MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173229723 · doi:10.29173/cjnser.2021v12n1a370

Role Commitment and Role Maintenance Strategies: A Symbolic interactionist Approach to Volunteering

2021· article· en· W3173229723 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Behnam Behnia

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSymbolic interactionismSocial psychologySociologyAttritionPsychologyPerspective (graphical)HumanitiesInterpretation (philosophy)EthnologyPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are numerous reports on the rates of attrition among volunteers as a persistent challenge for organizations. In explaining volunteer attrition, researchers have predominantly: 1) provided an individualistic account of volunteering; 2) overlooked the interactional dimension of volunteer work and the crucial role of interpretation in its development; and 3) assumed commitment as a function of satisfaction with volunteering experience. Drawing on the theoretical insights of a symbolic interactionist approach, this article contends that volunteers’ role commitment hinges on their satisfaction with their interpretation of their interaction with clients, rather than the interaction itself. This perspective calls attention to the volunteer-client dyadic interaction, gives a prominent place to the social role and its definition, and draws attention to strategies used by volunteers to sustain challenging relationship with clients. RÉSUMÉIl existe de nombreux rapports sur les pourcentages de bénévoles perdus et le défi que ces pertes posent pour les organismes. Pour expliquer ces bénévoles perdus, les chercheurs ont surtout : 1) fourni des comptes rendus individualistes du bénévolat; 2) ignoré la dimension interactionnelle du bénévolat et le rôle crucial de l’interprétation dans le développement des interactions; et 3) pris pour acquis l’engagement comme indice de satisfaction des bénévoles. Se fondant sur la perspective théorique offerte par l’interactionnisme symbolique, cet article maintient que l’engagement des bénévoles dépend de la manière dont ils interprètent leurs interactions avec les clients plutôt que des interactions elles-mêmes. Cette perspective met l’accent sur l’interaction dyadique entre le bénévole et le client, donne une place de choix au rôle social et à sa définition, et attire l’attention sur les stratégies employées par les bénévoles pour gérer des rapports parfois difficiles avec leurs clients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.034
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy researchSame topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207