-A +A
Volume I, Issue 1, October 2000
Global Perspectives

How Possible Is International Exchange?


Keyboard Roundtables
Moderated by Andy Fryar
Participants:
Nonie Brennan, Elena De Palma, Maria Elena Pereira Johannpeter, Fumiko Mega, Patricia Nabti and Sari Tervonen

Participants from Australia, Italy, Brazil, Finland, Japan, Lebanon and North America

This Keyboard Roundtable included participants from six different countries, representing vastly different volunteerism cultures. The group was asked to respond primarily to the question of "How Possible Is International Exchange?" and over a three week period of intense email discussions the group covered a wide range of discussion points in responding to the topic.

The discussion allowed all involved to better understand the strengths and limitations of volunteerism in other parts of the world, looked at the impact and influence of the well developed "US Model" of volunteerism - and particularly discussed the cultural intricacies of adopting a foreign "model" into local practices.

Other discussion points raised included the emerging possibilities of technology (including the internet), government, Volunteer Centers and the International Year of Volunteers in aiding international exchange. The Roundtable also examined the core question of what constitutes a "Civil Society"?

The Keyboard Roundtable participants and their Convening Editor must all be applauded for their efforts and for the remarkable product of their discussion. Not only did the participants engage in a new and experimental venture, but many did so in a language other than their native tongue. All are to be commended for the manner in which they articulated their ideas and for their courage in engaging in such a difficult and revealing endeavor.

High praise must also go to Convening Editor, Andy Fryar, who not only monitored and nurtured the discussion, but also edited the materials in a way that both highlights the ideas of the participants and creates a piece that is informative, enjoyable reading. Initial comments from the participants themselves reveal this to have been a rewarding experience. New contacts were made, ideas were raised and information shared--making the Roundtable a true forum for international exchange.

The full article is only available to subscribers.

Subscribers: Log in at top left or, if you have logged in and cannot access the article, your subscription has probably expired. Renew Now.

Non-subscribers: Subscribe now for full year ($45) or 48-hour access ($10).

Comments

Maria Elena Johannpeter, Parceiro, Brazil

November 6th, 2000, 12:24pm

Sorry for my late reply. Maybe I wasn't very clear. What happened here in Brazil, is that people wanted to help the others but they worked without any commitment. On the other hand, the entities didn't want to accept these volunteers because they used to go there once or twice and then disappeared. They wanted to perform volunteer work for their own sake. This was bad for both sides. For this reason we started using the expression "organized volunteerism". We started to orient the entities about volunteers recruitment, selection, orientation, evaluation,etc. We began to ask people to work at least four hours/week in the entity and respect its policies and procedures. I agree with you when you say that generations of informal volunteers maintained the spirit of volunteerism alive over the millenia.

Andy Fryar

October 16th, 2000, 12:23pm

As Convening Editor, I'll comment that the term "American Model" was used in a fairly broad and generic sense - however I guess it was used primarily to refer to the well developed American structure of formal Volunteer Program Management more than anything else.

Christer Leopold, Swedish Red Cross, Switzerland (on assignment)

November 20th, 2000, 12:22pm

I think the discussion about the "American Model" is not very clear. It is assumed that the US has the largest non-profit sector in the world, but research has shown that the sector relatively speaking is stronger in the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium and Israel. And even if the percentage of volunteering in the population is higher in the US, the difference is not so big compared with some European countries.

The real difference, I believe, is not in the scope of volunteering or the sector, but in the way the work is organised. It is not primarily volunteering that is different --that's a result -- it is the volunteer organisation that is different. In Europe we have a membership tradition, in the US a service delivery tradition. In the former everything starts with the members. They form an organisation, they decide what it should do and they do the job. In the latter an organisation starts with the task and then recruits volunteers to do the work. The first model is strong on democracy, the second on service delivery. If helping people is your major aim, the service delivery model is obviously much more efficient. From my European perspective, to combine the strength of the two into one organisation seems to be the best solution. But is that possible?

The Importance of Being "Culturally Aware"
Volunteering, unlike paid work, has to be in tune with local conditions and traditions. Because these differs between counties volunteering can, I believe, not be exported from one country to another. Volunteering concepts can however be imported and successfully be put into work by local "translators and adapters" (this seems to be what Elena De Palma is doing in Italy). I think the chain looks like this: be inspired, import, adapt, develop, change and maybe "export back."Rob Jackson is right: both parties learn from the exchange. An outsider’s eye can help you understand your own work.

Sarah H. Elliston, UW &CC of Cincinnati, Sr. Vol. Resource Associate, Cincinnati Ohio USA

November 3rd, 2000, 12:21pm

Making it Work: Adapting the U.S. Model Globally?
I think one concept that transcends all cultural barriers has got to be that people are internally motivated - we all act to get a picture in the outside world that meets the picture in our heads (which meets a genetic need for fun, freedom, belonging, power or survival). Dr William Glasser has written extensively about this in a book called Choice Theory. Knowing this allows an organizer of volunteers the opportunity to accept all motives and all volunteers, match people to work based on interest and above all, recruit and involve people based on their desires, not just the needs of the clients. All humans are internally motivated, no matter their culture.

Rob Jackson Royal National Institute for the Blind Volunteer Development Officer, London, England

October 10th, 2000, 12:18pm

The Role of Volunteer Centers
Ivan Scheier's article elsewhere in this issue has a section entitled "Organizing For and Achieving 'Connectedness' Among Associations: Vertical and Horizontal Options" which has relevance to this aspect of the roundtable discussion.

The "Civil Society" Question
This is an interesting discussion. Here in the UK we have a long traditional of voluntary action coming from a philanthropic and charitable base. However, the formation of the welfare state in the 1940's with its concept of cradle-to-grave care from government undermined the traditional approach. People could get care from the government and were no longer reliant on philanthropic gestures by others. This change has not removed the concept of civil society manifested by voluntary action. Rather it has changed the motivation for such action. Now, much health and social care volunteering is aimed at filling the gaps government cannot meet, for no government can do everything.

The Role of the "American Model" in the Development of International Volunteerism
I think I'd welcome a discussion through these responses to try and define exactly what we mean by the "American Model". "Model" is too imprecise a word not communicating what we really mean. Do we mean a philosophy of volunteerism born out of the US culture, in which case cross cultural transferability may be limited by the cultural base one starts from in other countries. Do we mean an approach to the management of volunteers in a setting of formal volunteerism, in which case the model is more transferable but misses the area of informal volunteering. Or do we mean both of these things or something else?

The Importance of Being "Culturally Aware"
Picking up on the comment that "We are more alike than we are different" I would have to agree with the argument Nonie presents. I find one of the main advantages of cross clitoral exchange is being able to have the issues I'm dealing with reflected back to me with a different 'spin', helping me to see new solutions. This benefit is made possible if the issues we are working on are common but the context in which we deal with them differs.

Differences in Cultural Roots of Volunteerism
Maria made the comment that, "What happens in countries that have no formal volunteerism - people have no commitment." I'm not sure I fully understand the point that is being made and would welcome clarification from you Maria.

Within a UK clitoral framework, however, I would question the concept that informal volunteering does not breed commitment. In fact, one could argue that informal volunteers are more committed because they continue in what can often be demanding roles without the support structures provided in more formal set ups.

Beyond that point, if formal volunteerism is a 'new' concept then it is the thousands of years of commitment by generations of informal volunteers that has kept the spirit of volunteering alive over the millenia.