Summary of the sessions from the April 17th SVRN meeting at Northumbria University
‘Relationship Marketing and the Volunteer Life Cycle: perspectives from outside the sport sector ’ by Deborah Forbes, Newcastle University.
This presentation provided an overview of the development of Relationship Marketing principles applied to volunteers and more specifically volunteers in the cultural sector. With a growing number of voluntary organisations, there is now direct competition between organisations to attract volunteer numbers, their time, and contribution in order to achieve the organisation’s objectives. The Volunteer Life Cycle framework was introduced and explained as a development from the ‘customer relationship life cycle’ (Gronroos, 2000). This framework demonstrates the relevance of voluntary organisations using marketing communications, as well as recruitment and retention strategies to facilitate the volunteer’s experience, so that it results in continued volunteering rather than an exit from the activity. The presentation went on to explain the importance of managing volunteers on a relational basis rather than transactional, supporting the need for the organisation to understand the volunteers’ motivations, and the ways in which these might change over the course of their ‘life cycle’, as well as trying to achieve their objectives. Examples from the sector were integrated throughout. Discussion of comparisons to the sport sector continued after the presentation, with consideration of the practical implications of focusing on relationship growth. (Review from Maria McCann, Northumbria)
‘New volunteerism and reflexive volunteering: from ‘altruism’ to altruistic individualism at mega sports events’ by Dr Kostas Tomazos and Sheila Luke, University of Strathclyde.
This presentation took as its starting point the fact that volunteers are humans! And, like all humans, volunteers need to balance altruism (and altruistic tendencies) with the needs of self.
The research is focussed on volunteers and mega sports events, and is being conducted in the context of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.
The presentation compared the’ traditional’ reasons for volunteering (including collective and community motives, expressions of belonging, high availability, altruism and religious selflessness) with the current context in which volunteering is taking place amidst changing living conditions and lifestyles (e.g. globalisation, blurring of sectors, the economic downturn, changing work habits, changing family units, technological developments and consumerism).
Dr Tomazos questioned whether altruism was in fact a helpful concept at all: it is not only anthropologically ‘illogical’, but can be also highly ‘egotistical’ – is anything that we ever do truly selfless? Perhaps more helpful concepts are:
1. ‘New volunteerism’, characterised by a revolving door, through which volunteers ‘drop by’ and ‘plug in’ (and out again!), and
2. ‘Reflexive volunteering’ whereby volunteers invest restricted time and perform limited activities for reciprocal benefits.
In a background of enlightened self-interest, perhaps today’s volunteers are “altruistic individualists”: they will only do it if it fits into their own life-plan; they won't do it if it doesn’t fit well; and there is always a hidden (often un-admitted) motive.
The authors then presented two models that might help to understand volunteers and volunteer management in the context of events:
1. The ‘Volunteer Asset Model’ (Meijs, 2009) which categorises volunteers as ‘sweats’ (low assets and low availability), ‘service’ (low assets but high availability), ‘specialists’ (high assets but low availability) and ‘stars’ (high assets and high availability);
2. Their own ‘Volunteer-Fit Model’ with five strangely-familiar interconnecting rings: Recruitment/Selection; Training; Communication; Management; and The Event (which provides opportunity for inspiration, community, ethos and change).
This latter model might provide a basis for exploring ways to reignite volunteering, such as appreciation days, identity reinforcement and rewards ... for our new breed of ‘reflexive volunteers’.
In the ensuing question time, the importance of ‘coolness’, the role of social media, and the need for home-based volunteering were all explored. It was argued that the presentation did little to address the notion that volunteering is (or at least is perceived as) a privilege of the elite. (Review from Gordon Macfadyen, Northumbria)
‘Re-developing volunteering at Deerness Gymnastics Academy: Strategy and Action’
by Karl Wharton, Director of Deerness Gymnastics Academy and International Performance Coach/ also of Northumbria University.
Karl provided a fantastic example of the value of volunteers. In response to emerging financial cutbacks in local authority funding of sport, Deerness Gymnastics Academy planned to take full control of Deerness Leisure Centre in Durham. This was only possible through a volunteer-led strategy to operate the venue as a social enterprise. Business planning and the principles of sound business practice underpin the philosophy of ‘the club as a family’. The management structure reflects the importance of volunteering to the strategic direction of the club and, in particular, the centrality of volunteering to its sustainability. Volunteering is championed and celebrated via a structured training programme and a pragmatic approach to enabling volunteers through the provision of responsibilities and ownership of the everyday provision. External recognition for volunteers has been significant as the club host multiple world, European and national champions. The profile, and financial situation, of the academy was heightened by the winning appearance of Acropolis (their in-house troupe for corporate functions) on the ITV show ‘Let’s Get Gold’ in summer 2012, and the story of Deerness Gymnastics Academy has been reported through an award winning PR and communications strategy.
This is an example of the ‘big society’ in action and an example of the true harnessing of the spirit of volunteering. (Review from Paul Blakey, Northumbria)
‘Paralympic volunteers: volunteer behaviour, perceptions of disability and disabled athletes at London 2012’ by Ellie May, Leeds Metropolitan University.
This presentation explored volunteerism at the London 2012 Paralympic Games, based on Ellie’s PhD research which aims to offer insights into the profiles of volunteers and volunteers’ understandings and perceptions of disability, disability sport and the ‘disabled athlete’. Ellie outlined the research she has undertaken which involves a series of 4 interviews with a sample of Games Makers - pre, during and two post games (3 and 8 months afterwards). She presented initial observations from the first two of these stages. So far she has completed 69 interviews and the rich data was evident.
Ellie started by showing two video clips - an ‘Intro to Paralympics’ and a ‘Superhuman clip’ - with a contrast in the way they provoke response to ‘sport’, ‘performance’ and ‘disability’. She then talked about an intertwined rationale for her research around the volunteering of Paralympic Games makers and how their understandings of disability sport and the disabled athlete, might evolve as a result of their volunteering experience. The lack of research in this area was noted, with work that had been done tending to focus on identifying the motivations of volunteers. The Paralympics as the 2nd largest sport event in the world and the largest disability sport event provides an interesting context to look at whether it changes or reinforces societal views of disability.
Ellie’s initial findings suggest that most Games Makers understandings at the pre-volunteering stage are consistent with the medical view of disability. Many commented on Paralympians as inspirational because of the barriers they have overcome and sport for Paralympians is deemed to be harder. Interestingly volunteers, more so during and after the event, compare their own ability in sport to that of the Paralympian and seem surprised that the athlete can perform the sport better. However, some Games Makers did hold views that were more consistent with the social model of disability. Some discussed social attitudes towards disability which might constrain the disabled and another noted patronising responses to some disabled athletes, where a poor performance would get classed as inspiring. Ellie went onto explain how for some Games Makers seeing the athletes in action did challenge the stereotype of disabled people needing help and seemed to normalise disability, where sport and performance was the observation rather than the disability. Ellie will continue with her analysis and final interviews to complete her PhD study. (Review from Lindsay Findlay-King, Northumbria)
‘Student Sport Volunteering Programmes at the University of Manchester: thoughts from practice and research needs’ by Katy Young, Sport Development Officer - Clubs, Coaches & Volunteers, University of Manchester.
Katy runs the Sport Volunteer Scheme at the University of Manchester and she gave an over-view of this, explaining its evolution from a set of external opportunities kick-started with European Development funding, to its current guise as a managed programme of internal and external volunteering opportunities for interested students at the University. Aspects of her programme context were discussed, for example the pro’s and con’s of running such a programme in a University with no sport degree provision.
She discussed her ideas for a future research project examining the impact on participants, citing the increasing focus on employability and current research being undertaken on the impact of sport participation by Sheffield Hallam University, for British Universities & Colleges Sport (BUCS), as drivers for this evaluation.
Katy directly asked the audience for feedback on her ideas. There was some discussion about Brewis et al.’s study (2010)* which used multiple University case studies, to examine general student volunteering. The potential usefulness of the technical report from this, and research engagement guides on student volunteering (that are available from the National Co-ordinating Centre of Public Engagement) was suggested. The use of the same survey tool adapted to Sport at Northumbria University was noted. In particular the possibility of student peer led research was discussed (which would therefore involve training and utilising student volunteers). Other discussion centred on sample sizes, possible methods and cross sectional versus longitudinal approaches.
(Review from Lindsay Findlay-King, Northumbria)
*Brewis, G., Russell, J. & Holdsworth, C. (2010) Bursting the Bubble: students, volunteering and the community. Bristol: National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement/Institute of Volunteering Research. Available at: http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/about/vinspired-students/about-our-project/research/bursting-bubble