Posted on October 19th, 2010 by Sarah Miller in Archived related news
Tagged as: civic engagement, democracy, volunteering, young people
1 Comment
ShareThisWhen does volunteering promote democratic engagement and when does it leave political norms unchallenged and reproduce the status quo? Can volunteering opportunities be structured to facilitate democratic engagement, and if so how? Should the National Citizenship Service for 16-year olds be compulsory or voluntary? Has research on volunteering adequately engaged with ‘non-mainstream’ or oppositional activist groups like Climate Camp? These are some of the questions explored yesterday in a lively seminar called Volunteering and Democratic Engagement, jointly organised by the Institute for Volunteering Research and Birkbeck, University of London. The seminar marked the official launch of a research partnership between the two organisers. It featured presentations by Professor Rachel Brooks (Brunel University), Paul Oginsky (government advisor on the National Citizenship Service) and Sophie Livingstone (Chief Executive of City Year).
The seminar presentations and the supporting publication can be downloaded here.
The next seminar, on international volunteering for young people, will be held in early December. Keep an eye on IVR’s events page for more information when it’s announced.
Subscribe to our project updates
I attended the seminar at Birkbeck College and found it informative and enlightening about the sector’s thoughts on youth participation. Yet on reflection I thought it was quite unclear as to what democratic engagement meant. Did it mean a more civic and altruistically-motivated attitude towards participation? Or did it mean being more inclusive, and engaging those hard-to reach youths?
The debates about incentivised and instrumental volunteering for students to enhance their CV were just one part that led to my feeling of confusion. It also hit quite close to home as I have just recently graduated.
I felt the current climate of recession was slightly ignored which was surprising because everybody else is talking about it. It is leading to higher tuition fees and a more competitive employment market. Students, and more importantly those who decide not to pursue higher education, rely on volunteering opportunities to differentiate themselves, and to provide them valuable experience and training. Experience and training that employers are now more unwilling or unable to invest in.
This is not to say that the volunteering experience is neither fulfilling nor important in itself, or that CV enhancement is the only motivation to participate.
If projects are expecting long-term commitments (such as the City Year project presented at the seminar), then how will they attract those hard-to-reach volunteers they are aiming for? Youths from deprived backgrounds cannot sustain themselves and contribute to their households on just paid travel and lunch expenses for long periods. So for some these opportunities just won’t be possible.
I think we need a clearer definition of what ‘democratic’ means. Incentives were spoken about as leading to a less altruistic form of participation. But shouldn’t ‘incentives’ be seen as a way to engage with those who can’t afford to invest the time and money into volunteering on their own. The motivation for volunteering should define the value of the volunteering experience for the volunteer or the voluntary organisation, which is what some people at the seminar seemed to be implying. In my opinion, both incentivisation and acceptance of people’s diverse motivations would be more inclusive and therefore more democratic.