Citizenship: A core motive for South African university student volunteers

Abstract

Research suggests that the desire to help others (value) and learning interpersonal skills (understanding) are core reasons for student volunteerism. Interpretations of such reports often minimise the role of contextual factors in shaping volunteer motives. This study considers the policy and institutional contexts that advocate for community engagement and social impact in South African higher education as a contributing factor in shaping student perceptions on reasons for volunteering. This article draws on student volunteers’ responses to an open-ended question exploring their volunteer motives. Active student volunteers (N = 70) were recruited from six community projects across three South African universities in the Western Cape region. The findings suggest that citizenship together with the value and understanding functions are core motives for volunteering among South African university students. These accounts of student volunteer motives posit strong links to contextual factors; a phenomenon that holds significant implications for policy makers.

Keywords

citizenship community engagement graduate attributes social responsibility student volunteerism volunteer motives

Introduction

Volunteerism is commonly perceived as ‘the manifestation of human helpfulness’ (Clary et al., 1998: 1516), a type of prosocial behaviour where time is given freely with the intent to benefit another in exchange for no substantial financial reward (Wilson, 2000; Penner, 2004). Understanding why people volunteer may help to enhance volunteer participation (O’Dwyer and Timonen, 2009). Furthermore, understanding why university students’ volunteer may assist in directing universities’ efforts to use student volunteerism as a conduit to promote their social impact in surrounding communities. Knowledge of student motives may also help with efforts to promote graduate attributes through the volunteer process. In this article, we position volunteerism within a higher education context and its relation to graduate attributes, citizenship behaviour and volunteer motives. We argue for a contextual approach to understanding student volunteer motives.

Graduate attributes, popular in higher education institutions, globally, are best described by Bowden et al. (2000), cited in Barrie (2006: 217) as,

The qualities, skills and understandings a university community agrees its students should develop during their time with the institution. These attributes include but go beyond the disciplinary expertise or technical knowledge that has traditionally formed the core of most university courses. They are qualities that also prepare graduates as agents of social good in an unknown future.

Volunteerism is an ideal structure through which to pursue the development of graduate attributes. In order to create platforms to develop graduate attributes, academics are also incentivised to create opportunities that cultivate student interest in community engagement. Incentives for academics to implement community engagement activities in curricula and research are deeply embedded in South African higher education through policy, performance indicators and evaluations.

One of the essential graduate attributes is to contribute to the social or public good (Barrie, 2004). Volunteerism embodies the social good through civic engagement as it allows people to express a fundamental understanding of citizenship, ‘the ability to move beyond one’s individual self-interest; to be committed to the well-being of some larger group of which one is a member’ (Sherrod et al., 2002: 265). Citizenship is a multi-faceted construct with many construed meanings (Hall et al., 1999; Sherrod et al., 2002; Condor, 2011) and is therefore conveyed through several deeds or actions such as expressing concern for others, voting and paying taxes.

The idea that citizenship always involves pro-social actions commensurate with state objectives is contested (Passini and Morselli, 2011; Harris, 2013; Bellino, 2015). The 2015 #FeesMustFall student protest made students aware of the ambivalence experienced in the notion of what constitutes citizenship behaviour (Condor, 2011), as some condemned and others supported the stance they took. Students challenged authorities by attempting a national shut down of South African university campuses, marked by mass non-attendance of lectures and disruption of lectures that were offered. However, the protest might also be considered as a form of pro-social disobedience (Passini and Morselli, 2011) as students expressed active citizenship by pursuing a more equitable society geared towards providing free higher education. The methods used by students to express active citizenship create an apparent conundrum faced when considering active citizenship behaviour.

Volunteerism is mostly, therefore, activities which coincide with established social norms. However, volunteerism may also incorporate activities that bring volunteers into conflict with the established order when engaging in activities that may reshape society.

Researching volunteer motives and related constructs has thus become essential to policymakers in higher education as volunteerism serves as a platform where students can learn to serve (be exposed to social issues and ways of addressing these issues) and serve to learn (acquire qualities and skills). Positioning volunteerism in this manner highlights the notion of active citizenship, learn to serve, as well as the potential to gain hands-on experience and enhance interpersonal skills while learning about other people and the cause that you are serving. These learning aspects of volunteerism are clustered by functional theorists as the understanding function, and are recorded as a motive to volunteer.

The functional approach brings into dispute the notion of volunteerism as entirely altruistic. In turn, it argues that volunteering serves a specific function for the volunteer (Clary et al., 1998). Clary et al. (1998) identified six functional motives; people volunteer to express humanitarian concerns for others (value), advance their careers (career), respond to significant others’ volunteer perceptions (social), feel good about themselves (esteem), enhance interpersonal skills (understanding), and to deal with personal problems and negative feelings (protective). These six functional motives are neatly structured in a 5-point Likert-type scale test called the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI). The VFI has been used as a tool to explore as well as method of reporting research studies on volunteer motives globally (Finkelstein, 2008; Marta and Pozzi, 2008; Van Vianen et al., 2008; Gage and Thapa, 2011).

Geographically, research on student volunteer motives appears to be skewed in favour of non-African studies. Grönlund et al. (2011) conducted a study in 13 countries, excluding African countries, on the motivations of student volunteers. Their findings across these countries suggest that altruism (value) and learning (understanding) are the most dominant reasons for volunteering among students. These findings are also supported by similar studies conducted in the global north (Gage and Thapa, 2011). Grönlund et al. (2011), in their cross-country study, found that social motives were reported highest in the United States, Canada and Belgium, whereas protective motives were most dominant in India and Korea. They suggest an important correlation between cultural values of individualism and religion and student volunteer motives. Their study is one of few studies that attempts to explain contextual factors when discussing volunteer motives. Their study, however, does present as essentialist and homogenising as it ascribes cultural values to a whole country. It therefore does not take into account significant global phenomena such as migration and cosmopolitanism which would require more nuanced analyses of culture in a specific geographical region.

Few studies have been done in African countries and the findings varied. All South African studies reviewed (Perold et al., 2006; Patel, 2007; Van den Berg and Cuskelly, 2014) found a strong notion of nation building among South African participants. A group of South African university students indicated learning to develop new skills (understanding), helping others (value) and wanting to contribute to the community (social responsibility) as the top three motives for volunteering (Van den Berg and Cuskelly, 2014). These findings support the global trend while highlighting a motive that is infrequently reported by volunteers from elsewhere. However, the notion of social responsibility as reason for volunteering is not exclusive to South African student volunteers. It was reported that in China, students from rural communities chose to volunteer in their community of origin as a form of giving back to the community (Geng, 2008).

Patel (2007) conducted the largest African study on volunteerism across five African countries: Botswana, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Even though she did not use student volunteers, it is important to consider her study as research on volunteerism emanating from this continent is scarce. Patel (2007) found that most South African volunteers expressed strong motives of citizenship – ‘the desire to contribute to building a new democratic nation’ (p. 14). The motive of nation building as volunteer motive was, however, less dominant among volunteers from the other participating countries. The prevalent theme of citizenship as volunteer motive for South African volunteers may be explained by considering contextual factors such as the country’s history where volunteering during the Apartheid era was primarily aimed at furthering the national goal of democracy as many volunteering organisations were politically motivated (Perold et al., 2006).

Although the impact of context on human behaviour is widely recognised, most research has focused on the influence of personal and developmental factors on one’s decision and likelihood to volunteer. Omoto et al. (2000) found that older people were more motivated by citizenship, such as a sense of obligation to the community and advocating for community issues, while younger people (19–39 years old) were motivated by relational factors such as meeting new people. Research also shows that people more likely to volunteer are future focused (Maki et al., 2016), from a higher socio-economic status (Wilson and Musick, 1997), those who engaged in community service during high school and those who come from families where civic engagement is modelled (Metzger et al., 2015; Whitley and Yoder, 2015). It seems evident that people are dissimilarly predisposed to volunteer (Penner, 2004). Moreover, we argue that individual factors alone do not influence decisions to volunteer and that volunteer motives should be studied within social and political contexts. This approach will encourage an exploration of the contribution of contextual factors that may contribute to volunteer motives. We reiterate that a person’s behaviour is the product of both the person and his or her contexts (Lewin, 1952) and that the contexts include various levels of influence (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Often, the influence of contextual factors such as policies, political and institutional contexts is ignored when investigating university students’ volunteer motives. In this article, we explore university students’ perceptions of volunteering and contextual factors such as policies and the institutional context and how they are mutually constituted.

Citizenship: an intended outcome of student volunteerism within higher education

One of the core values in reconstructing a democratic society such as South Africa is active citizenship. The notion of active citizenship encompasses an array of concepts including that of social responsibility and civic engagement to capture its multi-faceted meaning and everyday understanding (Hall et al., 1999; Sherrod et al., 2002; Condor, 2011). Within this article, although different in many ways, the terms civic engagement and social responsibility are used interchangeably with citizenship behaviour.

The value of citizenship is strongly embraced in South African higher education policy documents. Citizenship is thought to be stimulated by promoting and developing social responsibility among students along with critical thinking and the ability to contribute to problem solving strategies while considering diverse views (Education White Paper 3, 1997). Apart from the Education White Paper 3 (1997), this sentiment of universities being socially responsible institutions has also been reiterated within the Higher Education Act of 1997 (Republic of South Africa, 1997) and the Ministry of Education’s National Plan for Higher Education, released in 2001 (Ministry of Education, 2001).

Accordingly, community engagement was established as one of three pillars of higher education, alongside research, and teaching and learning (Kotecha and VOSESA, 2011). Community engagement therefore provides the structure and platform where the interaction between universities and the broader community is facilitated. Community engagement is central to the global higher education context and so its elevation in South African higher education too is well established. South African universities participate in international, Southern African and national platforms for community engagement such as the Talloires Network (international), the Southern African Regional Universities Association (SARUA) (African regional) and the South African Higher Education Community Engagement Forum (SAHECEF) (national). All three universities participating in this study form part of these networks. Consequently, the policies, structures and outcomes of community engagement is regularly being revisited on various levels of influence and interaction. Also, within South Africa, deliberate initiatives such as the Community Higher Education Service Partnerships (CHESP) were implemented across the country to facilitate institutional policies, strategies and organisational structures with the aim to enhance community engagement at higher education institutions (Lazarus et al., 2008). We will, however, not elaborate on any specific policy but will hold to community engagements’ overarching objectives of addressing developmental challenges (Kotecha and VOSESA, 2011), establishing socially responsible universities (Erasmus, 2005) and producing socially responsible graduates (Education White Paper 3, 1997) through reciprocal interaction between universities and their larger communities (Kotecha and VOSESA, 2011).

There have been many debates on the conceptualisation of community engagement (Council on Higher Education, 2010). Although there may be discrepancies in its conceptualisation, there seems to be agreement that community engagement should be integrated into the core knowledge generating mission of universities (Driscoll, 2009; Kotecha and VOSESA, 2011; Chile and Black, 2015). The value of citizenship and being a responsive university with socially responsible student leaders that has a social impact is encouraged. This is enabled through multiple channels ranging from formal lectures, research projects, discussion forums, service-learning modules to volunteerism.

Furthermore, it is within this structure of community engagement that student volunteerism is recognised as a conduit to expand higher education’s role and impact in society. Student volunteerism thus provides the space to address societal needs and the structural support to foster active citizenship and promote graduate attributes (Marullo and Edwards, 2000; Kotecha and VOSESA, 2011; Chile and Black, 2015).

Graduate attributes incorporate the notion of active citizenship as it emphasises socially or ethically responsible leadership among students. The three universities in this study each highlight their own graduate attributes and strive to develop these attributes within each student throughout his or her academic life. Higher education institution 1 (HEI 1), articulates their six core graduate attributes as cultivating opportunities to develop well-rounded students. They also value educating and shaping people who are competent and equipped for professional life. Further important graduate attributes involve adaptability, being equipped for lifelong learning and playing leadership roles as responsible and critical citizens in a democracy by contributing to the well-being and quality of life of all people while functioning effectively in a multilingual context. HEI 2 pursues similar educational aims as they structure their graduate attributes in accordance with the values of the university and the needs of society. They also emphasise critical thinking in relation to disciplinary and professional knowledge and to societal issues, multilingual awareness and competence, developing global citizens who place a premium on social justice and lifelong learning. HEI 3 groups its graduate attributes according to global generic attributes: scholarship, critical citizenship and the social good, and lifelong learning (Barrie, 2004). The graduate attributes mentioned by all three universities are also perceived as benefits of community engagement (Bednarz et al., 2008; Millican and Bourner, 2011). The institutional desire to develop graduate attributes coincides with some of the objectives of community engagement.

Numerous researchers suggest that opportunities to deliberate on and implement active citizenship through community engagement activities should proliferate and be integrated across higher education. These include the formal curriculum, the co-curricular and an emphasis is placed on application of theoretical learning (Bringle and Hatcher, 1999; Ostrander, 2004; Whitley and Yoder, 2015).

Many students are also aware of the increasing importance of acquiring and being able to demonstrate the desired graduate attributes as these attributes enhance employability or access to further study opportunities. Employability is commonly linked to the career function which suggests that students would volunteer to enhance their CVs, network with career benefits in mind or to gain access to potential employers of their choice. However, students are reluctant to construct their volunteerism as purely related to furthering their own careers (Holdsworth, 2010). Students from countries such as Korea, Japan and Finland reported building their CVs as least important (Grönlund et al., 2011). It appears that employability might be more of a planned benefit than a motive to volunteer (Holdsworth, 2010). One may argue that students’ desire to develop graduate attributes as enhancing employability might be a contributing factor to the prevalence of the understanding function as motive for volunteering along with not reporting on the career function as a motive for volunteering. Students are not focused on a specific career but rather focus on the qualities in attitude and other soft skills that would set them apart from other applicants. These attributes and skills are at times more comprehensively captured within a variety of functions such as the career, understanding and esteem functions. Moreover, the mere act of volunteering alludes to characteristics of an involved citizen, a person who would go beyond the call of duty, and therefore an attribute noticed by most employees.

It is clear that community engagement and the focus on graduate attributes at higher education institutions are mutually constituted through university managers and students. On the one hand, community engagement is executed as a managerial function or top-down approach, where policies drive the notion of a socially responsive university. However, on the other hand, student motivations also feed into policies that drive community engagement. These policies at global, regional, national and institutional levels, provide structure and support for community engagement activities such as student volunteerism and the facilitation of citizenship as an intended outcome. A curious phenomenon is that although active citizenship is an outcome desired by university management, it cannot always determine the nature of how active citizenship is expressed by students.

As mentioned earlier, student protest might be a sign of unintended achieved citizenship goals through student volunteerism and other teaching and learning platforms. It was evident that higher education institutions were not ready for the result of their aims to develop students who think critically and express active citizenship, as stipulated in the Education White Paper 3 (1997). Subsequently, the inherent paradox between policy and student actions was demonstrated through these protests.

Methodology

Three of the four universities in the Western Cape region of South Africa participated in this study. We recruited participants from two community projects linked to each university. A total of six community projects across three institutions therefore participated. We (authors) are based in the Western Cape, other provinces were thus excluded due to logistical reasons. The Western Cape has four public universities. However, we decided not to include all four universities in this study as we had to consider the feasibility of the study in terms of time and resources.

It should be noted that each of the participating universities in this study has a unique past due to South Africa’s history of Apartheid where white universities had more resources than black institutions. In the contemporary higher education landscape, some of these inequalities remain. The universities in the study included a historically white Afrikaans university, a historically white English university, and the third a historically black university. Each university is very different in terms of structure, culture, history and resources. Taking these factors into consideration, this research does not set out to compare the universities per se, but rather to explore the phenomenon of student volunteer motives within the different contexts of these South African universities.

Student volunteerism at the participating universities were situated in departments with clear social justice and student development objectives such as to develop responsible and responsive citizens, and assist people from disadvantaged backgrounds with the aim to respond to the injustices of the past. These social responsibility messages act as the driving force for student volunteer activities. HEI 1 centralised its student volunteerism within the Division of Community Engagement and HEI 2 within the Department for Student Affairs: Student Life and Development. Volunteerism at HEI 3 was, however, dispersed with Project Five situated in a unit of the Rector’s office with a focus on student dignity and respect and Project Six operating within the Leadership and Social Responsibility office. The division names and location of student volunteerism offices in higher education institutions suggest a clear link between graduate attributes and volunteerism.

Overall study design

The data used for the purpose of this article are drawn from a larger mixed-method design study investigating recruitment and retention of South African university student volunteers in higher education. Multiple methods such as the VFI, an open-ended questionnaire, interviews and focus groups were used within the larger study and data were triangulated. Data triangulation was employed to link the quantitative and qualitative data obtained. We thus looked for similarities and discrepancies across the six case projects, drawing on all the data sources.

After permission to do the study was obtained from all institutions and the Ethics committee of Stellenbosch University provided formal written ethical clearance (HS611/2011), data were collected over a period of 3 years, 2011–2013. Table 1 presents the time-frame for data collection across 6 projects. Seventeen interviews and three focus groups were conducted across the six projects. Furthermore (N = 70), active student volunteers completed questionnaires. The participating universities were not equally represented. Active volunteers completing the questionnaires per university was respectively n = 31, n = 32 and n = 7.

Table 1.

Representation of data collection timeframe across the six projects.

Projects and universities	Questionnaires	Interviews	Focus groups
Project 1	28 September 2011 (n = 4) 1 August 2012 (n = 25)	14 August 2012 – Project leader	21 August 2012 Participants (n = 6)
Project 2	22 October 2012 (n = 2)	21 October 2012 – Project leader 29 October 2012 – Previous project leader 24 October 2012 –Men’s residence volunteer coordinator 25 October 2012 – Ladies residence volunteer coordinator
HEI 1		1 November 2012- Manager Student volunteer division (staff member)
Project 3	10 October 2012(n = 3)31 July 2013(n = 2)1 August 2013(n = 5)	3 August 2013, Project leader	10 August 2013 Participants(n = 4)
Project 4	15 October 2011(n = 22)	12 November 2012 –Project leader16 November 2012 –HR Committee leader one4 December 2012 – HR Committee leader two
HEI 2		20 November 2012 – Director umbrella project17 October 2013 – Coordinator Societies and Student organisations
Project 5	7 November 2013 (n = 4)	18 September 2013, Project leader18 September 2013, Student programmes officer	7 November 2013 Participants(n = 3)
Project 6	18 September 2013 (n = 3)	4 September 2013, Leadership and Social Responsibility manager10 September 2013, Leadership and Social Responsibility coordinator10 September 2013, Project leader

The six participating projects varied in its relation to the respective universities. At HEI 1, Project 1 was a faith-based project both associated with a local student church and to the university as a registered society. Project 2 was a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) that was registered as a community partner to the university where students could be matched to volunteers. At HEI 2, Projects 3 and 4 were student driven projects whereas at HEI 3, Projects 5 and 6 had both student leaders and dedicated staff leaders. The unique positioning of each of these projects had a major impact on the data gathering procedure followed within the larger study.

Participating students were not asked to include their names on the questionnaires. Participant responses will be reported by referring to the participants as participant 1–70, indicating the project and institution. All participants completed a written informed consent form.

Methods and participants

For the purpose of this article, a single strand of data exploring the open-ended responses of active volunteer participants was examined. We were particularly interested in the students’ perceptions and how it reflects higher education policies as well as the institutional context.

Active student volunteers from six community projects across three Western Cape universities completed an open-ended questionnaire. This article will, however, only consider the answers of one of the open-ended questions: ‘What motivates you to volunteer?’

Seventy student volunteers answered the question in writing. Participant demographics are indicated in Table 2. The participants were mostly female (58%) and just under half were white (49%) compared to Black African (28%), Coloured (19%) and Indian (4%).¹ The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 28 with a mean of 21 years. Participants were mostly undergraduate students (72%) with the third-years being the biggest group overall (30%) and the second-years the smaller group (19%). The entire student group volunteered for an average of 12 months (mean) with the larger percentage volunteering for 9 months (median).

Table 2.

Active student volunteer participant demographics (N = 70).

Demographics	Categories	Participant numbers	Percentages
Race	Black African	n = 19	28%
	Coloured	n = 13	19%
	Indian	n = 3	4%
	White	n = 33	49%
Gender	Female	n = 28	58%
Gender	Male	n = 39	42%
Age	Range	18–28 years
	Mean	21 years
	Median	21 years
Year of study	First years	n = 16	23%
	Second years	n = 13	19%
	Third years	n = 21	30%
	Honours	n = 15	21%
	Masters	n = 4	6%
	Doctorate	n = 1	1%
Time spent volunteering at the participating project	Range	Less than a month to 60 months (5 years)
	Mean	12 month
	Median	9 month

Data analysis

Student volunteer responses to the open-ended question was analysed by thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The text was coded by data retention, meaning that the data were revisited several times in order to understand it (Richards, 2009) as well as data reduction, where numerical figures were added in order to establish frequency of themes. Themes were predetermined based on the six functional motives for volunteering (Clary et al., 1998).

We, however, decided to distinguish between the value function, faith-based motives and citizenship. When students reported motives as their love for God, wanting to spread the gospel, or feeling called by God, we interpreted those as faith-based motives and not value function.

Although citizenship may be perceived to be included in the value function, this function does not make clear provision for either social justice, social responsibility or citizenship motives. Recently researchers (Jiranek et al., 2013) have informally added social justice, ‘the promotion of equality’ (p. 521), to the VFI. Meanwhile, other scholars have also started to refer to social justice motives as a function of volunteering (Güntert et al., 2016).

Moreover, we made the distinction between the value function and citizenship based on the fact that the participants did not merely communicate a general concern for others, but their concern was also directed towards the welfare of the country. When volunteers expressed their motives for volunteering linked to a cause or interest, we distinguished the cause or interest between general interest such as debating, or whether the cause was politically connected to the enhancement of social justice such as the inequalities in the South African educational system.

After employing thematic analysis, we specifically explored individual words used by the participants and how they relate to messages communicated through higher education policies and the institutional context. A tabular representation of themes emanating from the research is presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Breakdown of the three prevalent volunteer motives: themes and categories.

	Citizenship	N = 23	Value	N = 21	Understanding	N = 8
Categories	Giving back/social responsibility	n = 10	Helping others/making a difference in general	n = 13	Hands on learning	n = 3
	Addressing inequalities	n = 3	Caring about a cause	n = 8	Learn about others	n = 2
	Making a difference in the country	n = 10			Discover strengths and work on weaknesses	n = 1
					Gain new perspective	n = 2

Findings and discussion

Findings from the larger study after the data were triangulated showed that the most prevalent motives for volunteering across the six projects were value, citizenship and understanding. However, when only analysing the single strand of data that we are reporting on for this article, the findings showed citizenship was the most prevalent motive followed by the value function and faith-based motives.

The participants who reported on the faith-based motive was from a single project, Project One. Students with a high interest in religion were attracted to this project and were sought after by the project management. This project also constituted a large number of the participants who completed the questionnaire (n = 29). Ten out of the 29 participants from that project reported faith-based motives along with one student from another project:

The project I volunteer at is centred on spreading God’s word and sharing His love to others. God’s love motivates me. (Participant 33, Project One (HEI 1))

Other themes outside of the six functional motives included, free-time, fun, service-learning and volunteer identity. Interestingly, these motives were all mentioned by male participants. All the six functional motives were present except for the career function, although one volunteer mentioned the career function as an initial motive that changed over time. This motive was, however, coded as value function as the study did not account for motives that had changed over time. This was the only participant reporting on motives that changed (Finkelstein, 2008; Holdsworth, 2010; Grönlund et al., 2011). One may conduct further research on reasons why motives change over time. An inference may be made that being surrounded by other volunteers with citizenship, value and understanding motives might have had an influenced on the change in motives. Another inference that may be drawn is that the interaction with the people from the community may have brought about awareness of self and others as well as societal dilemmas and possible solutions (Cipolle, 2010):

Initially it was just to get something good for my CV, but after a while I have learned that I have lots to offer other people. (Participant 59, Project Three (HEI 2))

Figure 1 presents a breakdown of male and female participants’ responses per theme as they emerged from the open-ended question, ‘What motivates you to volunteer?’

Figure 1.

Student volunteer motive themes as per the open-ended question: male and female.

Due to the fact that the faith-based motive was not a motive that emerged across the six projects, we will therefore not report on this motive as one of the most prevalent motives. Subsequently, we will be reporting on citizenship, value and understanding as the most prevalent motives. Some participants mentioned more than one motive. Total motives mentioned were 52, citizenship was mentioned 23 times, value 21 times and understanding 8 times. The table below presents a breakdown of the categories within the three prevalent themes.

Citizenship

Students mentioned addressing inequalities as a motive for volunteering:

I feel that the inequalities in the SA education system can be mitigated by lending my skills to those who can’t afford to pay for services. (Participant 7, Project Four (HEI 2))

The gross inequalities that exist in SA and the need for EVERYONE to try to make a difference motivates me to volunteer. (Participant 21, Project Four (HEI 2))

These perceptions are linked to notions of promoting social justice and expressing active citizenship (Jiranek et al., 2013). The notion of using community engagement such as volunteerism to address inequalities is communicated through various outlets on multiple platforms (Bringle and Hatcher, 1999; Ostrander, 2004; Whitley and Yoder, 2015). Most higher education institutions in South Africa include community service and related constructs such as community engagement and volunteerism in their mission statement (Perold, 1998). HEI 2 explicitly stated in their mission statement that they set out to address inequalities through their volunteer programmes. Addressing inequalities was also mentioned by the rector or university president of HEI 1 at a community engagement symposium. The view of promoting social justice is also implied by one student as denouncing institutions.

The need to help others and a way of denouncing institutions. (Participant 69, Project Six (HEI 3))

Furthering social justice goes beyond helping individuals and good deeds. It is essential to identify and resist root causes (Penner, 2004) such as systems and institutions that are perceived as being complicit with oppressions (Holdsworth and Quinn, 2011). Students also express concern for others through a desire to give back to their communities:

The community that I’m from, people in the same age group of mine don’t have matric, so we must change that with coming youngsters. (Participant 66, Project Five (HEI 3))

To make a difference in disadvantaged communities because I grew up around such communities and wish to make an impact to those kids of communities. (Participant 42, Project One (HEI 1))

‘Other people have helped me in the past and I would like to do the same’. – Participant 11, Project Four (HEI 2)

Students have increasingly become more cognisant of their social responsibility towards others as they recognise their own privilege (Cipolle, 2010). This privilege may include being part of a small percentage of people in South Africa with a higher education qualification:

I am compelled to give back what I have been fortunate to have. (Participant 25, Project Four (HEI 2))

I volunteer to make the most of the opportunities I’ve been given, especially to benefit those who have not had the same opportunities. (Participant 31, Project Two (HEI 1))

Students’ desire to make a difference in the country and volunteerism is recognised as a platform to do so.

I think there is so much we all can do to make a difference in our society and I think volunteering is a way of taking conscious to do so. (Participant 57, Project Three (HEI 2))

‘My passion to give back to society and help the country’. – Participant 15, Project Four (HEI 2)

To improve the lives of my fellow South Africans. (Participant 47, Project One (HEI I))

Above perceptions of addressing inequalities, giving back, social responsibility and making a difference in the country encapsulates the notion of citizenship as a motive for volunteering among university students (Sherrod et al., 2002). These expressed motives demonstrated clear nation-building goals (Patel, 2007). These also reflect as an output of higher education’s aims to promote socially responsible graduates and active citizenship (Education White Paper 3, 1997).

Understanding function

Students expressed a desire to learn as motive for volunteering (Grönlund et al., 2011; Van den Berg and Cuskelly, 2014). However, this learning one may infer, is not only directed at hands-on experience in terms of acquiring practical skills. Students express a desire to understand how to engage with others in the diverse democratic dispensation and to see problems first hand. The desire expressed by students, complement both the notion of citizenship (building social cohesion) and graduate attributes detailed in various university policy documents. Students are aware of the qualities that might be instilled through the volunteer process and thus set out to develop those qualities. When students experience contemporary social issues in volunteer spaces, they develop a consciousness about the complexities of dealing with these challenges and may also be directed to possible solutions (Cipolle, 2010):

A desire to help and learn about others. (Participant 22, Project Four (HEI 2))

Through helping others I help to gain a new perspective and gives me the opportunity to make a difference in the world. (Participant 54, Project One (HEI 1))

I am passionate about seeing change in communities where it’s needed, I also need to change and interact with people outside my comfort zone. (Participant 48, Project One (HEI I))

I want to make a difference and see the problems first hand. (Participant 51, Project One (HEI 1))

We compared the motives related to the understanding function with graduate attributes and found a strong link between the two. If the development of graduate attributes is promoted as enhancing employability, it could be argued that the prevalence of the understanding function is possibly linked to the notion of enhancing employability, even in the absence of the career function. The understanding function differs from the career function, because the desired skills obtained are not directly linked to a career. Research, however, showed that employability is more of a planned benefit of volunteering than a motive or goal per se. (Holdsworth, 2010)

Value function

The prominence of the value function reflects the embedded notion of volunteering being the ‘manifestation of human helpfulness’ (Clark et al., 1997: 1516). In addition, South Africa’s new democratic culture might also have contributed to the high appearance of the value function (Grönlund et al., 2011).

My passion for helping others. (Participant 28, Project Three (HEI 2))

Knowing you’ll help people in need. (Participant 36, Project One (HEI 1))

The desire to make a positive contribution in someone’s life. (Participant 64, Project Five (HEI 3))

Drawing from above perceptions, it is evident that student volunteer motives align with the objectives set and communicated to students through policies and institutional structures, advocating for volunteerism to support the notion of a socially responsive university and encouraging active citizenship by instilling socially responsible and responsive leadership qualities in students. Thus, communicating objectives and benefits of both community engagement and graduate attributes (Erasmus, 2005; Bednarz et al., 2008; Millican and Bourner, 2011). When policies (Education White Paper 3, 1997) filter through organised structures (Community Engagement) and provide practical outlets (student volunteerism) to express these objectives, those policies and structures may have a significant impact on student motives and ultimately student actions. Data highlight the importance of considering social and political contexts when investigating volunteer motives and drafting policies. Hence, policies should be drafted with the consideration of the actual actions taken by both students and staff. Implementation of policies should be noted even before the policies are set in order to be relevant and effective.

Summary and conclusion

Most research on student volunteer motives narrowly addresses volunteer motivations from the perspective of individual characteristics (Wilson and Musick, 1997; Omoto et al., 2000; Penner, 2004; Maki et al., 2016) and therefore neglects contextual factors that might influence students’ reasons for volunteering. Contextual factors such as policy, institutional and social contexts may be important catalysts impacting various student motivations to volunteer. This study suggests links between policies, institutional and social contexts on students’ reasons for volunteering.

Data from the study suggest that citizenship, value and understanding functions are the most prevalent motives for volunteering among South African university students. These findings support other South African studies where all three value functions are common (Van den Berg and Cuskelly, 2014). These findings also support international studies in terms of the value and understanding functions (Gage and Thapa, 2011; Grönlund et al., 2011). Citizenship, however, commonly arose in South African studies, even those that did not include students as participants (Perold et al., 2006; Patel, 2007).

Citizenship was expressed by students in this study as addressing inequalities, giving back to their communities and upholding a sense of social responsibility. These expressions are similar to higher education institution imperatives that focus on graduate attributes. The link between graduate attributes and citizenship are clear. Graduate attributes are personified in the understanding motive. Students mentioned being motivated by the desire to learn about others, gain new perspectives and the need to interact with people from different cultures and backgrounds as well as to see social problems first hand. Similarly, the value function also exemplifies graduate attributes and links with the notion of citizenship as expressing concern for others (Sherrod et al., 2002). We make a distinction between the value function and citizenship since value function is commonly construed in a broader altruistic, humanitarian manner, whereas citizenship implies a specific concern within nation-building.

The motive of citizenship is deeply entrenched in South African higher education policies. The Education White Paper 3 (1997) along with others (Republic of South Africa, 1997; Ministry of Education, 2001) embedded community engagement as a core function of South African higher education along with teaching and learning and research.

The agenda for community engagement sets out to address developmental challenges and establish socially responsible universities which produce graduates who can think critically and function as socially and ethically responsible leaders in society. Volunteerism is an important conduit to achieve these outcomes. There is global consensus that active citizenship is a core graduate attribute (Barrie, 2004).

Within the context of policies and institutional contexts we recognise the impact of contextual factors on students’ perceptions on reasons to volunteer. We, however, do not advocate causality of these factors on volunteer motives but emphasise the importance of considering contextual factors when exploring student volunteer motives or related constructs. We also recognise that these relationships between contextual factors and motivations to volunteer are mutually constituted. Therefore, student motivations should be considered during policy development and vice versa.

We argue for and demonstrate the importance of developing volunteerism in the context of policy at institutional, national, African regional and global levels. Developing and sustaining a strong multi-levelled culture of volunteerism through policy provides opportunities for inculcating active citizenship as a core graduate attribute among students in higher education institutions.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author received funding from the National Research Foundation to support her research and a Consolidoc grant from Stellenbosch University to support her publication of this article.

Notes

References

Barrie

(2004) A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Education Research and Development 23(3): 261–275.

Barrie

(2006) Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education 51(2): 215–241.

Bednarz

Chalkley

Fletcher

, et al. (2008) Community engagement for student learning in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 32(1): 87–100.

Bellino

(2015) Civic engagement in extreme times: the remaking of justice among Guatemala’s ‘postwar’ generation. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 10(2): 118–132.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Bringle

Hatcher

(1999) Reflection in service learning: making meaning of experiences. Educational Horizons 77(4): 179–185.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chile

Black

(2015) University–community engagement: case study of university social responsibility. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 10(3): 234–253.

Cipolle

(2010) Service-Learning and Social Justice: Engaging Students in Social Change. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

10.

Clark

Croddy

Hayes

, et al. (1997) Service learning as civic participation. Theory into Practice 36(3): 164–169.

11.

Clary

Snyder

Ridge

, et al. (1998) Understanding and assessing the motivation of volunteers: a functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 1516–1530.

12.

Condor

(2011) Towards a social psychology of citizenship? Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 21: 193–201.

13.

Council on Higher Education (eds) Community engagement South African higher education Pretoria South Africa (Kagisano no 6). Pretoria, South Africa: Council on Higher Education.

14.

Driscoll

(2009) Carnegie’s new community engagement classification: affirming higher education’s role in community. In: Sandmann

Thornton

Jaeger

(eds) Institutionalizing Community Engagement in Higher Education: The First Wave of Carnegie Classified Institutions: New Directions for Higher Education, Number 147. Danvers, MA: Jossey-Bass, 5–12.

15.

Education White Paper 3 (1997) A Programme for Higher Education Transformation. Pretoria, South Africa: Ministry of Education.

16.

Erasmus

(2005) Introduction: community service learning and the South African research agenda. Acta Academica Supplementum 3: 1–23.

17.

Finkelstein

(2008) Predictors of volunteer time: the changing contributions of motive fulfillment and role identity. Social Behavior and Personality 36(10): 1353–1364.

18.

Gage

Thapa

(2011) Volunteer motivations and constraints among college students: analysis of the Volunteer Function Inventory and leisure constraints models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 26(1): 1–16.

19.

Geng

(2008) Students setting out to alleviate ‘poverty of spirit’ in rural China found themselves transformed: self-organized volunteerism among university students for rural development. Chinese Education and Society 41(3): 72–84.

20.

Grönlund

Holmes

Kang

, et al. (2011) Cultural values and volunteering: a cross-cultural comparison of student’s motivation to volunteer in 13 countries. Journal of Academic Ethics 9: 87–106.

21.

Güntert

Strubel

Kals

, et al. (2016) The quality of volunteers’ motives: integrating the functional approach and self-determination theory. Journal of Social Psychology 156(30): 310–327.

22.

Hall

Coffey

Williamson

(1999) Self, space and place: youth identities and citizenship. British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(4): 501–513.

23.

Harris

(2013) Young People and Everyday Multiculturalism. London: Routledge.

24.

Holdsworth

(2010) Why volunteer? Understanding motivations for student volunteering. British Journal of Educational Studies 58(4): 421–437.

25.

Holdsworth

Quinn

(2011) The epistemological challenge of higher education student volunteering: “reproductive” or “deconstructive” volunteering? The Authors Antipode 44(2): 386–405.

26.

Jiranek

Kals

Humm

, et al. (2013) Volunteering as a means to an equal end? The impact of a social justice function on intention to volunteer. Journal of Social Psychology 153(5): 520–541.

27.

Kotecha

VOSESA (2011) Engaging universities in the regional integration project in Southern Africa. In: The Southern Africa conference on volunteer action for development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 17–19 October.

28.

Lazarus

Erasmus

Hendricks

, et al. (2008) Embedding community engagement in South Africa higher education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 3(1): 59–85.

29.

Lewin

(1952) Field Theory in Social Science Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd.

30.

Maki

Dwyer

Snyder

(2016) Time perspective and volunteerism: the importance of focusing on the future. Journal of Social Psychology 156(3): 334–349.

31.

Marta

Pozzi

(2008) Young people and volunteerism: a model of sustained volunteerism during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Adult Development 15: 35–46.

32.

Marullo

Edwards

(2000) From charity to justice: the potential of university-community collaboration for social change. American Behavioral Scientist 43(5): 895–912.

33.

Metzger

Erete

Barton

, et al. (2015) The new political voice of young Americans: online engagement and civic development among first-year college students. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 10(1): 55–66.

34.

Millican

Bourner

(2011) Student-community engagement and the changing role and context of higher education. Education and Training 53(2–3): 89–99.

35.

Ministry of Education (2001) National Plan for Higher Education. Available at: http://www.justice.gov.za/commissions/FeesHET/docs/2001-NationalPlanForHigherEducation.pdf (accessed 15 August 2018).

36.

O’Dwyer

Timonen

(2009) Doomed to extinction? The nature and future of volunteering for meals-on-wheels service. Voluntus: International Journal of Volunteering and Nonprofit Organizations 20(1): 35–49.

37.

Omoto

Snyder

Martino

(2000) Volunteerism and the life course: investigating age-related agendas for action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 22(3): 181–197.

38.

Ostrander

(2004) Democracy, civic participation, and the university: a comparative study of civic engagement on five campuses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(1): 74–93.

39.

Passini

Morselli

(2011) In the name of democracy: disobedience and value-oriented citizenship. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 21: 255–267.

40.

Patel

(2007) A cross-national study on civic service and volunteering in Southern Africa. In: Patel

Muped-Ziswa

(eds) Research Partnerships Build the Service Field in Africa: Special Issue on Civic Service in the Southern African Development Community (The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Journal of Social Development in Africa). Johannesburg, South Africa: VOSESA, 7–23.

41.

Penner

(2004) Volunteerism and social problems: making things better or worse? Journal of Social Issues 60(3): 645–666.

42.

Perold

(1998) Community Service in Higher Education: Final Report. Johannesburg, South Africa: JET Education Services.

43.

Perold

Carapinha

Mohamed

(2006) Five-Country Study on Service and Volunteering in Southern Africa: South African Country Report. Johannesburg, South Africa: VOSESA.

44.

Republic of South Africa (RSA) (1997) Higher Education Act No. 101 of 1997 (Government Gazette). Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printers.

45.

Richards

(2009) Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide, 2nd edn. London: SAGE.

46.

Sherrod

Flanagan

Youniss

(2002) Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities for youth development: the what, why, when, where and who of citizenship development. Applied Developmental Science 6(4): 264–272.

47.

Van den Berg

Cuskelly

(2014) Motives and constraints influencing volunteerism amongst university sport students. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, Supplement 2(2): 448–462.

48.

Van Vianen

AEM

Nijstad

Voskuijl

(2008) A person-environment fit approach to volunteerism: volunteer personality fit and culture fit as predictors of affective outcomes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 30: 153–166.

49.

Whitley

Yoder

(2015) Developing social responsibility and political engagement: assessing the aggregate impacts of university civic engagement on associated attitudes and behaviors. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 10(3): 217–233.

50.

Wilson

(2000) Volunteering. Annual Reviews 26(2): 215–240.

51.

Wilson

Musick

(1997) Who cares? Towards an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review 62(5): 694–713.