Process and Positive Development

Abstract

Volunteering among university students is an important expression of civic engagement, but the impact of this experience on the development of emerging adults requires further contextualization. Adopting interpretative phenomenological analysis as a qualitative research approach, we carried out semistructured interviews with 10 students of one Irish university who were highly engaged in volunteering. Their experience of volunteering unfolded through relatively open-ended leadership positions in university student-led societies, comparatively structured community roles, or a combination of both. The findings describe a process initiated by the decision to volunteer, a discrete task based on motives, previous history, and exposure to opportunities. The positive impact of volunteering was described through the outcomes of commitment, competence, and connection. While concerned with the values of civic engagement, the perceived self-coherence and purposefulness attributed to volunteering also referenced personal development motives. The findings are interpreted in light of the volunteer process model, positive youth development, and civic engagement. These perspectives are relevant in considering college student volunteering as an experience that can promote successful developmental transition by having a positive impact on personal identity.

Keywords

civic engagement college issues emerging adulthood identity issues positive youth development transition to university

Volunteering is a particular form of youth civic engagement that entails sustained, goal-directed effort with the intention of benefitting others, and which is conducted in a structured role without obligation (Penner, 2002). This definition incorporates a range of roles, from direct interaction with service recipients to fundraising and organizational leadership, with variation also by setting and context (Wilson, 2012). The breadth of volunteering behavior is consistent with the heterotypic discontinuity and variety in forms of youth civic engagement (Sherrod, Torney-Purta, & Flanagan, 2010), nonetheless underpinned by shared characteristics of positive youth development (PYD), prosocial ethos, and self-exploration.

The outcomes of volunteering behavior for youth include personal development and risk avoidance, highlighting its relevance to development beyond engagement in civic society (Hart, Donnelly, Youniss, & Atkins, 2007; Johnson, Beebe, Mortimer, & Snyder, 1998). Thus, Astin and Sax’s (1998) large panel survey of U.S. college students demonstrated associations between volunteering and not only civic responsibility, but academic attainment and self-confidence as well (Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). In terms of risk avoidance, university student volunteers report less involvement in behaviors such as binge drinking (Weitzman & Kawachi, 2000). These findings highlight the importance of promoting volunteering among students during university, when developmental concerns and access to engagement opportunities coincide (Finlay, Wray-Lake, & Flanagan, 2010). While extensive research suggests that volunteering can lead to beneficial outcomes, its developmental implications and contextualization in the university experience requires further exploration.

Conceptualizing the Volunteer Process

In this study, we conceived of the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions of volunteering being reflected in active participation and enjoyment or interest, sustained by self-regulation (Bohnert, Fredericks, & Randall, 2010). Considered at this level, volunteering overlaps with other focal areas in the transdisciplinary field of youth civic engagement research (Sherrod et al., 2010). In common with youth activism and political socialization, for example, student volunteering is predicated on learning by doing. Similar to youth activism (Finlay et al., 2010), some university volunteer positions can be shaped and developed by youth themselves, and offer opportunities for critical reflection on societal processes.

Similarly, volunteering and political socialization have a common link in contributing to the active negotiation of personal conceptions of citizenship (McIntosh & Youniss, 2010). Its voluntary nature distinguishes volunteering from participation in service learning, which is a formalized, credit-bearing component of the curriculum. However, there are also comparisons between the two, in the debate of citizenship and civil society, exposure to diversity, and collaboration in goal-setting (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).

Arguing that the transdisciplinary nature of youth civic engagement research has been a barrier to achieving a common vocabulary and family of shared concepts, Torney-Purta, Amadeo, and Andolina (2010) recently suggested a framework for structuring research enquiries. It incorporates person, context, and process as mediating factors that influence individual outcomes, such as personal meaning, perceptions of agency, and identity. The framework has clear relevance to the study of volunteering. For instance, the process perspective has dominated social-psychological research literature on volunteering for two decades. Many of these studies have included university student samples. Research using the Volunteer Process Model (VPM) as a conceptual framework has prioritized the study of person variables, particularly individual motivation, predominantly through survey and experimental designs (Snyder & Omoto, 2008). The motives were identified a priori based on a functionalist approach (Katz, 1960), broadly classified into altruistic (i.e., other-oriented) and egoistic motives. These are presumed to be antecedent variables prompting involvement, subsequently impacted by the “goodness of fit” with the role itself and access to organizational support. The consequences addressed in VPM research are typically continuance of effort or changes in social attitudes (Clary et al., 1998; Omoto & Snyder, 1995), a narrow range that has not emphasized self-relevant constructs.

The VPM is one of several process-oriented theories that can be used to study volitional, prosocial behavior aligned with civic engagement. For example, sense of purpose arises from applying the positive psychology paradigm to understanding the personal growth that youth may experience through prosocial behavior (Bronk, 2012). To be purposeful means having the intention to be productive and contribute meaningfully to a cause or community (Damon, 2008). A prosocial orientation to this purposefulness results in the “noble purpose” achieved by a minority of youth (Damon, 2008).

Bronk’s (2012) grounded theory study of the noble purpose construct illustrates the value of considering prosocial engagement at the level of personal identity. Nine adolescent and emerging adults were recruited, having met the criteria for “purpose exemplars” through their sustained commitment in areas such as environmentalism, politics, and fundraising. Qualitative interviews over a 5-year period revealed the development of sense of purpose in a process-like manner. Engagement was initiated through prior experience or a minor initial involvement, growing through the match found between opportunities and personal interests. Positive feedback contributed to stronger identification with engagement over time. The commitment to purposeful behavior was sustainable in that setbacks were accommodated and learning took place following challenges.

With reference to context and process factors beyond the person, extensive research is available, through organizations such as Campus Compact, on formalized programs that support college students to act on or develop an intrapersonal orientation toward civic engagement. In the Irish context that we studied, more than 40% of 25- to 34-year-olds have a degree award from a third-level institution (Central Statistics Office, 2008). This is one of the highest rates in Europe, and as a consequence, young adults in Ireland commonly have access to an extended period of personal and social exploration.

The university we studied initiated a program in 2001 to encourage student participation in civic engagement. Two main types of volunteering occur, in the leadership of a student-led society and off-campus volunteering in one of a number of available roles with external non-profit partner organizations. A student society is a group dedicated to a cause in a domain such as culture, politics, or social action, guided by a constitution and elected posts. On-campus activities include debates, skills workshops, and events. Each student society is led by volunteer committee members and the society auditor, elected for a year-long term. Institutional support includes access to training and funding to supplement society fundraising. Off-campus volunteer roles in community-based non-profit organizations are more clearly structured through specific role expectations and supervision. These volunteers typically work in relatively defined posts, in an area such as youth work, education, or social services.

Developmental Context of Student Volunteering

Applying Torney-Purta et al.’s (2010) framework for research enquiry to volunteering, it is notable that social-psychological research has incorporated person and process-based concepts such as motives and the VPM. Youth civic engagement research contributes further theoretical perspectives relevant to this framework, such as noble purpose, a person variable meaningful on the level of self and identity, which VPM research has not emphasized. The interaction of intrapersonal strengths with environmental assets facilitates the achievement of PYD (Sherrod et al., 2010), an elaboration of the volunteer process that is relevant to the student context.

Contextual influences on youth volunteering are mainly explored in relation to the availability of opportunities and supports. Structured programs offered by universities are a particularly important opportunity available to young adults. In this study, we expand on this environmental perspective to include the developmental context in which student volunteering occurs. We explore two developmental science perspectives, emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000, 2006) and Lerner’s (2004) theory of PYD, each of which is relevant across life domains, including citizenship and civic engagement.

Arnett (2000) introduced the concept of emerging adulthood to account for the distinct phase of identity development of young adults aged between 18 and approximately 25 that has emerged in Western societies (Arnett, 2006). Partly, this phase has arisen due to wider access to the university experience among young adults, thus providing an extended period of personal freedom. Availing of community service opportunities enables students to achieve greater independence and autonomy (Cox & McAdams, 2012; Erikson, 1968; Finlay et al., 2010; Seider, 2007; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). Thus, engagement contributes positively to the social-cognitive task of making sense of one’s place in the world (Levine & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2010). This can have a religious focus, as in faith-based engagement (King & Furrow, 2004).

With an emphasis on capabilities rather than deficits, Lerner’s (2004) PYD theory is also relevant to understanding university student volunteering. Lerner’s theory is based on five Cs—competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring—which large-scale longitudinal surveys have shown to be associated with personal and social thriving. PYD has a recognized civic engagement component, with contribution described as the “sixth C” (King et al., 2005). Although applied primarily to adolescents (Lerner, von Eye, Lerner, Lewin-Bizan, & Bowers, 2010), the person variables described in Lerner’s theory are also applicable to the transition to adulthood.

In this study, we consider how access to developmental assets (Benson & Scales, 2009), in the form of university volunteer programs, may contribute to a sustainable form of thriving as part of the university student experience. Developmental assets have a particular role in PYD as the environmental factors which promote the achievement of positive youth outcomes. In addition to receiving support, youth in turn contribute to the community in a bidirectional dynamic (Lerner et al., 2010).

Research Aims

In exploring experiences in student-led, on-campus university societies and off-campus placements with non-profit organizations, we wished to better understand how to contextualize volunteer identity and behavior as a developmentally situated form of civic engagement. A number of issues arise in relation to this query, for example, whether participation is focused more on employability and social compliance, or a critical reflection on social justice and citizenship (Levine & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2010). Nor has sufficient attention been given to the impact of varied activity types and participation patterns (Bohnert et al., 2010; Busseri & Rose-Krasnor, 2009).

In noting the preponderance of large-scale panel surveys in the field of youth civic engagement research, Torney-Purta et al. (2010) have argued for a greater emphasis on the use of qualitative research designs. We used interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to study university student volunteering (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). IPA is a qualitative methodology for studying the lived experience of an important phenomenon at an idiographic level. Several rounds of interpretation are carried out in an IPA study, from inductive, data-driven theme-building, to later integration of findings with existing theoretical frameworks (Smith, 2011).

Method

Qualitative Research Design

We adopted a qualitative approach given our aim to explore the lived experience of student volunteering and its impact on identity. IPA was developed by Jonathon Smith in the early 1990s “to explore in detail how participants are making sense of their personal and social world” (Smith & Osborn, 2008, p. 53). It is especially associated with the study of identity change and resilience following physical and mental health problems, such as chronic pain or depression (Smith, 2011). IPA has a theoretical alliance with cognitive psychology; how individuals talk about themselves in relation to an experience is assumed to reflect their thinking (Smith & Osborn, 2008). However, it is distinct from mainstream cognitive research as qualitative methods are used to study thoughts, beliefs, and feelings relevant to personal identity.

The individual is the unit of analysis in IPA, and so findings can be based on a small number of cross-sectional, semistructured interviews (Smith, 2011; Smith et al., 2009). The first round of analysis occurs through idiographic thematic analysis of each participant’s account, made feasible by recruiting a small sample. The emphasis on understanding the person’s perspective stems from the Heideggerian concept of Dasein (“being there”), a phenomenological stance that directs attention to the manner in which experience is contextualized by language, past experience, socialization, and culture (Larkin, Watts, & Clifton, 2006).

The second Heideggerian concept in IPA is the hermeneutic circle, as the method is predicated on the inevitability of participants and researchers engaging in the interpretive process in a conscious, productive manner. The first interpretation is offered by participants themselves, who give subjective accounts of their experiences. The analyst’s active role in knowledge construction occurs through choosing interview questions, interpreting each participant’s account, and comparative analysis to merge individualized interpretations into larger themes. Findings are reported in a theme-based account that synthesizes individual accounts of the focal area of interest, drawing attention to participant commonalities and divergences. A theoretical interpretation takes place subsequent to the inductive phase, situating the findings in terms of relevant research and theory (Smith, 2011).

Sampling and Recruitment

Purposeful sampling was used to recruit a small set of current students who displayed relatively high levels of engagement in volunteering, in an Irish university with a clear programmatic commitment to civic engagement. Although more than 900 students each year receive a certificate to acknowledge participation in volunteering, this is from a student population of 17,000. A minority of volunteers contribute at a relatively intensive level, for example, by serving as a society auditor or in multiple off-campus positions. We sought to a recruit a sample of student volunteers whose involvement reflected this above-average level of activity, to consider how significant commitment impacts on self-concept and identity. This is consistent with the IPA tenet of recruiting individuals who share a common experience (Smith et al., 2009), with variation permitted in other characteristics such as gender or age.

The sampling strategy was operationalized by recruiting students who held a society leadership role, or displayed high levels of commitment relative to peers in off-campus volunteering, or were involved in volunteering early in the university experience, including those who combined more than one of these characteristics. Key informants in volunteer support roles in the university were asked to nominate individuals whose activity profile was consistent with our sampling strategy. We also encouraged students to nominate themselves. Information was disseminated on the study to students through an email to students on a mailing list of active volunteers. Ten participants agreed to be interviewed following initial enquiries, a sample size comparable with other relevant studies (e.g., Polvere, 2011; Schaefer-McDaniel, 2007).

Participants

Four females and six males were interviewed, at different points in the university experience from first to final year. Eight students were aged from 18 to 22 years and the remaining two were 26 and 28 years old. Participant involvement patterns are indicated in Table 1. Five volunteered before coming to college. All were currently involved in activity consistent with Snyder and Omoto’s (2008) definition of volunteering, being sustained, non-obligatory, and carried out to aid individuals or specific causes. Five participants were engaged in one or more university societies, three in off-campus work, and two in both forms of volunteering.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Student Volunteers.

Participant	Age	Year in college	Pre-college volunteering	Volunteer roles
David	28	Final	Yes	Auditor, committee member in second society, academic class representative, societies representative
Amanda	22	Fourth	Yes	Auditor, committee member in second society, set up another society and served as auditor, societies representative
Frank	26	Final	Yes	Off-campus volunteer (fundraising, youth work, leadership), nominated for civic award. Volunteer work in same area as his career discipline
Sophie	20	Final	No	Vice-auditor, off-campus manager of fundraising volunteers. Re-thought career plans due to her experience
Travis	21	Final	No	First year of volunteering, took up roles in homework club, youth work, and as society committee member. Decided teaching was not for him because of a negative volunteering experience
Jack	20	Second	No	Committee member in two societies, ran for campus-wide student position. Left another society due to dispute
Harry	19	Second	Yes	Society auditor, elected to campus-wide student welfare post, running for election to committee in second society. Intended to pursue postgraduate course compatible with volunteering interests
William	18	First	No	Auditor of society he set up, committee member on two more, active in a fourth society, class representative.
Katie	18	First	No	Befriender role for youths with an intellectual disability. Planned to intensify her commitment in the future
Sarah	18	First	Yes	Homework club tutor with two classes. Thinking about becoming a teacher as a result of her experience

Among their other volunteer roles, David and Amanda were student society representatives on the management committee for university societies, having been elected by student peers to work alongside administrators and academic staff to develop and implement policy. The two first-year off-campus volunteers had a somewhat restricted role compared with the experienced final-year off-campus volunteers and society auditors. We sought to include students with this profile to ensure we included individuals who displayed a commitment to volunteering early in the university experience.

Procedure

Approval for the study was granted by the Research Ethics Committee at the National University of Ireland, Galway. Interviews were held in a quiet office space, beginning with a review of the information sheet and taking informed consent. The average interview length was 65 minutes, with a range from 50 to 90 minutes. The interview started with initial general discussion before moving into a schedule comprising four open-ended, non-directive questions, phrased in neutral language.

The first question was a general enquiry about the participant’s college course and average day, with follow-up probes and clarifications. This was followed by a question about volunteer work (“Can you talk about the activities you are involved in?”), with prompts such as asking why the person became involved and what volunteering meant to them. The next question asked about the student’s perceptions of the college experience and environment. Prompts followed up on what it was like to be a student of the university, both academically and in domains like volunteering.

The final question asked the participant to describe the average student volunteer. This question enabled further elaboration of beliefs and expectations about their own volunteer work, with prompts enquiring about different types of volunteers, working with others, and sources of satisfaction. Finally, participants were invited to introduce any issues pertinent to them that had not been covered. Interviews were recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Pseudonyms were used and identifying features of the participants omitted to protect anonymity.

Analysis

Data were analyzed using the steps identified in the IPA research process (Smith & Osborn, 2008), the aim of which is to report findings in the form of themes grounded in interview extracts, accompanied by descriptive and interpretive commentary. Each interview was analyzed idiographically (Smith et al., 2009). This process began with both authors reading the transcript several times to gain familiarity and make initial descriptions of the text. The first stage of IPA coding applies provisional labels to the left-hand margin of the transcript, annotating significant segments of the text such as a phrase, sentence, or passage. Annotations made at this stage were descriptive, using the participant’s words or paraphrasing, and included observations about connections or apparent contradictions between statements.

We then discussed features and patterns in the initial coding to plan the clustering of labels into emergent themes. The second author conducted the second round of coding by annotating the transcript on the right hand margin. Refinement of clusters and themes was supported with supervisory debriefing by the first author. The process resulted in a final table that recorded idiographic themes. After each transcript was analyzed in this manner, a comparative analysis was undertaken to identify overarching, superordinate themes across participants. We assessed individual participant themes for convergence and divergence in attitudes and experiences, making amendments until the superordinate themes were judged to provide an acceptably coherent interpretative account of the participants’ experience of volunteering. A final master list of themes was drawn up as a basis for writing up the findings as themes and subthemes, grounded in illustrative accounts.

Reflexivity

The importance of reflective practice in the qualitative research process is increasingly acknowledged (Newton, Rothlingova, Gutteridge, LeMarchand, & Raphael, 2011). Researchers should be clear in how their beliefs, experiences, or expectations influence choices made in coding and theme development. This is particularly relevant given the interpretive basis of the IPA method.

Both authors had personal experience of volunteering as students. Each of us felt we had benefited as a result. With our academic background weighted toward social psychology, the analogy of a volunteer process was accepted as a starting point in considering how to organize the findings. We were aware that work has been limited on distinctions between motives, as a prompt for volunteering, and the benefits and outcomes that arise as a result of volunteering, many of which are unanticipated prior to engagement (MacNeela, 2008). Besides being disposed to interpret the findings using a process analogy, we were actively seeking new connections to theories of developmental science and civic engagement, which we considered to be underdeveloped in recent psychological research on volunteering.

Findings

The Decision to Volunteer

In describing the choice to become involved, the participants spoke about the decision to volunteer as a relatively discrete experience, underpinned by motives, life history, and opportunities. These factors combined in a unique manner, giving rise to an individual path to the initiation of volunteering.

Life history

The volunteers spoke about distinctive personal experiences that influenced their choices when they came to university, including overcoming adverse circumstances, family connections to particular services, and socialization into parental values. Each is illustrated in the next examples.

Frank had been raised in a socially disadvantaged area and described his teenage years as aimless. His turning point took place through a course he took after leaving school early. It included a service learning module, his first involvement with a community-based organization and one that he identified as leading him to “think”:

I left school at fifteen, . . . just hung around and done nothing for three or four years and went to parties and got wrecked and didn’t even really think beyond the day or didn’t really think at all really, didn’t think of anything. So I suppose that’s what happened once I fell into education again that suddenly I started thinking about this and then thinking about it more.

Katie’s personal history prompted her involvement in a different manner. She had a personal connection, which arose because a family member had an intellectual disability, which resulted in her being open to related voluntary organizations:

I did think about homework club . . . but just I know when I was going through all the things on you know the [university volunteer program] website I was kind of like, oh maybe that one, maybe that one, but when I read [name of intellectual disability service] I just straight away, I just didn’t even look at anymore I just emailed that straight away so that did appeal to me most.

For Jack, the assimilation of his parents’ values about being socially proactive pushed him toward taking action when he came to university:

Jack:

So if there’s no one else doing it, it’s like up to you.

Interviewer:

Would that be a philosophy you have yourself generally about things?

Jack:

A lot of the time yeah, sort of drilled into us by the parents . . . It doesn’t matter whose fault it is, what matters is that, it’s like it’s up to you to fix it

Motives to volunteer: Self-serving and other-oriented intentions

In reflecting on their original motivations for volunteering, the participants drew on the goals they had valued as important, with career, values, agency, and social needs highlighted. Individual participants cited a unique combination which comprised most or all of these motives.

Career interests

Frank discussed career as a motive to get involved. His goal was not monetary gain, but to improve his preparation for future work. He wanted to be able to help others, and felt he should develop himself personally to do so:

I think the aspiration I have of getting into social work or psychology you need to have an acute awareness of the people around you, you need to have this kind of beyond the books kind of, you know, ability to think on behalf of the people you’re working with . . . I know that it will make me better in my own career.

David acknowledged a self-serving, career-related purpose, but one that was secondary to his “main reason” for volunteering: “It’s another way of backing up your contacts and stuff as well if you want to be Machiavellian about it but that’s not the main reason that I’m involved in the [university] society. It’s a handy side effect.” Amanda went further than this in expressing disapproval of those who join primarily due to career motivation, describing them as a disruptive influence: “CV hunters, like that drives people crazy if anyone runs for a position . . . and don’t really follow it through and then won’t resign, that sometimes happens.”

To make a difference

A values-based motivation to enter volunteering was expressed differently by community and on-campus volunteers. Volunteers who worked in the community talked about wanting to produce positive change through direct action. Travis described how growing up in an economically disadvantaged area motivated him to work with adolescents to promote social change and equality (“there’s only like three families in the whole area that went to college . . . education is the way to like improve yourself . . . it kind of sounds stupid but be strong and kind of just not care what the other people think”). For on-campus volunteers, the primary means to do good was through debate and spreading information on social issues. Thus, a core motive for William in his recent decision to volunteer in university societies was to increase awareness of ethical issues among students (“I want to actually make a difference”; a “big motivational factor that I have is just because I can, because it’s something that needs to be done”).

Finding a social niche

Roles such as that of homework club tutor involved working largely in individual roles that did not require collaboration with other volunteers. By comparison, the university student societies allowed individuals who identified with minority interests to find one another, consistent with their motive to make friends through volunteering. This is illustrated here by Harry’s desire to meet other people as a primary reason for on-campus volunteering:

Why I got involved is because you need something to do on a Tuesday night or a Wednesday night . . . Because like if you come to a city and you know no one, it’s the best way to meet other people and if you’re going to a specific society that’s sort of like a niche, you’re going to find people that you’re interested in.

A state of agency

The motivation to enter volunteering to be productive is described here as an agency motive, with the goal of achieving structure and meaning. For instance, David stated “I’m just one of these people that always has to be active,” and in common with William contrasted himself with those “who just go out and get blotto four or five nights and week and that’s what they get out of college.” Volunteering was a means to differentiate himself, just as Harry described the student body as “baffling” in their lack of interest in activities on campus, reflective of his judgment that they were “lazy.”

Whereas David was driven to get involved from the outset of his time in university, Sophie had come to a realization of having wasted precious time. She began as an uninvolved student but subsequently decided to change this:

I really needed to do something, because first year I spent a lot of my time either going to college and then going home in the evenings, and I’d be at home sitting around on my own from six o’clock in the evening, and I just needed something else to fill my time.

Finding and taking opportunities

Situational and environmental opportunities represented a path into volunteering, thus encompassing the proximal, immediate part of the decision process in which the chance to volunteer presented itself. The openness to taking opportunities was founded on motives and previous history.

At the time of the interview Frank was a final year student. He had by this point availed of numerous opportunities to volunteer, habitualizing his decision-making as a straightforward process of weighing up opportunities. Frank considered three factors: “Do I have the time and do I have the ability and maybe do I feel what I’m doing is kind of, you know, worthwhile.” His openness to new opportunities had developed due to the learning and development he had gained so far:

Everything I’ve done so far, everything, you know, every door that’s opened . . . even if it’s something you don’t feel is something that you want to do or that, . . . it’s the only way you are gonna find yourself in life I think is to link, latch onto everything that comes your way . . . If you don’t like it you can walk away but, you know, you’ve learned something rather than gained nothing.

The university volunteer program maintained a website that enabled less experienced students to readily identify a community partner organization matching their interests. Further to this, direct requests for help were a key opportunity to initiate involvement. Sophie described a relatively simple evaluation process, recounting that she became a society committee member after a direct request: “they seemed really stuck . . . and ‘I was like, yeah I have free time.’” She described a more deliberative process leading up to an off-campus role tutoring school students in art, implicating intersecting personal interests:

I had been so interested in art before I went to college . . . it was kind of just to get creative again, that was good, and also because I have a younger brother doing the Leaving Cert [the State examination for school leavers] and I know how much he was struggling with his work.

Travis described a direct approach not from a peer but from an organizational coordinator. Rather than accepting simply because of the request, his rationale indicated the importance of matching personal interests with the opportunity: “I made a conscious decision last year that I would get involved in more things, . . . just to do something else than study . . . And then just like, just in you can anyways influence the younger [generation],” “it was two hours a week for six weeks and it would kind of be finishing just when you were coming up to exams,” “it would be just something different like because, you know, you won’t get a chance to really do it again.”

Outcomes of Volunteer Experiences: Commitment, Competence, and Connection

Three domains of performance and self-perception were identified as emerging from the volunteer process. Each represents an impact or consequence arising from volunteering, predominantly contributing to positive development but generating particular challenges in the process.

Commitment: Finding purpose, expressing values, and learning the hard way

Volunteer work was highly regarded as a productive, socially valued activity. It was satisfying to be purposeful and to make a positive contribution through direct service or raising awareness, and it was largely possible to assimilate associated challenges.

“It gives you some sort of purpose.”

It was attractive to be a committed, active person. Katie was in her first year of college. While her off-campus work as a homework tutor was not as varied or open-ended as most of the participants, she spoke about finding meaning and wanting further responsibility. In this quote, she reflects on an active lifestyle compared with one that is pleasant but passive: “When you’re, you kind of feel you’re going nowhere in college, . . . I don’t know, it kind of feels like you’re doing something, like you’re going somewhere.”

A similar sentiment was evident among more experienced volunteers. David characterized non-volunteering students as missing out, and here Sophie describes a level of personal development that uninvolved students failed to apprehend: “people don’t really get to see how much you gain because I suppose a lot of it is kind of like an internal thing.”

Satisfying expressions of what is important

Having a positive impact on other people was satisfying, illustrated in the final part of Katie’s earlier statement that “it does make you feel good.” Although prompted to get involved because of parental values, Jack was the only person who did not discuss satisfaction from helping others and expressing his values. Thus, Sophie said: “I get great satisfaction out of it . . . Yeah, I’ve always, like I just love helping people, I just, seeing that they’re happy, you know, you just get such good satisfaction out of it.” For her, positivity co-existed with the desire to avoid the internalized disapproval of not acting on a moral obligation to help: “you could actually kind of feel bad for not helping as well . . . I think there’s a certain sense of guilt.”

Amanda spoke about the leadership of a large university society as very satisfying. Although she had led large, ambitious events of the kind regarded in the university society community as benchmarks of success, she cited a civically oriented event when asked about her most satisfying volunteering experience. This was a debate she organized to raise awareness about the Traveller community, a marginalized Irish ethnic minority. Here Amanda’s sense of satisfaction is linked to having promoted equality and challenged stigma:

It was just a really, really good debate because a lot of people I think kind of got an insight into their community and were kind of less prejudiced going out the door maybe so that was probably one of the best things that I was involved with.

Frank’s volunteer work featured civic engagement as a central aim. He contrasted being personally engaged in youth work with impersonal and ineffectual initiatives devised by politicians (“the reality is all you need to do, for my own experience, was to sit there and be on a level playing field with 15-, 16-, 17-year-olds and kind of let them explore or reflect for themselves”). Frank sought to make authentic connections and interactions with adolescents by taking part in youth work with disadvantaged communities. He found this very satisfying:

Going into a school . . . when you get to know them, when you’ve built a rapport and you’re talking about something like stress or lifestyle or peer pressure, bullying . . . and we really kind of have a trust base there that you can sit down, really actually see in front of you . . . that they’re interacting, that they’re reflecting.

“They really just annihilated me”

The participants exposed themselves to significant tests and costs by putting themselves forward in an active helping role. Two experiences cited by Travis clearly differentiate a test that can be assimilated from one costly enough to undermine commitment. The first role was in a homework club for teenagers in a disadvantaged area. He had found his good intentions met with apathy and disinterest: “I was trying to explain . . . and then they wouldn’t, every week they wouldn’t have it done and you just kind of feel like are you getting through to them at all and it’s just kind of a bit disheartening.”

Although frustrated, Travis rationalized this situation by attributing lack of interest to socioeconomic conditions, citing the principle that everyone was entitled to the service. Frank made sense of his experience of disaffected youth behavior in the same way, a principled approach that “everyone is the same” and deserving of assistance. Frank acknowledged that he would be challenged, that “they are gonna take the piss [i.e., be disrespectful],” and felt able to nonetheless maintain his composure and sense of purpose, as did Sarah.

A second situation Travis described represented a wounding experience of distress and loss of control, which changed his perspective because he could not rationalize or overcome it. He had been working with youths in a group setting in schools, similar to the role Frank described. The students in one of the schools Travis worked at actively resisted his help, challenging his authority and being uncontrollable: “It was an all boy’s school and they just really annihilated me there.” This experience altered his previous identification with becoming a teacher in the future (“it kind of really sealed the deal that no, teaching wasn’t for me”). He continued to perform three other volunteer roles, structuring these commitments efficiently so that they did not overburden his ability to cope.

Competence: Identifying with responsibility and organization

Perceptions of personal competence were supported by finding oneself able to manage demands, acting in a responsible, organized, and knowledgeable manner. Compared with the delineated structure of off-campus roles, society leadership was an open-ended commitment. Although demanding, leadership positions were persistently linked to perceptions of enhanced competence.

Being responsible: “I’m the one who’s gonna get all the blame”

Leadership of a university student society was a highly responsible role. The society auditor and senior committee members had a public profile on campus, generating pressure to succeed. Harry drew on the analogy of company manager to describe the auditor role:

At the end of the day, if the year goes well, I’m the one who is going to take all the credit. If the year goes bad, I’m the one who’s gonna get all the blame . . . It’s all our reputations at stake, you know? We’re in charge. It’s like running a business. We have our money, we have reports, we have people that we have to answer to . . . if they don’t like us, they can chuck us out.

The boardroom analogy was telling of competition within societies and the risk of losing face if the year was a failure. Amanda, David, and William talked about the embarrassment of holding an unsuccessful society event or debate. In common with the analogy of being a manager, being responsible meant having to address poor performance: “I suppose there’s often people on the committee who are kind of like, ‘ah you know you should really give out to that person or ask them to resign’” (Amanda). The other side to this climate of high expectations was the personal triumph of proving oneself capable of managing. To have led a society meant that the person had shown a strong character, illustrated here by David’s description of proving oneself able for significant responsibility:

You would definitely need to have the personality for it . . . be able to work under pressure . . . to think on your feet, not be afraid to delegate . . . You’ve to be there to make sure that it’s done right as well then, behind the scenes or, if need be, you have to just step in and knowing when to step in and just knowing how to deal with people . . . it’s only certain people [that] can be like that . . . you have to be a fairly strong character . . . like you can get away with it if you’re a good, hard worker.

Professional and personal development

Identifying with being a person capable of responsibility was grounded in the self-belief of having become more competent in professional skills. Thus, William spoke about how planning and promoting on-campus events were valuable public relations experience for his life after college. Similarly, David’s example of hosting a guest speaker links closely with his own career plans:

In the [society’s name], now we can bring in a fella who has written a core text that’s been used for three [university] courses. It’s entirely out of self-interest I asked him to come and speak because it’s exactly the area I’m going to be getting into but, at the same time, he’s a really big speaker.

Amanda had become more efficient in managing her time, due to having to balance academic and volunteer commitments, a form of self-development she felt had general applicability:

You learn to multitask and that, you know? You learn . . . “right I’m gonna have to get study done.” Yeah that would definitely be a big thing, like I know how to organize my day a lot more now than I would have had before.

The language used by volunteers to describe their roles is notable in this regard, characterized by terms like delegation, multitasking, public relations skills, committee work, networking, and people skills. This reflected the internalization of a professional discourse, consistent with becoming confident operating in a managerial, entrepreneurial culture relevant to life after college. While these are largely personal benefits, the same individuals spoke about values-based commitment, perceiving no contradiction between improved employability and prosocial action.

Demanding positions: “There is always a crisis somewhere”

Opportunities for learning about competence exposed the volunteers to becoming overstretched by demands. This was expressed most by society leaders, with David saying “you wonder are you getting any satisfaction . . . you know, two or three hours and it’s eating in on you . . . people keep ringing you about stupid things.” Harry specified several daily demands in his society role, including having to manage histrionics: “you find you spend a lot of time dealing with all the nonsense that goes on around societies,” alongside completing any tasks that others had left incomplete. His leadership experience of daily hassles included publicizing events, reviewing finances, and dealing with phone calls. He also described a major stressor; unable to manage a dispute that developed in one of the societies he was involved in, Harry argued with friends and split up with his partner.

Off-campus volunteers did not experience the role extension associated with society leadership. Nevertheless, they spoke about growing in confidence by being able to perform responsible, largely pre-defined roles. Frank’s community volunteering activities were particularly intense and demanding, placing him in a position of responsibility and decision-making. However, similar to Travis, Frank had found that he had to balance commitment with the ability to give. He described a panic attack, which was attributed to the accumulated demands of his academic studies alongside a passionate commitment to youth work. In addition, like Travis, Sophie had dual on-campus and off-campus roles, which offered considerable scope for varied responsibilities that included leading a group of student fundraisers.

Connection, social confidence, and costs

Sarah and Kate were distinctive in not achieving an expanded social network through volunteering. They were both first-year students, working in specific service delivery roles, to tutor school students and accompany young people with an intellectual disability. By comparison, student societies were an immersive environment for those in leadership roles, presenting extensive opportunities for making friends and becoming more confident in social situations.

Connection

In the following extract, Sophie directly credits volunteer work as an important social network resource: “It’s really given me a chance to make a lot of friends, like a lot of my friends at the moment would have been people I met last year through the society.” Amanda, David, Harry, William, Frank, and Travis similarly stated that their closest friendships came about through volunteering. Numerous befriending opportunities arising from cooperative work with others on a daily basis.

Volunteering had a particular significance for William’s social life. He was potentially isolated by living on his own in a one room apartment and not participating in the alcohol-oriented pub culture (“I’m a non-drinker so like I’m more involved in societies than the pub”). He had overcome these issues by becoming involved in societies. Commitment to volunteering represented a means for him to achieve social identification, and one that was distinct from the mainstream binge drinking culture. This applied to other volunteers such as David, for whom volunteering represented a different mode of being connected to others:

I’ve gotten a lot out of it . . . It’s a nice community here but . . . there is two levels of students here, . . . the people that are there and they’re getting involved and stuff and they’re enjoying themselves. [Other students have] never been involved in anything bar having a [nightclub] membership.

Volunteering in a homework club entailed satisfying exchanges with service recipients, but interactions with other volunteers were limited compared with committee work organizing events (“there is a good sense of cooperation and you know once you’re in a society everyone kind of accepts you as one of the society crowd,” Sophie).

Social confidence

One implication of being able to perform in social situations was becoming more comfortable and confident in this setting. This is illustrated by Amanda, who said:

There’s definitely an increase in confidence there . . . I don’t know is that a society thing but people get like really mature . . . having responsibility for stuff going on for events and, you know, going away and competing and yeah I think confidence is the one big thing I see the difference.

Here Amanda discusses confidence in the context of “maturing,” a self-assurance that arises from the emerging ability to engage successfully with others. In this example, she attributes her confident actions as an important component that she was required to develop by the volunteer role:

It’s very, you know, clichéd but I kind of feel like now I could work with people a lot better . . . you could kind of go up to people and start talking to them randomly because you have to do that in societies, especially when you’re trying to get first years involved and they come along to the meeting and they don’t know anyone an it’s kind of like hard for them, you know, you have to go up and talk to them so I suppose that kind of, you know, is with you all your life . . . And it makes you a lot more sociable and that and outgoing.

Similarly, William valued the “social skills” of being more confident in a group. Sophie described being “forced” by volunteering demands to become more confident: “It’s made me, well it’s forced me to be a bit more social I think, because I would have been quite shy before all of it.”

Social costs

Alongside the benefits she described, having close social ties within the society volunteer network entailed challenges for Amanda. She could not discuss sensitive issues with them:

If some committee member is considering resigning, . . . I couldn’t really talk to my best friends who would have been on the committee, it just kind of felt like, you know, there’s no point worrying everyone and gossip and rumors and everything . . . it all kind of gets very dramatic . . . I just kind of talk to my sisters about it and that because they’ve nothing to do with societies.

As a separate social cost, Amanda expressed disappointment and regret over not keeping in touch with friends outside societies or bonding with other students in her academic program. These issues arose not due to disputes but in the lost opportunities from giving her time to societies.

With the exception of Jack, the participants were able to accommodate such difficulties. He left two societies due to conflict and disagreements with other society members (“basically we didn’t get on so I resigned . . . we didn’t like each other”). Although these experiences were hard for him, Jack continued his involvement, achieving election to the committee of a sports club and running for positions in the students’ union and another society committee.

Discussion

The IPA qualitative research cycle concludes with a final phase of interpretation to integrate the research findings with existing theory and previous empirical findings (Smith et al., 2009). We structure this round of interpretation around Torney-Purta et al.’s (2010) model of research on youth engagement. The model incorporates person, context, and process as mediators of identity-related outcomes, including personal meaning and perceptions of agency. This is a suitable framework to suggest an interpretation of the university student volunteering experience derived from theories of volunteering, civic engagement, and developmental transition.

The VPM (Snyder & Omoto, 2008) accommodates the progression the students described, from the initiating decision to the volunteering experience itself, and the consequences of engagement for self-perceptions. However, the VPM requires further grounding as a developmental process that contributes to adaptive self-regulation. Lerner’s (2004) theory of PYD and Arnett’s (2006) theory of emerging adulthood can be applied to frame the experience as one of youth thriving, achieved through values-based civic commitment, social ties, and functional skills valued for impending adult responsibilities.

Although both theories are relevant to development across life domains, the civic engagement component of student volunteering can be differentiated by civic and politically oriented activity, concern for others, and identification with membership (Sherrod et al., 2010). This prosocial orientation was consistent with “noble purpose” (Damon, 2008). Positive experiences were described as leading to increased engagement, and challenges were responded to in a resilient manner (Bronk, 2012). The student volunteers engaged in learning by doing and experienced enhanced identification with responding to societal needs, which are characteristics of youth activism and political socialization forms of youth civic engagement (Finlay et al., 2010; McIntosh & Youniss, 2010).

In some respects, the volunteers’ purposeful service set them apart from the normative student culture of binge drinking (MacNeela & Bredin, 2011). However, instead of describing alienation, the students actively disavowed a hedonistic, alcohol-oriented construction of the university experience (Hart et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 1998; Weitzman & Kawachi, 2000). Volunteering was an alternative focus for them that bolstered self-perceptions of autonomy (Cox & McAdams, 2012; Erikson, 1968; Seider, 2007; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). The stabilization of the self-concept is a key developmental focus from late teens to the mid-20s (Arnett, 2006; Kroger, Martinussen, & Marcia, 2010). In our findings, the experience was a source of eudaimonic meaning, a resource in the social-cognitive task of making sense of one’s place in the world (Arnett, 2000, 2006; Levine & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2010; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). However, despite the prominence of value-oriented concerns, there was comparatively little critical deliberation on the meaning of engagement. Pragmatic concerns regarding occupational adaptation featured more prominently than critical enquiries into citizenship.

Deciding to Engage, Being a Volunteer, and the Consequences of Engagement

The analogy of a volunteer process is useful for organizing the discussion of youth civic engagement (Torney-Purta et al., 2010). It is applicable to considering the decision to volunteer as a discrete task, large within-role variations even in the specialized context of student volunteering, and the contribution of volunteering to self-perceptions of thriving.

Antecedents to volunteering: Deciding to engage

The initiating decision was a distinct process in our findings, which incorporated the ability to plan, evaluate alternatives, and meet the challenge of entering a novel role. This highlights the relevance of intentional self-regulation, a cognitive process that underpins PYD (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008; Lerner & Overton, 2008). Three motives for deciding to volunteer mapped onto psychometric measures used in VPM studies, namely, career, values expression, and social connection (Clary et al., 1998; Omoto & Snyder, 1995). The fourth student motive concerned productivity and purposefulness, similar to the intrapersonal state of agency described by Watts and Flanagan (2007) as one precursor to civic engagement alongside critical social analysis and accessible opportunity structures. This depiction is especially reflective of more experienced volunteers, who approached decisions to volunteer in a confident manner. For the others, the decision required deliberative evaluation. In all cases, decisions were facilitated by structured opportunities available in off-campus non-profit groups and on-campus student-led societies.

Volunteer process: Developmental assets and programs

Although a specialized subtype of volunteer behavior in itself, student volunteering took distinct forms, reflective of the heterotypic discontinuity of civic engagement more generally (Bohnert et al., 2010; Busseri & Rose-Krasnor, 2009; Sherrod et al., 2010). These participation patterns were supported by institutional programs and organizational supports, which recall the developmental assets invoked in PYD as critical for achieving the five Cs (Benson & Scales, 2009; Lerner, Alberts, Jelicic, & Smith, 2006). The three key attributes of youth development programs have been identified as supportive adult-youth relationships, opportunities for skills development and for leadership (Lerner & Overton, 2008; Sherrod, 2007). The latter two were prominent in our study, but an important distinction was the reliance on peer support in the student-led society context, and the independent roles performed by several off-campus volunteers.

Although all volunteer roles enabled skills enhancement, society leaders gained access to experiential leadership development by managing groups and problems, goal-setting, and accounting to members. Whether in an on- or off-campus position, the students exerted persistent effort and were involved in planning and skills rehearsal, activities that are supportive of cognitive goal optimization in the self-regulation process (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008). There were fewer examples of the self-regulatory strategy of goal compensation, which arises to overcome or avoid losses. Frank’s benefit-finding strategy enabled him to successfully accommodate costs and learn from adversity (Bronk, 2012; Gottlieb, Still, & Newby-Clark, 2007; Helgeson, Reynolds, & Tomich, 2006), whereas Travis’ experience of youth work was described as wounding and led him to change his career focus.

Consequences: The PYD construct

Large surveys of university students have demonstrated associations between engagement and outcomes such as leadership, values, and civic engagement (Astin & Sax, 1998; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). These findings are consistent with the broader themes we developed, concerning competence, connection, and commitment. Considered as a whole, the enhancing impact of these three outcomes was comparable to the sense of purpose construct described by Damon (2008). Thus, in conducting “action beyond the self” (Bronk, 2012, p. 80), the students had a positive effect on others, in a personally meaningful manner that permitted differentiation from other students.

Noble sense of purpose had its closest comparison with the commitment theme, a prosocial outcome similar to the PYD facets of caring and character. The commitment theme recalls the PYD construct described as the sixth C, “contribution,” which implicates civic behaviors such as community service and volunteering (King et al., 2005). Lerner (2004) described contribution as arising from the other PYD characteristics. Similarly, Sherrod (2007) argues that civic engagement is underpinned by the five Cs, for instance, by possessing the character to express values, or caring sufficiently to act on social injustice.

The two remaining outcome themes had an egoistic purpose, but were nevertheless forms of personal development achieved through service to others. For instance, the youth-led nature of society volunteering provided for opportunities comparable with social entrepreneurialism and project management. Students in off-campus work described gaining skills and exploring career options. The competence outcome referred to preparedness for acting in responsible roles after university, consistent with competence and confidence in Lerner et al.’s (2010) theory. The connection and social confidence outcome in our findings links with the bonding-based PYD facet of connectedness, and with what Omoto, Snyder, and Martino (2010) identified as the interpersonal domain volunteering among young adults.

Implications

Volunteering among university students takes place in a setting where developmental concerns and ease of access to engagement opportunities coincide (Finlay et al., 2010). The connections we make between this form of engagement, developmental science, and civic engagement research extends the literature on the VPM. They also illustrate the important contribution that volunteering made to these students and to their community. The multidisciplinary perspective we take suggests an important alternative to the nomothetic assessment of generic motives, which has dominated psychological research on volunteering in recent years. Furthermore, it demonstrates the critical function of environmental processes and setting-specific consequences, which have been comparatively neglected in VPM studies.

One of our objectives was to consider the contribution of egoistic and altruistic facets of the volunteer experience to identity. Seider’s (2007) concept of transformation is a useful motif for considering the changes we identified. Seider described progressive degrees of transformation, from increased specification of an existing worldview, to extensive modification, and a full change in worldview. Among the students we studied, Frank reported a fundamental shift in self-perception, turning away from a binge drinking lifestyle and adopting a critical stance on society. Although several other volunteers described significant modifications in worldview, more often the transformation tended to be one of increased specification (Seider, 2007).

Critical reflection on social justice, citizenship, and enacting change were largely secondary priorities (Levine & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2010; Watts & Flanagan, 2007). In response, enhanced access to structured reflection might promote more extensive transformation (Seider, Gillmore, & Rabinowicz, 2012), albeit potentially disrupting the emergent, student-led nature of the volunteer experience among student society leaders. Off-campus volunteers in our study had comparatively restricted opportunities for social engagement and reflection with other students, which could be addressed through participation in group discussion methods such as timeline representation and creative brainstorming (Reavy, 2011).

Limitations

The IPA research process is based on synthesizing idiographic analyses of personal accounts from a small number of individuals. Although giving rise to an internally coherent interpretation, the resulting synthesis is limited in that no claim is made to generalizability to all individuals (Smith et al., 2009). Tripp (1985) describes this as a “qualitative generalisation,” whereby the reader accepts the relevance of the findings because the analysis is coherent and plausible, grounded by data from participants. The utility of the findings is demonstrated through integration with existing theory and research, as we have sought to do.

A further limitation in generalizability arises by recruiting individuals who share special characteristics. In this case, the students displayed a relatively high level of commitment to volunteering, which is associated with greater intrinsic motivation relative to other volunteers (Johnson et al., 1998; Snyder & Omoto, 2008). From a cultural perspective, the university student volunteering experience was one grounded in the Irish social context. The faith-based volunteering described extensively in U.S. research on youth civic engagement did not feature in our findings (Seider, 2007). Finally, the accounts offered by volunteers in this study were limited by being retrospective. Several novel lines of research enquiry could be adopted to overcome such limitations, such as use of longitudinal qualitative research designs to study the development of the student volunteer identity over the course of the university experience (Bronk, 2012).

Conclusion

This study of university students revealed a consensus that volunteering was meaningful and contributed positively to perceptions of self-coherence. However, this belies the individual paths taken through the experience, from the decision to volunteer, to the experience itself, and the resulting impact on developmental processes. Further interpretation of the findings, using existing theory and research, suggests the relevance of establishing a contextualized understanding of university student volunteering as a developmentally significant, specific setting for civic engagement. Although values-based commitment was a satisfying outcome, the students prioritized personal competence and social connectedness as well. Fruitful avenues for future research include exploring the decision to volunteer as a discrete social-cognitive task, the shaping role of opportunity structures as developmental assets, and the scope to balance emergent student-led structures with enhanced critical evaluation on the self as a civic actor.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

Niall Gannon received a research studentship from the Community Knowledge Initiative, National University of Ireland, Galway.

Author Biographies

Pádraig MacNeela is a lecturer at the School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway. His research interests include social issues such as drinking among young adults and volunteering, health care patient experiences, and professional judgment.

Niall Gannon is a researcher with BA and MLitt degrees in psychology from the National University of Ireland, Galway. His research interests include university student volunteering and interpretative phenomenological analysis.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Arnett

J. J.

(2006). Emerging adulthood: Understanding the new way of coming of age. In Arnett

J. J.

Tanner

J. L.

(Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 3-19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Astin

A. W.

Sax

L. J.

(1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 251-263.

Benson

P. L.

Scales

P. C.

(2009). The definition and preliminary measurement of thriving in adolescence. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 85-104.

Bohnert

Fredericks

Randall

(2010). Capturing unique dimensions of youth organized activity involvement: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Review of Educational Research, 80, 576-610.

Bronk

K. C.

(2012). A grounded theory of the development of noble youth purpose. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27, 78-109.

Busseri

M. A.

Rose-Krasnor

(2009). Breadth and intensity: Salient, separable and developmentally significant dimensions of structured youth activity involvement. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 907-933.

Central Statistics Office. (2008). Measuring Ireland’s progress. Dublin, Ireland: The Stationery Office.

Clary

E. G.

Snyder

Ridge

R. D.

Copeland

Stukas

A. A.

Haugen

Miene

(1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516-1530.

10.

Cox

McAdams

D. P.

(2012). The transforming self: Service narratives and identity change in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27, 18-43.

11.

Damon

(2008). The path to purpose: Helping our children find their calling in life. New York, NY: Free Press.

12.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crises. New York, NY: Norton.

13.

Finlay

A. K.

Wray-Lake

Flanagan

C. A.

(2010). Civic engagement during the transition to adulthood: Developmental opportunities and social policies at a critical juncture. In Sherrod

L. R.

Torney-Purta

Flanagan

C. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 277-305). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

14.

Gestsdottir

Lerner

R. M.

(2008). Positive development in adolescence: The development and role of intentional self regulation. Human Development, 51, 202-224.

15.

Gottlieb

B. H.

Still

Newby-Clark

I. R.

(2007). Types and precipitants of growth and decline in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 1-24.

16.

Hart

Donnelly

T. M.

Youniss

Atkins

(2007). High school community service as a predictor of adult voting and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 197-226.

17.

Helgeson

V. S.

Reynolds

K. A.

Tomich

P. L.

(2006). A meta-analytic review of benefit finding and growth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 797-816.

18.

Johnson

M. K.

Beebe

Mortimer

J. T.

Snyder

(1998). Volunteerism in adolescence: A process perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 309-332.

19.

Katz

(1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163-204.

20.

King

P. E.

Dowling

E. M.

Mueller

R. A.

White

Schultz

Osborn

. . . Scales

P. C.

(2005). Thriving in adolescence: The voices of youth-serving practitioners, parents, and early and late adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 94-112.

21.

King

P. E.

Furrow

J. L.

(2004). Religion as a resource for positive youth development: Religion, social capital, and moral outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 40, 703-713.

22.

Kroger

Martinussen

Marcia

J. E.

(2010). Identity status change during adolescence and young adulthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 683-698.

23.

Larkin

Watts

Clifton

(2006). Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 102-120.

24.

Lerner

R. M.

(2004). Diversity in individual ←→ context relations as the basis for positive development across the life span: A developmental systems perspective for theory, research, and application. Research in Human Development, 1, 327-346.

25.

Lerner

R. M.

Alberts

Jelicic

Smith

(2006). Young people are resources to be developed: Promoting positive youth development through adult-youth relations and community assets. In Clary

E. G.

Rhodes

J. E.

(Eds.), Mobilizing adults for positive youth development (pp. 19-39). New York, NY: Springer.

26.

Lerner

R. M.

Overton

W. F.

(2008). Exemplifying the integrations of the relational developmental system: Synthesizing theory, research, and application to promote positive development and social justice. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 245-255.

27.

Lerner

R. M.

von Eye

Lerner

J. V.

Lewin-Bizan

Bowers

E. P.

(2010). Special issue introduction: The meaning and measurement of thriving: A view of the issues. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 707-719.

28.

Levine

Higgins-D’Alessandro

(2010). Youth civic engagement: Normative issues. In Sherrod

L. R.

Torney-Purta

Flanagan

C. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 115-138). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

29.

MacNeela

(2008). The give and take of volunteering: Motives, benefits, and personal connections among Irish volunteers. Voluntas, 19, 125-139.

30.

MacNeela

Bredin

(2011). Keeping your balance: Freedom and regulation in female university students’ drinking practices. Journal of Health Psychology, 16, 284-293.

31.

McIntosh

Youniss

(2010). Toward a political theory of political socialization of youth. In Sherrod

L. R.

Torney-Purta

Flanagan

C. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement of youth (pp. 23-42). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

32.

Newton

B. J.

Rothlingova

Gutteridge

LeMarchand

Raphael

J. H.

(2011). No room for reflexivity? Critical reflections following a systematic review of qualitative research. Journal of Health Psychology. Advance online publication.

33.

Omoto

A. M.

Snyder

(1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 671-686.

34.

Omoto

A. M.

Snyder

Martino

S. C.

(2010). Volunteerism and the life course: Investigating age-related agendas for action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 181-197.

35.

Pascarella

Terenzini

(2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2): A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

36.

Penner

L. A.

(2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 447-467.

37.

Polvere

(2011). Youth perspectives on restrictive mental health placement: Unearthing a counter narrative. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26, 318-343.

38.

Reavy

(2011). Visual methods in psychology: Using and interpreting images in psychological research. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

39.

Ryff

C. D.

Keyes

C. L. M.

(1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719-727.

40.

Schaefer-McDaniel

(2007). “They be doing illegal things”: Early adolescents talk about their inner-city neighborhoods. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 413-426.

41.

Seider

(2007). Catalyzing a commitment to community service in emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 612-639.

42.

Seider

Gillmore

Rabinowicz

(2012). The impact of community service learning upon the expected political voice of participating college students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27, 44-77.

43.

Sherrod

L. R.

(2007). Civic engagement as an expression of positive youth development. In Silbereisen

R. K.

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Approaches to positive youth development (pp. 59-74). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

44.

Sherrod

L. R.

Torney-Purta

Flanagan

C. A.

(2010). Introduction: Research on the development of citizenship: A field comes of age. In Sherrod

L. R.

Torney-Purta

Flanagan

C. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 1-22). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

45.

Smith

J. A.

(2011). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 9-27.

46.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London, England: SAGE.

47.

Smith

J. A.

Osborn

(2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Smith

J. A.

(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (2nd ed. pp. 53-80). London, England: SAGE.

48.

Snyder

Omoto

A. M.

(2008). Volunteerism: Social issues perspectives and social policy implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2, 1-36.

49.

Torney-Purta

Amadeo

J.-A.

Andolina

M. W.

(2010). A conceptual framework and multimethod approach for research on political socialization and civic engagement. In Sherrod

L. R.

Torney-Purta

Flanagan

C. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 497-524). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

50.

Tripp

(1985). Case study generalisations: An agenda for action. British Educational Research Journal, 11, 33-45.

51.

Vogelgesang

L. J.

Astin

A. W.

(2000). Comparing the effects of community service and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 25-34.

52.

Watts

R. J.

Flanagan

C. A.

(2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 779-792.

53.

Weitzman

E. R.

Kawachi

(2000). Giving means receiving: The protective effect of social capital on binge drinking on college campuses. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1936-1939.

54.

Wilson

(2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 176-212.