An excess of goodness? Volunteering among aid professionals in Cambodia

Abstract

This paper explores the meaning of volunteering among professional aid workers. While they experience disenchantment in their daytime work, volunteering provides them with benefits lacking in their paid jobs. At the same time, a compensatory model does not capture the complex dimensions of this relationship. One motive behind their professional work -bringing about positive change for others -is also the driving force behind their voluntary practices. Such excess of doing good may be indicative of their overall commitment. If aid workers make sense of their actions within a framework of alienated labour, rendering their waged aid work as a commodity, volunteering emerges as a remedial response. At the same time, their paid and unpaid work is animated by the impulse of giving. Such co-existence implies that gifts and commodities are not mutually exclusive; or indeed that both can be understood, following Parry (1986), as emerging from a highly developed capitalist system.

Transnationalizing the ‘Moral neoliberal’? Private aid initiatives in Cambodia

“…In this sense, some private aid activities blur the boundary between or formally established aid and private charity work, as the latter cannot, by sleight of hand, be described as 'unprofessional'. This is further supported by the fact that some private aid activities are carried out by former 'professional' aid workers, and indeed sometimes by current aid workers in their free time (see Fechter 2018). This resonates with Cambodian NGOs, which are turning towards a more 'professional' social enterprise model (Sothy and Dahles 2015).…”

Occupation-Related Volunteering: A Qualitative Systematic Literature Review, Conceptualization, and Directions for Future Research

“…Professionals reported self-benefit from occupation-related volunteering across all work-life stages, including awareness and empathy (Prinsloo, 2017; Sin et al, 2019; Stickler et al, 2013), understanding oneself and others (Coatsworth et al, 2017; Kindermann et al, 2019; O’Brien & Hardman, 2014; Rovers et al, 2016; Sin et al, 2019; Yarwood, 2005), and respect, self-esteem and satisfaction (Cantatore, 2020; McGinigle et al, 2008; McNeil et al, 2015; Yarwood, 2005). In addition, professionals undertaking independent or self-initiated action enjoyed taking responsibility (Cantatore, 2020; Tewksbury & Pedro, 2000) and helping (Caldron et al, 2018; Cantatore, 2020; Fechter, 2017; Fothergill et al, 2005; Rovers et al, 2016; Tewksbury & Pedro, 2000). Other more extrinsic benefits include building technical and ethical skills and confidence in practising (Adel et al, 2021; Bartlett & Taylor, 2016; Beck et al, 2015; Bitzer & Geishecker, 2010; Brown-Liburd & Porco, 2011; Christensen & Woodland, 2018; Coatsworth et al, 2017; Rovers et al, 2016; Wassef et al, 2018), including areas not practised in the work setting, such as legal trial experience (Rhode, 2003), and side-benefits, such as free journal subscriptions for peer reviewers (Beshyah et al, 2021).…”

“…Accordingly, the opportunity exists to study other worklife stages, for example, occupation-related volunteering as a post-retirement ''encore'' career (e.g., Simpson et al, 2012). Other directions include uncertainty not only when transitioning (e.g., Wilson-Forsberg & Sethi, 2015) but during uncertain or precarious times of work (e.g., Pavlova & Silbereisen, 2014) and new work forms and volunteering; for example, having multiple work careers (e.g., Fechter, 2017), online volunteering (e.g., Bitzer & Geishecker, 2010), technology's impact on volunteering (e.g., Khalemsky et al, 2020) and blended volunteeringwork formats (e.g., Zhou et al, 2019).…”

‘Every Person Counts’

“…Work in the formal aid sector typically rests on particular temporal and spatial frameworks that defi ne their scope for action, such as the scale of the 'project' and its associated timeframe (see also Watanabe 2015). It is not unusual, however, for employees at large agencies to be active as everyday humanitarians at the same time (Fechter 2017), so that people, in their diff erent capacities, may be operating on diff erent scales simultaneously. While formal aid staff may struggle with the challenges of the large scale (Fechter 2016), the everyday practitioners avoid this by choosing to focus on the scale of one.…”