering motives related to the

(6)

acquisition of knowledge and experiences which would otherwise remain unpractised), (3)

Career (covering career-related motives), (4) Social (comprising relationships with

acquaintances), (5) Enhancement (covering self-growth and self-development motives) and (6)

Protective (comprising ego-defence motives) (Clary et al., 1998, pp. 1517-1518).

Deduced from the findings of Akinola (2011, p. 56), Clary and Snyder (1999, p. 157), Francis and Jones (2012, p. 30) and Fathi et al. (2015, p. 1), the first hypothesis predicts that

the Values function is the highest motivator for COVID-19 volunteers helping out in Germany and is succeeded by the Understanding and Enhancement functions. As a corollary and based

on the findings of Clary and Snyder (1999, p. 157) and of Francis and Jones (2012, p. 30), the second hypothesis forecasts that the Career, Social and Protective functions are the three least

important motivators for COVID-19 volunteers helping out in Germany. Moreover, based on

the findings of Clary and Snyder (1999, p. 157) and Francis and Jones (2012, p. 31), the third hypothesis suggests that volunteers younger than 40 perceive the Career function as more

important than older COVID-19 volunteers helping out in Germany. Lastly, and predominantly

based on the findings of Akintola (2011, p. 58), the fourth hypothesis assumes that COVID-19

volunteers, who do not or temporarily cannot exercise a formal profession, perceive the Protective function as more important than other COVID-19 volunteers helping in Germany.

To test the applicability of the four deduced hypotheses, two methods were applied. Firstly, to gain an overview of motivations driving a larger number of COVID-19 volunteers, an online questionnaire was developed and disseminated through social media platforms. However, as the majority of questions raised in the questionnaire required participants to select their responses from a range of pre-formed response possibilities, the quantitative findings only enabled to assess a tendency of motivations. To gain a more detailed understanding of the motivations driving COVID-19 volunteers, five semi-structured interviews were additionally conducted with COVID-19 volunteers helping out between March and May 2020 in Germany.

To provide a coherent structure, this thesis consists of different sections. First, this thesis outlines the analytical framework as the latter guides the further proceedings. The analytical framework comprises a literature review which is based on Denny and Tewksbury’s funnelling

idea (2012, p. 232). The latter implies that the review begins with a broad overview and

eventually narrows down to a specific ending. As the literature on motivations of volunteers helping out in pandemics is sparse and as a universal categorisation of pandemics as either a crisis, disaster or emergency situation is lacking (Pownall, 2020), the literature review was extended to also review prior research thematising voluntary behaviour during crises, disasters

(7)

on the shifting perception of what it means to volunteer. It continues to review prior findings and theories with regards to the behaviour of citizens in times of crisis, disaster and emergency. Subsequently, the review reflects on the academic debate on risks, challenges and benefits associated with volunteerism during crises, disasters and emergencies. Lastly, the literature review elaborates on prior research thematising the motivations of volunteers. Thereby, the Volunteer Functions Inventory is reviewed as well as other literature that either applied Clary et al.’s VFI to examine the motivations of volunteers under different circumstances or that found comparable motives without explicitly referring to the VFI.

Second, the quantitative and qualitative methods as well as their results are outlined. As such, the methodology and results section firstly explains the temporal and geographical focus for the analysis of this thesis. After that, the quantitative method is outlined which comprises an overview of the online questionnaire, information on the dissemination and data analysis as well as on its limitations. To enable a coherent transition, the quantitative results directly follow. These are subdivided into the demographic data, voluntary activities, motivations and experiences indicated by the surveyed COVID-19 volunteers. Next, the qualitative method is outlined, which comprises an overview of the interview survey, the selection of and information on the participants as well as on its data analysis and limitations. The section ends with an outline of the qualitative results that are subdivided into the motivations and experiences of the interviewees.

Third, this thesis discusses both the quantitative and qualitative findings with respect to the four hypotheses seeking to predict motivational characteristics of COVID-19 volunteers. Thereby, the discussion section firstly examines whether the findings coincide with prior literature and therefore confirm the first hypothesis. Secondly, it is tested whether the results are in line with academic research and thereby prove the second hypothesis. Thirdly, the results are discussed in light of prior literature and the deduced third hypothesis. Lastly, this section ends by examining the results with regards to prior findings and the fourth hypothesis.

Fourth, all main points of the prior chapters are once again raised within the conclusion. Thereby, the section begins with a review of the key findings and theories of prior literature discussing voluntary behaviour during crises, disasters and emergencies as well as the motivations underlying volunteerism, from which the four hypotheses were deduced. A summarised overview of the questionnaire survey, its limitations and results follow. Afterwards, a summarised overview of the interview survey, its limitations and results are provided. Subsequently, both the quantitative and qualitative findings are discussed in light of the four deduced hypotheses. Lastly, paths for further research are suggested.

(8)

2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

To understand the further proceedings of this research, this section reviews the state of the art on motivations underlying volunteerism in times of crisis, disaster and emergency. Conducting a literature review is helpful as it enables to identify the known and the unknown about the subject under study (Denny & Tewksbury, 2012, p. 218). Thereby, it firstly aids to outline the main debates, findings and theories referring to motivational causes underlying volunteerism. Conducting a literature review secondly helps to justify the purposes of this research by identifying a gap in academic knowledge with respect to the motivations of people undertaking voluntary work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To enable a detailed literature review, this section applies Denny and Tewksbury’s

funneling idea (2012, p. 232). Based on the imagination of a funnel, the idea implies that a

literature review begins with a broad overview and eventually narrows down to a specific ending (2012, p. 232). Therefore, this section firstly outlines the general academic debate on what it means to volunteer. Secondly, it proceeds by reviewing academic findings and perspectives with regards to the behaviour of citizens during crises, disasters and emergencies. Thirdly, this section outlines the academic debate on risks, challenges and benefits that volunteers entail while offering their help during crises, disasters and emergencies. By concluding that the benefits outweigh both the risks and challenges and by discovering that an understanding of volunteers’ motivations aids to prepare for, attract and maintain volunteers, this section fourthly reviews findings and theories explaining motivations underlying volunteerism. Lastly, four hypotheses were deduced from prior literature as they might predict motivational characteristics of COVID-19 volunteers helping out in Germany.

2.1. The Shifting Perception of What it Means to Volunteer

As Cnaan, Handy and Wadsworth explain, the term volunteer originally described civilians who were mobilised for military operations during emergency occasions (1996, p. 366). These volunteers were neither officially drafted into military service nor financially rewarded (Cnaan, Handy & Wadsworth, p. 366). However, throughout the last century, the perception of what it means to volunteer has significantly changed even though it still lacks a clear and universal definition (Cnaan et al, p. 365; Dingle et al, 2001, p. 8). As a result, an academic debate among scholars arose that comprises diverging perspectives on different requirements that people must

(9)

forming the debate, this subsection reviews several scholarly definitions seeking to define volunteerism.

The diverging scholarly perspectives thereby refer to six overall dimensions: (1) the voluntary nature, (2) the organisational context, (3) material rewards, (4) the beneficiaries, (5) deliberation time and (6) time-commitment (Cnaan et al, 1996, p. 366; Dingle et al, 2001, p. 9; Fernandez, Barbera & van Dorp, 2006, p. 57; Finkelstein, Penner & Brannick, 2005, p. 404; Kerr et al, 2001, p. 11; McLennan, Whittaker & Handmer, 2016, p. 2033; Penner, 2002, p. 448; Penner, 2004, p. 646; Snyder & Omoto, 2008, pp. 2-3; Whittaker, McLennan & Handmer, 2015, p. 360; Wilson, 2000, p. 216, Yanay & Yanay, 2008, p. 66).

With respect to the first dimension comprising the debated voluntary nature of volunteering, the majority of scholarly perspectives only considers people as volunteers as long as they undertake their voluntary activities due to their own free will (Dingle et al, 2001, p. 9; Fernandez et al, 2006, p. 57; Snyder & Omoto, 2008, p. 2; Yanay & Yanay, 2008, p. 66). This implies that people must voluntarily decide to volunteer without being formally obligated to do so (Dingle et al., p. 9). In this way, the requirement differentiates ‘real’ volunteering from activities that are undertaken due to some form of formal obligation (Dingle et al, p. 9). For example, school facilities might oblige their students to volunteer or countries using conscription might offer young people to undertake community service activities instead of attending the compulsory military service (Dingle et al, p. 9). Nevertheless, while reviewing several volunteering definitions, Cnaan et al. found that broader definitions also include ‘obliged volunteering’ into the concept of volunteering (1996, p. 369).

Regarding the second dimension focusing on the disputed organisational context, some academics require that volunteers must undertake their activities through the auspices of formal organisations (Finkelstein et al, 2005, p. 404). This would imply that volunteers must undertake their work through the realm of organisations such as through the Red Cross or the Voluntary Fire Brigade. Yet, Kerr et al. counter that limiting the perception of volunteers to people carrying out their voluntary activities through formal organisations devalues large amounts of time and effort that people invest into helping others without belonging to such organisations (2001, p. 11). Furthermore, according to Kerr et al., there is no reason to exclude voluntary activities undertaken outside of formal organisations from ‘real’ volunteerism as the activities are neither less significant nor do they contribute less to the society and economy of a community (2001, p. 9). As such, the majority of scholars reviewed agrees that even though volunteers usually carry out their activities through formal organisations, some volunteers

(10)

might also undertake their activities while being unaffiliated with formal organisations (Penner, 2002, p. 449; Penner, 2004; pp. 646-647; Snyder and Omoto, 2008, p. 2).

With respect to the third dimension referring to the material rewards that volunteers may receive, some scholars demand that volunteers must not receive any financial rewards for their voluntary activities (Snyder & Omoto, 2008, p. 2). As Cnaan et al. found, some organisations even require their own volunteers to be financially liable for expenses arising out of their voluntary activities (1996, p. 370). This would suggest that people who voluntarily give their time and effort to help others by, for example, preparing and distributing food to the poor and homeless would need to pay for all groceries, food packages and potential transport costs out of their own pockets. As a corollary, Dingle et al. warn that this requirement might deter people from engaging into voluntary work, especially people with limited financial resources (2001, p. 9). To consequently ensure that everyone can carry out voluntary work, Dingle et al. stress that organisations should reimburse all of the expenses arising out of the voluntary activities (2001, p. 9). Nevertheless, others also perceive people as volunteers if they gain a monetary appreciation for the commission of their voluntary work as long as the latter remains below the ‘market rate’ of the activity (Wilson, 2000, p. 216).

Regarding the fourth dimension determining the beneficiaries from volunteering, some scholars demand that the beneficiaries must be strangers (Finkelstein et al, 2005, p. 404; Penner, 2002, p. 448). Taken this to an extreme, Cnaan et al. found definitions requiring volunteers to have different ethnic or religious backgrounds than their beneficiaries (Cnaan et al, 1996, p. 370). Yet, such an exclusive requirement would devalue a high number of people volunteering their time and effort to help others in areas where one ethnicity or religion is particularly dominant. In line with the latter, Dingle et al. extend the concept of volunteering to include helping activities undertaken for all kinds of others, also including friends and neighbours, only excluding direct family members (2001, p. 9). Many broader definitions further accept that volunteers may also benefit from their own voluntary activities (Wilson, 2001, p. 215), as by participating in self-help groups (Cnaan et al, 1996, p. 370; Whittaker et al., 2015, p. 360).

The fifth debated dimension refers to the question whether volunteers must carefully

deliberate over the possibility to volunteer before they engage into volunteerism (Finkelstein

et al, 2005, p. 404; Penner, 2002, p. 448; Penner, 2004; p. 646; Snyder & Omoto, 2008, pp. 2-3). As such, Penner assumes that people weigh both the advantages and disadvantages of volunteering before they decide to volunteer (2004, p. 646). This requirement, inter alia, seeks to differentiate the act of volunteering from bystander interventions occurring in the direct

(11)

time (Penner, p. 646; Snyder & Omoto, 2008, p. 3). Nevertheless, as the terms emergency and

disaster lack unified definitions (Pownall, 2020), it remains unclear to what particular kind of

situation the scholars refer to. Rapid-onset disasters, such as earthquakes and forest fires, offer less time for deliberation than do disease outbreaks even though depending on the perspective, the latter can be defined as a disaster or emergency (Pownall, 2020).

The sixth dimension refers to the time-commitment that people must invest into volunteering to be categorised as volunteers. Thereby, some scholars require that volunteering must be a long-term activity implying that volunteers undertake their activities for several weeks or years (Finkelstein et al, 2005, p. 404; Penner, 2002, p. 448; Penner, 2004, p. 646, Snyder & Omoto, 2008, p. 2; Wilson, 2000, p. 216). Similar to the prior dimension, the long-term requirement diminishes volunteerism from rapid help offered by bystanders in emergencies and disasters (Snyder & Omoto, 2008, p. 3). According to Snyder and Omoto, emergency bystanders only offer their help for minutes or a couple of hours in contrast to ‘real’ volunteers who help for weeks or years (p. 4). However, depending on the extent of the disaster or emergency, people may also volunteer for weeks to months to respond and recover from the respective incident.

Throughout the last years, volunteering definitions have shifted as a result of changing lifestyles in many societies (McLennan et al, 2016, p. 2033). For example, as household compositions shift and as people change their domiciles more frequently as a result of the increasing globalisation, traditional long-term volunteering decreased and episodic acts of volunteering increased (McLennan et al, p. 2033). As many organisations and scholars recognise this shift, they increasingly support an extension of the volunteering concept to also include episodic volunteering (Aguirre & Bolton, 2013, p. 327; Canadian Red Cross et al, 2013, p. 2; Dingle et al, 2001, p. 9; Johansson et al, 2018, p. 527; Stukas et al, 2016, p. 113). However, most scholars nevertheless agree that volunteering remains an activity for which people must

give their time (Dingle et al, 2001, p. 8; Kerr, 2001, p. 11; Snyder & Omoto, 2008, p. 4; Wilson,

2000, p. 216). As a corollary, this requirement differentiates volunteerism from monetary or material donations as the latter requires no or very limited time commitments (Snyder & Omoto, 2008, p. 5).

Lastly, although this criterion does not refer to any of the afore-mentioned six debated dimensions as it is rather self-explanatory, it is crucial to keep in mind that volunteering comprises voluntary activities that intend to produce some form of good (Snyder & Omoto, 2008, pp. 4-5). In this manner, volunteering can be differentiated from acts that people carry out for free but thereby intend to cause some form of harm to others, as for example, terrorists

(12)

(Snyder & Omoto, pp. 4-5). To clarify the difference, scholars frequently describe volunteering as an activity that produces some form of good, such as a public good (Kerr et al., 2001, p. 9; Wilson, 2000, p. 216).

In sum, scholars diverge in their perspectives on how to define the act of volunteering. The strictest definitions require that volunteerism must be an unpaid, planned and long-term activity which is undertaken through formal organisations and may only benefit others whom the helper does not know nor has anything in common (Cnaan et al, 1996, p. 370). In contrast, the broadest definitions extend volunteerism to comprise activities for which people give their time to help others they are not related to and whereby volunteers themselves may also benefit from their voluntary activities (Cnaan et al, p. 370).

Oriented towards the broader definitions, this thesis defines volunteering as an activity for which people invest their time to help nonrelatives and to produce some form of public good. Volunteers may be unaffiliated or affiliated with formal organisations and may themselves also benefit from their own activities. Furthermore, volunteers may receive financial remunerations as long as they remain lower than the typical market value of the work.

2.2. Citizen’s Behaviour during Crises, Disasters and Emergencies

Contrary to wide-spread myths assuming that people panic, become helpless and/or behave anti-socially during crises, disasters and emergencies, research revealed that most citizens continue to act rationally and thereby frequently offer their help through volunteering (Barsky et al, 2007, p. 495; Boersma et al, 2018, p. 729; Dynes, 1994, p. 154, Fernandez, Barbera & van Dorp, 2006, p. 57; Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004; pp. 102-103; Latimir, 2016, p. 29; Montano, 2020, p. 217; Steffen & Fothergill, 2009, pp. 29-30; Twigg & Mosel, 2017, p. 443).

A review on prior findings thematising the behaviour of citizens in times of crisis, disaster and emergency can be helpful for acquiring an idea of different volunteering forms that might have occurred to times of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. To enable a comprehendible structure of this subsection, the latter begins with a review of prior research discussing different types of organised behaviour occurring in crises, disasters and emergencies. Subsequently, a new form of volunteerism, the so-called digital volunteerism, is reviewed as the latter has increasingly gained scholarly attention throughout the last years (Starbird & Palen, 2011, p. 1078, Whittaker et al., 2015, p. 362).

Prior research found that four different types of organised behaviour can occur during crises, disasters and emergencies (Dynes, 1994, p. 151; Schmidt et al., 2018, p. 339; Whittaker

(13)

organisations. As Dynes explains, established organisations undertake regular tasks and have old structures (1994, p. 151). Examples for type 1 – organisations are police forces that cordon

off disaster areas and firefighters, who extinguish wildfires (Schmidt et al., 2018, p. 339; Whittaker et al., 2015, p. 359). With regards to a pandemic, established organisations might be hospitals taking care of infected patients. As the examples account to organisations that do not perform any irregular tasks and whose organisational structures do not change, they fulfil the criteria required for the established organisations category.

The second type of organised behaviour comprises expanding organisations. As Dynes and Whittaker explain, expanding organisations carry out regular tasks but through new structures (Dynes, 1994, p. 151; Whittaker et al, 2015, p. 359). Examples for type 2 – organisations are the Salvation Army and the Red Cross as they expand their structures by mobilising pre-recruited volunteers to actively participate in the response to a crisis, disaster or emergency (Schmidt et al, 2018, p. 339; Whittaker et al, pp. 359-360). As the tasks performed by both the Red Cross and the Salvation Army remain regular, even though their structures change, both examples fit type 2 criteria. With regards to precautionary measures introduced to slow down a disease outbreak, as a temporary closure of non-essential businesses and a ban of public gatherings, an expanding organisation could be a foodbank. As the facility would have to be closed for its beneficiaries, its volunteers would need to find new ways on how to distribute food to people in need while the general task of the foodbank would remain the same.

The third type of organised behaviour consists of extending organisations. Extending organisations carry out non-regular tasks through old structures (Dynes, 1994, p. 151). Contrary to expanding organisations, extending organisations do not have any pre-established disaster or emergency functions. Instead, they expand their tasks in order to assist in the management of crises, disasters and emergencies (Whittaker et al., 2015, p. 363). Examples for

type 3 – organisations are supermarket chains that offer groceries supplies and logistical support

in response to disasters and emergencies as did the Walmart chain in the direct aftermath of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation in the United States (Schmidt et al., 2018, p. 339). Similarly, with respect to a pandemic, clothing companies might focus on sewing masks instead of other, regular clothing items. As both supermarkets and clothing companies perform irregular tasks through old structures, both fit type 3 criteria.

The fourth type of organised behaviour contains emergent organisations. Emergent organisations undertake non-regular tasks through new structures (Dynes, 1994, p. 151; Twigg & Mosel, 2017, p. 445). Emergent organisations are groups of spontaneous volunteers that emerge in response to crises, disasters and emergencies as they, inter alia, believe that formal

(14)

actors might be incapable of managing the situation by themselves (Whittaker et al, 2015, p. 360). Examples for type 4 – organisations are the Student Army and the Farmy Army which emerged to respond to the 2010-2011 earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand and thereby assisted in the clean-up of the city (Whittaker et al, p. 363). As both the Student Army and the Farmy Army had not existed before, both organisations began to carry out non-regular tasks through new structures and hence fulfilled type 4 criteria. With regards to a pandemic, emergent organisations could be community groups that emerge to manage the supply of essential errands for people at risk of becoming severely ill after an infection.

Academic literature points out that all four types of organised behaviour increasingly use online platforms while managing crises, disasters and emergencies (Boersma et al., 2018, p. 731; Linnell, 2014, p. 89; Rafter, 2013, p. Schmidt et al, 2018, p. 346). For example, Rafter reports that the Queensland Police Service used social media platforms and developed a Queensland Floods iPhone app to disseminate information during the 2010-2011 Queensland Floods in Australia (2013, p. 191). These online tools consequently informed the public about the safety level of certain areas and potential evacuation routes (Rafter, p. 191). As a result, Rafter stresses that the digital tools saved lives and calmed people down (p. 191). Similarly, Schmidt et al. explain that the Dutch Red Cross developed the online platform Ready2Help, where citizens can register prior to crisis situations in case they wish to volunteer once a crisis hits (2018, p. 341).

Social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, particularly help to coordinate activities of emergent groups responding to crises, disasters or emergencies. For example, McLean et al. outline that New Zealand’s Student Army almost entirely organised its activities through social media (2012, p. 181). Furthermore, research undertaken by Max (2015) concludes that social media enabled emergent groups responding to the June 2013 floods in Germany to coordinate their activities as well as to mobilise thousands of new volunteers (p. 167). Consequently, social media services facilitate emergent groups to recruit new volunteers and to disseminate information on the general situation as well as where additional help is needed (Boersma et al., 2018, p. 734; Johansson et al, 2018, p. 521).

Throughout the last years, research has stumbled upon a new subcategory of online emergent organised behaviour, the so-called digital volunteerism (Starbird & Palen, 2011, p. 1078, Whittaker et al., 2015, p. 362). Digital volunteerism refers to online voluntary activities that people carry out from outside of the affected area to assist in the management of the crisis, disaster or emergency (Starbird & Palen, 2011, pp. 1071-1072; Whittaker et al., 2015, p. 364).

(15)

destruction. For example, Starbird and Palen outline how volunteers, living on different continents, emerged as one group by translating information from various sources into a twitter syntax in the direct aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake (p. 1072). The so-called Tweak the

Tweet syntax enabled to filter and classify information associated with the earthquake by using

a particular combination of twitter hashtags (Starbird & Palen, p. 1072). Furthermore, US-American university students coordinated a live crisis map of Haiti, mapping tweets of Haitian citizens reporting devastation and need for humanitarian aid (Whittaker et al, p. 364; Meier, 2012; Norheim-Hagtun & Meier, 2010, p. 82). As the crisis mapping connected victims in need of aid with on-site emergency response teams, it saved lives (Norheim-Hagtun & Meier, p. 82). With regards to a pandemic, digital volunteerism could refer to people deciding to voluntarily set up a digital map outlining reported infections and deaths around the globe.

2.3. Risks, Challenges and Benefits Associated with Crisis -, Disaster -, and

Emergency Volunteers

While volunteers may significantly contribute to the management of crises, disasters and emergencies, they may also entail risks and challenges (Barsky et al, 2007, p. 496; Fernandez et al, 2006, p. 61; Johansson et al, 2018, p. 519; Kendra & Wachtendorf, 2002, p. 11; Montano, 2020, p. 223; Schmidt et al, 2018, p. 339; Twigg & Mosel, 2017, p. 451; Van Hoving et al, 2010, p. 202; Whittaker et al, p. 365). To review the risks, challenges and benefits of volunteers can be helpful to understand to what extent volunteers might be a burden as well as significant help during the COVID-19 outbreak.

2.3.1. Risks Associated with Volunteers

With regards to risks connected to volunteerism in times of crisis, disaster and emergency, Fernandez et al. warn that an inefficient integration of volunteers might, inter alia, risk additional fatalities among victims (2006, p. 61). With respect to a pandemic and to volunteers willing to offer their help in hospitals, an inefficient or absent integration of volunteers might risk that even more patients die due to a shortage in regular personnel. Furthermore, Fernandez et al. outline that a failure to efficiently incorporate volunteers might risk that they only perform low-task activities even though they might have higher abilities (p. 61). For example, in the context of a pandemic, retired doctors willing to volunteer in a hospital might be instructed to organise the distribution of masks among other doctors instead of enabling them to actively help patients. Similarly, Fernandez et al. explain that activities of untrained and unorganised

(16)

volunteers might entail the risk of disturbing the formal disaster response process and/or cause additional injuries and casualties (p. 61).

For example, prior research indicated that following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey, thousands of spontaneous volunteers drove to Golcuk city to offer their help but caused a 32 kilometres-long traffic jam instead. As an unintended consequence, spontaneous volunteers prevented that official emergency responders could reach the disaster location in a timely manner (Helsloot & Ruitenberg, p. 106; Whittaker et al, p. 363). Research also found that spontaneous volunteers lost their lives while helping others as they lacked adequate equipment, indicating that they were untrained (Barsky et al, 2007, p. 502; Fernandez et al, 2006, p. 63; Twigg & Mosel, 2017, p. 451). For example, a nurse died after debris had fallen on her head while volunteering in a search and rescue operation following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings (Fernandez et al, p. 64; Sauer, Catlett & Kirsch, 2014, p. 68).

Other studies add that people volunteering in crises, disasters and emergencies risk receiving mental and/or physical diseases (Canadian Red Criss, 2013, p. 8; Sauer et al., 2014, p. 68, Whittaker et al., 2015, p. 365). For example, Sauer et al. reported that spontaneous volunteers undertaking helping activities following the September 11 attacks, inter alia, received post-traumatic stress syndromes and respiratory syndromes (2014, p. 68). With respect to health emergencies, the Canadian Red Cross added that volunteers might face the risk of infection (2013, p. 8). As a corollary, volunteers helping out by physically taking care of the sick or by running errands for others in need during the COVID-19 outbreak have also faced the risk of becoming infected with the novel coronavirus.

2.3.2. Challenges Associated with Volunteers

Aside from risks, prior literature also identified challenges with volunteers during crises, disasters and emergencies (Barsky et al., 2007, p. 496; Canadian Red Cross, 2013, p. 5; Fernandez et al, 2006, p. 61; Kendra & Wachtendorf, 2002, p. 11; Montano, 2020, p. 219; Schmidt et al, 2018, p. 339; Twigg & Mosel, 2017, p. 451). For example, formal response teams might find it difficult to match spontaneous volunteers to the needs of the incident as they might be overwhelmed by the convergence of volunteers or as they lack sufficient time to provide them with instructions (Canadian Red Cross et al., 2013, p. 5; Fernandez et al, p. 61; Schmidt et al, 2018, p. 339). As a corollary, formal response teams might turn spontaneous volunteers away (Barsky et al, 2007, pp. 501-502). For instance, following the September 11 attacks, thousands of unaffiliated volunteers converged at the World Trade Center to offer their help,

(17)

yet were turned away by formal response teams (Barsky et al, pp. 501-502; McLennan et al., 2016, p. 2038; Steffen & Fothergill, 2009, p. 29).

Moreover, formal response teams might be discouraged to incorporate spontaneous volunteers in order to avoid being liable for any damages, injuries or deaths among and/or caused by spontaneous volunteers (Barsky et al, 2007, p. 504; Schmidt et al, 2018, p. 339; Twigg & Mosel, 2017, p. 452). For example, a survey undertaken by Sauer et al. revealed that out of 19 US-American nongovernmental voluntary organisations active in the field of disaster response, 79% incorporated spontaneous volunteers, 42% reported injuries among their spontaneous volunteers, 16% were sued as a result of actions undertaken by a spontaneous volunteer and 11% reported deaths of spontaneous volunteers (2014, p. 66; Whittaker et al, 2015, p. 365). With regards to a pandemic, this could suggest that, for example, hospitals might be discouraged to incorporate volunteers lacking sufficient knowledge and/or practical experiences as they would be liable for errors made by volunteers which could potentially endanger the lives of themselves or the infected.

2.3.3. Benefits Associated with Volunteers

While keeping both the risks and challenges in mind, crisis, disaster, and emergency managements can greatly benefit from all types of volunteers (Canadian Red Cross, 2013, p. 4; Fernandez et al, 2006, p. 60; Johansson et al, 2018, p. 29; Montano, 2020, p. 9). In the direct aftermath of rapid-onset disasters causing wide-spread destruction, literature found that particularly unaffiliated volunteers can save many lives through taking care of victims. For example, following the 1985 earthquake in Mexico City, untrained volunteers rescued 800 humans (Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004, p. 105; Whittaker et al., 2015, p. 363). Similarly, volunteers might prevent further loss of life among citizens during health emergencies by taking care of the sick or by safely burying the infected deceased (Kpnake et al., 2019, p. 2).

Furthermore, untrained and spontaneous volunteers might also assist formal emergency responders by undertaking low-skill activities as that would enable formal responders to concentrate on more specialised tasks (Fernandez et al., 2006, p. 61). Additionally, episodic or unaffiliated volunteers might have relevant skills for managing the particular crisis, disaster or emergency, which do not exist in abundance among formal responders (Canadian Red Cross, 2013, p. 4; Fernandez et al., p. 61). Moreover, citizens might entail economic savings through undertaking their voluntary activities (Fernandez et al, p. 61). For example, following the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquake sequence, members of the Student – and Farmy Armies

(18)

2.4. Motivations of Volunteers

To efficiently incorporate volunteers into the management of crises, disasters and emergencies, organisations and communities need to understand the motivations of volunteers. An understanding of motivations underlying volunteerism might thereby help to attract new episodic and/or regular volunteers. Furthermore, to recognise the motivations of volunteers also facilitates to satisfy their disclosed motivations which could help organisations to retain their volunteers for longer time periods. As such, several scholars have become interested in analysing the motivations of both regular and crisis volunteers (Akintola, 2010; Clary et al., 1998; Clary & Snyder, 1999; Fathi et al. 2015; Francis & Jones, 2012; Gidron, 1978; Horstmann et al., 2017; Planalp & Trost, 2009; Stukas et al., 2016; Wolensky, 1979).

Contrary to traditional assumptions associating volunteerism chiefly with altruistic motives, recent research found that volunteers are usually motivated by a combination of altruistic and egoistic motives (Aguirre & Bolton, 2013, p. 335; Gidron, 1978, pp. 18-19; McLennan et al, pp. 2033-2034; Steffen & Fothergill, 2009, p. 30; Wolsenky, 1979, p. 33). By recognising that people may pursue other motivational reasons than only altruistic ones, Clary et al. (1998) identified six motivational functions underlying volunteerism (p. 1516; Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 156). These functions refer to: (1) Values (people volunteer due to altruistic and humanitarian motives), (2) Understanding (people volunteer to expand their knowledges and exercise skills that would be otherwise unused), (3) Social (people volunteer to strengthen social relations with others they are close to), (4) Career (people volunteer to obtain career-related benefits), (5) Protective (people volunteer to decrease negative feelings about themselves), (6) Enhancement (people volunteer to stimulate their own personal growths and developments) (Clary et al., 1998, p. 1518; Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 157).

To operationalise and assess the importance of the six functions underlying volunteerism, Clary et al. (1998) developed the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) (p. 1516). The instrument consists of a total of 30 items, of which five cover each of the six functions (Clary et al., p. 1519). For example, the Values function is divided into five items that all refer to humanitarian and altruistic motives (Clary et al, p. 1520). As proposed and operationalised by Clary et al., volunteers can indicate the importance of each item by filling out a response scale from 1 to 7 (the lower the score – the lower the importance of the respective motive) (1998, p. 1519).

(19)

they eventually engage into volunteerism (Clary et al., p. 1517). As a corollary, the authors did not create the instrument to understand the motivations of people who rapidly offer their help during sudden accidents (Clary et al., p. 1516). Second, the VFI assumes that people undertake the same activity but due to different motivational reasons (Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 156). For example, in case three people volunteer in the voluntary fire brigade, Person A might do so because (s)he is concerned about potential victims, while Person B might do because (s)he seeks to exercise skills otherwise unused and Person C might do so because (s)he seeks to become a paid firefighter in the normal fire brigade. Third, the VFI assumes that one person may undertake a volunteering activity to pursue more than only one function (Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 157). For example, a person volunteering as a community health worker might do so as (s)he wishes to help those in need as well as to gain career-related benefits if (s)he seeks to become a physician. Furthermore, a foreigner volunteering in an area requiring humanitarian aid might do so as s(he) wishes to help people who are less fortunate than him/her as well as to expand his/her knowledge about different cultures and societies. Fourth, the VFI assumes that a satisfaction of initial motivational drivers among volunteers may lead to prolonged voluntary commitment (Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 158). For example, if a person chiefly volunteers to pursue career-related motives but the voluntary activity does not satisfy such motives, (s)he might drop out of the voluntary program.

Throughout the last years, various researchers either applied the original or a modified version of the VFI to analyse the motivations of people volunteering in regular times as well as in times of crisis and disaster (Fathi et al., 2015; Francis & Jones, 2012, p. 29; Horstmann, 2018, p. 196; Planalp & Trost, 2009, p. 190; Stukas et al., 2016, p. 116). These studies as well as other literature, referring to comparable motivational causes without explicitly applying the VFI, revealed certain motivational characteristics of different groups of volunteers. As most studies drew comparable conclusions on the connection between different groups of people and motivational characteristics, their findings suggest examining four hypotheses which might predict the motivations of different COVID-19 volunteers helping out in Germany.

For example, while no studies could be found that already examined the motivations of COVID-19 volunteers helping out in Germany, prior research analysing the motivations of affiliated and unaffiliated volunteers suggests that Values is typically either the highest motivational function or among the highest functions underlying volunteerism (Akintola, 2011, p. 56; Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 157; Fathi et al., 2015; Francis & Jones, 2012, p. 30; Horstmann et al., 2018, p. 196; Kpanake et al., 2019, p. 3). For instance, with the help of an online survey, Francis and Jones (2012) identified that in average, Values made up the highest function

(20)

motivating younger and older volunteers to volunteer through the Australian volunteer-based organisation New South Wales (NSW) State Emergency Service (p. 30). Similarly, Akintola (2011) found that, almost all of the interviewed volunteers offering their help to victims suffering from AIDS in South Africa mentioned that humanitarian and altruistic concerns motivated them to volunteer (p. 56). Moreover, the distribution of an online questionnaire examining motivational factors among spontaneous volunteers further revealed that Values made up the highest motivational function among the surveyed (Fathi et al., 2015).

Literature further suggests that Understanding and Enhancement are usually also among the highest motivational functions of people volunteering their time and effort (Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 157; Francis & Jones, 2012, p. 29). For example, by analysing the motivations of people volunteering in (mental-) health institutions, Gidron (1978) concluded that volunteers were highly motivated by gaining new skills and experiences on how to deal with others (p. 30). Similarly, Francis and Jones (2012) found that in average, Understanding made up the second highest and Enhancement the third highest function motivating NSW State Emergency Service volunteers (p. 29). Consequently, these findings suggest examining the following hypothesis:

H1: The Values function is the highest motivator for COVID-19 volunteers helping out in Germany and is succeeded by the Understanding and Enhancement functions.

Furthermore, most studies coincide that Career, Social and Protective are generally among the lowest motivations underlying volunteerism (Francis & Jones, 2012, p. 30; Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 157; Stukas et al., 2016, p. 119). For example, with respect to the Career function, Planalp and Trost (2009) uncovered that hospice volunteers were least motivated by career-related benefits (p. 191). Nevertheless, literature also revealed that younger volunteers are often more motivated by career-related benefits than older volunteers (Clary & Snyder, 1999, p. 157; Francis & Jones, 2012, p. 31; Gidron, 1978, p. 22; Horstmann et al., 2018, p. 194; Planalp & Trost, 2009, p. 191). For example, in the same study by Planalp and Trost, the authors found that younger hospice volunteers were proportionally higher motivated by the Career function than older volunteers (p. 191). Furthermore, Francis and Jones (2012) discovered that younger NSW State Emergency Service volunteers also regarded the Career function as more important than older volunteers (pp. 30-31). Similarly, Gidron’s study (1979) revealed that younger volunteers offering their time and effort in (mental-) health institutions perceived their voluntary engagement as a chance to explore different career options and to build relationships

(21)

H2: The Career, Social and Protective functions are the three least important motivators for COVID-19 volunteers helping out in Germany.

H3: COVID-19 volunteers younger than 40 perceive the Career function as more important than older COVID-19 volunteers helping out in Germany.

Lastly, prior research suggests that many unemployed, idle and retired people volunteer (Akintola, 2011, p. 54; Field & Johnson, 1993, p. 1627; Kironde & Klaasen, 2002, p. 107; Latimir, 2016, p. 29). For example, in an analysis on people’s motivations to volunteer in tuberculosis control programmes in South Africa, Kironde and Klaasen (2002) found that 75% of the interviewed were not formally employed (p. 106). Similarly, Latimir (2016) found that many Greek volunteers helping out at the Hellenic Red Cross during the Refugee Crisis were either unemployed or retired (p. 29).

With regards to the motives of unemployed and retired volunteers, prior research found that they are often motivated by the Protective function (Akintola, 2011, p. 58). For example, Akintola (2011) discovered that many unemployed people volunteered to help victims suffering from AIDS in order to satisfy protective motivations, as to keep themselves busy to avoid negative impacts on their physical and mental well-beings (p. 60). This finding might also predict motivational characteristics of COVID-19 volunteers as many temporarily could not undertake their formal work because they, for example, were working in restaurants which were temporarily closed due to the precautionary measures intended to slow down the outbreak. Perhaps, they volunteered as they were motivated to keep themselves busy to protect themselves from, for example, physical health problems. To find out whether the latter is a predictable explanation, the following hypothesis is lastly examined:

H4: COVID-19 volunteers, who do not or temporarily cannot exercise a formal profession, perceive the Protective function as more motivating than other COVID-19 volunteers helping out in Germany.

(22)

3. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

To analyse the motivations driving people to volunteer during the COVID-19 outbreak, both a quantitative and a qualitative survey were conducted. To gain general insights into the perceived motivations of a larger number of COVID-19 volunteers, an anonymous online questionnaire was developed and disseminated through social media platforms. Yet, as the quantitative questionnaire required participants to select from preformed response options in order to respond to a question, the quantitative survey was insufficient to gain in-depth insights into motivations. To consequently enable digging deeper into the single motives driving COVID-19 volunteers, five qualitative semi-structured interviews were additionally conducted.

Both the quantitative and qualitative survey were based on a summarised and slightly modified version of Clary et al.’s Volunteer Functions Inventory. While incorporating the latter into the quantitative survey enabled to assess the general importance of motives belonging to the Values, Understanding, Career, Social, Enhancement and Protective functions, incorporating the motives into open interview questions enabled gaining a more detailed understanding about respondents’ perceptions of the motivational functions as well as of additional motives that had not been considered by the VFI.

To receive a better understanding of the further proceedings of the methodology and results section, this section pursues a step-by-step order. Thereby, it begins by explaining the temporal and geographical focus of the surveys as well as potential limitations linked to the selected focus. The section continues with an overview of the structure of the quantitative questionnaire survey, its dissemination and data analysis as well as potential limitations. To achieve a comprehensive transition between the quantitative method and the findings of the quantitative survey, the quantitative results subsequently directly follow. This section continues with an overview of the structure of the qualitative interview survey, of the latter’s participants, its data analysis and potential limitations. Lastly, the methodology- and results section presents the results of the qualitative interview survey.

3.1. The Temporal and Geographical Focus

To narrow down the focus of this study, the latter is restricted to a timeframe, which ranges from March until May 2020, as well as to a geographical focus, which is Germany. The timeframe was chosen as the spread of the coronavirus evolved into an uncontrollable outbreak

(23)

in several European countries from March 2020 onwards. The uncontrollable outbreak contributed to people deciding to volunteer because institutions, organisations as well as individuals required additional help to manage their daily procedures during the pandemic. As the spread of the virus significantly decreased in Germany by the end of May 2020 (Haas & Meyer, 2020), it was assumed that the quest for voluntary activities also decreased, leading to some volunteers terminating their voluntary engagement. For example, I1 and I3 ended their voluntary engagements as soon as they recognised that the demand for their help was decreasing when the COVID-19 situation calmed down. Furthermore, as the time of writing does not permit determining whether a new coronavirus wave will hit Germany in the following months and whether it would demand new kinds of volunteering, this thesis only focuses on the motivations underlying volunteerism that had taken place between March and May 2020.

Furthermore, this thesis focuses on Germany as the latter was one of the first European countries that were hit by an uncontrollable COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020 (WHO, 2020a). With respect to the total number of confirmed cases, Italy, Spain, Germany and France were the most affected European countries (WHO, 2020c). To gain a better overview of the geographical distribution of all 181.482 COVID-19 infections that had been reported in Germany until May 31, Figure 1 illustrates the total number of infections with respect to each federal state.

Figure 1. Total number of COVID-19 Cases in each German Federal State until 31 May 2020

(own diagram based on data provided by RKI, 2020). (note that BY: Bavaria, NRW: North Rhine Westphalia, BW: Baden-Wuerttemberg, NI: Lower Saxony, HE: Hesse, RP: Rhineland-Palatinate, BE: Berlin, SN: Saxony, HH: Hamburg, BB: Brandenburg, SH: Schleswig-Holstein, TH: Thuringia, SL: Saarland, ST: Saxony-Anhalt, HB: Bremen, MV: Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania). 0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000 BY NRW BW NI HE BE RP SN HH BB SH TH SL ST HB MV T ot al N um be r of C O V ID -19 C as es (n = 181 .482)

(24)

Besides, while Germany was one of first European countries that were affected by the virus, it did not opt for a full lockdown in contrast to, for example, Spain and Italy (Deutsche Welle, 2020a). Even though public gatherings were still banned and schools, universities and non-essential businesses had to temporarily close, the avoidance of a strict lockdown facilitated unaffiliated and affiliated volunteers to carry out voluntary activities (Deutsche Welle, 2020a). For example, unaffiliated volunteers who sought to volunteer by running essential errands for others, could do so without needing to report an essential reason.

Nevertheless, Germany’s federal system also enabled deviations among the precautionary measures introduced in different federal states (BMI, 2015, p. 7; Deutsche Welle, 2020a; Deutsche Welle, 2020b). For example, Bavaria and Saarland introduced movement restrictions that restricted their residents to leave their homes only to work, exercise outdoors or grocery shopping (Bayerische Staatsregierung, 2020; Staatskanzlei Saarland, 2020). Yet, as Saarland’s federal government stressed, people were still allowed to leave their homes in case they wanted to help others (Staatskanzlei Saarland, 2020).

3.1.1. Limitations

While focusing on one geographic location as well as on a timeframe enables to produce a more detailed analysis, it also entails limitations. For example, in case a new COVID-19 wave hit Germany throughout the following weeks and months, it would be interesting to examine to what extent motivations might have changed among volunteers. Such an analysis might also be important for estimating a development of motivations among volunteers helping out during pandemics. Similarly, it would be interesting to analyse whether the motivations of COVID-19 volunteers deviate between different cultures or continents.

3.2. Surveying through an Online Questionnaire

3.2.1. Overview

To quantitatively assess the motives underlying volunteerism during the COVID-19 pandemic, an anonymous online questionnaire was developed through the online survey provider

SurveyMonkey. The conduction of the online questionnaire sought to enable a better

understanding of motives driving numerous COVID-19 volunteers. As indicated on the introductory page of the questionnaire, the online survey required that all participants were of

(25)

consisted of 19 questions which comprised four general parts: (1) Demographic information,

(2) information regarding the voluntary activities, (3) motivations and (4) experiences of the

surveyed (the full questionnaire can be found in Annex 1). Most questions of the online questionnaire required participants to select their answers from pre-determined response possibilities, implying a so-called forced choice (Sargisson et al., 2012, p. 209).

The first part of the questionnaire inquiring demographic data sought to disclose general details about the genders, ages, residential states, levels of education and working statuses of the participants. For example, knowing the age groups was necessary for testing the third hypothesis, while finding out the occupational status of the participants was crucial for examining the fourth hypothesis.

The second part inquiring information regarding the voluntary activities sought to reveal the ways in which participants offered their help during the pandemic. Thereby, the respondents could, for example, identify whether they volunteered in hospitals, in nursing and/or retirements homes, at crisis hotlines, by means of voluntary running errands, posting letters and/ or by sewing masks for others. Moreover, other questions sought to reveal whether any prior knowledges were needed for carrying out the voluntary activities of the participants, whether respondents were undertaking their voluntary activities through formal organisations, the approximate time amount that participants committed to their voluntary activities and whether respondents had already volunteered prior to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The third part of the questionnaire sought to reveal the motives of volunteers. Based on Clary et al.’s 30- item Volunteer Functions Inventory, 12 slightly modified items were developed. The inventory was modified and shortened for the purposes of this study to avoid a deterrent effect and a higher termination rate of the anonymous and self-responding participants. Within the modified and shortened version, each of the six functions was covered by two motive items. All respondents could assess their level of agreement with the 12 motives by means of a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. In case any other motivations drove the surveyed volunteers, a text field enabled to elaborate on additional motivations. To gain a better overview of the 12 motives, Table 1 lists all queried motive items.

(26)

Table 1. The Twelve Queried Motive Items (note that all items were deduced from Clary et

al.’s Volunteer Functions Inventory. V1 and V2 are the two Values items, U1 and U2 are the two Understanding items, C1 and C2 are the two Career items, S1 and S2 are the two Social items, E1 and E2 are the two Enhancement items, and P1 and P2 are the two Protective items).

Motive Items

V1 I am concerned about the group of people I am volunteering for V2 I think it is important to help others in need

U1 I can gain more knowledge and/or practical experience in the area in which I _volunteer U2 I learn how to deal with other people

C1 My voluntary activity might be a door opener for a professional activity in the future C2 I can establish contacts with people who might be helpful for my professional career S1 People from my direct circle of acquaintances also volunteer

S2 People I am close to want me to volunteer

E1 Volunteering gives me the feeling that I am needed E2 Through volunteer work I can make new friends

P1 Through my voluntary work I am more in contact with other people and feel less alone P2 My voluntary activity helps me to deal with my own problems

Lastly, the fourth part of the questionnaire contains questions about the respondents’ experiences regarding their voluntary activities. Thereby, the questionnaire sought to disclose whether the volunteers were satisfied with their voluntary work, whether the latter was appreciated, whether they could incorporate their own ideas, whether they perceived their time commitment as reasonable and whether the activities had any negative impacts on their mental health. The questionnaire concluded by asking whether the respondents would continue to volunteer once the pandemic was overcome, whether they would voluntarily offer their help in another crisis or whether they could not imagine volunteering again.

3.2.2. Dissemination and Participants

(27)

Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter. The survey disseminated on the social media platforms for three weeks in May 2020. On Facebook, the questionnaire was posted into several German COVID-19 volunteering groups. These groups were ranging from medical students seeking to offer their help during the outbreak to people willing to run errands for others in need. Despite a few exceptions, the groups focused on voluntary activities within one city and/or one German federal state. To consequently increase the proportionality and representativeness of the survey, the questionnaire was posted into several Facebook groups covering larger cities as well as various federal states. Nevertheless, these groups had different member sizes, ranging from roughly 20.000 members in the Facebook group containing medical students (post-interview consultation with I5) to a few thousand in other city groups. Additionally, to reach even more volunteers, the survey was further disseminated and forwarded on WhatsApp to people belonging to the own extended personal network as well as on Twitter by using the Twitter hashtags: #Gemeinsamgegencorona (‘TogetheragainstCorona’), #CoronaVirusDE, #Coronahilfe (‘Coronahelp’) and COVID-19de.

3.2.3. Data Analysis

The results of the online questionnaire were converted into Microsoft Excel. Within the latter, the data was sorted according to each subject under study. Numbers were assigned to the five degrees of agreement, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. For example, to find out whether the degree of agreement deviated among the different age groups with respect to the career motives, the data was firstly sorted according to the different age groups and secondly by the career item under study. The number of respondents (n) and their agreement degrees for each age group were consequently read off and their percentages were calculated and rounded by means of two decimal places.

The allocation of numbers to the degrees of agreement enabled to calculate the means and standard deviations of all motives. While calculating the means enabled to demonstrate the average of all responses, the standard deviations enabled to display the dispersions of all responses. The latter enabled to recognize whether the importance of a motive was perceived differently or whether its importance was roughly perceived as the same among all respondents. Furthermore, the median was calculated for each of the 12 motives, as the latter further enabled to gain insight into the typical value indicated by the participants. Figure 2, 3 and 4 as well as

Table 2 seek to enable a clearer overview of responses with respect to their demographic data,

Insights into Motivations of COVID-19 Volunteers