Adventurous Living. Responsible Giving.
Can voluntourism be good?
I found this really interesting article on CampusProgress.org recently and sent it to the PEPY staff. I think PEPY really works to make itself a fair, sustainable organization and to learn from these discussions, and it's important to read more about what volunteer tourism does and can do. So without further ado:
"Globe Trotting
International volunteer organizations may do a lot ...
By Thomas Coen
July 31, 2008
Beth Duff-Brown and Tshinyama Mwananzoi, her cook when she was a Peace Corps volunteer 25 years ago, walk though his village. (AP Photo/Claude Kamanga Mutdon)
Rebekah Heacock graduated from the University of Kansas in 2006 with plans to volunteer abroad. She secured a service opportunity with a Ugandan orphanage to teach English. But once she arrived, she felt ill prepared. “I was a Russian major [with] no experience teaching and got there and all of the sudden 60 kids were dumped in my lap,” Heacock remembered. Her authority extended beyond the classroom, too.
“I was asked to be in charge of curriculum and recruiting volunteers,” Heacock recalled. As a white Westerner, Heacock was given seniority above certified Ugandan teachers at the orphanage to design a curriculum, despite her lack of education experience. “I think a lot of Americans go abroad thinking just by virtue of the fact that you are American and have a college education that you’ll know they’ll be some way for you to help out abroad, but that’s not necessarily true,” Heacock said. “I think a lot of development work takes highly trained professionals.” In places like post-colonial Africa, with a history of Western intervention, local populations tend to see volunteers as saviors regardless of their lack of technical experience. Volunteers like Heacock see an opportunity to make a difference in developing countries but often end up realizing the problematic legacy of the international service industry.
Heacock is among the growing number of international volunteers who go abroad to developing countries without proper training and lack of cultural knowledge. Between 50,000 and 60,000 Americans volunteer overseas every year, with 18- to 24-year-olds making up the largest age group, according to the International Volunteers Programs Association. The organization estimates that the number of volunteers will top 100,000 by 2010. The Brookings Institution, a moderate think tank, launched the Initiative on International Volunteering and Service on International Volunteer Day in 2006 to increase the quantity and quality of international service. Although the new emphasis on international service seems positive, the volunteer industry’s exponential growth is a reminder of some deeply entrenched problems.
The tradition of international service can largely be traced back to the creation of the Peace Corps, founded by President John F. Kennedy at the height of the Cold War in 1961 to counter Soviet communist ideology and spread American policy. Today the Peace Corps coordinates over 8,000 volunteers in 74 countries with volunteers making 27-month commitments. The Peace Corps model sends predominately young people into the field with enormous expectations and little training to represent the United States and spread American ideology. This same model has also been reproduced in the non-governmental organization (NGO) sector.
It’s hard to escape the rooted imperialism of international service, even if that’s not the main mission of organizations today. Naeem Inayatullah, associate professor of politics at Ithaca College, lamented the typical relationship between the volunteers and the local population. Volunteers often don’t make relationships with locals that foster cross-cultural understanding; instead volunteers tend to focus on the differences. “In a nutshell, it becomes a form of racism,” Inayatullah said. “It’s a cultural imperialism—a political economy imperialism.” Even cultural and language training doesn’t always help.
Aradhana Sharma, associate professor of anthropology and feminist, gender, and sexuality studies at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, was also wary about who really benefits from international volunteerism. “How do you make it a two-way street instead of following the same old one-way ‘West to the rest’ kind of model?” she asked. Programs should not be solely focused on shepherding Americans abroad without looking at how to create opportunities for residents of the host countries.
Yet there’s also more to working abroad than just the idea of lending a helping hand, including seeing new places and cultures. In essence volunteering abroad becomes a form of tourism. “There is a motivation to travel,” Inayatullah said. “We need other human beings and other cultures to supplement our knowledge.” Although the desire to travel isn’t wrong, it is questionable when volunteers are supposed to complete technical projects.
Inayatullah noted that bad motivations about volunteering are all too common. “It’s almost a joke now in the NGO world and the service world that these students come and they’re trying to pad their resumes,” he said.
Inayatullah argued that a volunteer first needs to admit all of his or her motives. “Once you have that recognition—that one needs something from the outer world, from other people, from other cultures—then and only then do you have the capacity to actually be of service to anyone else,” Inayatullah said. Understanding why one really wants to volunteer abroad is the first step to engage in productive volunteer work.
Globe Aware is an NGO that could be classified as prioritizing the volunteer experience over the projects completed. It offers one-week volunteer trips for all ages with its trademarked motto “Have fun. Help People.” Sarah McCall, the director of programs at Globe Aware, resists the notion that short-term volunteerism is inherently problematic. “A huge part of our mission and philosophy is to make sure that we’re only doing projects that the community has requested,” McCall said. “It’s really important that we don’t impose any of our ideals on them. We just want to make sure we’re helping them in a way that they see they need help.”
Yet Globe Aware’s motto and marketing reflects its focus on the volunteer’s experience. Globe Aware requires no experience or technical skills for its programs where volunteers fly in one week and fly home the next with little if any accountability. McCall admits that volunteers may benefit more than the local community. “I think volunteers will tell you that as great as the experience was and as much as we felt like we accomplished, they always feel like they got more out of it then they were able to give,” she said.
If all one wanted to do was to make a difference and help people, there is no need to travel abroad. There are plenty of domestic volunteer opportunities, from Appalachia to Detroit to New Orleans. “With all this focus on volunteering abroad it takes focus away from needs of communities in United States,” Sharma pointed out. “What is it that makes the people in a small village in Tonga more deserving than people in the ghettos in New Orleans that have been left out?”
While the international volunteer industry is riddled with problematic components, there are alternative models that volunteer organizations should pursue. Sharma argues for a grassroots, bottom-up model. “The goals of such programs need to be very, very, very clear. The communities in which these volunteers are placed need to have an absolute first say. They need to be part of how these things are designed. They can have an absolute say in how this volunteer experience should be structured to benefit all people involved,” she said.
Lindsay Clarke is the 25-year-old founder and executive director of Breaking Ground, a nonprofit based in Cameroon that does international volunteerism in a grassroots way. Clarke’s organization determines its projects by first talking with members of the community. “We talk about cultivating relationships with mutual respect,” she said. “In building these projects and creating these programs we’re not just there giving handouts. We’re fully engaging communities in Cameroon and we’re also engaging our communities in the United States.” Clarke emphasizes that Breaking Ground tries to create connections between the United States and Cameroon beyond just transferring money.
Breaking Ground also sees the value in the individual volunteer’s experience without neglecting the value of the community projects. “I think it’s probably pretty rare that you graduate from college and your first job provides you with real, concrete, positive results and feedback,” Clarke said.
After Heacock’s experience at the Ugandan orphanage, she continued to look for meaningful volunteer work. She still believed in the importance of trying to make a difference in another country and that good programs existed if volunteers and organizations had the right motivations. She became involved with Global Youth Partnership for Africa (GYPA), a nonprofit that connects Americans with African youth, not necessarily to end “development” woes but to learn from one another. The goal is cross-cultural relations, not the “one-way street” Sharma talked about.
Heacock argued that GYPA is one of the best examples of volunteerism in Africa. “It’s really focused on education. It’s focused on local voices. It’s focused on local participation and local leadership, and I think that’s really the best strategy you can take in a short-term program,” she said. Such a program acknowledges the limitations of short-term volunteerism and adjusts its goals accordingly. Acknowledging the limitations is one of the first steps in creating a new paradigm for international service to transcend tourism and better support the work of the local community.
Thomas Coen is the Campus Publications Associate at Campus Progress.
"Globe Trotting
International volunteer organizations may do a lot ...
By Thomas Coen
July 31, 2008
Beth Duff-Brown and Tshinyama Mwananzoi, her cook when she was a Peace Corps volunteer 25 years ago, walk though his village. (AP Photo/Claude Kamanga Mutdon)
Rebekah Heacock graduated from the University of Kansas in 2006 with plans to volunteer abroad. She secured a service opportunity with a Ugandan orphanage to teach English. But once she arrived, she felt ill prepared. “I was a Russian major [with] no experience teaching and got there and all of the sudden 60 kids were dumped in my lap,” Heacock remembered. Her authority extended beyond the classroom, too.
“I was asked to be in charge of curriculum and recruiting volunteers,” Heacock recalled. As a white Westerner, Heacock was given seniority above certified Ugandan teachers at the orphanage to design a curriculum, despite her lack of education experience. “I think a lot of Americans go abroad thinking just by virtue of the fact that you are American and have a college education that you’ll know they’ll be some way for you to help out abroad, but that’s not necessarily true,” Heacock said. “I think a lot of development work takes highly trained professionals.” In places like post-colonial Africa, with a history of Western intervention, local populations tend to see volunteers as saviors regardless of their lack of technical experience. Volunteers like Heacock see an opportunity to make a difference in developing countries but often end up realizing the problematic legacy of the international service industry.
Heacock is among the growing number of international volunteers who go abroad to developing countries without proper training and lack of cultural knowledge. Between 50,000 and 60,000 Americans volunteer overseas every year, with 18- to 24-year-olds making up the largest age group, according to the International Volunteers Programs Association. The organization estimates that the number of volunteers will top 100,000 by 2010. The Brookings Institution, a moderate think tank, launched the Initiative on International Volunteering and Service on International Volunteer Day in 2006 to increase the quantity and quality of international service. Although the new emphasis on international service seems positive, the volunteer industry’s exponential growth is a reminder of some deeply entrenched problems.
The tradition of international service can largely be traced back to the creation of the Peace Corps, founded by President John F. Kennedy at the height of the Cold War in 1961 to counter Soviet communist ideology and spread American policy. Today the Peace Corps coordinates over 8,000 volunteers in 74 countries with volunteers making 27-month commitments. The Peace Corps model sends predominately young people into the field with enormous expectations and little training to represent the United States and spread American ideology. This same model has also been reproduced in the non-governmental organization (NGO) sector.
It’s hard to escape the rooted imperialism of international service, even if that’s not the main mission of organizations today. Naeem Inayatullah, associate professor of politics at Ithaca College, lamented the typical relationship between the volunteers and the local population. Volunteers often don’t make relationships with locals that foster cross-cultural understanding; instead volunteers tend to focus on the differences. “In a nutshell, it becomes a form of racism,” Inayatullah said. “It’s a cultural imperialism—a political economy imperialism.” Even cultural and language training doesn’t always help.
Aradhana Sharma, associate professor of anthropology and feminist, gender, and sexuality studies at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, was also wary about who really benefits from international volunteerism. “How do you make it a two-way street instead of following the same old one-way ‘West to the rest’ kind of model?” she asked. Programs should not be solely focused on shepherding Americans abroad without looking at how to create opportunities for residents of the host countries.
Yet there’s also more to working abroad than just the idea of lending a helping hand, including seeing new places and cultures. In essence volunteering abroad becomes a form of tourism. “There is a motivation to travel,” Inayatullah said. “We need other human beings and other cultures to supplement our knowledge.” Although the desire to travel isn’t wrong, it is questionable when volunteers are supposed to complete technical projects.
Inayatullah noted that bad motivations about volunteering are all too common. “It’s almost a joke now in the NGO world and the service world that these students come and they’re trying to pad their resumes,” he said.
Inayatullah argued that a volunteer first needs to admit all of his or her motives. “Once you have that recognition—that one needs something from the outer world, from other people, from other cultures—then and only then do you have the capacity to actually be of service to anyone else,” Inayatullah said. Understanding why one really wants to volunteer abroad is the first step to engage in productive volunteer work.
Globe Aware is an NGO that could be classified as prioritizing the volunteer experience over the projects completed. It offers one-week volunteer trips for all ages with its trademarked motto “Have fun. Help People.” Sarah McCall, the director of programs at Globe Aware, resists the notion that short-term volunteerism is inherently problematic. “A huge part of our mission and philosophy is to make sure that we’re only doing projects that the community has requested,” McCall said. “It’s really important that we don’t impose any of our ideals on them. We just want to make sure we’re helping them in a way that they see they need help.”
Yet Globe Aware’s motto and marketing reflects its focus on the volunteer’s experience. Globe Aware requires no experience or technical skills for its programs where volunteers fly in one week and fly home the next with little if any accountability. McCall admits that volunteers may benefit more than the local community. “I think volunteers will tell you that as great as the experience was and as much as we felt like we accomplished, they always feel like they got more out of it then they were able to give,” she said.
If all one wanted to do was to make a difference and help people, there is no need to travel abroad. There are plenty of domestic volunteer opportunities, from Appalachia to Detroit to New Orleans. “With all this focus on volunteering abroad it takes focus away from needs of communities in United States,” Sharma pointed out. “What is it that makes the people in a small village in Tonga more deserving than people in the ghettos in New Orleans that have been left out?”
While the international volunteer industry is riddled with problematic components, there are alternative models that volunteer organizations should pursue. Sharma argues for a grassroots, bottom-up model. “The goals of such programs need to be very, very, very clear. The communities in which these volunteers are placed need to have an absolute first say. They need to be part of how these things are designed. They can have an absolute say in how this volunteer experience should be structured to benefit all people involved,” she said.
Lindsay Clarke is the 25-year-old founder and executive director of Breaking Ground, a nonprofit based in Cameroon that does international volunteerism in a grassroots way. Clarke’s organization determines its projects by first talking with members of the community. “We talk about cultivating relationships with mutual respect,” she said. “In building these projects and creating these programs we’re not just there giving handouts. We’re fully engaging communities in Cameroon and we’re also engaging our communities in the United States.” Clarke emphasizes that Breaking Ground tries to create connections between the United States and Cameroon beyond just transferring money.
Breaking Ground also sees the value in the individual volunteer’s experience without neglecting the value of the community projects. “I think it’s probably pretty rare that you graduate from college and your first job provides you with real, concrete, positive results and feedback,” Clarke said.
After Heacock’s experience at the Ugandan orphanage, she continued to look for meaningful volunteer work. She still believed in the importance of trying to make a difference in another country and that good programs existed if volunteers and organizations had the right motivations. She became involved with Global Youth Partnership for Africa (GYPA), a nonprofit that connects Americans with African youth, not necessarily to end “development” woes but to learn from one another. The goal is cross-cultural relations, not the “one-way street” Sharma talked about.
Heacock argued that GYPA is one of the best examples of volunteerism in Africa. “It’s really focused on education. It’s focused on local voices. It’s focused on local participation and local leadership, and I think that’s really the best strategy you can take in a short-term program,” she said. Such a program acknowledges the limitations of short-term volunteerism and adjusts its goals accordingly. Acknowledging the limitations is one of the first steps in creating a new paradigm for international service to transcend tourism and better support the work of the local community.
Thomas Coen is the Campus Publications Associate at Campus Progress.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mandy Gatewood on
-
Permalink Reply by Daniela Papi on -
Jam and I have a discussion going about this article and its implications, and we decided that it might be better to share the conversation so that others could join. Jam is our newest PEPY volunteer and he has extensive experience in international volunteer work.
Our conversation starts with me passing on the article above, shared with me by Mandy, to other PEPY folk:
Daniela: Thank you for sending that Mandy! It's a great article and oh so true - something that makes me struggle between beliefs that "We can make PEPY a better service learning option than most" and "We shouldn't be here period as we are part of a movement which is largely doing harm." I obviously waiver mostly in the first camp of thought - but sometimes travel to the second when feeling overwhelmed by the fact that of course decisions for CAMBODIA should come from CAMBODIANS, and even with our moves towards local leadership and community input, is there even a place for PEPY at all? I always seem to compare it with my belief in libertarian economic policies. I think they would be the best option for my country, and the world, but it's all or nothing - either everyone gets on board and we start again from ground zero and leave our faith in free markets and the goodness of people to make choices and demands on the corporations fighting to serve them - or it fails. It doesn't seem to work if only some areas are "free" and others are not, so I tend to vote and support the other end of that argument - policies which often make the government's power bigger but in the here and now maybe "better", when that is very counter to what I believe in. I sometimes think Cambodia would be better off if ALL of the INGOs disappeared and the money was left in the hands of the Cambodians working in those organizations. But in a way, is it not all or nothing? If we, as PEPY, hold a one-org campaign against damaging NGO policies in Cambodia and walk away, will another organization not fill the void? Are we better off not being a part of a "development" movement which is imperialistic and damaging or working within it but trying to do "good" in the best ways we can see and trying to encourage and educate others to do the same? I'm not sure.... but like I said, I'm still leaning towards it's better to stay as, unless everyone follows suit, the orgs that fill the holes might just be worse..... would love to hear your thoughts.
Jam: It's like 2:30am and I working on homework but Damn I got interested in that article and it's a good distraction.
That article got my brain thinking:
I think that development would always happen - one of the reasons unqualified people get 'insane' higher positions is simple - there aren't enough qualified people to be in that position. Also each community has it's own bubbles so when an outsider arrives it's normal for that person to get a different role and it's sometimes happen because most groups want to see a different perspective.
When I was 19 on my first day working at an orphanage I was told I had to take an 8 year old kid to court and represent him. One of the main reasons is because the orphanage did this a billion times and they knew the outcome but they wanted to test me, test to see if there is another outcome if a foreigner did it, and also because they were just bored off doing it and wanted a different perspective. In the end I did that deliever that.
Also we NEED NGO's - not just money - money is NOT enough - too many rich countries just give money but they need people to hear the voices of the people.
When I organize trips I constantly tell people that by you coming on a trip with Jam:
- you are not changing the world - your money will help people - but we are not changing the world -
- if these people in India remmeber your name then I am NOT doing my job
- we are a drop in the bucket and their work will continue on better without us being there - we are a hindrance to their programs just by showing up
BUT it's important for people to understand why they give money, where it goes and be thanked for giving money.
I find that most of the changes happen when people go home and practically try to change your lifestyle and I have seen enough accountants go home after a harsh trip touring sites in India to quit their job and start working with NGO's in wartorn countries.
Okay I should get back to homework and starting correcting my english - this was a good distraction. Peace.
Daniela: True.
But you and I are talking about "volunteer tourism" which is the direction I'm trying to take PEPY to avoid being part of "volunteer trips". Meaning - we are on a tour with our participants - we are learning - we give funds and some time to projects which are much larger than this one trip and will hopefully have much more of a positive impact - and then we go. But the article was also highlighting the negative aspects of "volunteer trips" where people are coming for a week - or months - "to volunteer". Period. Or so they think. but really, a) that's not what they want (which i think is a good point of the article - "why are you volunteering abroad in the first place? It's OK that it is to travel and see - but you need to admit that to yourself first." and b) they aren't qualified to do - and by THINKING they are or having these organizations IMPLY that they are by giving them power - then that alone is causing harm.
Shall we put this stuff on NING?
go to bed!
Jam: I think this discussion should be definitely but on NING
I also think it's a good article for people to read in a volunteer package or something like it as it pertains to preparing yourself for the experience and it makes people think.
As for qualifications and experience - it's a bad stereotype that happens alot and from my experience it's actually perpuated by countries + culture i.e. Amercian foreign policy there will be no peace in Iraq without American troops
Okay I should get back to work...
-
Permalink Reply by Daniela Papi on
-
We'd love to hear YOUR thoughts!
-
Permalink Reply by Daniela Papi on
-
PS - Jam, this is the article related to the topic which we have typically given out: http://pepyride.org/images/tp%20abernathy%20presentation.doc
but the Illich article might be more appropriate.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniela Papi on
-
Re-clarifying a point. Was questioned on the "if INGOs left but left their money" and I agree, the money can't be left without a "system" - and if the government system is failing people due to corruption, and the INGO system is failing people due to similar problems listed here plus a system designed to self-perpetrate, if not expand, rather than diminish as should be the goal of an NGO, then no, there would be no way to "leave" the money in the country. The reasons I sometimes wonder if people in Cambodia would be better off without and NGOs, AND without the money, are that currently I feel that there is a stifling of leadership and of ownership in the lack of achievements, and even in the achievements, of goals on the village level. Just like the hypothetical complete free-market example, ideally it would go from all to nothing, as the transitional period as local empowerment built and NGOs left would be the difficult time. I'm rambling, but feel free to join in.
-
Permalink Reply by Karina Kloos on -
I have just joined PEPY. And I am just joining this discussion, and every excited because volunteer tourism is one of the main reasons I am here: to explore the whole industry of volunteer tourism, or "voluntourism" and see how PEPY can promote responsible voluntourism, being a good example within the industry and driving best practices, rather than abandoning ship (responding to D and J's conversation). What I already love about PEPY is its eagerness to reflect on these issues and entire willingness to reflect on its own actions, continually striving for improvement.
We are in the beginning stages of pulling together a Best Practices guideline. Essentially, it will build upon PEPY's Responsible Tourism statement and Volunteer best practices statements (we recently discovered this Volunteer Charter, which we love!: http://www.volunteeringoptions.org/WhatWeDo/VolunteerCharter/tabid/...).
There are additional considerations for voluntourism best practices. After reading this article today: http://travelvideo.tv/news/more.php?id=16055_0_1_0_M, I was reminded of an earlier conversation. Jam and I were talking the other day about the risk of volunteer tours promoting dog and pony shows where the volunteer organization pulls together an activity or performance for the entertainment of its volunteer tourism guests that really makes no contribution to the core of that organization's activities. There is a huge risk of this when children are involved, but also when organizations create projects, such as painting a building, to satiate a volunteer's need to feel like he is 'doing' something. Because trips tend to be short-term and because operators often don't ask for specific skills, there is definitely the risk of voluntourism promoting dog and pony shows.
Here's my first Voluntourism nugget, with many more to come, and I'd love to hear others' comments or stories - anecdotes would be fantastic! - about experiences where things went awry or went really well.
The drive for tourism industries to capture a wider market inherently has the risk of designing voluntourism programs that don't require from their participants specialized skills, ie teaching, construction or previous medical experience. In theory, if the program is designed well, there are ways people can help without having specialized skills. However...
Self check: Voluntourism operators and voluntourism participants need to ensure that bottom line the volunteer opportunity is being designed to benefit the local community more than it is to cater to volunteer interests.
Share your experiences and thoughts, p-p-p-pleeeeeease:)
About
© 2009 Created by Adam L. on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
