Inequality in Volunteering: Building a New Research Front

Abstract

Volunteering research focuses predominantly on predicting participation in volunteering, proceeding from the quasi-hegemonic foundation of resource theory and dominant-status theory. Empirical research in this tradition has provided extremely robust evidence that dominant groups in society are more likely to volunteer. At the same time, it has reinforced the status quo in the production of knowledge on volunteering, thereby neglecting the clear problematic of “inequality in volunteering.” Compared to the guiding question of “participation,” the concept of “inequality” can generate a more variegated, critical, and change-oriented research agenda. With this special issue, we aim to build a “new research front” in the field of volunteering. In this introduction, we advance a novel research agenda structured around a multidimensional understanding of inequality, concomitantly delineating four central research programs focusing on (a) resources, (b) interactions, (c) governmentalities, and (d) epistemologies. We discuss the focus of these lines of research in greater detail with respect to inequality in volunteering, their main critique of dominant research on participation in volunteering, and key elements of the new research agenda.

Rethinking Volunteering as a Natural Resource: A Conceptual Typology

“…First, it portrays the volunteer resource as monolithic or static, assuming it always remains the same. This corresponds to a problematic line of reasoning in the volunteer literature, which views volunteering as a single form of activity (Overgaard, 2019), despite the different types, modes, and forms of volunteering highlighted by scholars (e.g., Hustinx, 2010; Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003; Macduff et al, 2009). Because individuals engage in different acts of volunteering for different reasons and purposes (Clary et al, 1996; Snyder & Omoto, 2009), specific strategies are needed to propagate, harvest (recruit), sustain, and manage each volunteer resource.…”

“…Handy et al, 2006) within the same organization or event (online or offline). It is often portrayed in direct contrast to all contemporary, reflexive styles of volunteering (Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003; Thibault, 2020).…”

“…In recent decades, volunteering has undergone profound changes (Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003; Thibault, 2020), all pointing to the “scarcity” of this resource. Examples include a decline in volunteering, both in numbers and hours (e.g., Brudney & Gazley, 2006); changes in the nature of and motivations for volunteering (Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003; Thibault, 2020); increasing competition on the volunteer labor market (Bussell & Forbes, 2002, 2003); and a growing demand for volunteers (e.g., Bussell & Forbes, 2002; Randle et al, 2013). These developments suggest that society is unable to maintain, let alone increase, the level of volunteering.…”

“…The volunteering-as-a-natural-resource concept could nevertheless benefit from further conceptual clarity. The original conceptualization treats volunteering as a monolithic or unitary resource, thus failing to reflect the variety of forms, types, and models of volunteering that have been identified (Ackermann, 2019; Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003; Hustinx & Meijs, 2011; Macduff et al, 2009; Overgaard, 2019). Moreover, the metaphor ignores the dynamics within and between volunteering.…”

Understanding volunteering intensity in older volunteers

“…Wollebaek et al, 2015;Folkestad and Langhelle, 2016;Hansen and Slagsvold, 2020a), not many studies focused on countries with strong welfare state provisions and culture of voluntary work, such as in Norway. Lastly, the two theoretical approaches that have been dominant do not consider potential structural barriers to volunteering leading to substantial inequalities, while there is solid evidence that voluntary work is hierarchically stratified, with more opportunities for the dominant groups in the society (Hustinx et al, 2022;Meyer and Rameder, 2022). At the same time, the demand to recruit the most potential volunteers may exclude disadvantaged groups from volunteering.…”