Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to review and discuss the literature about volunteers’ motivations to donate their time to NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations). According to Parboteeah, Cullenb & Lim (2004) management research has not paid much attention to voluntarism, however, voluntarism is a substantial part of productive work for many societies. Wilson & Pimm (1996) show that in Great Britain about 39% of the adult population has been involved in some volunteer activity for some period of time. In the U.S.A. these values reach 50% (Wilson & Pimm, 1996). Considering the benefits that voluntarism can bring to an organisation, we understand that more attention must be devoted to this phenomenon. The more an organisation knows volunteers, the better this organisation will be able to meet the needs and expectations of these individuals. We present a literature review that illustrates and compares the different motivations associated with volunteer work. The paper includes a bibliographical databases search in specialised journals. The search used the key words “motivations” and “voluntarism” (in the heading and text body) and covered all numbers between 2000 and 2007. We identify the existence of repeated motivations (Holmberg & Söderlung, 2005; Prouteau & Wolff, 2008; Soupourmas & Ironmonger, 2001; Yavas & Riecken, 1997), which allow the establishment of a typology of volunteers’ motivations, based on four categories: altruism, social needs, self-esteem, learning and self-development. Finally we identify three main gaps in the literature that justify further research. First, research focusing on the differences between motivations related to volunteers’ "Attraction" versus "Retention" in NGO’s is nil. Second, the great majority of the studies rely on north American (USA and Canada) and Australian context, which demands for further research in European countries. Third, the majority of NGOs researched are related to sport, art or the environment, and it would be interesting to explore the relationship between motivation and NGO type. These questions may obtain interesting answers for NGO management, in particular with regard to volunteer attraction and retention.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".