A mixed-methods study on the values and motivations of voluntourists
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this theoretically grounded mixed-methods study, we explored the motivational values of voluntourists and examined the perceived impacts of voluntourism programmes. Surveys suggested that voluntourists (n = 82) had high self-transcendence (universalism and benevolence) and self-direction (freedom in thought and action) values. Eleven retrospective interviews with young adult voluntourists also suggested that participants were primarily driven to both benefit the host community and promote personal learning. Although participants gained personal learning and growth, they felt frustrated by voluntourism's limited benefits to host communities. Additionally, social justice education that participants received after the experience led participants to become more critical of voluntourism. Together, this research describes a subset of unskilled, well-intentioned, and self-transcendent voluntourists and provides recommendations on how voluntourism providers may better meet their needs and create more sustainable voluntourism programmes. Furthermore, we demonstrate how values research and retrospective interviews can deepen our understanding of both the experiences and perceived personal impacts 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it