Voluntourism, sensemaking and the leisure-volunteer duality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key feature of voluntourism is that participants expect both to be entertained and to help others to different extents. The duality between the leisure and volunteering aspects of the trip creates ambiguities in expectations. This article focusses on group sensemaking about this leisure-volunteer duality and the role of trip leaders in its management. It uses a case study approach to investigate the behaviours of participants on a voluntourist trip to South America. Among other things, it compares participants’ ex ante expectations with ex post evaluations of the trip and tracks the events that shaped views on the quality of the experience. More concretely, the key events that triggered conflicts between the leisure and volunteer dimensions of the trip are identified and analysed using the factors that influenced the sensemaking outcome. Implications centre on the importance and use of sensemaking tools for voluntourist organisations and trip leaders in the management of the leisure-volunteer tensions that are part and parcel of voluntourism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".